Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[thereisnospoon]

In Canada abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. For women who are underage, the choice is hers and there is no parental consent involved.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. The fact that you think a woman's choice ends when she has sex shows that your real agenda is to enforce chastity.

Half the women who have abortions are married with one or more children. Are you seriously suggesting married women abstain from sex with their husbands unless it's for procreation? You knows that's grounds for divorce in some jurisdictions.

An ill conceived argument.
FAIL

Answer her question - if a married woman and her husband don't want a baby, do you expect her to abstain from sex, because using birth control could fail, and if she falls pregnant, she will have an abortion.

Should she just stop having sex with her husband?

No, you ignorant cow. They should as responsible people do and practice birth control.
Jesus Christ!..... You are dense.
That is why the OP's argument is nonsense.

 

[Noomi]

An ill conceived argument.
FAIL

Answer her question - if a married woman and her husband don't want a baby, do you expect her to abstain from sex, because using birth control could fail, and if she falls pregnant, she will have an abortion.

Should she just stop having sex with her husband?

No, you ignorant cow. They should as responsible people do and practice birth control.
Jesus Christ!..... You are dense.
That is why the OP's argument is nonsense.

And if birth control fails?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not the point. That fetus is inside the woman's body, and she has the authority to dispose of it if she wishes.

Roe does not state that. And that was not the intention of the decision.
States may not have the right to ban abortion, but the states have the right to restrict it as they see fit.
The SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade was incorrect. Eventually this ruling will be overturned.

How can Roe be incorrect. There are no personhood rights for fetuses in the Constitution, explicit or implicit.

To find rights for fetuses would be legislating from the Bench, writing new law.

Roe does not discuss such alleged rights.
Roe was a privacy case. In Roe the SCOTUS ruled there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution.
Many legal analysts and scholars disagree.

 

[JoeB131]

You're also right that birth control is not 100% safe. If you absolutely don't want/aren't ready for kids, then wait until you have sex.

Are you seriously suggesting married people shouldn't have sex unless they want to have babies? You do know that in some jurisdictions, your husband can divorce you if you refuse to have sex with him.

Are you aware that nearly half of all abortions performed are on married women with one or more children?

It's not enough that you right wingers don't want single people having sex, now you don't want married people having sex either?

I guess if they aren't enjoying themselves, why should anyone else?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Answer her question - if a married woman and her husband don't want a baby, do you expect her to abstain from sex, because using birth control could fail, and if she falls pregnant, she will have an abortion.

Should she just stop having sex with her husband?

No, you ignorant cow. They should as responsible people do and practice birth control.
Jesus Christ!..... You are dense.
That is why the OP's argument is nonsense.

And if birth control fails?

Sister, if we had to live in your world of "what if" and "but what about", we'd all be living in plastic bubbles. Our only human interactions would be with plaintiff's attorneys.
Abortion should not be for birth control. Period.
That WILL be the law here sooner or later.
North Dakota ha already passed a law that states a fetus is not eligible for abortion if a heart beat can be detected.
Having not read the entire text of the law, no doubt there are contingencies for health of the mother and viability of the child and of course rape.
Again, you have no standing here. It's none of your business. Worry about Australia.

 

[mamooth]

Abortion should not be for birth control. Period.

Because you say so?

Why should anyone care what control freaks think? A woman does not belong to you, your church or your authoritarian dream state. Deal with it.

And why do you, by your standards, support murdering "children" conceived by rape? Since you think embryos are like born children, doesn't that mean you'd also support murdering a two-year-old conceived by rape?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not the point. That fetus is inside the woman's body, and she has the authority to dispose of it if she wishes.

Roe does not state that. And that was not the intention of the decision.
States may not have the right to ban abortion, but the states have the right to restrict it as they see fit.
The SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade was incorrect. Eventually this ruling will be overturned.

How can Roe be incorrect. There are no personhood rights for fetuses in the Constitution, explicit or implicit.

