Why abortion must remain legal and safe
Abortion has been a hot topic ever since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling Roe v. Wade (1973). The abortion issue has polarized the American people for nearly 50 years now, with both sides of the issue never seeming to waver or give a little. The pro-choice side generally sees abortion as something that should be an individual choice while the pro-life side generally sees abortion as ending a life. Currently, elective abortions are generally allowed up to the point of fetal viability, approximately 23-24 weeks gestation, which seems like a reasonable limit and compromise between the two sides of the issue. However, with the recent passing and legal challenging of the Mississippi and Texas laws limiting the time allowed for elective abortions, the SCOTUS is poised to take up the abortion debate (again). This is also concerning for some, as the SCOTUS is currently a conservative majority and conservatives have generally not favored abortion rights in the past. Regardless of one's own position on the issue, abortion is something which must remain legal and safe for women. Here are general explanations as to why:
1. Outlawing or significantly restricting abortion does not eliminate abortion or the need for it. All it will do is make abortions unsafe and potentially lead to criminalization of women who obtain "illegal" abortions and those who perform them. Our society has already dealt with such a scenario in the pre-Roe years, when women seeking to end a pregnancy obtained clandestine "back alley" abortions, often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions outside of the healthcare system and regulations and provided by some who may not be skilled in the procedure. This led to many women becoming maimed or even dying from the procedure. According to an article in Obstetrics and Gynecology , " w orldwide, some 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless....The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions. Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths) ." Is that what we really want for this country? Another factor is the potential criminalization of women who either have abortions or are accused of having an abortion if they miscarry. A real world example of this is seen in El Salvador, where abortion has been banned. Many women have been accused and/or convicted for having an abortion after they miscarry. Also, 5,000 illegal abortions are performed there annually, with an 11% mortality rate. A pro-life individual might argue about the "life" of a fetus. But they ignore the life and possible death of the woman seeking an abortion. Again I ask, is that what we really want here?
2. Women have rights and autonomy . The Roe decision established that a woman had the right to choose an abortion. That right has only been affirmed and expanded upon in subsequent rulings regarding abortion. Reversing Roe or placing unreasonable or severe limits on abortion effectively means the state can revoke a right that has been granted. That begs the question, what other rights can the state then revoke? Individual rights are something that is recognized and protected, either explicitly or implicitly, and historically fought for. In a country which places such high value on rights and liberty, the very idea that the state can limit or revoke a right or that someone is forced to surrender their rights to the state should be abhorrent. A woman does not surrender her rights when she becomes pregnant. Neither does an embryo/fetus have rights which cancels the woman's rights. When pro-lifers argue about "life," they fail to acknowledge that no one is required to surrender their rights or themselves for the benefit of another. We do not force people to donate blood or organs to save a "life." So too is a woman not required to remain pregnant to support a "life," even if it's parasitically inside her.
3. An embryo or fetus is not a person . Just as a car is not yet a car until it rolls off the assembly line, a fetus is not yet a person until it is born. An embryo/fetus is not legally recognized nor considered a person and does not have rights. Neither is there anyway rights can be conferred to it without limiting or removing the rights of the woman in question. Some states have attempted to pass "fetal personhood" laws in the past. But such attempts have fortunately always failed. A fetus can be a potential person if it is carried to term and delivered. If a fetus were considered a person, then our birthdays would be based on our date of conception, not birth. A fetus before the point of viability is incapable of surviving independently or being self-determinant. Much like how a brain-dead person is no longer considered "alive" or a person, so too is the fetus.
4. Abortion can help reduce or end a cycle of poverty. While women can have an abortion for any reason, in many cases it is because of financial difficulty. This can be cases of women in low paying jobs, unemployment, or women who have not finished school (such as teenagers) which may limit their opportunities later. Raising children is expensive and if one is not financially secure enough before having them, they risk becoming or continuing to be impoverished. This causes a lower standard of living and quality of life for both mother and child. If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy while she has adequate resources to be self sufficient, then there is risk of financial, social, emotional, educational, and physical harm to both mother and child. According to the US Census Bureau , there are over 10 million children living in poverty in this country. Why add to that number by forcing women to give birth if they do not have adequate means to support children? Some worry about the idea of the government paying for abortions? Well, the government will pay for an unwanted impoverished child via social programs, and that's usually much more expensive than an abortion.
