Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[NYcarbineer]

Most of our laws are based on rather a action effects another human being. Abortion kills another human being...

Think about it.

Most murderers in this country are subjected to very very long prison terms or even death.

How would you apply that to women who had illegal abortions?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

And so starts the argument.
Those unable to argue this case on it's own merits become hysterical. They add in impertinent material and use unrelated comparisons.
Roe was argued on a "right to privacy"....The plaintiffs were successful in convincing the SCOTUS that the 4th Amendment states there is a constitutional right to privacy.
Of course that is not what the Constitution says. It states the people shall be "secure in their persons houses papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures".
The SCOTUS did two things wrong. It took the 4th Amendment to mean we have the absolute right to privacy. It also usurped the States Rights clause in the Tenth Amendment.
Eventually a party with standing will challenge Roe and the ruling if examined under strict Constitutional interpretation, will be overturned. Not to ban abortion, but to return the issue back to the states where it belongs.
North Dakota just fired the first shot across the bow of Rowe when new law was enacted that life begins when the fetal heartbeat can be detected. This is at about 6 weeks gestation. For all intents and purposes, the law in ND is moot because there is just one clinic in the state that actually performs abortions.
I have no opinion either way on abortion only to say that I think abortions of convenience( birth control e.g.) should be illegal.

 

[Dragonlady]

If God believed that every fetus was sacred and deserving of life, women would not miscarry. One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is no mention of abortion in the Bible. Killing, adultery, bearing false witness, blaspheming God, all of these things are prohibited by the 10 Commandments, yet nowhere in the Bible does it mention protection for the fetus.

If you believe that God created women, why then did He create a mechanism by which women would expel a fetus if He wanted all life to be sacred from the moment of conception?

It is OUR choice and nobody else should have a say in it. I believe that miscarriage is God's way of saying that a fetus may or may not become a human. One in three are expelled naturally.

God gave us freewill. The right-wingers want to take it away because they can't stand the notion that people are having sex for fun.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Great. So you want to punish the woman for getting pregnant by forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.
Not to mention your rotten views on rape.

GTFO of a woman's body. Abortion is HER decision, not yours.

Off base and impertinent.
Your approach is precisely the emotional argument that should be removed from the process.
BTW, as a non-citizen/resident of the USA, you have no standing here.
Butt out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Great. So you want to punish the woman for getting pregnant by forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want. Not to mention your rotten views on rape.

GTFO of a woman's body. Abortion is HER decision, not yours.

I'll just restate what I said to you in the other thread (that you conveniently disappeared from). It's intellectual dishonesty to argue that abortion is about a "woman's body", since an abortion directly targets the body of another.

Not the point. That fetus is inside the woman's body, and she has the authority to dispose of it if she wishes.

Roe does not state that. And that was not the intention of the decision.
States may not have the right to ban abortion, but the states have the right to restrict it as they see fit.
The SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade was incorrect. Eventually this ruling will be overturned.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most of our laws are based on rather a action effects another human being. Abortion kills another human being...

Think about it.

Most murderers in this country are subjected to very very long prison terms or even death.

How would you apply that to women who had illegal abortions?

That question has been posed to conservatives for over 40 years now, with still no response.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

So which is it, are you advocating placing women and their doctors in prison, or are you making a philosophical argument only.

As we know, the right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with what a woman elects to do, as the Constitution makes paramount the woman’s liberty.

Assuming you accept the right to privacy with regard to abortion, what are your proposals to end the practice that don't involve a privacy rights violation?

That would be true if there were a 'right to privacy', but such a right does not exist.
A fetus is a life. Where there is life, there is a human being. Some of us cannot speak for ourselves, so the government must in accordance with the US Constitution, must act as an advocate.
The North Dakota legislature did just that. Passed a law which makes the state an advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Abortion is not illegal in ND. The state simply clarified its view of when a life is a life. They decided that once a heart beat is detected, the fetus is in effect a human life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If God believed that every fetus was sacred and deserving of life, women would not miscarry. One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is no mention of abortion in the Bible. Killing, adultery, bearing false witness, blaspheming God, all of these things are prohibited by the 10 Commandments, yet nowhere in the Bible does it mention protection for the fetus.

If you believe that God created women, why then did He create a mechanism by which women would expel a fetus if He wanted all life to be sacred from the moment of conception?

It is OUR choice and nobody else should have a say in it. I believe that miscarriage is God's way of saying that a fetus may or may not become a human. One in three are expelled naturally.

God gave us freewill. The right-wingers want to take it away because they can't stand the notion that people are having sex for fun.

And subjective religious dogma is not justification for denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So which is it, are you advocating placing women and their doctors in prison, or are you making a philosophical argument only.

As we know, the right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with what a woman elects to do, as the Constitution makes paramount the woman’s liberty.

Assuming you accept the right to privacy with regard to abortion, what are your proposals to end the practice that don't involve a privacy rights violation?

Whoa, hold on there. Who said anything about prison?

I'm just against abortions. If a woman gets pregnant then she has the baby. It's as simple that.

If she doesn't want the baby she can give him or her up for adoption. She should have thought of that before she chose to have sex.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can do what she likes, because it is none of your damned business what she does with HER body, so kindly **** off out of her uterus.

With your knee jerk emotional response, your cries fall on a mounting number of deaf ears.
Kindly **** off out of the business of OUR COUNTRY.
Listen up nudnik, you don't get an opinion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Great. So you want to punish the woman for getting pregnant by forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.
Not to mention your rotten views on rape.