To find rights for fetuses would be legislating from the Bench, writing new law.

Roe is not ‘incorrect’ because Griswold wasn’t; and Casey reaffirmed both with regard to the right to privacy.

Although Casey replaced the first trimester restriction with that of undue burden, the right to privacy remains intact in the context of substantive due process, and the states may not indeed ban abortion, such a measure would clearly manifest an undue burden, and be invalidated as un-Constitutional.

Moreover, Griswold/Roe/Casey won’t be overturned because all the lower courts are in agreement that privacy rights case law is accepted and settled in all jurisdictions:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a proposed “fetal personhood” initiative in Oklahoma without comment, upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling.

The ballot initiative sought to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by granting fertilized eggs and embryos the same constitutional rights as people. If ratified by voters, the amendment would have completely outlawed abortion under any circumstances.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ballot initiative violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the right to have an abortion.

Supreme Court rejects appeal in ?fetal personhood? case | The Raw Story

 

[JoeB131]

Sister, if we had to live in your world of "what if" and "but what about", we'd all be living in plastic bubbles. Our only human interactions would be with plaintiff's attorneys.
Abortion should not be for birth control. Period.
That WILL be the law here sooner or later.
North Dakota ha already passed a law that states a fetus is not eligible for abortion if a heart beat can be detected.
Having not read the entire text of the law, no doubt there are contingencies for health of the mother and viability of the child and of course rape.
Again, you have no standing here. It's none of your business. Worry about Australia.

Not sure where you get the idea that outside of North Dakota, they are going to expand abortion rrestrictions...

Sooner or later, the Anti-Choice Crowd will be abandoned by even the Republican Party. In fact, they are already testing the waters to throw you under the bus.

 

[Dragonlady]

We as human beings do not get to simply act on every urge then expect others to bear the burden of a poor choice.

This is the largest argument FOR abortion there is. If you cannot afford do have a baby, don't have a baby. Don't leave it for others to raise because God knows conservatives are NOT going to give you ANYTHING to help you raise that child - no prenatal, postnatal care, no daycare - nothing.

As for the ridiculous choice for married couples of not risking pregnancy by having sex for fear that the woman might have an abortion. What kind of way is that for a couple to live? Why bother getting married at all if you're not ready for a family.

At no time in human history has a fetus been considered a human - not in the Bible, not ANYWHERE, until the anti-abortion crowd tried to come up with some reason, ANY REASON at all to stop women from having sex.

Roe v. Wade has no hope of being overturned. That ship has sailed. There have been a number of cases come before the current conservative court and all have upheld Roe v. Wade. Justices Scalia, Gingsberg and Kennedy are all in their late 70's. Scalia and Kennedy are both Reagan appointees. By the end of his term, Obama will have a solid liberal majority on the bench - just of his own appointees. It will be a generation before the Court has a conservative bias again, even if the Republicans somehow manage to win the Oval Office in 2016.

And if the current conservative majority court hasn't struck down Roe v. Wade, what makes you think a court appointed by Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama would.

 

[Dragonlady]

We as human beings do not get to simply act on every urge then expect others to bear the burden of a poor choice.

This is the largest argument FOR abortion there is. If you cannot afford do have a baby, don't have a baby. Don't leave it for others to raise because God knows conservatives are NOT going to give you ANYTHING to help you raise that child - no prenatal, postnatal care, no daycare - nothing.

As for the ridiculous choice for married couples of not risking pregnancy by having sex for fear that the woman might have an abortion. What kind of way is that for a couple to live? Why bother getting married at all if you're not ready for a family.

At no time in human history has a fetus been considered a human - not in the Bible, not ANYWHERE, until the anti-abortion crowd tried to come up with some reason, ANY REASON at all to stop women from having sex.