5. A fetus does not experience pain until after viability . One argument against abortion is that the fetus can feel the pain of an abortion procedure. That is one reason why anti-abortion advocates try to have abortion prohibited or at least significantly restricted. However, such claims are founded in emotional appeals, not science. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ( ACOG ), a fetus is incapable of perceiving pain until at least 24 weeks gestation, which is past the point of viability. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) , "a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28 to 30 weeks after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness." ( JAMA 2005; 294:947-954 ). Even Britain's Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (RCOG) states that the human fetus cannot feel pain until 24 weeks' gestation. If a fetus must be aborted past the point of viability, Federal law requires doctors to use medications to manage pain of the fetus. So if some are worried about fetal pain, then logically the same standard of pain management can be used at any stage of aborting a pregnancy, including before viability. Although, that might put the woman more at risk. Regardless, that makes the whole fetal pain argument moot and invalidates it as an excuse to reduce the time frame when abortions are allowed to be performed.
Moral arguments aside (which are irrelevant anyway), there are real world deleterious effects which have happened and can be observed if abortion were made illegal or restricted. Abortions must always be legal and safe so women are not risking their health, their personal and financial independence, or be criminalized or marginalized by society. The decision to continue a pregnancy or not is a personal one which every woman has the right to freely choose and it is no one else's business or concern but hers! If you don't like abortion, then don't get one. But no one gets to make that choice for anyone else!
Tags
Who is online
103 visitors
I have yet to see a logical reason as to why abortion should be prohibited or limited to before viability.
Why is the continued wanton taking of human life so important a matter to the secular progressive?
Why is the continued wanton attempt at revocation of women's rights so important a matter to the conservative right?
When you've been in a dire situation that a woman may find herself in, let me know. I know that you do a lot of good things, but that doesn't make you superior to those women that decide to abort their fetus.
The bullshit from whatshername - Barrett about safe havens and adoption is nonsense. How many hundreds of thousands of children are up for adoption now?
Call me crazy but this makes me think of this of
What Actually Happens When a Country Bans Abortion
Romania under Ceausescu created a dystopian horror of overcrowded, filthy orphanages, and thousands died from back-alley abortions.
Attitudes to contraception have changed, although Romania still lives with the memory of Ceausescu's abortion ban. Daniel McLaughlin reports
For audiences of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days at this year's Cannes Film Festival, the contrast with the glitz and glamour of the sun-kissed Cote d'Azur could not have been more stark.
Cristian Mungiu won the prestigious Palme d'Or for his searing tale of a woman's desperate search for a backstreet abortion in the Romania of Nicolae Ceausescu, the communist dictator who in 1966 banned abortion - and all other forms of contraception - in a bid to boost his country's population.
Women who broke the law could be jailed for up for two years, and doctors who performed abortions could be thrown in prison for longer. Women were subjected to mandatory gynaecological examinations at work, and those found to be pregnant were monitored for the term by the dreaded Securitate, Ceausescu's secret police, to make sure they kept the child.
Securitate agents would spy on doctors and even examine still-born children to make sure they had not been illegally aborted
You bring up good points, which some anti-choices seem to ignore. Do we as a nation really want to step back socially and emulate these countries, especially those with more draconian measures? I certainly do not.
Talk about loss of liberty! Gyn exams at work??? Oh hell no!
Notice how the ones who yell most loudly about protecting liberty are the ones who want to deny it to others, especially to women?
They believe women are second class citizens...gee! Who else treats women worse than their camels?
This is actually one topic you and I can agree on.
Indeed. Those who want a certain group's rights revoked are the "American Taliban." Revoking someone's rights in effect relegates them to second class citizen status. Hopefully the SCOTUS will realize that.
Agreed!!!!
Charger as well.
Not to mention, the babies raised in those orphanages sometimes ended up with severe psychiatric disorders. There are many tales of failed adoptions of Romanian babies, who became violent as older children due to attachment disorder.
make anybody that takes a religious deduction on their taxes be put on the waiting list of adoptive parents and watch this abortion issue disappear.
