A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Unkotare]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

 

[Owsi68]

[QUOTE="Czernobog, post: 14320954,

Currently laws are already applied and enforced treating killing of newborns as murder.

What I have suggested to remove this unequal treatment of the woman,
when both partners were responsible for the decision to have sex if not the male
being more responsible in the case of rape, coercion or other sex abuse,
is to either

You bring up a good point with the man's role. When this topic is debated only the responsibilities of the doctor and the woman are discussed. But the man is obviously involved too and thus should bear some responsibility.

You're right, this topic is very complicated and should perhaps get a special classification to better address the unique issues..

 

[emilynghiem]

[QUOTE="Czernobog, post: 14320954,

Currently laws are already applied and enforced treating killing of newborns as murder.

What I have suggested to remove this unequal treatment of the woman,
when both partners were responsible for the decision to have sex if not the male
being more responsible in the case of rape, coercion or other sex abuse,
is to either

You bring up a good point with the man's role. When this topic is debated only the responsibilities of the doctor and the woman are discussed. But the man is obviously involved too and thus should bear some responsibility.

You're right, this topic is very complicated and should perhaps get a special classification to better address the unique issues..

Thank you Owsi68
I find a different model also works better for the drug legalization/decriminalization issues which have multiple layers too.
The complexity, when it ties in with human trafficking, and overburdening the jails and courts, is just not solvable at the point
where govt gets involved at the tail end.

The most effective programs I've seen dealing with drug problems also involve separating the civil from the criminal,
and addressing foremost the internal issues of addiction and abuse on the level of personal health, counseling and support.
We still need the civil and criminal authority to handle consequent levels of violations that escalate from this.
But those enforcements shouldn't get in the way by obstructing people from working on prevention at the root source.

The earlier point of intervention, the more effective the prevention.
We don't have to treat everything as "criminalized" which is often too late after the fact.

(Today I found out Harris County has been intervening and curbing the trafficking issue by enforcing
"civil codes" that hold businesses responsible for stopping "criminal violations" on their property. Again,
addressing "abuses" at an earlier and earlier level of the process, instead of policing the symptoms of an already problematic situation.
I don't know ANYONE who is against efforts to get rid of human trafficking, so the unity and sympathy level is very high; for drug legalization
there is more political division against law enforcement; and the political division on abortion is even more volatile and irreconcilable.)

The more we work together (as individuals, communities and govt are forced to in order to stop the scourge of drug and human trafficking),
maybe we can take a similar multi-angle approach to preventing rape, abuse and abortion
by uniting as "allies on the same side" instead of dividing as political enemies. We have a lot to learn,
and the learning curve would go faster if we weren't fighting each other in the process.

 

[jknowgood]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

Yes, he did, then quickly walked that back, saying he misunderstood the question, and, most recently, he insisted that he meant women who have abortions would punish themselves - I can only presume he meant emotionally. So there is really no reason to believe Trump would support any punishment for women having abortions.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

When it comes to trump, there is no reason to believe anything he has to say.

I believe him before I'd believe Hillary.

Then you are a fool.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

If you would lie about 4 dead people that you were in charge of, you aren't trustworthy. If you believe anything she says. Then you are a fool.

 

[Freewill]

Wow, just wow. What else do you put above the life of a child? Wow.

A very long list of things. Children are an inconvenience and annoyance

Cold.

 

[Anathema]

Cold.

Yes. Children are a massive investment which often offers little to no return..... therefore a bad investment.

 

[OKTexas]

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people. Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder. Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks. Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken. And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

 

[PredFan]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

In that scenario, the mother should also face charges. I'm pretty sure that is the way it was before Roe v. Wade.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How about using contraception to avoid the dastardly mistake? Nobody in their right mind would argue against prevention.

First contraception is not 100%. Second, does this mean that you would agree that contraception should be free to the poor?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

When used correctly contraception is close to 100%, and some forms of contraception work nearly 100% of the time to prevent sexually transmitted disease and aid females in other ways too:

Birth Control Pills | Center for Young Women's Health

That said, the pill when prescribed by a doctor ought to be covered by health insurance carriers, notwithstanding religious concerns, and considered no different than any other medication. When used by a women solely for the prevention of pregnancy, IMO, it ought to be free. As I pointed out above, there are reasons for not having children, or another child; economic, pragmatic, personal safety. Authoritarian institutions - churches and governments - should have no say in a women's right to have or not have a child, such an exercise of power and control over women and men is alien to a nation which values freedom to the individual.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people. Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder. Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks. Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken. And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Heller, Citizens United and McCutcheon cases were decided by only five people, four others opposed them.

Abortion, when done in compliance with Roe is not murder, since it is legal.

