Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No one has the right to take control of your body against your will. I'm surprised you can't see that.Shows what you know.
I can only go by what I see you posting.
In my world, birth control would become increasingly used and more and more effective as, without having abortion as a safety net, the demand for preventing pregnancies will increase significantly and the makers of those medicines and devices (condoms) will compete with one another to meet that demand.
The demand is already there as is the competition. I don't think you realize that abortion is not undertaken lightly by most women nor is it cheap. Abortion is a necessary and legal safetynet.
Contraceptives have greatly improved over the years since abortion became legal...but the most effective ones still have abortive properties as a secondary protection I believe. Condoms are less effective.
European countries with far more liberal policies towards birth control and sexual education have lower rates of abortions and teen pregnancies.
That is what I would aim for, not making an important right over ones body illegal.
No one has the right to violate the rights of a child with their body.
I'm surprised that we can't agree on that.
How is denying the woman's right to kill her. Children with abortion and different for. Denying her right to kill them after they stick their little heads out? It's the same bodies, same choices, same faces fingers and toes. . . Isn't it?
Now you are getting into emotional "pap" as you termed it.
The issue is competing rights. No one has the right to your body but you. You seem to want to exclude women from that right.
No one has the right to take control of your body against your will. I'm surprised you can't see that.I can only go by what I see you posting.
The demand is already there as is the competition. I don't think you realize that abortion is not undertaken lightly by most women nor is it cheap. Abortion is a necessary and legal safetynet.
Contraceptives have greatly improved over the years since abortion became legal...but the most effective ones still have abortive properties as a secondary protection I believe. Condoms are less effective.
European countries with far more liberal policies towards birth control and sexual education have lower rates of abortions and teen pregnancies.
That is what I would aim for, not making an important right over ones body illegal.
No one has the right to violate the rights of a child with their body.
I'm surprised that we can't agree on that.
How is denying the woman's right to kill her. Children with abortion and different for. Denying her right to kill them after they stick their little heads out? It's the same bodies, same choices, same faces fingers and toes. . . Isn't it?
Now you are getting into emotional "pap" as you termed it.
The issue is competing rights. No one has the right to your body but you. You seem to want to exclude women from that right.
I am confident that the courts will agree with me on this. . . To the extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her prenatal children during pregnancy. . . Unless she was raped, she (along with the help of her partner) compromised them herself.
Pregnancy and Childbirth are still an incredibly risky, even in as advanced a country as this one. In fact maternal mortality is on the rise. Given that all the risks, most of the costs and life changes are carried by the woman, then she should certainly be the one with the most say in the matter.
To some extent I agree with you as I do not support unrestricted abortion on demand.Pregnancy and Childbirth are still an incredibly risky, even in as advanced a country as this one. In fact maternal mortality is on the rise. Given that all the risks, most of the costs and life changes are carried by the woman, then she should certainly be the one with the most say in the matter.
Having most say and having a blank check and free pass are not the same thing.
No one has the right to take control of your body against your will. I'm surprised you can't see that.No one has the right to violate the rights of a child with their body.
I'm surprised that we can't agree on that.
How is denying the woman's right to kill her. Children with abortion and different for. Denying her right to kill them after they stick their little heads out? It's the same bodies, same choices, same faces fingers and toes. . . Isn't it?
Now you are getting into emotional "pap" as you termed it.
The issue is competing rights. No one has the right to your body but you. You seem to want to exclude women from that right.
I am confident that the courts will agree with me on this. . . To the extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her prenatal children during pregnancy. . . Unless she was raped, she (along with the help of her partner) compromised them herself.
The courts haven't agreed...abortion is legal.
To some extent I agree with you as I do not support unrestricted abortion on demand.Pregnancy and Childbirth are still an incredibly risky, even in as advanced a country as this one. In fact maternal mortality is on the rise. Given that all the risks, most of the costs and life changes are carried by the woman, then she should certainly be the one with the most say in the matter.
Having most say and having a blank check and free pass are not the same thing.
In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.No one has the right to take control of your body against your will. I'm surprised you can't see that.
How is denying the woman's right to kill her. Children with abortion and different for. Denying her right to kill them after they stick their little heads out? It's the same bodies, same choices, same faces fingers and toes. . . Isn't it?
Now you are getting into emotional "pap" as you termed it.
The issue is competing rights. No one has the right to your body but you. You seem to want to exclude women from that right.
I am confident that the courts will agree with me on this. . . To the extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her prenatal children during pregnancy. . . Unless she was raped, she (along with the help of her partner) compromised them herself.
The courts haven't agreed...abortion is legal.
Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.How is denying the woman's right to kill her. Children with abortion and different for. Denying her right to kill them after they stick their little heads out? It's the same bodies, same choices, same faces fingers and toes. . . Isn't it?
Now you are getting into emotional "pap" as you termed it.
The issue is competing rights. No one has the right to your body but you. You seem to want to exclude women from that right.
