Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

For someone who finds my questions to be in the realm of mythology, you sure are obsessed with continuing to beat its drum. LOL



I agree on the laughing part -- it is healthy.

But you ask whether Canadian who have late-term issues not of their making are less likely to get appropriate care? Did you miss the case of the woman who had to abort at 35 weeks because the physician's board would not approve her abortion before that?

Do you think that's appropriate?

Be honest now.

Obviously the "no restrictions laws on abortion" doesn't prevent medical providers and/or facilities from denying services.

The hospitals the woman attempted to get abortions from were apparently owned by the Vatican (chill, just joshin').

While there is supposedly zero restrictions in Canada, their loopholes simply allow providers to deny procedures, which is the same as imposing undue burden on women (the couple in the story). So it appears that there's no true zero restrictions.

Those who were spokespersons for the providers said that they weren't going to be forced to violate their conscience. Really?

It's a tragic situation, but the court supported the woman's right to abort. And the article is a long way from sharing the entire story about the couple. There's so much we don't know. But I believe the court appropriately followed the law and the abortion was performed.

Is that being honest enough?

 

[oneandrew]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139,

The Pro-Life people are missing an important point. You could argue that aborting a pregnancy is killing life. Of course it is. And, the GOP supports this no-abortion thing only up to a point. That point is very close. Let's say no abortion became law, now there will be more welfare babies. But if he GOP has their way, there will be no welfare, no food stamps and for sure (we believe) no health care for these babies. So, what are we creating here, England 1200? If you want this as law, make them pay for it properly. But you and I both know that's when the hot air starts. "Well...... we have to see how much we can afford...." while rich and famous get another tax break. Do you see the scam yes or no?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Are you saying the govt should force doctors to do a procedure they don't want to do?

Maybe. How is a woman to have reproductive rights if no doctor will perform an abortion. What happened in Canada was a travesty, I'm sure you'll agree.

Here in the States, we have *some* laws that force folks to do what they don't want to do -- if their lack of action would be construed as stepping on the rights of someone else. When it comes to specific rights, our laws don't leave it up to chance. We have laws that do not permit a real estate agent to pick and choose who they can sell a house to, based on race. We have laws that force county clerks to issue marriage licenses to people they don't want to issue them to. We have many laws like that. To protect rights. We have laws that force pharmacies to dispense morning-after drugs when they don't want to.

How would you go about preventing another scenario like the one that forced the Canadian woman to wait to abort until 35 weeks?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Obviously the "no restrictions laws on abortion" doesn't prevent medical providers and/or facilities from denying services.

The hospitals the woman attempted to get abortions from were apparently owned by the Vatican (chill, just joshin').

While there is supposedly zero restrictions in Canada, their loopholes simply allow providers to deny procedures, which is the same as imposing undue burden on women (the couple in the story). So it appears that there's no true zero restrictions.

Those who were spokespersons for the providers said that they weren't going to be forced to violate their conscience. Really?

It's a tragic situation, but the court supported the woman's right to abort. And the article is a long way from sharing the entire story about the couple. There's so much we don't know. But I believe the court appropriately followed the law and the abortion was performed.

Is that being honest enough?

Yes, that was honest and I thank you for that.

But, whereas you see no governmental regulations as being necessary, I see them as being vital in order for everyone to have the same rights across the board.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Casey was decided 25 years ago. Whole Women's Health was decided last year.

Sorry, brain-o. Obviously I am discussing the latter regarding plurality position to re-litigate Roe. In Casey the plurality of 3 justices defended Roe (O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter) with a dissent on defense of Roe of 3 justices (Scalia, White and Thomas). So even then claiming a precedent on what ended up a tie is highly questionable. We can't conclude a rock solid court defense of Roe when two of the major challenges couldn't achieve a majority of Justices in support, and the latest challenge had a larger plurality supporting re-litigating Roe.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You are entitled to your opinion, as I am. It also happens to be that the courts are entitled to their opinions, and the Casey decision string of plurality decisions show that the court is currently very divided on what to make of Roe v Wade. You only got 3 justices to sign off on on the idea that Roe has bulletproof precedence. That isn't as good of a sign as you seem to think.