Perfect.
Children who are born and raised in poverty have a higher risk of poor health, lower educational levels, and committing crime. But some are only concerned that they be born, not with their quality of life.
Exactly.
They didn't get human nurturing. They were fed (barely) but lacked basic human touch. They were left crying in their cribs. I saw a news report on it and it broke my heart.
That was something I meant to bring up Sandy, thanks for doing so!
With so many children and very few folks to tend to them, I'm not surprised at all those children with the psychiatric issues - attachment disorder - another horrific consequence of such (I don't know the right word) barbaric situations these women were forced into.
I felt the same. No child should be deprived of cuddling and kindness.
Perfect solution!
I'm hoping the SCOTUS decision triggers a tsunami of retribution against these fucking bible thumpers for their religious over reach of imposing their unwanted religious beliefs on others and taking a private individual right from 51% of american voters. I plan on taking an up close and personal approach with any church mice that are unfortunate enough to cross my path. freedom from religion is the cornerstone of the foundation in this country.
the constitution is supposed to protect us from those flat earth fucktards and that rwnj religious cult needs to be forever thrown into a judicial hole they can never escape because of all the social havoc they've created in america.
You said it, I didn't.
there's not much wiggle room in the 1st A, and the 2nd A was written to guarantee that.
IMO the revocation of Roe would be an unconstitutional act. One of the founding principles found in the preamble is to "...secure liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Overturning Roe would also mark the revocation of an established right, something which has never happened in the entire history of the court. Not to mention set a very dangerous precedent.
What about "rare"?
I prefer medium rare
But seriously, what about it? Whether abortion is "rare" or not is irrelevant. However, the total number of abortions perforated been in decline for years. So it seems we're getting to "rare."
And the reason for total number of abortions performed annually is likely due to the available resources [aka Planned Parenthood] for effective, and FREE birth control. Hell, most health insurances will cover birth control for zero cost to the patient.
It's scary how some people want PP defended too. So in addition to forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies, they don't care about their health either.
All points in article are correct and there are more
Thank you. I could have added more and elaborated further. But I wanted to keep things simple and stimulate discussion.
Overpopulation is the biggest problem facing us and multiplies all other problems
This is accurate.
I know of about 45 million in this country we could do without. I recommend a civics test to determine who.
Abortion isn't the answer to population control.
When we have a wide open southern border and 200,000 plus illegal immigrants streaming across it each month; abortions are a drop in the bucket. But like abortion, our fucked up politicians on both sides refuse to actually do their jobs and fix the problem.
True. The problem is that the human race is already past the tipping point with regards to population. I give us...3-400 years before our species collapses upon itself and disappears.
I might not be against a change in the law, but I want it to be based on a good reason and not something arbitrary.
Obviously a lot of people are hoping that SCOTUS will change its mind about women having a right to end a pregnancy, but I fear that would be a bad outcome for the country.
It was apparent to me that the Chief Justice, at least, wasn’t thinking along those lines, but he was open to an earlier limit like the 15 weeks in the Mississippi law.
I never thought much about international abortion laws, but the United States is an outlier with our viability (23 weeks) limit. Our time limit is based on the medieval time limit of “quickening” coined by St. Thomas Aquinas and established in English Common Law around the 12th or 13th century.
Virtually every country on Earth has more restrictive limits. Abortion on request is available throughout Europe and Asia, but the time limit ranges from 10 to 15 weeks. I do not know the reasons for the various time limits.
Now, I’m not in the habit of doing a thing just because Europe does it, but the fact that so many other countries do it differently does have me curious. If it’s for a good reason, I would at least consider it.
Another thing to consider about a different time limit is that over 90% of abortions in the US are performed by the 13th week or earlier, so changing to 15 weeks probably wouldn’t impact very many people. As Chief Justice Roberts expressed, that might be plenty of time.
But again, I want it to be based on something real. I don’t know what else the SCOTUS could use as the basis for a new limit. I feel like if they are inclined to make any changes, they put themselves in the position of writing a complex law of a type that should really be left to legislators. For that reason, they might just make it a state issue.
