• 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
As seen in AZ:


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

If there's no 24 hour waiting period for Sex.. there shouldn't be one for abortion either.
-
 
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.

The point may very well be to start a slippery slope law.

"If we can get a 24 hour "wait period" bill to pass then maybe we can get a 48 hour "wait period" bill to pass...then maybe a 7 day "wait period" then maybe...."

See what I mean?
 
1) I agree with the delay. I myself was required to wait (not sure if it was clinic policy or law) 24 hours after taking the pregnancy test (which I took there) before even making the appointment. After that, I had to wait three weeks for the procedure. That was because I had a pill abortion, which is done at six weeks. I was very early on when I found out, so I had to wait. Worst three weeks of my life, and had I not had a crippling phobia of childbirth and all things medical, or had pill abortions not existed (I'd NEVER have a surgical one- IV, etc, no way!) I probably WOULD have changed my mind.

2) I think the delay should be, of course, lifted if the mother is in danger, for example a tubal pregnancy.
 
Murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life.

Whether or not you like it, abortion is legal. Therefore, bu definition, it is not murder.



You are in favor of full term abortions??? :shock:

So, concentration camp deaths aren't murder, after all, the government's obeying the law.

So long as we all know every legal form is filled out, the tees are dotted, the eyes are crossed, everything will be just fine.
 
So, concentration camp deaths aren't murder, after all, the government's obeying the law.

So long as we all know every legal form is filled out, the tees are dotted, the eyes are crossed, everything will be just fine.

Apples and oranges.
 
Apples and oranges.

Full of vitamins and sugar, too.

Meanwhile, if one is going to dogmatically define the term "murder" as being a legal issue only, then one needs only change the law and one can kill millions without any problem, and the mo-rons that cite that nonsense are doing that merely to sidestep the moral issues involved with killing innocent lives for no valid reason.

Have a banana.
 
It seems the state assumes we as adults do not know what we are doing with our own bodies and our decisions should be legally delayed. Let’s just allow the state to make decisions for us or better yet, let’s allow one group of Americans to dictate the decisions for the rest of America.
Oh, sweet liberty.
 
Meanwhile, if one is going to dogmatically define the term "murder" as being a legal issue only, then one needs only change the law and one can kill millions without any problem, and the mo-rons that cite that nonsense are doing that merely to sidestep the moral issues involved with killing innocent lives for no valid reason.

The word "murder" has a definition, just because you can't use it's emotional impact by misusing the word doesn't change that fact. There are plenty of other words that you can use if you like, many of which are perfectly valid and accurate.

Unfortunately, the anti-abortion crowd often doesn't care about being accurate, but about making an emotional argument that misleads the public.

If you want to refer to abortion as killing, have fun. It's true and absolutely valid. If you refer to it as something that it patently is not, however, you reveal yourself to be an emotional con-man and blatantly dishonest, two things that the anti-abortion crowd have made perfectly clear over the years.
 
I would say that this law infringes upon a woman's right to seek an abortion. Ostensibly, the woman has already considered it for more than 24 hours on her own. I am tired of the right wing spinning abortion to make it seem like an assembly line procedure where women just run into the clinic willy nilly as soon as they find out they are pregnant. I promise you that 95% of the time it is not the case.

Theoretically, if the woman were 1 day away from the cut off period, it would be enough to deny her the procedure.

The waiting period is an attempt by the right to obstruct the abortion procedure with a time delay while simultaneously honouring Roe v Wade. During that 24 hour period, any number of things could happen, such as guilt trips from doctors, staff, or activist groups, notification of parents, and the waiting period itself implies that the procedure is so serious that it requires further consideration. It creates an atmosphere of fear and authority that might make the woman reconsider her rights.

If you have freedom of speech, your speech is not delayed by 24 hours; if you have freedom of the press, the press are not denied publication for 24 hours while they "consider" their position; Roe v Wade means women are entitled to abortions. It is their right. This right should not be delayed by any legal authority UNLESS the abortion falls into the cut off period, the doctor believes a delay is medically necessary, or the girl is underage and the parents have decided against it.

Any other reason is against Roe v Wade and this should be challenged in SCOTUS as soon as it is convenient.
 
If you have freedom of speech, your speech is not delayed by 24 hours; if you have freedom of the press, the press are not denied publication for 24 hours while they "consider" their position; Roe v Wade means women are entitled to abortions. It is their right. This right should not be delayed by any legal authority UNLESS the abortion falls into the cut off period, the doctor believes a delay is medically necessary, or the girl is underage and the parents have decided against it.
How about a 24-hour wait to buy a gun?
 
