Abortion is evil? WHY?

What's a TRAP law?

 

TRAP laws are the methods pro-lifers use to evade the Constitution.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/trap_laws.html

What is a TRAP bill?
TRAP stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. TRAP bills single out abortion providers for medically unnecessary, politically motivated state regulations. They can be divided into three general categories:

a measure that singles out abortion providers for medically unnecessary regulations, standards, personnel qualifications, building and/or structural requirements;
a politically motivated provision that needlessly addresses the licensing of abortion clinics and/or charges an exorbitant fee to register a clinic in the state; or
a measure that unnecessarily regulates where abortions may be provided or designates abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers, outpatient care centers, or hospitals without medical justification.


What is the purpose of a TRAP bill?
TRAP bills stigmatize and burden abortion providers and are calculated to chip away at abortion access under the guise of legitimate regulation. These measures are often introduced by abortion opponents who claim that abortion is an unsafe and unregulated procedure. By implying that abortion clinics are uniquely dangerous and in need of special regulation, such bills recklessly promote an unfounded fear that abortion is unsafe. Abortion is in fact one of the safest medical procedures provided in the United States.

Many TRAP bills grant broad authority to the state department of health to develop structural and staffing requirements for abortion clinics. Often, the resulting regulations are based on existing hospital guidelines including specific dimensions for procedure rooms and hallways, doorway widths, and complex ventilation systems. Some regulations mandate what types of medical professionals must be on staff, assign certain duties to various staff members or require patient evaluations that are not medically necessary. These types of regulations are not medically justified. Abortion has an outstanding safety record. Instead, these regulations create a large burden for small outpatient clinics. Clinics can be forced to extensively remodel and hire new staff or even close entirely, resulting in women having to travel great distances to obtain abortion care.

 

If laws against abortion do not reduce abortion rates (according to you), then why do pro-lifers support TRAP laws?

 

To punish women, to make abortion as difficult and expensive and humiliating to get as they possibly can. Some of the FOLLOWERS actually believe they're saving babies. But the leaders have to know better. Enacting those laws gives them a sense of power, it makes them feel righteous.

 

You do know that married women use birth control too, right? LOL

You continue to echo what I stated earlier. It's not about the abortions that you holy rolling control freaks care about it's about eliminating what you consider abortion as a 'get out of jail free' card for sluts.

It's about forcing your morals on other people.

What I find ironic is that you probably vote Republican and you believe in supply side economics aka voodoo economics, but you don't realize or won't admit to yourself capitalism which is based upon materialism is reliant on consumers having disposable income which means fewer children.

To have fewer children people need to use birth control so they can keep the capitalist machine going, and most modern women don't want four or five kids like their mothers or grandmothers.

 

When did I reference married women? Duh LOL

And you continue to with your monolithic, insulting, bashing of people who would rather emphasize teaching our children (especially girls) to respect themselves by not becoming a sperm receptacle for stray penises.

Children need to be taught morals and values, especially little girls but then, that would put a 'kink' some peoples sexual desires I guess.

You are reading too much Daily Kos.

I am not for limiting how many children people have. That would be immoral. But then if it bothers you , move to China where they control such things.

BTW, I am not against birth control or abortion. I am for teaching morals and values though.

 

Then prove it isn't

Who said anything about "little girls", most little girls and boys for that matter are not interested in learning about sex and contraception to them it is "ickky", sure give them a broad outline but the detailed information is more suited to the age where they start to have interests in the opposite sex, and that information right from the start should be about respecting themselves .. if you like morals without the religious overtones.

 

Then we are ok as we are then, as the majority do not want Roe overturned.

 

Yes they did and despite the use of such throw away comments by pro-lifers they always fail to realize that the Nazi's were both pro-life and pro-abortion, they forced both onto the females, they were never pro-choice.

they forced German females to remain pregnant while forcing non-German females to abort.. you tell me which is closer to the Nazi ideals those that believe in the individual choice of each person or those that want to force pregnancy by federal law.

 

Please give an example, because it sounds like you may have morality and religion confused.

Are you blaming those who want common sense gun control?