The supposed "arbitrary" line is total bullshit. Roe established a clear line in the sand, viability. While it's true that as technology advances that line can be moved, it isn't arbitrary as some conservatives have claimed. It is based on medical science and technology. The intent of the original ruling in Roe was that a woman's right to privacy trumps any supposed right to life of a fetus up until viability. I wouldn't mind at all if that line is moved to match the earliest time that a fetus can live outside the womb without the aid of the mother, which right now is 21 weeks 1 day. Anything less would be forcing a woman to give up her right to privacy and right to her body in favor of a fetus that no one has ever proved can remember, think or feel, while we have clear evidence that a pregnant woman can. It's an effective parasite until it can live outside the mothers body, and as harsh as that may sound, lets weigh the number of women who can remember and feel their pregnancies versus anyone who can remember their birth or time in the womb. You show me a human alive today who can prove they remember their time in the womb and I'll be the first one standing up to defend them.
parasite: noun - an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
Once it can live on it's own without the need for the mother her right to privacy and her body is no longer being taken away by the fetus and if those with religious fantasies of some immortal soul want to take and raise the fetus into a human being then that's their choice.
I am not pro-abortion, I hope and wish no one would ever feel the need to have an abortion. Contraceptives and safe sex education should be available to all, and I wish no women or young girls would ever be raped. Perhaps if we started 'aborting' rapists that would lower the need for so many abortions. But if we're not going to take that step and continue to blame the victims in many cases while also turning them into criminals for not wanting to carry their rapists baby to term, then making sure we have safe legal access to abortion up to viability or to save the life or health of the mother is essential.
As you point out, over 90% of all abortions occur at or before 13 weeks and less than 1% occur after viability to save the life or health of the mother. So this law being debated that draws the line at 15 weeks is really about the roughly 9% that happen after 13 weeks which many are women who simply didn't know they were pregnant till then (yes, it happens more often than many realize).
So viability is not arbitrary. No fetus has ever survived being born at 15 weeks, ever, in the history of humanity, period. Nor at 16 weeks, 17 weeks, 18 weeks, 19 weeks or 20 weeks. 21 weeks 1 day. That's not an arbitrary number, it's a scientific fact. If medical science moves that timeline then fine, but it's not a State or legislator or religious zealots making that decision, it's medical science.
People usually got mad at me for saying, "My parasite is hungry," or something along those lines while I was pregnant with either of my kids. However, by definition, that's exactly what a pregnancy is, a parasite / host until that being is removed from the woman's body.
Especially if they don't have regular periods.
It certainly isn't a symbiotic relationship. The fetus certainly didn't do anything for my overall health. In fact, it did a lot of things that I am still suffering from like daily heartburn and bladder control.
Thanks a lot, Monsters!
I really do love my kids
Is 21 weeks 1 day 'viability' when it requires the highest level of medical support and months of extensive medical intervention to achieve?
'Preterm' births are defined as prior to 37 weeks and there are over 200,000 every year. Those that survive have a plethora of long term effects. Data shows that the cost of preterm births is over $20 billion per year.
Less than 1/2 of US counties have an obstetrics unit. If a state sets the limit even lower, shouldn't we then expect them to ensure that obstetric units are available throughout their state?
Note that the same states that have already passed these lower and lower limits on abortion are the same ones that demand the defunding and/or eliminate of organizations who provide medical treatment to pregnant women so they can carry their pregnancy to FULL term. In fact, all too many of these states are more than willing to fund 'faith based' 'Women's Care Centers' that provide NO prenatal 'care' whatsoever.
They don't even care about maternal or infant mortality. I guess once the baby is born and is stillborn or dies from a lack of simple medical care that's ok with these bastards
All those 'faith based women's care centers' are just to dupe women into waiting until it's too late to have an abortion.
