Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

What is you're opinion on abortion ?

  • Fully pro-life, including Embryo

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Pro-life but exceptions for morning after pill and IUDs

    Votes: 25 3.7%
  • Pro-choice but up until heartbeat limit of 6-weeks

    Votes: 64 9.6%
  • Pro-choice up to pre-viability limit (based on local legislation)

    Votes: 451 67.6%
  • Fully pro-choice until birth

    Votes: 110 16.5%

  • Total voters
    667
That shouldn't be how it works. It's all or nothing.
not necessarily....... with out giving my opinion on each case there are differences...

where is my body my choice on prostitution
or suicide
or if I knew I was HIV positive sleeping around without warning the people I sleep with

each one you may have a view one way or the other on but personally I don't think you can say just because in one instance you believe my body my choice automatically means you must *always* support it
 
Dowie being obtuse shocker! The pharmaceuticals didn't exist until the 1970s. Lets face it, the barbarism of previous "solutions" would have put most women off before that.

You going to call the pharmaceutical method LARPing at abortion now? :cry:
The modern, safe pharmaceuticals didn't exist. Various herbs and plants were well known to cause an abortion though, and were used even though they were risky because to put it bluntly, it was still a lot safer than giving birth.

Abortifacients have been around for several thousand years, indeed the only reference to abortion in the Bible is an abortifacient to be administered by a priest if a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful and with child (so the priest forcing a woman to have an abortion as the husband is unhappy/insecure is fine according to the bible, which is a bit different to what the Right wing Christians seem to think, about the only thing in common is that in both cases the woman doesn't have a choice).

Even the old backstreet wire coat hanger type abortions which had a very high rate of serious injury and even death didn't put women off as for a lot of people it was still preferable to giving birth.

About all that making abortion legal did was make it safer, we can expect the maternal mortality rate in the "red" states that have banned abortion to rise a lot now, and due to the fact that those states were already making it extremely hard for women to get both abortions, and maternity care they already had very high death rates (IIRC the one of them already had around six times the death rate per capita of california, a state that made access to both abortions and maternity care far easier to access). IIRC America's overall maternal death rate before this change in the law was already the worst in the developed world, and worse than many much poorer and "less developed" countries.

It's also going to result in very large numbers of women, almost certainly poorer ones (as they always seem to get the worst of it as they can't afford good health care to help avoid it, or lawyers to help afterwards) getting prosecuted for miscarriages, which are extremely common regardless of how careful the woman is and how much they want the child. It already happens in some of the Republican states at times.
 
The modern, safe pharmaceuticals didn't exist. Various herbs and plants were well known to cause an abortion though, and were used even though they were risky because to put it bluntly, it was still a lot safer than giving birth.
<snip>

So we all agree that it's hypocritical for the right wing "Christians" to call themselves pro-life then. Especially when you chuck in their objections to gun control!

Why they value a non-sentient life above those that are sentient and part of society baffles me.
 
So we all agree that it's hypocritical for the right wing "Christians" to call themselves pro-life then. Especially when you chuck in their objections to gun control!

Why they value a non-sentient life above those that are sentient and part of society baffles me.

Non-sentient? You realise that 7 states have no limits on abortions. You can get one past the babies due date.
 
Non-sentient? You realise that 7 states have no limits on abortions. You can get one past the babies due date.

I do. That's down to those seven states. Seven out of fifty is a minority. What's your point? (other than trying to be obtuse?)

Should I have itemised it fifty times by state for you, then tried to work out how the non-states even start trying to decipher it?
 
I do. That's down to those seven states. Seven out of fifty is a minority. What's your point? (other than trying to be obtuse?)

Should I have itemised it fifty times by state for you, then tried to work out how the non-states even start trying to decipher it?
7 states is a minority, thats's the statement you are going with?

Clearly you don't see anything wrong with that. Says a lot about you as a person.
 
7 states is a minority, thats's the statement you are going with?

Clearly you don't see anything wrong with that. Says a lot about you as a person.

Yes. It's a SCOTUS ruling that applies to the country.

I'm not falling into your trap. Go and be obtuse and vent your righteous indignation at someone making the laws in those states. I don't live in one, I couldn't care less!
 
before 13 weeks sure for medical reasons or if its a result of incest/rape etc.

after 13 weeks but before viability for extreme medical reasons only sure.

after 13 weeks without a valid reason, nope, but there's adoption otherwise.

Don't like the above, don't have sex. Mald as much as you like I don't care. That's my view like it or lump it.
 
Dowie being obtuse shocker! The pharmaceuticals didn't exist until the 1970s. Lets face it, the barbarism of previous "solutions" would have put most women off before that.

You going to call the pharmaceutical method LARPing at abortion now? :cry:

Hmmm more like MagocBoy getting the basics wrong and having to backtrack, so far unaware the ruling was based on an amendment from the 1800s and that abortion existed back then. Did you initially forget the constitution could be amended too?

You talked about how these "concepts" didn't exist... they did! Including non-surgical abortion, in fact, in your original tweet, you were broader mentioned abortion or contraception

Court has a framework in the form of the constitution. There's nothing codified in the late 1700s era document specific to abortion or contraception as they simply didn't exist at the time. So SCOTUS ruled on Roe vs Wade in 1973 with what they had available and set a precedent for modern America.

The constitution is amended over time, it's not just the late 1700s era document, there was nothing in the original covering abortion and that's not because they weren't aware of it or of the "concept". Roe v Wade wasn't based on anything in the original constitution anyway but rather on the 14th amendment added in 1868. The first abortion laws in the US actually pre-date that amendment by several decades and that amendment doesn't specifically cover abortion either.

The constitution has had amendments to it all through the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries it's quite a big deal to make an amendment to it and requires 2/3rds of the house and the senate to approve. If at some point a supermajority of Congress had desired to they could have made an amendment to protect the right to an abortion, so far they haven't. No doubt there will be pressure for some federal law at some point in the future they might even get bipartisan support to make an amendment that does provide a constitutional right to abortion along the lines of that offered in most European countries - IMO a much more sensible solution than the precedent from Roe v Wade which actually restricted states from enacting the sort of European style laws that have majority support both here and Americans.
 
A reversible sterilisation at birth, only undone after genetic, means and IQ tests would help depopulate the world and make the remaining folk a more viable bunch.

How wonderful this country would be with pre Edwardian population levels. Nearly every human problem bandied about these forums would be reduced if not cured by a two thirds population drop.
 
A reversible sterilisation at birth, only undone after genetic, means and IQ tests would help depopulate the world and make the remaining folk a more viable bunch.

How wonderful this country would be with pre Edwardian population levels. Nearly every human problem bandied about these forums would be reduced if not cured by a two thirds population drop.
Hmm

You are aware that a lot of the worlds best scientists and artists wouldn't have been born under your criteria?
 
It's odd how quickly people drop their principles when raging at others with "wrong" views... the SC judges are no such bad guys that this seemingly liberal white woman even thought she could drop in the n-word:

U16PMST.jpg
 
A reversible sterilisation at birth, only undone after genetic, means and IQ tests would help depopulate the world and make the remaining folk a more viable bunch.

How wonderful this country would be with pre Edwardian population levels. Nearly every human problem bandied about these forums would be reduced if not cured by a two thirds population drop.

I’m pretty sure something similar was tried about 75 years ago, but I forget how that panned out…
 
Back
Top Bottom