Roe v. Wade has no hope of being overturned. That ship has sailed. There have been a number of cases come before the current conservative court and all have upheld Roe v. Wade. Justices Scalia, Gingsberg and Kennedy are all in their late 70's. Scalia and Kennedy are both Reagan appointees. By the end of his term, Obama will have a solid liberal majority on the bench - just of his own appointees. It will be a generation before the Court has a conservative bias again, even if the Republicans somehow manage to win the Oval Office in 2016.

And if the current conservative majority court hasn't struck down Roe v. Wade, what makes you think a court appointed by Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama would?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Roe does not state that. And that was not the intention of the decision.
States may not have the right to ban abortion, but the states have the right to restrict it as they see fit.
The SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade was incorrect. Eventually this ruling will be overturned.

How can Roe be incorrect. There are no personhood rights for fetuses in the Constitution, explicit or implicit.

To find rights for fetuses would be legislating from the Bench, writing new law.

Roe does not discuss such alleged rights.
Roe was a privacy case. In Roe the SCOTUS ruled there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution.
Many legal analysts and scholars disagree.

Actually that was Griswold, Roe acknowledged the right to privacy with regard to abortion.

And there are legal analysts and scholars who disagree with every one of the Court’s rulings.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That would be true if there were a 'right to privacy', but such a right does not exist.

What a scary fascist view that is.

Of course, like all conservatives, I'm pretty sure this guy will now rave that Obama's drones are spying on us. Consistency is not the strong point of that crowd.

A fetus is a life. Where there is life, there is a human being.

That's absurd, and contrary to common sense. I mean, sperm and eggs are alive as well.

Specks aren't people. Speck. Person. Speck. Person. Different things. One of these things is not like the other. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she understands that. She looks at a speck, and doesn't think it's a person. She looks at an infant, and does know it's a person.

Presumably pro-lifers have larger brains than my cat, so it's a mystery as to why they can't grasp such a simple concept.

First. Several states even NY have laws that if in the case of the murder of a pregnant woman, the defendant can be charged with TWO murders.
On privacy..If you are so sure that privacy is absolute, by all means, find it in the US Constitution. You can skip the 4th Amendment argument. It doesn't apply.
Now, that is not to say certain things are not private. They most certainly are. For example. To a certain extent ,medical records are private. Juvenile criminal records get some protections. There is the NY "Press shield" law in which a reporter is protected from government sanctions. There is in many states the "Spousal Privilege" law which bars the courts from compelling one spouse from testifying for the People against their spouse.
I will stress that none of these are absolute. There are times when the People may subpoena information in each example and be grated access should the interest in getting to the truth exceed the need for privacy.
Why is it you felt the need to insult those who do not hold the same viewpoint as yourself?

 

[thereisnospoon]

How can Roe be incorrect. There are no personhood rights for fetuses in the Constitution, explicit or implicit.

To find rights for fetuses would be legislating from the Bench, writing new law.

Roe does not discuss such alleged rights.
Roe was a privacy case. In Roe the SCOTUS ruled there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution.
Many legal analysts and scholars disagree.

Actually that was Griswold, Roe acknowledged the right to privacy with regard to abortion.

And there are legal analysts and scholars who disagree with every one of the Court’s rulings.

Correct. That is precisely why this debate rages onward.
For the record, I think an absolute ban on abortion would be absurd. The main stream has no intention on making it illegal.
I think the important issue here is the question should be returned to the authority of the states. That is where it belongs.
"Griswold"?....Full case name please?

 

[mamooth]

First. Several states even NY have laws that if in the case of the murder of a pregnant woman, the defendant can be charged with TWO murders.

That's nice. And totally irrelevant to the issue.

On privacy..If you are so sure that privacy is absolute, by all means, find it in the US Constitution. You can skip the 4th Amendment argument. It doesn't apply.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Why is it you felt the need to insult those who do not hold the same viewpoint as yourself?

From one of your recent posts ...

No, you ignorant cow. They should as responsible people do and practice birth control.
Jesus Christ!..... You are dense.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Abortion should not be for birth control. Period.

Because you say so?