When my wife was pregnant with our first child we found out she had Hyperemesis gravidarum, she couldn't even keep water down and lost 40 lbs in a month and a half before we took her to the hospital. We had tried everything we could think of to get food and water into her but nothing worked. The doctor explained that while my wife couldn't keep any food or water down, the fetus was sucking her dry of all her fat, muscle and nutrients. The doctor said the fetus was still relatively healthy because it was essentially cannibalizing her and if we hadn't come in to the hospital in time I could have lost them both. We ended up with a hospital bed in our house where my wife was hooked up to a feeding machine with a feeding tube down through her nose 24/7 for three months and an IV drip giving her a drug that helped her keep the food down.
So yes, they are little monsters but we're just so thankful both of them survived and my daughter is now a happy healthy 12 year old. When we had our second daughter 5 years later at least we knew ahead of time what to do and started taking the prescription to help her keep her food down right away so she didn't have to go through that suffering again. They are definitely worth it but not every pregnancy has such a happy ending and criminalizing abortion is just taking away options that might save a woman's life.
I'm glad you & your family had a good outcome.
I'm glad everything worked out. My young friend had this problem. She was a little overweight before she got pregnant but at her baby shower I was amazed how small she was. She was this tiny little thing with a round belly. Fortunately, she gave birth a healthy baby boy and she still looks good
Tell me about it! A sneeze is a roll of the dice sometimes. And my daughter ruined my esophagus! Any tomato based product gives me heartburn / acid reflux!
That is one hell of a pregnancy issue! I couldn't even imagine.
I lost about 7 lbs. give or take a few in my first trimester with my daughter. Then, it was chronic nose bleeds and sinus infections, HORRIBLE acid reflux, and my favorite... kidney stones at the end of my 2nd trimester.
So glad that my pregnancy with my son was a million times better!
Absolutely it would be! History and real world examples back that up too.
That is incorrect. The current limit is based on the point of fetal viability.
Certain time limits do seem to be arbitrary, such as the 15 week limit.
I have yet to see a good reason.
That's for a woman to decide. But it sounds like a limit based on numbers.
The current limit of viability is real and scientifically determined. It's not some random pick. When Roe was first decided, the initial limit was the trimester framework. Subsequent abortion rulings expanded that timeframe to viability, which has been the standard since as well as a reasonable compromise.
Yes, and that derives from the concept of quickening that was the standard I described.
Men opposed to abortion should not take part in acts which could cause pregnancy.
BAsically what I've been saying but easier to understand
I recommend full castration for any male that takes part of any act that causes an abortion; or that sires a child and refuses to take care of it.
That would do a lot to lower the number of needed abortions; and also the amount of children on welfare.
Lol I doubt it, if a guy is about to get his tallywacker wet the only thing he''s going to think about is getting his tallywacker wet not possible consequences
This has been my reason for reversing the Hyde Amendment. Yeah...I'm gonna get my usual troll telling me that women should take responsibility and pay for the children they have. That's all well and fine if they are planned children and the father is around to make his contributions towards the upkeep and well being of the child. But too many times the father is absent leaving a woman alone to raise the child. If she doesn't have a decent job or no job she's going to end up on public assistance. If the clinic had told her...fill out this form, you can get it paid for...then she doesn't have to look forward to a lifetime of misery.
Cost effective and is being responsible
Right to the point. Thanks again, charger
You and TG are both correct. Allowing and paying for abortion (if necessary) is both practical and reasonable. Especially in the long term.
We hear that all too often. In theory I do agree, however that argument gets blown up as soon as the government starts forcing women to have those children by preventing them from terminating a pregnancy if they so choose. IMO at that point it then becomes the governments job to pay for and care for the child since they are the ones insisting on it being born.
That is a good point. I'll take it a step further and say the government should give a tax credit or deduction for women who do have an elective abortion. After all, they might be saving money and resources.
Or how about, since they're alleging that it's a human at conception, a woman can use a positive pregnancy test to qualify for government benefits like Medicaid, child tax credits and a tax deduction even before the pregnancy comes to term?
outlawing abortion will cost a lot of money
The legal actions taken by the right to overturn Roe has cost them millions, much of it 'donated' by Christian charities.
That makes sense.
Which takes it away from those in actual need of charity.
As will enforcing such laws.
