Just a clump of cells

[PaintMyHouse]

Maternal deaths in childbirth rise in the U.S. - The Washington Post

CDC - Contraception - Reproductive Health

 

[sealybobo]

I still think of my three miscarried brothers. Wonder what they would have been like had they survived. Wonder how we would get along now, and if they could have helped me prevent us from losing my living one. This understanding that they were living human beings and what I missed out with them is part of what informs my pro-life beliefs. Every pro-choicer I've explained this to has sneered in contempt and mocked this. I don't expect the crowd here to be any different. I only say it at all to explain my reasoning. OP, you can't reason these people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You can't make them accept something that is going to bring them scorn from their ideological comrades. They're not going to accept something like that. They're going to take the position that they do because it wins them acceptance and admiration from their peers. This thread is utterly pointless.

We understand everything you're saying still abortion should remain legal.

Nobody said anything about making it illegal. Wanton abortion perhaps, but nobody is so merciless that you would deny a woman the right to abort in a dire circumstance. Preserve the life of the mother so she will be able to reproduce again.

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Disagree

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I still think of my three miscarried brothers. Wonder what they would have been like had they survived. Wonder how we would get along now, and if they could have helped me prevent us from losing my living one. This understanding that they were living human beings and what I missed out with them is part of what informs my pro-life beliefs. Every pro-choicer I've explained this to has sneered in contempt and mocked this. I don't expect the crowd here to be any different. I only say it at all to explain my reasoning. OP, you can't reason these people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You can't make them accept something that is going to bring them scorn from their ideological comrades. They're not going to accept something like that. They're going to take the position that they do because it wins them acceptance and admiration from their peers. This thread is utterly pointless.

We understand everything you're saying still abortion should remain legal.

Nobody said anything about making it illegal. Wanton abortion perhaps, but nobody is so merciless that you would deny a woman the right to abort in a dire circumstance. Preserve the life of the mother so she will be able to reproduce again.

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Disagree

As all rational people do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I still think of my three miscarried brothers. Wonder what they would have been like had they survived. Wonder how we would get along now, and if they could have helped me prevent us from losing my living one. This understanding that they were living human beings and what I missed out with them is part of what informs my pro-life beliefs. Every pro-choicer I've explained this to has sneered in contempt and mocked this. I don't expect the crowd here to be any different. I only say it at all to explain my reasoning. OP, you can't reason these people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You can't make them accept something that is going to bring them scorn from their ideological comrades. They're not going to accept something like that. They're going to take the position that they do because it wins them acceptance and admiration from their peers. This thread is utterly pointless.

We understand everything you're saying still abortion should remain legal.

Nobody said anything about making it illegal. Wanton abortion perhaps, but nobody is so merciless that you would deny a woman the right to abort in a dire circumstance. Preserve the life of the mother so she will be able to reproduce again.

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Disagree

In what way?

 

[sealybobo]

I know many women who have had abortions. They were not sluts. They didn't get pregnant as a result of casual sex. Most were married at the time they had the abortion.

One was married to a man who abused her. She had two babies in two years. He was drinking a lot and became abusive when he drank. He had punched her in the stomach late in her second pregnancy. She made a plan to take her daughters and leave him but that was when she discovered she was pregnant again. There were no easy options for her but for her safety and that of her daughters, she chose to have an abortion and carry out her plan.



Women don't casually discard their pregnancies. Most agonize over the decision. Only one woman I know has had more than one abortion. All have regrets but believe they did the right thing.

Having a child is a lifetime commitment. You will always be your child's mother. Men walk away from their children all of the time. The marriage ends, they remarry and make a new family, with no consideration for the children from their prior relationships. The instances of women acting similarly are much fewer and usually drugs or other addictions are involved.

Yet the right wingers in this thread have the arrogance to suggest that they know what is best for these women even though they don't have to live with the consequences of forcing the women to bear these children.

