Abortion amendment?

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

But while we’re on the subject, treat it like the left does, abortions are only for the militia, abortions can only be done like they were done in 1781, mandatory waiting periods (I like 9 months) and a complete ban on assault abortions.

What’s an assault abortion? I dunno, the same answer as “what’s an assault weapon?” Whatever the fuck I say it means.

 

[Care4all]

Correct. they make no distinction.
And so, in their argument the pre/post viability position of the restriction doesn't matter; post-viability restrictions on abortion, like pre-vaibility restrictions, force a woman to carry a baby to term.
Thus, the pro-choice crowd will argue that "post viability" restrictions ARE infringements on the right to an abortion.

The woman has all the time needed, with the two trimesters Roe gave them, to have an abortion and MOST,.... A SUPER MAJORITY, (almost 90%) have their abortions the first trimester, before 13weeks.

After the point of viability, (even a little before such) two viable humans are involved in the equation, not just one....any woman after 26 weeks by choice only, wanting an abortion imho, needs a psychiatric evaluation, cuz that is just bonkers to me....

 

[M14 Shooter]

The woman has all the time needed, with the two trimesters Roe gave them, to have an abortion and MOST,.... A SUPER MAJORITY, (almost 90%) have their abortions the first trimester, before 13weeks.

Fact remains: Many on the pro-abortion side see post-viabilty restrictions forcing a woman to carry to term.
Thus, they would see them as infringements and not accept them as constitutional.

 

[Anathema]

Ok. Thanks

You’re welcome, and you’re the newest member of my Ignore List.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You’re welcome, and you’re the newest member of my Ignore List.

OMG. No. Not that.

 

[Donald H]

The woman has all the time needed, with the two trimesters Roe gave them, to have an abortion and MOST,.... A SUPER MAJORITY, (almost 90%) have their abortions the first trimester, before 13weeks.

After the point of viability, (even a little before such) two viable humans are involved in the equation, not just one....any woman after 26 weeks by choice only, wanting an abortion imho, needs a psychiatric evaluation, cuz that is just bonkers to me....

You're trying to take the discussion to a higher level but how can all the exceptions to a rule ever be covered in a conversation on this board?

I think you would fit in with Canada's approach to abortion. Briefly, we understand there will always be a need but we try to apply social remedies to eliminating most of the need.

We don't accept back alley knitting needles as the answer.

The OP, as is obvious, has no intention to discuss the issue of abortion, and much less doesn't care.

I hope you have the time and patience to prove he doesn't care?

 

[Care4all]

But while we’re on the subject, treat it like the left does, abortions are only for the militia, abortions can only be done like they were done in 1781, mandatory waiting periods (I like 9 months) and a complete ban on assault abortions.

In the 1780s, it was none of the government's business from what I've read on it, and women took homemade abortion cocktails of over the counter medicines to terminate their pregnancies....these were not young girls, but women who were getting pregnant for their 7th, or 8th or 9th or tenth time or married women, in fear of dying with so many kids still at home who needed a mother for their caring.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

In the 1780s, it was none of the government's business from what I've read on it

We no longer have the excuse of ignorantly thinking that life begins at quickening.

Cell theory and microscopy and knowledge of embryology has done with away with that barbaric thinking.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP, as is obvious, has no intention to discuss the issue of abortion, and much less doesn't care.

You still haven't figured out the purpose of the question I asked eh?
No matter - you said you believe -every- restriction on the exercise of a right is an infringement.

 

[LibertyKid]

You're trying to take the discussion to a higher level but how can all the exceptions to a rule ever be covered in a conversation on this board?

I think you would fit in with Canada's approach to abortion. Briefly, we understand there will always be a need but we try to apply social remedies to eliminating most of the need.

We don't accept back alley knitting needles as the answer.

The OP, as is obvious, has no intention to discuss the issue of abortion, and much less doesn't care.

Your proposition is about as middle ground as they come and is reasonable. The problem in the U.S. is the narratives espoused by both sides of the coin.
Some spout that Republicans don't care about women's bodies and would force a raped 12 year old carry the baby. First, it's illogical to group every republican into that camp just as it is illogical to put every democrat into the same camp as someone who would rip apart a baby at 8 months. There are those that probably would advocate for both on both sides, but those people are the extreme and represent a very small percentage. But the narrative that is presented are those extremes.

