• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

24 hour waiting period for abortion

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion


  • Total voters
    50
For the record, I have no problem with waiting periods. It isn't like America is suffering from a overkill of thinking about decisions too much.

It's really neither here nor there to me. But I also don't see the point. No one is being denied rights, so I won't call my Congressman, but it's pretty pointless. Women do not abort spur of the moment.
 
It's really neither here nor there to me. But I also don't see the point. No one is being denied rights, so I won't call my Congressman, but it's pretty pointless. Women do not abort spur of the moment.
I think there is a minority of women who do take that decision lightly enough to get a spur of the moment abortion, but 24 hours wouldn't deter someone in that mindset anyway, so admittedly mine is a moot point.
 
I propose that we make everyone wait 24 hours before they can buy fast food. Fast food is unhealthy, and we need a "cool down" period to make sure that everyone has thought it through before making such a purchase. Clearly, you are too emotionally distraught to make such a choice, and the government has a duty to "protect" you by controlling your lifestyle.



So you're saying that murdering a baby is no more of an emotional hurdle than buying a Big Mac.
 
That assumes that most if not all women seeking an abortion decided to do so in the blink of an eye. That's rarely if ever the case. Adding an additional 24 hours onto the process is a meaningless gesture at best.

Well if you got rid of all the government programs, rules and taxes that are "a meaningless gesture at best" then we would not have much of a government.
 
Well if you got rid of all the government programs, rules and taxes that are "a meaningless gesture at best" then we would not have much of a government.

Ok....and the significance of your post is ______________________
 
stekim: Welcome to Kentucky Fried Fetus, this is stekim, how may I help you?

LaMidRighter: Mommy I want a CockMeat Sandwich!

Catz: Mommy knowes, hold on honey....YES I'D LIKE ONE OF THOSE $5 FILL-UP BOXES PLEASE...WHAT DOES THAT COME WITH?

stekim: Why are you ordering something if you don't know wtf it comes with?

Catz: WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU, THIS SPEAKER SUX BALLZ

Jerry, over the speaker from another headset: ......Show me your tits.....

Catz: WHAT?

stekim: Nothing, um, the $5 Fill-Up box comes with your choice of CockMeat sandwich, a dead bird, a large order of Kentucky Grilled Fetus, or Jerry's testicles.

Catz: OOooo I'D LIKE JERRY'S TESTICLES PLEASE.

Jerry: llllliiicckk mah baaaaalls

LaMidRighter: Mommy I want a CockMeat Sandwich!

stekim: I'm sorry mam but we're all out of Jerry's testicles, they're still in his wife's purse.

Jerry: $%&@!!*@$#& [/temper-tantrum]

Catx: UH, OK, I'LL TAKE THE GRILLED FETUS THEN.

stekim: Very good, those are made to order so there will be a 24 hour wait, is that OK?

Catz: YES THAT'S FINE, IT'LL GIVE ME A CHANCE TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW ALL THE EMPIRICAL DATA AND ARRIVE AT AN INFORMED DECISION.

stekim:......um.....sure....please pull to the window.....

*
*
*
Jallman: Here's your order mam, and let me give your son a free CockMeat sandwich, compliments of the house.

LaMidRighter: Wow that's a big one!!
 
Last edited:
Ok....and the significance of your post is ______________________

Just an idle remark.

It's incidental that a government program is meaningless, if there is too be objections against this for the lack of a clear 'purpose.' Then we can hardly expect you to reply to the real issues when you're going through the entire board applying the same standard to all the issues.
 
So you're saying that murdering a baby is no more of an emotional hurdle than buying a Big Mac.

As far the government is involved, yes. Plus, if you buy the big mac at Kentucky Grilled Fetus, its all the same anyways.
 
A 24 hour wait is pointless, but I don't think it really infringes on anyone's right to an abortion. I see it as kind of like a gray area, because it does and it doesn't.

But something that would be an infringement would be if this universal health care debacle gets passed. I mean, imagine an entire board consisting of mostly pro-lifers, and your petition for an abortion comes up for review (assuming that the process is speedy and the board sees your petition before the baby is now in college at the age of 20). Now picture this scenario...