No one had the right to tell a woman she must have s child. No one. This decision is hers and hers alone. You aren't qualified to preach your beliefs to her.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one. That's my belief and one I have lived by. My body, my choice. When I had an unplanned pregnancy, as my first marriage was crumbling, I chose to have my baby and I've never regretted my choice. But I've never had a pregnancy where there were genetic problems or my health was endangered. Or when I couldn't afford to raise the child, so in that sense I haven't had to make a difficult choice.

But I don't condemn those who made a different decision. I've gone with friends to the hospital and supported their choice to end their pregnancies and I've respected their decisions knowing how carefully they considered it.

The conservatives here talk like it's no big deal to have a baby. It's a huge deal and people should not make the decision lightly. Having a baby changes your life forever. In every way. It requires commitment and if you're not fully committed to this baby, you shouldn't have it.

Well said.

 

[sealybobo]

We understand everything you're saying still abortion should remain legal.

Nobody said anything about making it illegal. Wanton abortion perhaps, but nobody is so merciless that you would deny a woman the right to abort in a dire circumstance. Preserve the life of the mother so she will be able to reproduce again.

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Disagree

In what way?

Read dragonladys post. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[sealybobo]

We understand everything you're saying still abortion should remain legal.

Nobody said anything about making it illegal. Wanton abortion perhaps, but nobody is so merciless that you would deny a woman the right to abort in a dire circumstance. Preserve the life of the mother so she will be able to reproduce again.

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Disagree

In what way?

Looking forward to your reply to what dragon lady said.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nobody said anything about making it illegal. Wanton abortion perhaps, but nobody is so merciless that you would deny a woman the right to abort in a dire circumstance. Preserve the life of the mother so she will be able to reproduce again.

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Disagree

In what way?

Read dragonladys post. Nothing else needs to be said.

I'm asking you. Don't dodge or evade. You need to have your own opinions, not hide behind someone else's.

 

[sealybobo]

I still think of my three miscarried brothers. Wonder what they would have been like had they survived. Wonder how we would get along now, and if they could have helped me prevent us from losing my living one. This understanding that they were living human beings and what I missed out with them is part of what informs my pro-life beliefs. Every pro-choicer I've explained this to has sneered in contempt and mocked this. I don't expect the crowd here to be any different. I only say it at all to explain my reasoning. OP, you can't reason these people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You can't make them accept something that is going to bring them scorn from their ideological comrades. They're not going to accept something like that. They're going to take the position that they do because it wins them acceptance and admiration from their peers. This thread is utterly pointless.

We understand everything you're saying still abortion should remain legal.

Nobody said anything about making it illegal. Wanton abortion perhaps, but nobody is so merciless that you would deny a woman the right to abort in a dire circumstance. Preserve the life of the mother so she will be able to reproduce again.

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

I feel like I got jack nicholson to admit he ordered the code red.

 

[sealybobo]

What you want to do is make abortion illegal unless the mothers life is at risk?

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Disagree

In what way?

Read dragonladys post. Nothing else needs to be said.

I'm asking you. Don't dodge or evade. You need to have your own opinions, not hide behind someone else's.

Post 240. Read it. I'm not going to repeat it. She nailed it.

 

[FA_Q2]

It doesn't matter if one considers a fetus a clump of cells or a viable human infant as of yet to be birthed.

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body? Abortion will happen either legally and as safely as medical practices can make it, or illegally and unsafely. Do you suggest that we strap women into beds in facilities if they maybe harbor thoughts of abortion? Put women in jail for aborting or attempting to abort? Jailing abortion doctors? It ain't gonna happen. A fertus doesn't have any legal rights and voters even in the most conservative states haven't supported measures to extend rights to the unborn.

The SCOTUS ruled on this issue 41 years ago. The fight is over. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe 's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roedecision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That ignores the fact that Roe allows for controls to limit abortion in later stages.

Clearly it is not always the mothers choice even if the child has not been born yet. The short answer to your question about the things we can do is yes.

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) yet the woman has the option early in her term.

That's not at issue.

No one contests the authority of the state to limit access at later stages; the issue concerns prohibiting the practice altogether.

Then you have not been paying attention because several people in this very thread have done exactly that as well as all over this board.