However there is a middle ground, where emotions are put in check and logical discourse happen.
Here are my middle ground points:

Pregnancy should never be portrayed as a disease or virus that a woman didn't plan on having and is in need of a cure. That is how I see someone women portray abortions.
Other than the young and innocent, we all know how a woman can become pregnant. The consequence of sex can be pregnancy.
When consensual intercourse takes place (assuming both parties are of sound mature minds), both male and female fully understand the potential result.
Both parties prior to consensual sex have choices they can make prior to sex or during sex that can avoid almost fully, the chance of pregrnancy.
Those choices are NOT the ones that we hear from the media or politicians.
Make the choice, if no protection isn't present, to not have sex
Engage in other forms of sexual pleasure; oral, anal, handjobs, I don't care. There are plenty of ways to get off without stickin' it in.
And maybe, make the choice to not have sex, if you aren't mature enough to take precautions.
Abortion should be the Last choice in this matter.
For rape, the life of the mother, and if the parents choose because of sever birth defects, I can see justification.

Abortion as a form of birth control for irresponsible adults should be minimized. I don't know how this is accomplished, but we have to do better.

As humans, we can do better.
We can be better than our animal instincts
Oh, and men, you are JUST AS CULPABLE as women, and in some cases, probably more so through coersion and sexual/emotional manipulation. Men should be just as accountable for abortions and help pay the costs.
We can value the importance of human reproduction more than one's WAP or getting our rocks off (and trust me, I like getting my rocks off. I'm not some stodgy old man, but I've known how to not get a woman pregnant and so has my wife).
We have valued our own sexual desires more than the miracle of life.

 

[Donald H]

Your proposition is about as middle ground as they come and is reasonable. The problem in the U.S. is the narratives espoused by both sides of the coin.
Some spout that Republicans don't care about women's bodies and would force a raped 12 year old carry the baby. First, it's illogical to group every republican into that camp just as it is illogical to put every democrat into the same camp as someone who would rip apart a baby at 8 months. There are those that probably would advocate for both on both sides, but those people are the extreme and represent a very small percentage. But the narrative that is presented are those extremes.

However there is a middle ground, where emotions are put in check and logical discourse happen.
Here are my middle ground points:

Pregnancy should never be portrayed as a disease or virus that a woman didn't plan on having and is in need of a cure. That is how I see someone women portray abortions.
Other than the young and innocent, we all know how a woman can become pregnant. The consequence of sex can be pregnancy.
When consensual intercourse takes place (assuming both parties are of sound mature minds), both male and female fully understand the potential result.
Both parties prior to consensual sex have choices they can make prior to sex or during sex that can avoid almost fully, the chance of pregrnancy.

Not Catholics.

Those choices are NOT the ones that we hear from the media or politicians.
Make the choice, if no protection isn't present, to not have sex
Engage in other forms of sexual pleasure; oral, anal, handjobs, I don't care. There are plenty of ways to get off without stickin' it in.
And maybe, make the choice to not have sex, if you aren't mature enough to take precautions.
Abortion should be the Last choice in this matter.
For rape, the life of the mother, and if the parents choose because of sever birth defects, I can see justification.

Abortion as a form of birth control for irresponsible adults should be minimized. I don't know how this is accomplished, but we have to do better.

As humans, we can do better.
We can be better than our animal instincts
Oh, and men, you are JUST AS CULPABLE as women, and in some cases, probably more so through coersion and sexual/emotional manipulation. Men should be just as accountable for abortions and help pay the costs.
We can value the importance of human reproduction more than one's WAP or getting our rocks off (and trust me, I like getting my rocks off. I'm not some stodgy old man, but I've known how to not get a woman pregnant and so has my wife).
We have valued our own sexual desires more than the miracle of life.

You're introducing dozens of sub-topics and questions that few have any interest in discussing here. And I can't unless you want to break it down to one question at a time. My brief answer above is one such attempt and is not meant as mockery. That's the sub-topic I've chosen to explore further with you if you are interested.

I think that maybe you too haven't understood what I've said. I meant that the scattergun approach isn't going to answer any questions. And of course, the OP isn't interested anyway.