Board Member A: Well, it appears that Christie, age 15, in Alabama wants to abort her unborn child that has signs of down syndrome and an abnormal growth on its ass. The unborn child also was conceived by her lunatic uncle via rape during the fifth full moon of the year. Should we let Christie abort her unborn child?

Board Member B: *Snarls like a frothing beast* With the Lord Jesus as my witness, I do declare that we force this little tramp to go through with the pregnancy. How dare she murder that poor, defenseless child deep within her womb...

Board Member A: But sir, the child has down syndrome, and the abnormal growth cannot be removed without the possibility of paralyzing or killing it later on. Surely we can approve...

All Board Members: *Chants of disapproval for Board Member A's remarks. They then toss balled up paper and chairs at Board Member A*

Board Member B: Get outta here, you sinner! Let god's will be done! *Stamps "DENIED" on Christie's Petition*



Rated EE for Excessive Exaggeration. ;)

But seriously, I wouldn't like the idea of such decisions to be decided by a board, when the individual is capable of making such a decision on their own. And even if in future abortion was still legal, there would still be the possibility of the board denying it purely on ideological reasons, and if the individual tried to protest it through the courts, the process would take too long and the unwanted child would wind up being born after all. THIS is more of an infringement on rights than a 24 hour wait.

This is also assuming that the individual is even on the government insurance to begin with. And this is also assuming that abortions would even be covered/dealt with under gov't insurance. It's just thoughts, is all. <.<
 
As seen in AZ:

Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday signed into law tight new restrictions on access to abortion in Arizona, imposing a 24-hour waiting period on women seeking the procedure and requiring that minors first receive written, notarized consent from a parent or guardian.

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion?
If so, how?
If not, why not?

I don't have a problem with the 24-hour waiting period, as long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies. It seems prudent to discourage pregnant women from making a hasty decision they'll regret for the rest of their lives, just because they had a fight with their boyfriend or husband. 24 hours gives them a chance to cool down and weigh the issue.

I have a big problem with requiring written, notarized consent for minors. At the very least, the minor is the one who has to give birth...not the minor's parents. And in most cases, the minor's parents aren't going to raise the kid as their own for 18-22 years.
 
Last edited:
I have a big problem with requiring written, notarized consent for minors.

Written consent is required for minors to get their ears pierced, not to mention their tongues, noses, eyebrows, axillas, navels, peckers, etc.

Why shouldn't they be required to have parental consent before engaging in a surgery that threatens not only their lives but is guaranteed to kill their baby?
 
Written consent is required for minors to get their ears pierced, not to mention their tongues, noses, eyebrows, axillas, navels, peckers, etc.

Why shouldn't they be required to have parental consent before engaging in a surgery that threatens not only their lives but is guaranteed to kill their baby?

Because getting your tongue pierced doesn't involve nine months of pregnancy or a painful childbirth, doesn't require an 18-22 year commitment, and doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 
Last edited:
24 hours to consider one of your life's most important questions?

I would say that is prudent.


It's not for you to decide whether this is one of my "life's most important questions".
To some, it could be as bereft of deeper meaning as a pap smear.

Who are you to say they're wrong?

Do they tell you what should and shouldn't matter to you?
And if they did, would you listen?
 
Because getting your tongue pierced doesn't involve nine months of pregnancy or a painful childbirth, doesn't require an 18-22 year commitment, and doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Oh, so it's okay to kill a baby and risk death because pregnancy is such an awful risky experience and there's absolutely nothing doctors can do to make it safe or comfy.

And....who ever said the teenage momma had to KEEP the child? You people never heard of the word "adoption"?
 
Oh, so it's okay to kill a baby

I do not accept your premise. Next?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
and risk death because pregnancy is such an awful risky experience and there's absolutely nothing doctors can do to make it safe or comfy.

Abortion isn't terribly dangerous either, unless you're using a coathanger or something. :roll:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And....who ever said the teenage momma had to KEEP the child? You people never heard of the word "adoption"?

And who is going to pay for the medical bills of the unwanted pregnancy? You?
 