There are many out there that want to completely open abortion to any point before the child is breathing as there are people that want to make all elective abortion illegal.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Aren't you the guy who said that opposition to abortion was not about controlling women's sexuality? And yet here you are trying to control women's sexuality.

It's a baby. A human being which will require food, shelter, clothing, education, time, attention and love for the next 20 years.

You reveal how little you care about the children when you refer to them as "consequences". Women who have sex should have to bear the consequences.

That statement (and a few others you've made in this thread) shows that you're just another misogynist creep who wants to punish women who have sex.

Forcing them to have babies as a form of punishment is a greater punishment on the children who suffer from being unwanted for all of their lives.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Women don't casually discard their pregnancies. Most agonize over the decision. Only one woman I know has had more than one abortion. All have regrets but believe they did the right thing.

I remember saying something to that effect earlier in this thread, to one sealybobo. The whole thing does wind up scarring them, for a good long time. What you hear them say and how they feel are two different things.

Yet the right wingers in this thread have the arrogance to suggest that they know what is best for these women even though they don't have to live with the consequences of forcing the women to bear these children.

And what makes you think you know what's good for these women? Frankly I see two sides trying to decide what the woman needs. This isn't a damned tug of war. If you truly believe in the good of the woman, leave her the hell alone. Treat the woman as an individual, not as something that belongs to one party or another. That infuriates me more than most things. I happen to believe that casual abortion is murder.

Having a child is a lifetime commitment. You will always be your child's mother. Men walk away from their children all of the time.

Of course, and so do women. This is nothing but a tu quoque assertion, suggesting that men solely are the ones who walk away from their children. But it took two to make the child, and either one is capable of such an act.

But I don't condemn those who made a different decision. I've gone with friends to the hospital and supported their choice to end their pregnancies and I've respected their decisions knowing how carefully they considered it.

What you fail to understand is that some women don't even give it a second thought. It's this whole thing, as I illustrated at the beginning of this thread, that the baby is nothing but a clump of cells, not a life, to do with as the woman chooses.

I don't condemn women who choose to have the child. I condemn the act of causing death for absolutely no reason whatsoever

Forcing her to have a child where her health would be compromised is wrong. If the woman wants to have the child after being raped, that is her choice. Incest the same thing. But casually aborting the child is murderous, despite the fact is disguised as a 'choice.'

No one had the right to tell a woman she must have s child. No one. This decision is hers and hers alone. You aren't qualified to preach your beliefs to her.

Nor are you. So what makes your beliefs so important that you must use them to influence her choice? The fact you are a woman? Your own experiences? One woman is different from another, but the ability to think freely is the same in all of them, until taken hostage. You use your political beliefs to preach to a woman that she has a choice to abort and only to abort, when she so chooses. There is not mention of the fact she can also choose life. Not much of a choice then, now is it? A choice has two options, not just one.

The conservatives here talk like it's no big deal to have a baby.

Oh, it's a very big deal, your stereotypical argument aside. It's also a very big deal when you choose to arbitrarily end the child's life. You liberals seem to think you can usurp science and determine when life is life. Your dogma versus scientific fact. That isn't how life works. Literally.

Having a baby changes your life forever.

And so does killing the baby. Regret is something that doesn't go away completely.

In every way. It requires commitment and if you're not fully committed to this baby, you shouldn't have it.

I agree. She could keep her legs closed. Show some self restraint. Wear a condom. Save her money. Having sex is also a choice she can make as well. If she isn't prepared for the commitment, the whole chain of events either way begins right there, in the bedroom; and thusly this vicious cycle will never be set in motion.

 

[sealybobo]

It doesn't matter if one considers a fetus a clump of cells or a viable human infant as of yet to be birthed.

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body? Abortion will happen either legally and as safely as medical practices can make it, or illegally and unsafely. Do you suggest that we strap women into beds in facilities if they maybe harbor thoughts of abortion? Put women in jail for aborting or attempting to abort? Jailing abortion doctors? It ain't gonna happen. A fertus doesn't have any legal rights and voters even in the most conservative states haven't supported measures to extend rights to the unborn.

