Abortion Down Thanks to ACA

[YorkshirePete]

So, how much do you want to bet the anti-abortion folks either ignore this data or find every which way from here to Sunday to explain it away?

Abortion rate declines to historic low, with Obamacare a likely contributor, study says - LA Times


Of course, if those people were really in favor of limiting abortions, they would be some of the staunchest supporters of ACA?


Fat chance of that. Right?

We all know it's not really about limiting the number of abortions. It's really about controlling women. Let's see how many of the abortion foes willingly admit that.

I love how the pro life people are always old white farts who prob haven't had sex for years

 

[fmw]

Really? By which act and when?

By their constant invasion into people's privacy. I'm done with this thread. Ask someone else your questions.

 

[fmw]

The right to privacy includes certain of zones of privacy .some of the zones included are:

Marriage, family, procreation ( including contraception and abortion ) and child rearing,

From the following:



- See more at: https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html#sthash.r6ZeXv7A.dpuf

I think privacy can be a perfectly valid right. Abortion cannot be because someone has to pay for it with their life. It is homicide and it has been legalized.

 

[fmw]

No, you wouldn't do jack ****. You'd fall in line with everyone else who can't defend themselves against a government military.

You can play ignorance about the existence of right to privacy. Well, it's possible that you are ignorant about the Constitution inherently possessing the right to privacy - so in the amount of time it's taken you to deny that right to privacy in our Constitution does in fact inherently exist - you could have used to time to educate yourself. Do yourself a favor. Help yourself to climb out of that state of ignorance.

I guess you know more about me than I do. With that, I'll say goodbye.

 

[minnie616]

I think privacy can be a perfectly valid right. Abortion cannot be because someone has to pay for it with their life. It is homicide and it has been legalized.

I disagree as does the Supreme Court.

The right to privacy precedent regarding a woman's reproductive privacy right was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

The SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The fetal right to life argument was rejected by the SC in Roe

Here are
Three key points:

A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.

States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it as a medical practice.

Since 1891, the U.S. has recognized a right to privacy in some "zones" of activity, which means that individuals can make decisions and act upon them without informing other people and without state interference. (Example: Your discussions with your lawyer are private and confidential.) The court has previously recognized that adult women have a privacy right when it comes to contraception and reproduction.



Conclusion: Because fetuses are not legally protected and abortion is a safe medical procedure protected by privacy rights, adult women have the right to receive an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, [Until viabilty] and states can only interfere where the interference is appropriate to the woman's health.

Roe v Wade - edited text

 

[Scrabaholic]

I think privacy can be a perfectly valid right. Abortion cannot be because someone has to pay for it with their life. It is homicide and it has been legalized.

A zef is not a 'someone', it is a something. I can't speak for the USA, but in my country, abortion is not homicide. In order for it to be homicide, the zef would have to be a human being, and in order to be a human being, it has to be born alive. (section 223 of our Criminal Code)

 

[prometeus]

By their constant invasion into people's privacy. I'm done with this thread. Ask someone else your questions.

If you are unable to defend your position and make intelligent rational arguments why did you bother in the first place?

 

[fmw]

If you are unable to defend your position and make intelligent rational arguments why did you bother in the first place?

I find it entertaining.

 

[fmw]

A zef is not a 'someone', it is a something. I can't speak for the USA, but in my country, abortion is not homicide. In order for it to be homicide, the zef would have to be a human being, and in order to be a human being, it has to be born alive. (section 223 of our Criminal Code)

It has human DNA that differs from the mother's DNA. I disagree with your definition of humanity.

 

[fmw]

I disagree as does the Supreme Court.

The right to privacy precedent regarding a woman's reproductive privacy right was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

The SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The fetal right to life argument was rejected by the SC in Roe

Here are
Three key points:


Roe v Wade - edited text

We are arguing different things. You are arguing that abortion is legal and I certainly agree with that. I am trying to get you to understand the proper definition of a right. I failed to do that.

 

[MaggieD]

So, how much do you want to bet the anti-abortion folks either ignore this data or find every which way from here to Sunday to explain it away?

Abortion rate declines to historic low, with Obamacare a likely contributor, study says - LA Times


Of course, if those people were really in favor of limiting abortions, they would be some of the staunchest supporters of ACA?