So let's us begin! Couples want to fk and Catholics can't for reasons they have enforced on themselves. The abortions that they submit to, are begging for a solution to eliminate the need.

Be forewarned that all the questions being answered satisfactorily is going to take weeks, if not months!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're introducing dozens of sub-topics and questions that few have any interest in discussing here.

And you're also off-topic
And you have already said you said you believe -every- restriction on the exercise of a right is an infringement.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That's great...an amendment allowing baby murder

 

[Independent thinker]

A question came up in another topic...

What restrictions on abortion would you allow as constitutional if there were an amendment that read "The right of a woman to have an abortion shall not be infringed"?

Please explain you answer.

The left are just fine with a woman's right to choose to end the life of a nine month old fetus that has not been born yet.

 

[Donald H]

The left are just fine with a woman's right to choose to end the life of a nine month old fetus that has not been born yet.

Stop the spamming, he's trying to feign caring now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The left are just fine with a woman's right to choose to end the life of a nine month old fetus that has not been born yet.

Well of course they are - that's why I asked about what they would regard as an infringement.

Donnie said -any- restriction on a right is an infringment.

 

[Independent thinker]

Stop the spamming, he's trying to feign caring now.

So, you're saying that you don't believe in a woman's right to choose to abort a nine month old fetus? What happened to a woman's right to choose?

 

[Dragonlady]

Much like how Roe and Casey read....

The woman has the right to privacy until a certain point in pregnancy, when the states can have an interest in her pregnancy and a viable or near viable foetus.... That time period has shortened with modern medicine, and fetuses are able to survive at a younger stage.

In yesteryear, that legal time was with quickening, under common law..... When the baby to be, begins to kick, and the woman begins to show in her belly, that she is pregnant....about 4 months.

I wish no woman would choose to abort unless necessary, but I also do not believe the government has a right to invade the female's privacy, to even know she was pregnant early on, and that before a certain stage of fetus development, the woman should have full autonomy of her own body and medical decisions without the government interference. I've had 50 years of believing that, this was the law and a constitutional protection against being ruled like property, by mostly men.

There is so much that could be done to help poor families to have more children. Just universal health care would be a start. Mandated maternity leaves for parents - like every other first world country except the USA. A child tax benefit of $500 per child.

Canada has half the abortion rate than the USA and we have free abortions and no abortion laws at all. Added to which we're less religious than Americans and we still aren't terminating our pregnancies like Americans do. But we have all of the above, and more.

American laws limiting/banning abortion, are punishing women for having sex. They're showing women who's boss.

Every time the richest nation in the world says it can't afford the best schools in poor neighbourhoods, or universal health care, or a national child tax benefit, I'm reminded that you have the largest, best equipped army in the world, but their families need food stamps to eat. You can afford to fly to the moon, or spend $250 million to buy one fighter jet, but your life expectancy is declining.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

There is so much that could be done to help poor families to have more children.

That’s their business, and if they’re poor, maybe don’t have more kids than you can afford, but of course that means don’t make more kids, not kill your kids which is what you pro-aborts want.

Just universal health care would be a start.

More like an end.

Mandated maternity leaves for parents - like every other first world country except the USA.

None of your business what businesses want to offer and what prospective employees would accept. “First world” must translate to authoritarian trash.

Canada has half the abortion rate than the USA and we have free abortions and no abortion laws at all.

Canada is a barbaric hellscape, a shithole beyond saving.

American laws limiting/banning abortion, are punishing women for having sex.

Stupid. Profoundly stupid. Insane,

Punishing those who choose to kill other humans is not punishing anyone for having sex.

 

[Dragonlady]

That’s their business, and if they’re poor, maybe don’t have more kids than you can afford, but of course that means don’t make more kids, not kill your kids which is what you pro-aborts want.


More like an end.


None of your business what businesses want to offer and what prospective employees would accept. “First world” must translate to authoritarian trash.


Canada is a barbaric hellscape, a shithole beyond saving.


Stupid. Profoundly stupid. Insane,

Punishing those who choose to kill other humans is not punishing anyone for having sex.

You can't tell people to not have children they can't afford, and then refuse them the ability to terminate a pregnancy they can't afford. All while refusing them universal access to birth control or reproductive health care.

This is why no one takes you seriously on the subject of abortion.