The SCOTUS ruled on this issue 41 years ago. The fight is over. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe 's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roedecision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That ignores the fact that Roe allows for controls to limit abortion in later stages.

Clearly it is not always the mothers choice even if the child has not been born yet. The short answer to your question about the things we can do is yes.

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) yet the woman has the option early in her term.

That's not at issue.

No one contests the authority of the state to limit access at later stages; the issue concerns prohibiting the practice altogether.

Then you have not been paying attention because several people in this very thread have done exactly that as well as all over this board.

There are many out there that want to completely open abortion to any point before the child is breathing as there are people that want to make all elective abortion illegal.

If I found out in 8 months I was having a severely retarded baby I'd want a late term abortion. Unless you want to pay for the child the rest of its life be quiet. I'm Greek. Spartan. Back in the day we would have killed the baby at birth.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Aren't you the guy who said that opposition to abortion was not about controlling women's sexuality? And yet here you are trying to control women's sexuality.

It's a baby. A human being which will require food, shelter, clothing, education, time, attention and love for the next 20 years.

You reveal how little you care about the children when you refer to them as "consequences". Women who have sex should have to bear the consequences.

That statement (and a few others you've made in this thread) shows that you're just another misogynist creep who wants to punish women who have sex.

Forcing them to have babies as a form of punishment is a greater punishment on the children who suffer from being unwanted for all of their lives.

You are the one that seems to understand a baby as a punishment. it is a consequence and that is neither positive or negative in and of itself. Money is a consequence of having a job. Promotion is a consequence of working hard. A baby is a consequence of sex. Weather or not a woman has an abortion does not change that fact.

The idea that aborting is 'taking responsibility' is also an asinine concept to the extreme. It is avoiding it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It doesn't matter if one considers a fetus a clump of cells or a viable human infant as of yet to be birthed.

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body? Abortion will happen either legally and as safely as medical practices can make it, or illegally and unsafely. Do you suggest that we strap women into beds in facilities if they maybe harbor thoughts of abortion? Put women in jail for aborting or attempting to abort? Jailing abortion doctors? It ain't gonna happen. A fertus doesn't have any legal rights and voters even in the most conservative states haven't supported measures to extend rights to the unborn.

The SCOTUS ruled on this issue 41 years ago. The fight is over. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe 's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roedecision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That ignores the fact that Roe allows for controls to limit abortion in later stages.

Clearly it is not always the mothers choice even if the child has not been born yet. The short answer to your question about the things we can do is yes.

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) yet the woman has the option early in her term.

That's not at issue.

No one contests the authority of the state to limit access at later stages; the issue concerns prohibiting the practice altogether.

Then you have not been paying attention because several people in this very thread have done exactly that as well as all over this board.

There are many out there that want to completely open abortion to any point before the child is breathing as there are people that want to make all elective abortion illegal.

If I found out in 8 months I was having a severely retarded baby I'd want a late term abortion. Unless you want to pay for the child the rest of its life be quiet. I'm Greek. Spartan. Back in the day we would have killed the baby at birth.

That was the world, when humans weren't so stupid.

 

[FA_Q2]

It doesn't matter if one considers a fetus a clump of cells or a viable human infant as of yet to be birthed.

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body? Abortion will happen either legally and as safely as medical practices can make it, or illegally and unsafely. Do you suggest that we strap women into beds in facilities if they maybe harbor thoughts of abortion? Put women in jail for aborting or attempting to abort? Jailing abortion doctors? It ain't gonna happen. A fertus doesn't have any legal rights and voters even in the most conservative states haven't supported measures to extend rights to the unborn.

The SCOTUS ruled on this issue 41 years ago. The fight is over. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe 's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roedecision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That ignores the fact that Roe allows for controls to limit abortion in later stages.

Clearly it is not always the mothers choice even if the child has not been born yet. The short answer to your question about the things we can do is yes.

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) yet the woman has the option early in her term.

That's not at issue.

No one contests the authority of the state to limit access at later stages; the issue concerns prohibiting the practice altogether.