Fat chance of that. Right?

We all know it's not really about limiting the number of abortions. It's really about controlling women. Let's see how many of the abortion foes willingly admit that.

We all know abortion is about controlling women?? What a warped notion.

 

[Scrabaholic]

It has human DNA that differs from the mother's DNA. I disagree with your definition of humanity.

I never gave a definition of "humanity".

 

[calamity]

We all know abortion is about controlling women?? What a warped notion.

Where did you get that idea? Abortion does not control women. Banning abortion does.

 

[MaggieD]

Where did you get that idea? Abortion does not control women. Banning abortion does.

Banning abortion is not all about controlling women. Banning abortion is about saving lives and holding women accountable for their choices.

 

[calamity]

Banning abortion is not all about controlling women. Banning abortion is about saving lives and holding women accountable for their choices.

Sounds mighty controlling to me.

 

[MaggieD]

Sounds mighty controlling to me.

Excellent response. Keep up the good work.

 

[calamity]

Excellent response. Keep up the good work.

The difference comes down to this. IMO, abortion is a proper method of corrective action. For others, it is not.

 

[minnie616]

We are arguing different things. You are arguing that abortion is legal and I certainly agree with that. I am trying to get you to understand the proper definition of a right. I failed to do that.

Your definition differs from the legal dictionary's definition of a Constitutional right.

"A liberty or right whose protection from governmental interference is guaranteed by a constitution. See also bill of attainder, contracts clause, due process, equal protection, ex post facto law, freedom of contract, overbreadth, search, and self-incrimination (privilege against)."

 

[Removable Mind]

Banning abortion is not all about controlling women. Banning abortion is about saving lives and holding women accountable for their choices.

Are women morally or legally obligated to proliferate the species?

Do you consider a conception to be a sacred event?

Do women deserve to have have less constitutional rights than men because they have a uterus?

Do you believe that a yet to be born should be possess more rights that the women who hosts their presence?

If there was a way for governments to know when each conception occurs, what actions would you expect government to take to ensure the safety of a zygote in order to enhance its chances of developing to a fully mature fetus capable of giving birth? Would taxpayers be responsible for an added agency to monitor and enforce laws regarding women's conceptions?

What legal consequences should women face who disregard any anti-abortion laws? What legal consequences should any persons who might assist women in having an illegal abortion?

What steps should government take to prevent women from being sexually active in a way that guarantees that they won't get pregnant?

In other words....

How would banning abortion hold women accountable for their choices?

 

[JayDubya]

Are women morally or legally obligated to proliferate the species?

Irrelevant... and it's insane that you keep asking this irrelevant and stupid nonsense about "the species." We are not a collective, we are not a hive. Rights are individual.

Do women deserve to have have less constitutional rights than men because they have a uterus?

No, but you want them to have MORE, which is just as bad in general terms, and in specific terms much worse because you think a uterus is a license to kill.

Do you believe that a yet to be born should be possess more rights that the women who hosts their presence?

No one does; they just want equality. Your lies on this topic do not hold water.

 

[fmw]

Your definition differs from the legal dictionary's definition of a Constitutional right.

"A liberty or right whose protection from governmental interference is guaranteed by a constitution. See also bill of attainder, contracts clause, due process, equal protection, ex post facto law, freedom of contract, overbreadth, search, and self-incrimination (privilege against)."

It is incomplete. Rights don't require anybody to give anything up to exercise.

 

[fmw]

I never gave a definition of "humanity".

Give me a break. You referred to a fetus as a thing.

 

[minnie616]

It is incomplete. Rights don't require anybody to give anything up to exercise.

Your opinion does make a legal definition.

 

[Nickyjo]

Technically it does both. Anyway, why should men have to pay for birth control for women?

Dont understand... Lesbians don't get one another pregnant... But in my experience, many women have sex with men, thus birth control is for both of them... Am tempted to say "Duh," but will resist.

 

[Henrin]

Dont understand... Lesbians don't get one another pregnant... But in my experience, many women have sex with men, thus birth control is for both of them... Am tempted to say "Duh," but will resist.

So why should men pay for the birth control of women? lol