 

[hadit]

By the same token, pro-aborts don't REALLY want to just preserve abortion for rape and incest victims, do they? Yet, that is what we hear ad nauseum when we talk about wanting to protect minor girls, for example, from making hasty, permanent decisions driven by fear. At this point, I know our society will never accept a ban on abortion. That doesn't make me any less determined to find common ground and save as many lives as I can.

Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?

As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.

I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Adults, however, sometimes do. Did Christopher Reeve cease to be a person because he required a ventilator to live?

 

[Czernobog]

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?

The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

 

[hadit]

Nonsense. Science says a near full term unborn baby is a living human being. Pro-aborts strenuously try to deny that.

And I would have no problem with your position if it were only "near full term" abortions that you wanted to limit. But, it isn't, is it?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

By the same token, pro-aborts don't REALLY want to just preserve abortion for rape and incest victims, do they? Yet, that is what we hear ad nauseum when we talk about wanting to protect minor girls, for example, from making hasty, permanent decisions driven by fear. At this point, I know our society will never accept a ban on abortion. That doesn't make me any less determined to find common ground and save as many lives as I can.

Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

That's fine, if you don't want to talk about it.

 

[hadit]

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?

The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

And that's where the linguistic gymnastics come into play. In order to feel better about what happens during an abortion, we cannot call what is being killed a living human being. Biologically, scientifically, that's what is in there.

 

[hadit]

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?

As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.

I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?

Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."

At what point did I disagree with that position? I have said, repeatedly, I would have no problem with your position, if it were limited to late- term, viable abortions. However, you do not want to only limit late-term, viable abortions, do you?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.

That's really the bottom line, isn't it? It's ridiculous to insist that someone has to have a specific penalty in mind for breaking a law. Causing another human to die carries a wide range of penalties, from none (in the case of self defense) to capital punishment (in the case of deliberate, planned murder). It all depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. A minor girl who has been induced to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge by an unaccountable government school employee with an agenda should suffer a much lesser punishment than a 30 year old woman getting a fourth abortion because she refuses to use contraception.

 

[hadit]

So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women….

It's not about mutilation. It's about responsibility and the consequences of choices. I adore women. I have no use for Feminists. Unfortunately we have far more of the latter than the former in this country.

Those who respect women, you are insane and do not, know that abortion can be a necessary medical procedure. It cannot be banned unless you are willing to let women die, which you are.

And if abortion was restricted to only medically necessary circumstances, we would see hundreds of thousands fewer done every year, and a lot less opposition to it. That's not, however, what most of the "pro-choice" crowd wants.

 

[Jack4jill]

So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women….

It's not about mutilation. It's about responsibility and the consequences of choices. I adore women. I have no use for Feminists. Unfortunately we have far more of the latter than the former in this country.

Those who respect women, you are insane and do not, know that abortion can be a necessary medical procedure. It cannot be banned unless you are willing to let women die, which you are.

And if abortion was restricted to only medically necessary circumstances, we would see hundreds of thousands fewer done every year, and a lot less opposition to it. That's not, however, what most of the "pro-choice" crowd wants.

That's correct, although we wouldn't mind if that's all that were needed to keep the peace because the birth control use was that good.

 

[Czernobog]

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?

The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

And that's where the linguistic gymnastics come into play. In order to feel better about what happens during an abortion, we cannot call what is being killed a living human being. Biologically, scientifically, that's what is in there.

No one suggests that what is being killed is genetically human. It is that "being" part that we have a problem with - as in a separate, biologically independent organism. Until, at least, the 25th week, it isn't. It has more in common with a cancer cluster - which is also biologically human - than it does a child. And most of us Pro-Choice activists - the rational ones, anyway - are perfectly fine with strict restrictions on those late-term abortions, which are extremely rare, anyway.

Sorry. The semantic gymnastics occurs on your end, trying to equate a cluster of cells with a child.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Meh.
Don't criminalize abortion -- require a $480 permit to perform one and lay a $1000 tax on the service..

 

[Czernobog]

As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.

I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?

Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."

At what point did I disagree with that position? I have said, repeatedly, I would have no problem with your position, if it were limited to late- term, viable abortions. However, you do not want to only limit late-term, viable abortions, do you?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.

That's really the bottom line, isn't it? It's ridiculous to insist that someone has to have a specific penalty in mind for breaking a law. Causing another human to die carries a wide range of penalties, from none (in the case of self defense) to capital punishment (in the case of deliberate, planned murder). It all depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. A minor girl who has been induced to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge by an unaccountable government school employee with an agenda should suffer a much lesser punishment than a 30 year old woman getting a fourth abortion because she refuses to use contraception.

TO THE BOLD: And I presume you have actual evidence that this is a common problem, and not just some hypothetical you're pulling out of your ass to abrogate the woman's responsibility in making her own choices?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.