GTFO of a woman's body. Abortion is HER decision, not yours.

And no sweetie, I don't want to punish women. I don't want to punish anyone.

Pregnancy is their decision; not mine.

You however seem to want to punish an innocent fetus for something they have nothing to do with.

A fetus is not innocent. It is nothing.

You want to punish women for having sex. You hate women and wish to control them. You are a sick freak.

No stupid, the issue is personal responsibility.
We as human beings do not get to simply act on every urge then expect others to bear the burden of a poor choice.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In Canada abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. For women who are underage, the choice is hers and there is no parental consent involved.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. The fact that you think a woman's choice ends when she has sex shows that your real agenda is to enforce chastity.

Half the women who have abortions are married with one or more children. Are you seriously suggesting married women abstain from sex with their husbands unless it's for procreation? You knows that's grounds for divorce in some jurisdictions.

An ill conceived argument.
FAIL

 

[hoosier88]

Most of our laws are based on rather a action effects another human being. Abortion kills another human being...

Think about it.

(My bold)

Roe v. Wade established that the Supreme Court allows abortion. Practically unlimited in the 1st trimester, with more restrictions in the 2nd & 3rd trimesters. The threshold that the SC set for fetal rights is viability. Viability is defined as able to breathe without technical/medical assistance.

(This was quoted here earlier in this thread, search for "viability".) So yah, the fetus - all things being equal, & nothing untoward happening - the fetus would, if carried to term, be born. & yep, it would likely be born a human baby. But the SC allows the individual states to regulate abortion only in the 2nd & 3rd trimesters. Before that, the mother's choice trumps any rights of the fetus.

& yah, it's a tragedy. Nonetheless, I'm not willing to say to the prospective mother that she has to carry the fetus to term. I think that's the prospective parents' decision, & the attending doctors'. Absent the father, then it's the mother's & the doctors'. I would prefer to see birth control information & devices widely disseminated, as age-appropriate. But that approach has political problems too.

That's where the law stands today. You can work to change it, of course. & the people who prefer the existing law will work to retain it as is.

 

[Noomi]

[

Whoa, hold on there. Who said anything about prison?

I'm just against abortions. If a woman gets pregnant then she has the baby. It's as simple that.

If she doesn't want the baby she can give him or her up for adoption. She should have thought of that before she chose to have sex.

So by that logic...

People who smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, don't excercise should be denied medical treatment and just be made to suffer the consequences of their bad choices because, hey, they aren't all as ******* perfect as you are, eh?

Seems like conservatives just hate anyone who is different to them, eh?

 

[Noomi]

In Canada abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. For women who are underage, the choice is hers and there is no parental consent involved.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. The fact that you think a woman's choice ends when she has sex shows that your real agenda is to enforce chastity.

Half the women who have abortions are married with one or more children. Are you seriously suggesting married women abstain from sex with their husbands unless it's for procreation? You knows that's grounds for divorce in some jurisdictions.

An ill conceived argument.
FAIL

Answer her question - if a married woman and her husband don't want a baby, do you expect her to abstain from sex, because using birth control could fail, and if she falls pregnant, she will have an abortion.

Should she just stop having sex with her husband?

 

[Noomi]

Great. So you want to punish the woman for getting pregnant by forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.
Not to mention your rotten views on rape.

GTFO of a woman's body. Abortion is HER decision, not yours.

Off base and impertinent.
Your approach is precisely the emotional argument that should be removed from the process.
BTW, as a non-citizen/resident of the USA, you have no standing here.
Butt out.

In my State, abortion is legal on demand up until 24 weeks. My country is mostly pro choice, and not one politician would ever try and restrict the right of a woman to abort - we'd never hear of it.

Stop trying to control women. My uterus is my damned uterus, not yours.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion is used to control women much more effectively, and in a much more dangerous manner, than childbirth has ever been used. More men than women support late term abortion. I wonder why?

 

[Noomi]

Abortion is used to control women much more effectively, and in a much more dangerous manner, than childbirth has ever been used. More men than women support late term abortion. I wonder why?

Do you have stats to back up the claim that more men support late abortions than women?

 

[mamooth]

That would be true if there were a 'right to privacy', but such a right does not exist.

What a scary fascist view that is.

Of course, like all conservatives, I'm pretty sure this guy will now rave that Obama's drones are spying on us. Consistency is not the strong point of that crowd.

A fetus is a life. Where there is life, there is a human being.

That's absurd, and contrary to common sense. I mean, sperm and eggs are alive as well.

Specks aren't people. Speck. Person. Speck. Person. Different things. One of these things is not like the other. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she understands that. She looks at a speck, and doesn't think it's a person. She looks at an infant, and does know it's a person.

Presumably pro-lifers have larger brains than my cat, so it's a mystery as to why they can't grasp such a simple concept.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll just restate what I said to you in the other thread (that you conveniently disappeared from). It's intellectual dishonesty to argue that abortion is about a "woman's body", since an abortion directly targets the body of another.

Not the point. That fetus is inside the woman's body, and she has the authority to dispose of it if she wishes.

Roe does not state that. And that was not the intention of the decision.
States may not have the right to ban abortion, but the states have the right to restrict it as they see fit.
The SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade was incorrect. Eventually this ruling will be overturned.

How can Roe be incorrect. There are no personhood rights for fetuses in the Constitution, explicit or implicit.

To find rights for fetuses would be legislating from the Bench, writing new law.

 

[nitroz]

Yes, women should be fully allowed to choose.