Observation on Abortion Debats

[AmyNation]

Amy,

can you give an example of a state wherein abortions are illegal?

Amy nation said

If they get state funds, in some states it's against the law.

Illegal for the hospital to grant admitting privileges.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And that can be addressed as none of those would be constitutional. That makes it an all-around moot point. That is already against the law HOWEVER bans on late term elective abortions are not. That restriction on abortion is perfectly reasonable.

Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding which part you are referring to as being "That restriction on abortion is perfectly reasonable". Could you please clarify? Thank you.

The restriction that you cannot have a late term abortion but can have one within the first 20 weeks. As long as there is a provision that provides for the health and life of the mother and child, that is a reasonable restriction. If the law contains other onerous restrictions that make aborting difficult then THAT is unconstitutional BUT the ability for the state to regulate the gestational period is constitutional and right.

Understood.Yes, as long as the restriction is reasonable. Once the burden reaches the point where the right is implicitly denied it can no longer be deemed reasonable.

 

[PaulS1950]

Amy,

can you give an example of a state wherein abortions are illegal?

Amy nation said

If they get state funds, in some states it's against the law.

Illegal for the hospital to grant admitting privileges.

OK, but in what state does that occur?

 

[AmyNation]

Amy,

can you give an example of a state wherein abortions are illegal?

Amy nation said

Illegal for the hospital to grant admitting privileges.

OK, but in what state does that occur?

I don't know the laws of every state, but in Ohio it is agaisnt the law for publicy funded hospitals to perform non-therapeutic abortions. Any sign of working with an abortion provider, or allowing such a doctor to work in the hospital would put the hospital in a vulnerable position for a lawsuit.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes, the refusal to allow abortion doctors admitting privileges in hospitals has been one of the ways that Republicans have sought to limit women's ability to obtain a safe legal abortion. It is these types of restrictions which encourage back-alley abortions. Women are starting to turn up at Texas hospitals with injuries not seen since Roe v Wade was enacted, from botched abortion attempts, and that was before the legislature tried to pass the current restrictive law.

Republicans are all for personal freedom and responsibility, unless you're a pregnant woman. Then you have no freedom and cannot take responsibility because they try to block it at every turn.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, the refusal to allow abortion doctors admitting privileges in hospitals has been one of the ways that Republicans have sought to limit women's ability to obtain a safe legal abortion. It is these types of restrictions which encourage back-alley abortions. Women are starting to turn up at Texas hospitals with injuries not seen since Roe v Wade was enacted, from botched abortion attempts, and that was before the legislature tried to pass the current restrictive law.

Republicans are all for personal freedom and responsibility, unless you're a pregnant woman. Then you have no freedom and cannot take responsibility because they try to block it at every turn.

The extreme Right's War on Women is taking on Taliban-like aspects these days.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, the refusal to allow abortion doctors admitting privileges in hospitals has been one of the ways that Republicans have sought to limit women's ability to obtain a safe legal abortion. It is these types of restrictions which encourage back-alley abortions. Women are starting to turn up at Texas hospitals with injuries not seen since Roe v Wade was enacted, from botched abortion attempts, and that was before the legislature tried to pass the current restrictive law.

Republicans are all for personal freedom and responsibility, unless you're a pregnant woman. Then you have no freedom and cannot take responsibility because they try to block it at every turn.

And social conservatives aren’t fooling anyone, of course, the undue burden of ‘admitting privileges’ is a partisan contrivance by the right to enact a de facto ban on abortion, having nothing to do whatsoever with a ‘concern’ for the health of the woman.

 

[PaulS1950]

Illegal for the hospital to grant admitting privileges.

OK, but in what state does that occur?

I don't know the laws of every state, but in Ohio it is agaisnt the law for publicy funded hospitals to perform non-therapeutic abortions. Any sign of working with an abortion provider, or allowing such a doctor to work in the hospital would put the hospital in a vulnerable position for a lawsuit.

Non-therapeutic abortions - you mean like after the first trimester? That is the federal law as it stands.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, and who determines that "the life and health of the mother is at risk"? Why, that would be the abortion doctor getting paid to kill the baby. No conflict of interest THERE.

Doctors make a whole LOT more money caring for a woman who carries her fetus to term and has a live birth - hundreds, versus thousands. The doctors who perform abortions, also perform live births and LB's are far more lucrative.

Yes, dear, but doctors who perform abortions tend NOT to do much of the other stuff, and vice versa. My OB/gyn, for example, only does abortions when there's a serious health problem involved. if it's just a preference issue, he refers them out to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand - despite their press releases - works primarily in the area of abortion of birth control, and not so much with the prenatal care.

 

[AmyNation]

OK, but in what state does that occur?

I don't know the laws of every state, but in Ohio it is agaisnt the law for publicy funded hospitals to perform non-therapeutic abortions. Any sign of working with an abortion provider, or allowing such a doctor to work in the hospital would put the hospital in a vulnerable position for a lawsuit.

Non-therapeutic abortions - you mean like after the first trimester? That is the federal law as it stands.

A non-therapeutic abortion is an elective abortion.

Merriam-Webster Search for iPhone

 

[PaulS1950]

I would be willing to bet that the pregnant women having the abortion don't look at it as being "elective" in most cases. I know a few women who have gone through the process and they believe it was a necessary choice of action. Do they regret it? Yes! They live with that memory just like a cop who has to use his gun to stop a criminal. The memories don't just go away and they each have to find a way to cope with it. The idea that abortions are a "convenient" substitute for birth control is ridiculous unless the woman involved is psychotic, in which case it would be a bad idea for her to have a baby to destroy anyway.