 

The definition of morality is what is the right thing to do. It is important for a society to have a consensus on morality in order to have a basis for order, rules and law. This requires people with beliefs in the best way for people to live together. Traditionally that has been religion. The Ten Commandments are an example yet, in some places, they have been disallowed through lawsuit and court action claiming a violation of the establishment clause. This effectively removes the basis for most of our laws and the basic understanding between individuals as to how we are expected to treat others.

These shootings happened in mostly 'gun free' zones so no, gun control is not a factor. The shootings point more in the direction of amoral youth with (in their minds) no reason to either go on or to value the lives of people around them. This is a direct result of anti-religious zealots that recoil at any sense of morality being taught to students in their unsupported fear of a State church.

 

What "morals and values"

Obviously you have no idea of where the word "moral" comes from

It comes from the word "More" pronounced more-ay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores

In other words there are no moral absolutes - it depends on your own interpretation of the society in which you live

 

What age do you consider appropriate for a girl to have sex? Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement here.

 

A) Bull twang - look up the stats for "gun free zones" and you will see that the myth of more shootings is just that
b) This is a prime example of regional morality. It is morally acceptable in America to walk around the streets armed - this is NOT morally acceptable to either British or Australians

What is "moral" for one section of society is immoral for another.

 

Figures, you use the progressive wikipedia while I prefer Merriam Webster:

Morality: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior


In America, morals and values are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy.

BTW the word 'moral' comes from the Latin 'moralis' which is 'proper behavior of a person in society'

 

Yes it is the proper behaviour IN THAT SOCIETY and it is based on the common societal beliefs. So if abortion is common then it is moral. Just as wearing gloves in church may be "moral" in one area of society but ignored in another

It is the common belief system about the unwritten rules of society - it is not up to individuals to dictate them.

 

The question is irrelevant to when girls and boys should be taught sex education .. and why do you keep your focus on just girls, should boys not be taught the same respect for themselves and for females as girls?

 

Personally I prefer The Oxford Dictionary

Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:

Though yours will do just as well, morals as your definition defines are a belief structure defined by man, they are not set in stone and each of us follow variations of moral codes used by society .. none are 100% right, none are 100% wrong, they are based on the perception of the people.

They WERE based on that, the world has moved on a little since that time.

BTW that is not strictly correct

Morality - late 14c., "moral qualities," from Old French moralité "moral (of a story); moral instruction; morals, moral character" (13c.) and directly from Late Latin moralitatem (nominative moralitas) "manner, character," from Latin moralis (see moral (adj.)). Meaning "goodness" is attested from 1590s.

Moral - mid-14c., "pertaining to character or temperament" (good or bad), from Old French moral (14c.) and directly from Latin moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," literally "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Greek ethikos (see ethics) from Latin mos (genitive moris) "one's disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," of uncertain origin. Perhaps sharing a PIE root with English mood (1).

 

so anyone who doesn't adhere to a 2,000 year old set of rules created in a place that had very little knowledge of the outside world is not moral.

Try telling that to the millions who DO NOT follow the Judeo-Christian dogma, approx 15% (~41,000,000) of the USA's population do not follow Judeo-Christian dogma, are they all immoral.

There were sets of moral principles long before religion as we know it came into being, the truth is that we as a race change, we evolve and with that so does our moral viewpoint and there have always been those who resist evolution, who always think their way is the best way .. problem is whenever they have tried to enforce it-it has usually led to some of the darkest times in our history.

 

The Ten Commandments have not been "disallowed" ever. It is only disallowed to use public property to proclaim their validity. The Ten Commandments are not the basis of our law, and a careful reading of them will show you that. Our law is based on English common law, which, BTW, was common a long time before Christianity. Our Constitution set up a basis for order and law that was not based on religion, but rather on respecting individual rights in regard to conscience.

 

That shows intolerance and double standards towards Christianity. Show me one example where it's against the law to have Jewish or Muslim or Hindu religious symbolism on public property.

 

It is unconstitutional for the government to use the vast public resources for the encouragement or support OR the discouragement of ANY religion. The founders believed that if a religion was good, it could stand on its own merits, and would not NEED the support of government.

That is why religious teachings on abortion are useless as far as making our laws. That and the fact that religious teachings on abortion are widely varied.

 

You still didn't answer my question. Name one example of somebody being forced to remove non-Christian symbolism from their public property.