I am confident that the courts will agree with me on this. . . To the extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her prenatal children during pregnancy. . . Unless she was raped, she (along with the help of her partner) compromised them herself.
The courts haven't agreed...abortion is legal.
Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Because at some point the babies rights matter. When a baby is far enough along to survive outside the mothers body, it's rights should be considered and abortion restricted.To some extent I agree with you as I do not support unrestricted abortion on demand.Pregnancy and Childbirth are still an incredibly risky, even in as advanced a country as this one. In fact maternal mortality is on the rise. Given that all the risks, most of the costs and life changes are carried by the woman, then she should certainly be the one with the most say in the matter.
Having most say and having a blank check and free pass are not the same thing.
What keeps you from supporting abortion on demand?
Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose.
In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.Now you are getting into emotional "pap" as you termed it.
The issue is competing rights. No one has the right to your body but you. You seem to want to exclude women from that right.
I am confident that the courts will agree with me on this. . . To the extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her prenatal children during pregnancy. . . Unless she was raped, she (along with the help of her partner) compromised them herself.
The courts haven't agreed...abortion is legal.
Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose.
How, precisely, does this suppress (or oppress) women in any way? It is a legitimate compromise between a woman's right to choose and the rights of the unborn.
Are you saying that 4 and 1/2 months is too short a time for a woman to arrange an abortion if she desires it?
With the number of obstacles thrown up by many states it might be...get rid of those obstacles.
Restrictive laws applied only to abortion clinics, forcing closures so in some states there are so few clinics women have to travel hundreds of miles.With the number of obstacles thrown up by many states it might be...get rid of those obstacles.
List those obstacles?
If you are poor, don't have transportation, work multiple jobs or jobs with little flexibility this adds up.
It can take a good six or eight weeks before you know. That leaves twelve weeks to make decision, figure out if you have the support needed to have a child, get an appointment, time off work, multiple appointments and waiting periods, it can push the timeline. And states are attempting new legislation to increase the difficulty. Judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing 4 abortion restrictionsIf you are poor, don't have transportation, work multiple jobs or jobs with little flexibility this adds up.
You had time to get pregnant. I'm pretty sure it took less than 20 weeks.
It can take a good six or eight weeks before you know. That leaves twelve weeks to make decision, figure out if you have the support needed to have a child, get an appointment, time off work, multiple appointments and waiting periods, it can push the timeline. And states are attempting new legislation to increase the difficulty. Judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing 4 abortion restrictionsIf you are poor, don't have transportation, work multiple jobs or jobs with little flexibility this adds up.
You had time to get pregnant. I'm pretty sure it took less than 20 weeks.
All of which are medically unnecessary.
It does not change anything.No you aren't. Stupidity isn't consenting to kill. No one wakes up one morning thinking "I'm going to see how many people I can run over today."
When you stupidly get drunk, get high or just acting like a dumbass punk and you get behind the wheel. . .. how does the law treat you and your act of Consent when you crash into a family of four and kill them all?
When the Supreme court said during Roe that if a State established personhood for children in the womb, the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make. . . Did they say "unless the woman did not consent to the pregnancy?"
No.
The answer is no. They didn't.
That's not quite what the court said. Re-read the quote in your signature. If it were established that the fetus is a person under the 14th amendment, the argument for abortion would become nearly impossible to make. That doesn't mean if any state decides to pass a law saying that a fetus is a person, the USSC must now accept that as being true for all fetuses at all stages under the 14th. A state can call a fetus a person all it wants to, but unless it can establish that a fetus is a person as used in the 14th amendment, it does not fit your statement.
The court used the words "near impossible." not me.
What do you suppose they were getting at?
It can take a good six or eight weeks before you know. That leaves twelve weeks to make decision, figure out if you have the support needed to have a child, get an appointment, time off work, multiple appointments and waiting periods, it can push the timeline. And states are attempting new legislation to increase the difficulty. Judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing 4 abortion restrictionsIf you are poor, don't have transportation, work multiple jobs or jobs with little flexibility this adds up.
You had time to get pregnant. I'm pretty sure it took less than 20 weeks.
All of which are medically unnecessary.
The requirement of a consultation prior to a medical procedure isn't limited to abortion. Any invasive medical procedure requires a GP consultation and referral prior to that procedure. Such procedures typically require a minimum of ONE visit with the surgeon or specialist prior to the procedure. So, surgical removal of a mole will take as many three visits.
There are 14 states that require a pre-visit, two of those states waive that if you live 100 miles or more from the clinic. One state allows any that visit to be at any medical clinic and at least one allows that visit to be over the telephone.
So, ten states require a single in office pre-visit before undergoing an invasive medical procedure. I submit that if you cannot attend two doctors visits within a 20 week period then you certainly don't have the available free time to become pregnant, which takes somewhat longer than a doctor visit.