 

[AmyNation]

Some women do use abortion like birth control, however I'd bet the percent of women who do is about even with the precent of women who seek abortion after rape, and both are so small as to not really factor in to the discussion as a whole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would be willing to bet that the pregnant women having the abortion don't look at it as being "elective" in most cases. I know a few women who have gone through the process and they believe it was a necessary choice of action. Do they regret it? Yes! They live with that memory just like a cop who has to use his gun to stop a criminal. The memories don't just go away and they each have to find a way to cope with it. The idea that abortions are a "convenient" substitute for birth control is ridiculous unless the woman involved is psychotic, in which case it would be a bad idea for her to have a baby to destroy anyway.

Really? WHY would you be willing to bet that? Because you're somehow convinced that the majority of women who have abortions think they're going to die or be permanently maimed by their pregnancy? Or because you think women are so selfish and self-absorbed that they can't tell the difference between "medically necessary" and "important but elective"? Exactly which flavor of stupid are you accusing women of being?

 

[PaulS1950]

Aren't you the one pointing a finger and offering the limited choices?

I didn't point any fingers. I just said I was willing to bet on a concept that I am fairly certain I would win.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Aren't you the one pointing a finger and offering the limited choices?

I didn't point any fingers. I just said I was willing to bet on a concept that I am fairly certain I would win.

Who're you talking to?

 

[PaulS1950]

Aren't you the one pointing a finger and offering the limited choices?

I didn't point any fingers. I just said I was willing to bet on a concept that I am fairly certain I would win.

Who're you talking to?

You!

Really? WHY would you be willing to bet that? Because you're somehow convinced that the majority of women who have abortions think they're going to die or be permanently maimed by their pregnancy? Or because you think women are so selfish and self-absorbed that they can't tell the difference between "medically necessary" and "important but elective"? Exactly which flavor of stupid are you accusing women of being?

You asked me which of the two "flavors" that you selected to determine why I would make my bet. You deal with your own stuff because I had neither of those choices in mind.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would be willing to bet that the pregnant women having the abortion don't look at it as being "elective" in most cases. I know a few women who have gone through the process and they believe it was a necessary choice of action. Do they regret it? Yes! They live with that memory just like a cop who has to use his gun to stop a criminal. The memories don't just go away and they each have to find a way to cope with it. The idea that abortions are a "convenient" substitute for birth control is ridiculous unless the woman involved is psychotic, in which case it would be a bad idea for her to have a baby to destroy anyway.

Sorry but that is based entirely around the fact that you do not want to admit the massive majority of abortions are elective. That is simple reality.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
Having a baby would dramatically change my life ------------------>74
Can’t afford a baby now-----------------------------------------------> 73
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 48
Have completed my childbearing ------------------------------------> 38
Not ready for a(nother) child† ---------------------------------------> 32
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant -------------> 25
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child -----------------> 22
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion ----------------> 14
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus ----------------> 13
Physical problem with my health ------------------------------------> 12
Parents want me to have an abortion -------------------------------> 6
Was a victim of rape --------------------------------------------------> 1
Became pregnant as a result of incest ------------------------------> <0.5
When you look at this, and keep in mind that people gave MORE than one answer to this, 13 percent were worried about fetal health problems and 12 their own health. Usually those two are connected as well. That means we are likely seeing over 80 percent that are purely elective.

What the woman &#8216;believes&#8217; is bullshit anyway. You might &#8216;believe&#8217; that the abortion is not elective because you simply do not have the time and money to raise another child but that does not make the abortion necessary. That is simply another case of convenience. The decision might not be easy and there are real repercussions after, particularly mental repercussions as you have to deal with the decision, but they are STILL unnecessary and avenues that could have been taken like adoption are ignored.

Women using abortion as a birth control also are not nearly as rare as you seem to think. I have known a few, one that did it so often that it finally destroyed her ability to have children. At least she will not be partaking in that barbarism anymore. The simple reality is that most abortions that occur are for outright convenience and those that occur for health or other more &#8216;justifiable&#8217; reasoning are actually rather rare. Hell, more people have an abortion because they don&#8217;t want people to know they got pregnant than actually have it for health reasons. Considering that only 6 percent are from those below 18 and if we subtracted that entire number from the &#8216;I don&#8217;t want people to know&#8217; figure it would STILL be higher than those worried about health.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would be willing to bet that the pregnant women having the abortion don't look at it as being "elective" in most cases. I know a few women who have gone through the process and they believe it was a necessary choice of action. Do they regret it? Yes! They live with that memory just like a cop who has to use his gun to stop a criminal. The memories don't just go away and they each have to find a way to cope with it. The idea that abortions are a "convenient" substitute for birth control is ridiculous unless the woman involved is psychotic, in which case it would be a bad idea for her to have a baby to destroy anyway.

For most women seeking abortion, the choice is between the child/children they have and are caring for already, and the fetus yet to be born. Would I put my living children at risk with a pregnancy I cannot afford to carry to term? I don't know. I was never in that situation. I live in a country which has mandatory maternity leave, with unemployment insurance payments for a year's maternity/paternity leave, and my employer must hold my job open for me during that maternity leave.

I also have tax funded medical benefits with covers all of pre-natal and post-natal hospital visits, as well as my labour and delivery with no co-pay. While a reduced income for the year requires belt-tightening, it doesn put my existing children at risk, nor does the medical cost of the pregnancy.

This is the difference between a compassionate social democracy, which puts its citizens ahead of corporations, and country where business and profits matter more than people.

 

[jwoodie]

Why don't you all stop dancing around this issue and answer the following question (YES OR NO):

Do you think 3rd trimester abortions should be legal where only the mother's "emotional health" is at risk?

 

[AmyNation]

Why don't you all stop dancing around this issue and answer the following question (YES OR NO):

Do you think 3rd trimester abortions should be legal where only the mother's "emotional health" is at risk?

What does that mean, "emotional health"?