Why should anyone care what control freaks think? A woman does not belong to you, your church or your authoritarian dream state. Deal with it.

And why do you, by your standards, support murdering "children" conceived by rape? Since you think embryos are like born children, doesn't that mean you'd also support murdering a two-year-old conceived by rape?

Your reply is emotional and irrational.
Whether you like it or not the definition of "life" is changing and changing rapidly.
The new law in North Dakota is an example.
Who said anything about "owning a woman"?
I do not attend church.
"Authoritarian dream state"?..What the fuck are you blabbering about?
I get it. It's part of the liberal narrative on this debate. Anyone in dissent of Roe or an absolute right to abortion on demand is some sort of religious wacko...
Guess what cupcake? That shit isn't going to fly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Roe does not state that. And that was not the intention of the decision.
States may not have the right to ban abortion, but the states have the right to restrict it as they see fit.
The SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade was incorrect. Eventually this ruling will be overturned.

How can Roe be incorrect. There are no personhood rights for fetuses in the Constitution, explicit or implicit.

To find rights for fetuses would be legislating from the Bench, writing new law.

Roe does not discuss such alleged rights.
Roe was a privacy case. In Roe the SCOTUS ruled there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution.
Many legal analysts and scholars disagree.

It's obvious you've never even read Roe v Wade.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Great. So you want to punish the woman for getting pregnant by forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.
Not to mention your rotten views on rape.

GTFO of a woman's body. Abortion is HER decision, not yours.

And no sweetie, I don't want to punish women. I don't want to punish anyone.

Pregnancy is their decision; not mine.

You however seem to want to punish an innocent fetus for something they have nothing to do with.

A fetus is not innocent. It is nothing.

You want to punish women for having sex. You hate women and wish to control them. You are a sick freak.

You are the sick one. You are so wrong in thinking that women are the only ones who control this issue. You want to punish the men who have every intention of raising that child you want to abort. Since when is it all your choice? Without the man, without his sperm, your right to choose would be NOTHING. You are but one half of that child's life, not all of it. So how is it entirely your decision?

Women alone should not be allowed to determine the fate of a child. Hey if she was raped or was the victim of incest perhaps, but otherwise what you are suggesting is infanticide, murder for convenience. If you don't want the child, make sure your man wears his rubbers before you open your legs. But this child should not be held to pay for YOUR irresponsibility, and the man should not have to sit on the sidelines while you proceed to kill his son/daughter.

The self centered attitude women have about this issue is sad.

 

[mamooth]

Whether you like it or not the definition of "life" is changing and changing rapidly.

Is it that you plan to define non-living things as alive, or live things as non-living? Either way, you seem very confused. It's either alive or it's not.

"Authoritarian dream state"?..What the fuck are you blabbering about?

The authoritarian dream state that you want to regulate women's bodies. Just how are you going to force pregnancy on them without that authoritarian dream state of yours?

For example, see Romania under Csiezcshwhatever. He had laws similar to what North Dakota proposes. That's your authoritarian dream state.

I get it. It's part of the liberal narrative on this debate. Anyone in dissent of Roe or an absolute right to abortion on demand is some sort of religious wacko...
Guess what cupcake? That shit isn't going to fly.

Now that you're done raging, let's get back to the issue you worked so hard to run from.

By your standards, you support murdering "children" conceived by rape. Since you think embryos are exactly like born children, do you also support allowing the murder a two-year-old conceived by rape?

If your answer is "no", doesn't that indicate you're lying when you claim to believe that abortion is murder, or that an embryo is just as valuable as a born child?

 

[mamooth]

You want to punish the men who have every intention of raising that child you want to abort.

Women are not your brood mares. Get over it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You want to punish the men who have every intention of raising that child you want to abort.

Women are not your brood mares. Get over it.

Men are not objects, nor are women. We don't live in the mythical land of Amazons, men have a say in this too. It's high time you learned that. You cannot discriminate based on gender.

This isn't a women's only issue. It took two to make that baby, not just you.