Last edited:
Because getting your tongue pierced doesn't involve nine months of pregnancy or a painful childbirth, doesn't require an 18-22 year commitment, and doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But minors are still, for the most part, property of their parents, like it or not. As such, I'd be perfectly happy to require parents who do not give consent to be required to raise the newborn from birth to 18 if their child chooses not to. They make the call, they suffer the consequences.

I'm not worried about nine months of painful pregnancy, anyone who doesn't want that should have kept their legs together in the first place.
 
I do not accept your premise. Next?

I do not have the power to halt all human ignorance.

Next?


Abortion isn't terribly dangerous either, unless you're using a coathanger or something. :roll:

It's one of the most incredibly dangerous procedures on record.

How many babies survive the procedure?

And who is going to pay for the medical bills of the unwanted pregnancy? You?

Wellllll.....I guess the little tramp better get back out on the streets and sell what she has while it's still worth something, then.

Next?

Don't ever make the mistake of accusing me of having pity. They made the mistake, they can pay for it. Or they can find some nice charitable socialists suffering from white guilt or something. Whatever, ain't my prob.
 
As seen in AZ:


Governor signs bills on guns, abortion

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion?
If so, how?
If not, why not?

This just another far-right attempt to make people wait until it is too late to legally abort a pregnancy. This 24 waiting period needs to be stopped. It is a complete violation of a woman's reproductive rights.
 
I do not have the power to halt all human ignorance.

Next?

Can you please explain why you feel a fetus is entitled to a right to life. If your answer is "because it's human," please define human and explain why you believe humans are entitled to the right to life whereas no other animal is.

No one has answered that question yet.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It's one of the most incredibly dangerous procedures on record.

How many babies survive the procedure?

Babies don't typically have abortions, as they can't get pregnant. Normally the patients are at least in their teens.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Wellllll.....I guess the little tramp better get back out on the streets and sell what she has while it's still worth something, then.

Next?

Don't ever make the mistake of accusing me of having pity.

Don't worry, I'll never make that mistake. But why does your heart bleed so much for those cute wittle baby fetuses then?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They made the mistake, they can pay for it. Or they can find some nice charitable socialists suffering from white guilt or something. Whatever, ain't my prob.

Translation: "Abortion only affects stupid niggers, and therefore I don't care."
 
Last edited:
Sooo... the women have to make an appt for 24 hrs past the day they are calling to make the appt? I really fail to see how that's a big deal.

I don't understand the point of it, but I don't see it as some burden.
 
Sooo... the women have to make an appt for 24 hrs past the day they are calling to make the appt? I really fail to see how that's a big deal.

I don't understand the point of it, but I don't see it as some burden.

Each time my wife had an abortion we had to wait about a week. We did the counseling at a local clinic, and took some kind of 'counseling verification form' to the place where the actual abortion was performed.
 
Each time my wife had an abortion we had to wait about a week. We did the counseling at a local clinic, and took some kind of 'counseling verification form' to the place where the actual abortion was performed.

I just had to wait long enough so there was an appt slot open. Usually a couple days.
 
I just had to wait long enough so there was an appt slot open. Usually a couple days.

See this makes me think the waiting period was nothing more than some kind of political bone to get the gun part passed.
 
See this makes me think the waiting period was nothing more than some kind of political bone to get the gun part passed.

Of course it was. It's stupid either way. I don't see it as some "undue burden" by any means, but I don't see what the point of it is either. It makes the "pro life" people feel like they "won" something and raises the ire of the pro choice people mainly because it makes the pro life folks happy.

It's just stupid all the way around. Good political ploy though, gotta give the governor that.
 
Of course it was. It's stupid either way. I don't see it as some "undue burden" by any means, but I don't see what the point of it is either. It makes the "pro life" people feel like they "won" something and raises the ire of the pro choice people mainly because it makes the pro life folks happy.

It's just stupid all the way around. Good political ploy though, gotta give the governor that.

Hey I'll trade the abortion card for the gun card any day :mrgreen:

Gays should take a page out this governor's play book.
 
Back
Top Bottom