You seem to be forgetting that Casey was decided by a 5 to 4 vote and that the court reaffirmed Roe's ruling that the right to abortion was protected by the Constitution. In fact the Casey ruling affirmed that with abortion “the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law,” the decision read. “Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist…upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and of our culture.”

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Yes, that was honest and I thank you for that.

But, whereas you see no governmental regulations as being necessary, I see them as being vital in order for everyone to have the same rights across the board.

Why do you believe reproduction needs to be regulated? "Vital?"

Who is everyone?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Why do you believe reproduction needs to be regulated? "Vital?"

To ensure that things like what happened in Canada don't happen here in the US.

Who is everyone?

Those who have a stake in the situation, i.e, pregnant women and late-term (viable) fetuses.

Can you answer what I asked Scrabaholic? Since you oppose regulation.

"How would you go about preventing another scenario like the one that forced the Canadian woman to wait to abort until 35 weeks? "

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Maybe. How is a woman to have reproductive rights if no doctor will perform an abortion. What happened in Canada was a travesty, I'm sure you'll agree.

Here in the States, we have *some* laws that force folks to do what they don't want to do -- if their lack of action would be construed as stepping on the rights of someone else. When it comes to specific rights, our laws don't leave it up to chance. We have laws that do not permit a real estate agent to pick and choose who they can sell a house to, based on race. We have laws that force county clerks to issue marriage licenses to people they don't want to issue them to. We have many laws like that. To protect rights. We have laws that force pharmacies to dispense morning-after drugs when they don't want to.

How would you go about preventing another scenario like the one that forced the Canadian woman to wait to abort until 35 weeks?

I am glad I live where doctors are not forced to do procedures against their will. IMO, many of the laws you cited are govt. over reach.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

To ensure that things like what happened in Canada don't happen here in the US.

Those who have a stake in the situation, i.e, pregnant women and late-term (viable) fetuses.

Can you answer what I asked Scrabaholic? Since you oppose regulation.

"How would you go about preventing another scenario like the one that forced the Canadian woman to wait to abort until 35 weeks? "

Before I post a reply to the above, I need clarification about what the highlighted means with respect to your previous post about "equal rights".

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I am glad I live where doctors are not forced to do procedures against their will. IMO, many of the laws you cited are govt. over reach.

Then, you'll probably continue to see women's rights take a backseat to physician boards.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Before I post a reply to the above, I need clarification about what the highlighted means with respect to your previous post about "equal rights".

Actually, I didn't use the term, "equal rights," I said, "...the same rights across the board." I then qualified "everyone" to mean "Those who have a stake in the situation, i.e, pregnant women and late-term (viable) fetuses."

That means that any woman who seeks an abortion would be treated in a consistent manner as any other woman -- given her gestational age and health situation. It also means that in the third trimester, fetal rights would be predetermined by law, rather than on a doctor's whim, so as to avoid situations such as the Canadian woman forced to wait until 35 weeks to abort. It preserves a woman's right while taking the late-term guessing game out of the equation.

Is that clear enough?

Now, your turn.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Actually, I didn't use the term, "equal rights," I said, "...the same rights across the board." I then qualified "everyone" to mean "Those who have a stake in the situation, i.e, pregnant women and late-term (viable) fetuses."

That means that any woman who seeks an abortion would be treated in a consistent manner as any other woman -- given her gestational age and health situation. It also means that in the third trimester, fetal rights would be predetermined by law, rather than on a doctor's whim, so as to avoid situations such as the Canadian woman forced to wait until 35 weeks to abort. It preserves a woman's right while taking the late-term guessing game out of the equation.

Is that clear enough?

Now, your turn.

Yes. Clear. I'll reply in a bit. But I consider the word "same" having the same meaning as "equal."

