Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[deuse]

They can't go off and kill a baby at any time, they can have a non-viable pregnancy removed(Killed) via a medical procedure carried out by a professional.

They're not at the soft play with a crossbow.

You're are just using different words to say the same thing. And the out come will be the same.

 

[Twinz]

Parental responsibility is about doing what’s best for the child.

Sometimes, as harsh as it may sound, what’s best for the child is that it doesn’t exist.

You seem to be arguing an unrelated point? I'm saying parental responsibility starts even when the child's "existence" is still debatable.

Also, a parent simpling not wanting a child at some point in its development doesn't automatically mean the child is better off dead.

 

[Haggisman]

You're are just using different words to say the same thing. And the out come will be the same.

If we're going to argue that "different words mean the same thing" then masturbation also = abortion. In both cases the outcome is the same, a potential baby isn't born.

You seem to be arguing an unrelated point? I'm saying parental responsibility starts even when the child's "existence" is still debatable.

Also, a parent simpling not wanting a child at some point in its development doesn't automatically mean the child is better off dead.

Not existing != dead.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I am Pro life, except for rape\medical\morning after pill.

I don't like that some women can go off and kill a baby at anytime.

And the UKs 24 weeks of pregnancy abortion law is to much in my opinion.

In the US. I hate that the pro-choice protests are breaking a federal law.
And no one is protecting the judges.

So which Federal law are they breaking by peacefully protesting? Not that I agree with protesting at judges homes. I assume you also disagree with protesting at women's health clinics or the staff that work there, which the pro life crowd have been doing for decades? Lets not mention the bombings, murders, arson, assaults committed by pro life crowd over the years as they don't compare to peacefully protesting.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

John Oliver summed it all up perfectly, as usual, on this week's Last Week Tonight (s09e10)

Snippet:

Yeah these originalist judges like to gloss over that as far as the founding fathers were concerned women were chattels that belonged to either their farther or husband, with less rights that a black man. Ironically they wrote in a church and state separation which these Christian evangelicals and desperate to be rid of and use the religious freedom clause to attempt to get around.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

If we're going to argue that "different words mean the same thing" then masturbation also = abortion. In both cases the outcome is the same, a potential baby isn't born.

Or a blow job, sodomy with your partner, pulling out, using a condom or any form of contraception of any kind that results in a potential baby not being born.

I expect contraception to be on the chopping block of the SC sooner rather than later now that the right to privacy has been invalidated. The "right to marital privacy" was what the SC decision was based on in Griswold v. Connecticut

 

[Irish_Tom]

You seem to be arguing an unrelated point? I'm saying parental responsibility starts even when the child's "existence" is still debatable.

The debatable aspect is when the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus qualifies as a "child". I'm saying that in some circumstances, the most responsible thing to do is to stop the pregnancy before it reaches "child" status.

Also, a parent simpling not wanting a child at some point in its development doesn't automatically mean the child is better off dead.

I think "want" needs to be defined here — in the vast majority of cases, we're not talking about using abortion as the primary method of contraception. In all likelyhood, it's not just that the mother/parents don't "want" a child (in the same way as I don't want a cheese burger at this very moment) but rather that they aren't in a position (mentally, physically, financially etc) to responsibly raise a child.

From your previous posts, you make it sound like women are just waking up one morning and thinking "nope, I've changed my mind, off to the abortion clinic we go".

 

[deuse]

So which Federal law are they breaking by peacefully protesting? Not that I agree with protesting at judges homes. I assume you also disagree with protesting at women's health clinics or the staff that work there, which the pro life crowd have been doing for decades? Lets not mention the bombings, murders, arson, assaults committed by pro life crowd over the years as they don't compare to peacefully protesting.

You don't know?
Thought you knew everything there is about my country.

And don't assume anything on my behalf.

I will help you https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/24 that was the first case. Now it's law

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

You don't know?
Thought you knew everything there is about my country.

And don't assume anything on my behalf.

I will help you https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/24 that was the first case. Now it's law

Oh deuse never change. I asked you and I quote

So which Federal law are they breaking by peacefully protesting?

because you said

In the US. I hate that the pro-choice protests are breaking a federal law.
And no one is protecting the judges.

You then send me a link to a SC case that deals with Louisiana state law. Now unless I am wrong a state law isn't a federal law, federal laws are passed by Congress and I'm not aware that all these judges on the current SC live in Louisiana anyway.

So once again as you are an expert on the US, the country you say you live in. Which federal law are these peaceful protesters breaking.

I almost feel guilty doing this as you've already made yourself look like a fool (again) but I can't resit. Once again if you had just read the whole of the page you sent me you would have seen the SC ruled against the state. I quote the conclusion.

Yes. Louisiana's "disturbing the peace" statute is unconstitutional on its face because it is vague in its overly broad scope, and the policy of Baton Rouge law enforcement of giving officers complete discretion in enforcing the "obstructing public passages" statute deprives Cox of his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly. In a decision authored by Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, the Court was unanimous in finding the "disturbing the peace" statute unconstitutionally vague, and a majority of the Court (7-2) found that Cox's conviction for "obstructing public passages" violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Justices Hugo L. Black and Tom C. Clark each filed concurring opinions as to the "disturbing the peace" statute. Justices Black and Clark also concurred as to the "obstructing public passages" conviction, with Justice Byron R. White, joined by Justice John M. Harlan, dissenting as to that issue.

So basically not only are you wrong on the law and history of your country but you are also against citizens using their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly as the SC laid out in this case.