Boy howdy. These 'Christian charities' will spend millions on 'defending the unborn' yet nary a dime on prenatal/postnatal care, early childhood health care or affordable childcare.
it's not about helping the less fortunate for the evangelical extremists, it's all about the incoming cash flow.
Because that's all they care about. They ignore everything else associated with it.
If one is baking a cake, it's not a cake until it's been in the oven for X amount of minutes, right? It's merely batter before it's finished baking. Even when it's a little undercooked, it may be edible even when it's not done... so, viability is similar to cakes too I suppose.
That is a good analogy. 👍
Very good points in the article, plus more added in the comments section.
I once heard this about the anti-abortion group. ''When you men can shit a 16 lb bowling ball then you can voice your ignorant opinion''
Good article, Gordy.
To those who spout shit about adoption... adoption does not take care of an unwanted pregnancy. No woman should be forced to be a brood mare for a non-fertile couple. No woman should be forced to undergo a process that can alter her life in numerous ways to provide a rugrat for some other couple. Pregnancy can kill, cause unemployment, medical bills - all things no should be FORCED to undergo.
Those spouting about life... how about FORCED blood & organ donations? Should a registry be set up at birth so a person can be forced to give a kidney, lobe of live, blond to save someone else? That would be a life. Who gets to decide which lives are important? No "innocent" shit either, please - who decides someone is innocent?
Thank you Veronica. I'm glad you like it. You are also correct in the points you made. Notice how those opposed to abortion are largely silent here thus far? It seems they cannot logically support their position, much less refute ours.
I have noticed that... I guess they know their usual "but but god..." arguments will not stand.
Neither does their "life/baby" arguments. Or any other argument they presented thus far. Not surprising either.
It never is surprising.
Even when they're proven wrong, they reuse the same, lame arguments.
They believe if they keep repeating them then everyone will believe them to be true.
They only convince themselves.
Ostriches.
Among other things.
Well according to their beliefs no one in is born innocent...Original Sin and all that. So how can they spout that abortion takes innocent lives? Not paying attention to their book again?
selective editing and revision, the thumper SOP...
They only read the juicy parts.
do you mean all the incestuous family fuck-fests taking place on land and sea?
and the random stoning and wiping out of children for god.
I was going to say all the murder and rape scenes
Don't forget the all around smiting and doom within the retributive blast radius.
Sodom and Gomorrah
I saw a documentary once that claimed that the destruction was caused by a volcanic eruption or something in Central Europe? I have to research that
I already did. I mentioned it in my biblical fallacy article focusing on S&G. Check it out.
Yes! I saw the documentary and then you confirmed it with your article.
Never mind me...old age
SO it wasn't because of doggie & kitty relations?
No worries.
Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria! Lol
So that is what caused Sodom & Gomorrah's downfall - I knew it - had nothing to do with that volcano.
right about now would be a good time for dev's "offensive" video
I had that in mind when I commented.
Oh no! Clutching my pearls!
PEARL necklace time.
I know, right?
don't tempt me. you guys are such a bad influence.
Go ahead dev. You know you want to. Consider yourself tempted.
a collection of xtian family values...
dedicated to... well, you know who...
If there is really a Judgement Day and God does not approve of abortion, then let it be dealt with then.
Preachers have told me "God has a plan for you", if that is so then abortion is part of the Lord's plan
If you only make omelets then you'll run out of chickens. And there won't be any more omelets. Does the species have a right to survive?
Abortion is going the way of coal. The demand for abortion is in decline. Is the argument really about access - or - is the argument about trying to save something that market forces is making obsolete?
The abortion argument is really about money. As the demand for abortion declines then the cost of abortion increases. The cost of maintaining specialized clinics and services must be paid by fewer clients. The politics of abortion is really about the public subsidizing a service that is experiencing a shrinking clientele.
The economics of abortion isn't any different than the economics of coal. The political debate isn't about rights, it's really about public money.
Of abortion rates are declining, then that means more women are choosing to not have an abortion. But the important thing is they have that choice to begin with. But the debate is about women's rights. Money might factor in their decision, but that's irrelevant. Economically speaking, abortions cost less than pregnancy and child care.