Thanks.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You seem to be forgetting that Casey was decided by a 5 to 4 vote and that the court reaffirmed Roe's ruling that the right to abortion was protected by the Constitution. In fact the Casey ruling affirmed that with abortion “the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law,” the decision read. “Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist…upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and of our culture.”

Wrong. The portion of the Casey decision that you are pointing to was a plurality opinion, not a majority opinion. I mean, you should know that since your first reference to Casey many pages ago said specifically that the reaffirmation of Roe was a plurality opinion.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Wrong. The portion of the Casey decision that you are pointing to was a plurality opinion, not a majority opinion. I mean, you should know that since your first reference to Casey many pages ago said specifically that the reaffirmation of Roe was a plurality opinion.

All that means is that 3 Justicies agreed with some parts of Roe but disagreed with other parts of Roe.
However , the court agreed with the precedent of Roe v Wade.

They noted that the plurality’s emphasis was on “stare decisis,” . That means the court was following precedent

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You only got 3 justices to sign off on on the idea that Roe has bulletproof precedence. That isn't as good of a sign as you seem to think.

You seem to think you only need to get to sway a couple of Justices to sing off on precedence. Well , as pointed out our new Justice ( Gorsuch) who was appointed to the Supreme Court feels that the Roe precedence is set in stone and that the Casey decision reaffirmed Roes precedence. I understand you disagree but Roe precendece regarding Abortion was reaffirmed with Casey. The only part that changed was states could pass laws regarding abortions if they claimed it was regarding the woman's health as long as the laws did not put an undue burden on the woman.

In the Whole Woman's Health decision that was ruled on in June 2016 Texas lawmakers tried to pass laws that were not really about woman's health but were trying to put an undue burden on the woman.

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

YOU DIDN'T QUOTE ME, SO... I possibly was actually complaining about idiot conservatives who want abortion banned and births to happen, but don't want employees paid enough to support those babies. I'm not quite sure what category of Pure Evil that attitude falls into, but there is obviously nothing Good about it whatsoever.

Well at least we agree on that point. I still don't understand why, in an ideal situation where women have an abundance of resources by which to enrich their lives and the lives of their children, you wouldn't agree that men deserve to opt out of financial servitude.

Instead, it seems that your point is that society needs slavery because the work has to come from somewhere. Why not take it out of the $700 Billion the senate approved for the military last week?

Maybe instead of coming up with a bad answer, you could admit that you don't have a good answer to the questions I asked. I think it was you who wrote on your website that "ignorance is curable." Well, maybe obstinate BS is not.

By the way, when confronted with a question about opting out of parentage under marital circumstances, I described it as being "extra" in another thread. Although I was ridiculed and parodied for my ignorance on the subject, I was not knowledgeable because I have been single my entire life, and "extra" simply meant that it was inaccessible to me.

The same sexist arguments that feminists fought against in the 70's and 80's are being thrown back in men's faces today. The same BS about responsibility and thinking about your actions before the inevitable result of bondage to some term or condition of "human nature" is a cruel argument.

BECAUSE NOW YOU ARE CONFUSING UNBORN HUMANS WITH CHILDREN.

Wrong.

FALSE. See above.

False. See above.

IT IS PERFECTLY OBVIOUS THAT A PREGNANT WOMAN HAS PROPERTY THAT A MAN DOES NOT.

Have you lost your mind entirely? Human beings cannot be owned. I'm talking about pregnant women, not fetuses. Don't bother making that mistake again. A fetus is a part of a human body. It cannot be owned as long as it is part of a human body, and not a distinct physical object. Are sperm or eggs "owned" before they are donated? No. Your argument is stupid.

SEE ABOVE; I am in favor of both men and women being responsible parents.

You are in favor of forcing men to be responsible parents and allowing women to do whatever they want, regardless of due process necessarily dispensing rights or responsibility evenly to male and female parents (biological or otherwise).

OF COURSE NOT. You think men should be able to selfishly pass on their genes and expect others to pay for it. Tsk, tsk!

And you think men should not have a choice, but naturally be the slaves of women with whom they have sexual intercourse. You want to sexually oppress men. Tsk tsk.