Then you have not been paying attention because several people in this very thread have done exactly that as well as all over this board.

There are many out there that want to completely open abortion to any point before the child is breathing as there are people that want to make all elective abortion illegal.

If I found out in 8 months I was having a severely retarded baby I'd want a late term abortion. Unless you want to pay for the child the rest of its life be quiet. I'm Greek. Spartan. Back in the day we would have killed the baby at birth.

Case in point.

 

[sealybobo]

If you are fully capable of giving birth with no detriment to your health, with the exception of being raped, the victim of incest, or in dire health, you should be made to have the child. I've held that position for a long time. That woman decided the moment she mounted the horse not to use a condom, so the consequence should be brought to bear.

Aren't you the guy who said that opposition to abortion was not about controlling women's sexuality? And yet here you are trying to control women's sexuality.

It's a baby. A human being which will require food, shelter, clothing, education, time, attention and love for the next 20 years.

You reveal how little you care about the children when you refer to them as "consequences". Women who have sex should have to bear the consequences.

That statement (and a few others you've made in this thread) shows that you're just another misogynist creep who wants to punish women who have sex.

Forcing them to have babies as a form of punishment is a greater punishment on the children who suffer from being unwanted for all of their lives.

Then say single crack head welfare moms should stop having so many kids and then actually cut foodstamp funding further punishing these kids and wonder why violent crime exists. Conservatives make no sense.

 

[sealybobo]

It doesn't matter if one considers a fetus a clump of cells or a viable human infant as of yet to be birthed.

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body? Abortion will happen either legally and as safely as medical practices can make it, or illegally and unsafely. Do you suggest that we strap women into beds in facilities if they maybe harbor thoughts of abortion? Put women in jail for aborting or attempting to abort? Jailing abortion doctors? It ain't gonna happen. A fertus doesn't have any legal rights and voters even in the most conservative states haven't supported measures to extend rights to the unborn.

The SCOTUS ruled on this issue 41 years ago. The fight is over. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That ignores the fact that Roe allows for controls to limit abortion in later stages.

Clearly it is not always the mothers choice even if the child has not been born yet. The short answer to your question about the things we can do is yes.

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) yet the woman has the option early in her term.

That's not at issue.

No one contests the authority of the state to limit access at later stages; the issue concerns prohibiting the practice altogether.

Then you have not been paying attention because several people in this very thread have done exactly that as well as all over this board.

There are many out there that want to completely open abortion to any point before the child is breathing as there are people that want to make all elective abortion illegal.

If I found out in 8 months I was having a severely retarded baby I'd want a late term abortion. Unless you want to pay for the child the rest of its life be quiet. I'm Greek. Spartan. Back in the day we would have killed the baby at birth.

Case in point.

So now you want to force me to a life of raising a retard and youre not going to help pay for it? Do you know how many people live at or below the poverty line?

 

[Mr. H.]

How many pet owners get abortions for their pregnant animals?

None - it's not worth the expense. The bitches give birth and then they either let them go wild, give them away, or sell them.

How many pet owners get abortions for themselves?

Millions.

Animals are held in higher regard than human beings.

Why? Roe V Wade. The License to Kill.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That ignores the fact that Roe allows for controls to limit abortion in later stages.

Clearly it is not always the mothers choice even if the child has not been born yet. The short answer to your question about the things we can do is yes.

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) yet the woman has the option early in her term.

That's not at issue.

No one contests the authority of the state to limit access at later stages; the issue concerns prohibiting the practice altogether.

Then you have not been paying attention because several people in this very thread have done exactly that as well as all over this board.

There are many out there that want to completely open abortion to any point before the child is breathing as there are people that want to make all elective abortion illegal.

If I found out in 8 months I was having a severely retarded baby I'd want a late term abortion. Unless you want to pay for the child the rest of its life be quiet. I'm Greek. Spartan. Back in the day we would have killed the baby at birth.

Case in point.

So now you want to force me to a life of raising a retard and youre not going to help pay for it? Do you know how many people live at or below the poverty line?

Palin has a dog your little moron can stand on. What more do you want?