 

[deuse]

Oh deuse never change. I asked you and I quote



because you said



You then send me a link to a SC case that deals with Louisiana state law. Now unless I am wrong a state law isn't a federal law, federal laws are passed by Congress and I'm not aware that all these judges on the current SC live in Louisiana anyway.

So once again as you are an expert on the US, the country you say you live in. Which federal law are these peaceful protesters breaking.

I almost feel guilty doing this as you've already made yourself look like a fool (again) but I can't resit. Once again if you had just read the whole of the page you sent me you would have seen the SC ruled against the state. I quote the conclusion.



So basically not only are you wrong on the law and history of your country but you are also against citizens using their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly as the SC laid out in this case.

I can't help if you don't understand the US law.

That case was a supreme court case. Not your local one.
But you knew that as you read it?(Maybe not)

"federal law, anyone who "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" could be fined or imprisoned."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507 "18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading"

I know that from living there....and please stop trying to be an american. You wouldn't last a day

And these peaceful protesters are threatening to kill people via letters.

 

[Twinz]

From your previous posts, you make it sound like women are just waking up one morning and thinking "nope, I've changed my mind, off to the abortion clinic we go".

It's easy to assign noble or sinister motives to a given action depending on how you want to frame the action.

The law allows the action either way.

 

[Irish_Tom]

It's easy to assign noble or sinister motives to a given action depending on how you want to frame the action.

The law allows the action either way.

Now who's making a non sequitur?

You started by talking about "want" and parental responsibility, neither of which are defined in abortion law (UIVMM) — so I'm struggling to understand your point?

How did you vote in the poll?

 

[Haggisman]

It's easy to assign noble or sinister motives to a given action depending on how you want to frame the action.

The law allows the action either way.

I'm guessing you've never had an abortion or been close to someone who has, because it sounds like you're trying to trivialise an extremely traumatic event which has almost certainly been chosen as a last resort after considering every other possible option.

What "sinister" motives do you actually think a woman could have for wanting to have an abortion?

 

[Twinz]

I'm guessing you've never had an abortion or been close to someone who has, because it sounds like you're trying to trivialise an extremely traumatic event which has almost certainly been chosen as a last resort after considering every other possible option.

What "sinister" motives do you actually think a woman could have for wanting to have an abortion?

First, I was very close to someone who had an abortion. The difficulty surrounding the decision in that case made it very clear that the fetus, viable or not, isn't just some random growth. No one agonizes over removing a mole or a wart. That doesn't mean that some people aren’t calous enough to treat it as such, but I think we are much closer to consensus on mole removal than fetus removal.

One is clearly just a part of your body to be discarded at will while the other must not be.


Second, I am arguning that parental responsibility begins before birth....before viability even. (See the list of "do's and don'ts" the doctor gave us very early on in the pregnancy.) And I don't think that responsibility is contingent on "want."

 

[deuse]

I'm guessing you've never had an abortion or been close to someone who has, because it sounds like you're trying to trivialise an extremely traumatic event which has almost certainly been chosen as a last resort after considering every other possible option.

What "sinister" motives do you actually think a woman could have for wanting to have an abortion?

It has been know for women to kill so they can stay on the top in their job.
But I hope these ladies are told it could affect their fertility.

​

 

[Haggisman]

Second, I am arguning that parental responsibility begins before birth....before viability even. (See the list of "do's and don'ts" the doctor gave us very early on in the pregnancy.) And I don't think that responsibility is contingent on "want."

If that's genuinely what you believe, then I'm not sure why you can't see that sometimes the situation dictates that the most responsible option is not to have that child.

As @Irish_Tom has said, there's a difference between a flippant "meh, I don't fancy having a baby today" and a carefully considered "if I have a baby right now it will not only literally ruin my life and the father's, but the child will have such poor quality of life that it wouldn't be fair to put it through that if I don't have to". In fact, I'd almost go so far as to suggest that in many cases the mother DOES "want" to have the baby, but realises that in reality, doing so would be a terrible idea.

It has been know for women to kill so they can stay on the top in their job.
But I hope these ladies are told it could affect their fertility.

So they deliberately get pregnant and then have an abortion to keep their job?

Or you mean they accidentally get pregnant (potentially through failed contraception rather than any fault of their own) and then make the decision to terminate rather than have a child which is going to get neglected/palmed off on a nanny as soon as possible?

 

[Harlequin]

It has been know for women to kill so they can stay on the top in their job.
But I hope these ladies are told it could affect their fertility.

​

Unless you have `surgical` termination (aka a D&C or a D&E) , then the medical termination has no impact on fertility.

 

[deuse]

Unless you have `surgical` termination (aka a D&C or a D&E) , then the medical termination has no impact on fertility.

The NHS say other wise.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

My own view is that women are going to get abortions regardless and I'd rather abortions be done safely in hospitals rather than in back streets.

Thats my understanding why abortions were legalised in the first place back street abortions were horrible things done by people who weren't medically qualified. From what I've seen the strongest support for pro choice comes from women themselves who feel they will have no control over their own bodies who are little more than walking incubators for a child that they may not want when it arrives.

 

[Harlequin]

In regards to my previous post about termination type and numbers, found some for the USA:

In 2015 there were 630,000 terminations, with less than 10% over 13 weeks and less than 1% over 21 weeks. The later represents a figure of 0.00094% of the entire USA population; 6000 women from a population of 320 million (in 2015).