A woman may have a right to choose abortion. But the woman's right to choose is in conflict with the providers right to make a profit. Which rights are being protected here?
The argument isn't about access to abortion. The argument is about access to affordable abortion. Abortion is an elective medical procedure. Should the public subsidize the profits for other elective medical procedures?
What makes you think that they don't already do so?
No, it isn't. When the Christofascist Right get their way there will be no kinds of legal abortion period. Affordability is just your way of deflecting from the topic.
Since when is profit a right? The right to choose is what matters. Elective abortions are generally paid for out of pocket. Is there some point to your line of dialog? Are you planning on addressing the actual article itself?
My point is that the article is a smoke screen.
Women already have rights. But the enumeration of those rights deliberately diverts attention away from the rights of the unborn and the rights of society. That's a bait-and-switch tactic, too.
Does a doctor have the right to perform an elective abortion? That's really what Roe v. Wade was about. Does a doctor performing elective abortions have a right to make a profit from abortion? Does a doctor have a right to receive income from performing elective abortions?
How does elective abortion affect society? Does society have a right to regulate the commercial activity of elective abortion? Does society have the right to impose regulations that protects the health and life of the unborn? How is imposing regulations on manufacturers to protect the health and life of the unborn reconciled with a woman's right to choose to deliberately end that unborn life? Why should society bear the burden of protecting the health and life of the unborn while the pregnant woman can completely ignore those societal burdens?
You're missing the point! Yes, women have rights. The issue is there are those wanting to remove those rights and trying to use the courts to do so. The article expresses why maintaing those rights are important. The unborn do not have rights. And what "rights of society" are you referring? Abortion rights does not affect anyone else's rights. Neither does anyone else or society in general get to remove established rights. A woman need not justify or explain her choice to have an abortion to you or society itself!
Roe was about women having the right to an abortion if they choose. Doctors are hired to perform an abortion according to their practice. Legal abortions have been performed for nearly 50 years and society is still plugging along as always. But we can see what effects prohibiting abortions can have on society.
There will still be a need for both coal and abortions
Should the public treasury subsidize both coal and abortions? Notice that the claimed woman's right is access to affordable abortions. That's an argument about money and subsidies.
As demand for abortions declines then abortions will become less affordable. Public subsidies for coal and abortions won't give money to people who need coal or abortions. The subsidies are about stuffing the pockets of those producing coal and providing abortions.
Isn't there a conflict between a woman's right to choose and business operator's right to make a profit? Which right is public going to subsidize?
No, I haven't and the reason for that is that isn't the 'claimed right'.
Neither Roe or Casey had a fucking thing to do with 'affordability'.
Utter fail Nerm.
I will always need coal for Xmas stockings
What if I boil them? What if I scramble them? What if i make quiche with them? What if I make Caesar Salad dressing with them? What if I make Adam and Eve on a raft with them? What if I use them as an excuse to ask a lot of silly questions like what if Humpty Dumpty did not fall? You and your devilled eggspectations crack me up.
It would seem thus far the pro-lifers/anti-choicers cannot come up with a rational argument to support why abortions should not be allowed or otherwise significantly restricted, much less refute the points in the article.
They are too busy telling us how badly Christians are treated on NT and supporting gun toting x-mas cards. If we keep talking they will get here with all their worn out arguments.
Ah yes, the complaint and paranoia of the so called "war on Xmas."
Oldie but goody.
UNICEF: Too Many Children Dying of Malnutrition | UNICEF USA
Yes. But we must make sure we force women to bring even more children into the world. >sarc<
Texas spends 26 B on family services including the $$ they Glady (quietly) take from the Feds.
One would think education and if necessary quick chemical abortions could reduce that amount by half or more
over time instead of orphanages and foster homes
but you know,
human life is better than all other forms of life, /s
As long as reckless procreation is allowed with little or no consequence to the men involved
but it changes the life of the woman of possible children for the worse
we have a constitutional inequity in protecting life liberty and happiness of the mother.
Abortion is cheap compared to the cost of raising kids.
Some seemed so concerned about "rights" when it comes to the unborn. Yet, they completely ignore a woman's rights and autonomy in such matters. Such a position is completely hypocritical.