How about a 24-hour wait to buy a gun?

If it means 24 hours while they perform a criminal background check, then I'm in favor of it; however, there would be no equivalent reason for abortion.

There should only be two people with the power to push for a delay in abortion: the woman and the doctor... and the parents, if the girl is under age. Other than that, the State has no business interfering.

This is just the typical evangelical non-sense that is continually erroding the rights of people within the nation.
 
If it means 24 hours while they perform a criminal background check, then I'm in favor of it; however, there would be no equivalent reason for abortion.
If there was some 'equivelant reason' for delaying an abortion for 24 hours, would you then be infavor of it?
 
If there was some 'equivelant reason' for delaying an abortion for 24 hours, would you then be infavor of it?

Could you give an example of what a hypothetical equivalent might be?
 
How about a 24-hour wait to buy a gun?

If there was some 'equivelant reason' for delaying an abortion for 24 hours, would you then be infavor of it?

As soon as I saw this thread, I knew you were going there, Goobie. This was, actually, one of your more ingenious "trap" threads. Good job.

So, here is my question. Since both owning a gun and having an abortion is currently legal, are these two issues comparable? For example, if a 24 hour waiting period is legally appropriate for a woman to have an abortion, is it appropriate to legally have a 24 hour waiting period to purchase a gun? Is this kind of government intervention appropriate for both cases?

And, as a disclaimer, notice how I worded my questions. We are talking about legalities, here. The unborn fetus has no legal rights in this equation, therefore it is irrelevant. Or, as an analogy, the fetus, in this scenario has the exact same rights as the gun in this scenario. So no, "what about the baby"? This is pretty narrowly construed.
 
It depends on how the process is enacted. How would one begin their 24 hour waiting period, and how is it determined that they have "met their obligation"? I'm not so much concerned about the waiting period, but if the process would somehow expose a girl/woman in danger already, to even more danger.

I know of one case personally, where a girls life was probably in danger from the person who got her pregnant. If she had not been able to have an abortion immediately, and the "father" had found out, she probably would have been beaten or killed. (weird situation, but we've all had those, and know that they happen)

So i don't have a problem so much with the wait time as much as a problem with how to best protect the woman involved in making the choice. She should have the opportunity to make that decision in safety and in privacy. I can see where at times, the wait period might take away that privacy and safety.
 
Could you give an example of what a hypothetical equivalent might be?
Do I need to? No. Assume the condition exists.
 
So, here is my question. Since both owning a gun and having an abortion is currently legal, are these two issues comparable?
They are both rights exercised by the individual... so, yes.
If the 24-hr wait can be applied to one, it can be applied to the other.
 
They are both rights exercised by the individual... so, yes.
If the 24-hr wait can be applied to one, it can be applied to the other.

If you have a CCW you don't have to wait the 24 hours because it confirms your clear history then and there.

How is the possession of a ZEF not carrying concealed?

Maybe you should have to earn a license to have children. Maybe we don't want criminals getting pregnant.
 
If you have a CCW you don't have to wait the 24 hours because it confirms your clear history then and there.
I guess that depends on the state - my state has no wait, period.
Perhaps the state could issue licenses for abortions, thereby lifting that 24-hour limit?
 
I guess that depends on the state - my state has no wait, period.
Perhaps the state could issue licenses for abortions, thereby lifting that 24-hour limit?

Everyone who supports mandatory firearms insurance should also support mandatory medical insurance to pay for those abortions.

And no, you don't get the tax-payer funded Obama-care, you have to actually put some effort into providing for yourself and go get a job to pay for that insurance yourself...unless we enact a nationalized firearm-care program.
 
I
Maybe you should have to earn a license to have children.


That's not a bad idea. You can't just go get a giraffe and keep it in your back yard because the state recognizes that giraffes take special care. Yet any two drugged-up, disease-infected, loser morons can get together and have a baby.
 
That's not a bad idea. You can't just go get a giraffe and keep it in your back yard because the state recognizes that giraffes take special care. Yet any two drugged-up, disease-infected, loser morons can get together and have a baby.

And that baby gets to vote no matter how ignorant and manipulatable they are.
 
And that baby gets to vote no matter how ignorant and manipulatable they are.

Yes, but with certain caveats attached. He's got to keep from being a felon. He's got to care enough to go to the polls. He's got to have some sort of idea of what he wants. -- that sort of thing. I really don't see a viable alternative to allowing all citizens to vote. I mean, at what point to do you take away the rights of morons to voice their opinion about their gov't?
 
Back
Top Bottom