MEN HAVE THE CHOICE TO PICK DIFFERENT WOMEN.

And according to you, poverty implies either celibacy, homosexuality or cuckoldry for pay. So men had better not be poor, because poor mothers have rights that poor fathers do not.

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139,

The Pro-Life people are missing an important point. You could argue that aborting a pregnancy is killing life. Of course it is. And, the GOP supports this no-abortion thing only up to a point. That point is very close. Let's say no abortion became law, now there will be more welfare babies. But if he GOP has their way, there will be no welfare, no food stamps and for sure (we believe) no health care for these babies. So, what are we creating here, England 1200? If you want this as law, make them pay for it properly. But you and I both know that's when the hot air starts. "Well...... we have to see how much we can afford...." while rich and famous get another tax break. Do you see the scam yes or no?

That's the point. The pro life people want to choke out the poor class and create a clean society of white, Christian people. The men will go to work and the women will stay at home and care for the children, not because they have to, but because they want to do it. And everyone else can figure out their own deal.

The "pro life people" for the most part are as uncompromising as FutureIncoming is in his hypocrisy on men's and women's rights. They know what they want, and they are willing to concede human dignity and quality of life to reach their goal of national socialism.

Some people say socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. That's a euphemism. What it really means is perpetual slavery for the non-rich. That's why we need universal healthcare, and that's why men deserve to abandon children as much as women do.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

People need to be accountable for their actions and take responsibility. This is not a punishment, but reality.

If you are not prepared to care for a child or cant afford one, then it's highly responsible not to give birth.
--There are already more than 100,000 children available for adoption in the US.
--Having a baby knowing you'll have to go on govt assistance to support it? Take tax payer $ for your choice? Not responsible at all.

Abortion can indeed be a responsible choice.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Unless you were forced to have sex, you knew or should have known the possibility of becoming pregnant. If you engaged in the activity with a known risk, you assume the consequences of that activity. You shouldn't be able to end a life because the risk became reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Abortion is a consequence. It's painful, many women are very sad about it, some are torn emotionally by their decision, even if it's in the best interests of their future or the future of their family (present or future). And abortion can cause sterility, other health complications, even death. It's still a medical procedure.

And the risks get even higher if a woman continues a pregnancy and gives birth.

So strangers or the govt should not have the right to choose which risks she takes with her life.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

An abortion doctor was arrested.

His name is Kermit Gosnell and many pro-choicers supported him.

Prove that "many pro-choicers supported him." Let's see some links, some sources. I call BS.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You are offended that I asked a question? Am I not allowed to ask questions?

It is not as if we have a large sample size to go by in terms of research.

Lots actually:

https://www.liveaction.org/news/raped-women-who-had-their-babies-defy-pro-choice-stereotypes/

https://www.yestolifeireland.org/your-questions/pregnancy-after-rape/

Sexual Trauma and Labor: When Survivors Give Birth ? Cord - pregnancy, birth, and beyond

There are quite a few more links, plus many articles that just describe individual women's decisions on giving birth after rape.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You mean the 10s of thousands of rape victims that show up pregnant every year?

Exactly. He claimed that rape victims rarely get pregnant. He was proved wrong.

Then he dismissed the 3-5% that give birth after a rape pregnancy....conveniently ignoring the many other rape victims that had abortions (which is the true # he wanted to deny).

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You are not upsetting me, I am just amazed at your total lack of understanding on this subject matter.

I mean this whole thing started because you seriously asked if there was even proof that a woman could get pregnant from rape.

Accepting the facts would mean he was wrong, so he chose to bob and weave hoping to hide the fact.

Just illustrated his lack of knowledge more (unless it was just plain dishonesty but I hate to accuse).

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Late term abortion is a high tech form of killing that causes unbelievable pain and mutilation to the fetus.

Despite info otherwise provided here, the unborn can receive a lethal injection of painkiller and feel nothing.

Emotional blackmail is a cheap tool....facts are better