Is Roe v. Wade at Risk???

FoxHastings said: ↑
And you want those you deem "irresponsible" people to raise children?????

No more irresponsible than those who won't wear masks...

And I think it's very responsible to end a pregnancy when one can't afford, or don't want , a kid.

IF THEY CHOOSE.....good point.

You don't seem to have one...

Better the scenic route than your convoluted-no-point route.

If those who choose not to use birth control are deemed irresponsible by you, what does that have to do with the topic?

 

Yup, when a person can't answer or address a post they usually start with the "It's a Strawman" !!!

 

Oh my. You have gotten lost, eh?

 

I've addressed your comments multiple times, in multiple ways. Your inability to get out of the traffic loop isn't my problem, nor is it my problem if you cannot comprehend it, or keep changing direction.

And just for the S&G of it, I didn't start with a Strawman statement. Read again, please.

 

MAY 21

Most Americans Don’t Want Roe v. Wade Repealed. Many Also Support Restrictions On Abortion.

 

Reality: Very few men or women approve of late term abortion. The law may give women a right to choose. It can and probably will require them to choose fast. Reality is often very inconvenient.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I don't agree especially with your "many Americans".....

Some women don't even know they're pregnant at 15 weeks..

Some rape victims may be so injured and/or traumatized that they can't make a decision that soon...

But compassion and respect for "precious lives" ( women's) were never big with Anti-Choicers.

"Late term" is AFTER viability (23 weeks) NOT 15 weeks.

Some women don't even know they're pregnant at 15 weeks..

Some rape victims may be so injured and/or traumatized that they can't make a decision that soon...

But compassion and respect for "precious lives" ( women's) were never big with Anti-Choicers.

Uh, what "reality" is that ???

Good way to dodge the points in my post …..where I stated "reality"....denying the reality presented in my post is denying reality..

 

I said what I said, and that wasn't it.

You can ask yourself how you would feel if haircuts were against the law?

I already mentioned I was pro-life, and I explained how abortions can be reduced drastically, and its interesting you have no comment about that. Clearly the whole abortion issue is nothing by policial football to you.....or should I cay rugby / cricket consideting where you live. How is it handled in your country?

 

I would be rather annoyed, and worried about how I'm going to be able to cut my own hair, and how horrific the result will be, but I wouldn't say that I have lost the right to my body! Would YOU?

I'm getting to it!

Abortion? It's legal.

 

That's the point - with abortion, people are NOT performing an action on their own body! Do you also think that a ban on tattoo parlours would be removing the right to one's body?

 

That's hardly an answer to the question: "When was the last time a woman performed an abortion on herself?"

 

Yeah, which has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

Yes, and if the vaccine was banned, people wouldn't all of a sudden loose the right to their body!

 

No, I call them honest because they are pro-abortion, but yet they think that Roe v Wade is a pile of TRASH and should be overturned, resulting in many people not being able to get abortions!

You actually want me to read every single one of your posts in this thread? If you had a convincing argument for why these so called 'conservative' justices are ACTUALLY conservative, you would have already made it, even though you would be repeating it in this thread! How telling that you don't want to repeat it! Is it THAT BAD of an argument? I know that with MY arguments, I can't repeat them enough to different people because of how confident I am in them! I guess you're different!

Lots of regulation in the health system, and decent law enforcement. It means that illegal abortions could be policed. Why do you say "probably even easier?"

The US doesn't have sex-ed and access to no-cost birth control? Surely you can't be serious!

Oh, so the Republicans are not interested in reducing abortions, but the Democrats are just SUPER INTO IT? I wonder what bills Democrats have introduced in Congress related to reducing abortion...

Oh yes, because USELESS Republicans in Congress who never do ANYTHING about abortion funding when they control Congress, are REALLY using abortion to to "win evangelical votes!"

Does the stat which you quoted in text, relate to the graph? Also, what is the source of the graph?

 

If haircuts were illegal, you would not be able to cut yourself either.

As opposed to me repeating everything to you? Yes. Obviously.

You missed the point (as usual).

Are you interested in reducing abortions, or just using for political football? As I showed, studies (and real life examples in other nations) show it can be reduced by up to 78%

I didn't say anything about either political party, but your answer proves your interest in the topic is purely political, and has nothing to do with willingness to reduce abortions.

Quite a few bills have been introduced to make access to contraceptives easier, even ACA. Naturally the GOP fought to tooth and nail against such measures.

 

That's hardly a question....



...and YOU didn't answer that poster's question

 

You've obviously lost grip on the subject. I'll give you a bit of help.

A person permits an abortion in their body.
A person permits an injection in their body.

Clearer now?

 

Actually, its all about bodily autonomy. I'm not sure where you think it's not, but if one voluntarily allows an abortion, or the injection of something into their body, it is with their permission.

Banning something is not going to eliminate the ability to have it. We've seen the results of that with prohibition and hard drugs.

If someone wants an abortion, they will find a way to have it.

If someone wants the COVID vaccine, they will find a way to get it.

I believe the Republicans are not looking to ban it, most likely restrictions and or additional rules as to notifications and who is paying for it.

 

The points you raise have nothing to do with this inconvenient truth: Very few men or women approve of late term abortion. The law may give women a right to choose. It can and probably will require them to choose fast.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I don't agree especially with your "many Americans".....

Some women don't even know they're pregnant at 15 weeks..

Some rape victims may be so injured and/or traumatized that they can't make a decision that soon...

But compassion and respect for "precious lives" ( women's) were never big with Anti-Choicers.

"Late term" is AFTER viability (23 weeks) NOT 15 weeks.

Some women don't even know they're pregnant at 15 weeks..

Some rape victims may be so injured and/or traumatized that they can't make a decision that soon...

But compassion and respect for "precious lives" ( women's) were never big with Anti-Choicers.

Uh, what "reality" is that ???

Good way to dodge the points in my post …..where I stated "reality"....denying the reality presented in my post is denying reality..

Why do you keep repeating yourself....I gave you my opinion, especially on FORCING women to choose fast", and you don't like it but repeating won't change it..

 

That you don't like the inconvenient truth is irrelevant. It remains the truth: "Very few men or women approve of late term abortion. The law may give women a right to choose. It can and probably will require them to choose fast."

Denying the obvious truth is rather like spitting into the wind. You just get wet, and will lose elections.

 

Some women don't even know they are pregnant at 15 weeks??? Do they even know how pregnancy happens?

Sorry, I may be able to accept 6 weeks, 8 weeks on the outside, but 15 weeks? That just doesn't fly.

 

It is actually irrelevant to the whole abortion-debate to set a time limit since most abortions are performed in the first trimestre. Most late term abortions are in cases where even many anti-abortionists think it should be legal such as threat to the mother's life or severe health conditions/deformations on the child.

The woman's life is always to be the standard of value. The only reason to restrict late term abortion would be not to protect the fetus, but rather to protect the woman. The solution to this is not legislation, but imnovation -- We need even safer and even better technologies and tjat of vourse requires it to remain legal.

Blah, blah, blah.

 

Ya know, someday before you reply to a post you might want to read it first...….and when you do reply, HAVE A POINT.

 

I am sorry that science and biology are not your strong point...just denigrating women by asking if they know how pregnancy happens....which seems to be the entirety of what you know about pregnancy....

 

As has been pointed out many times already, most anti-abortionists' opposition to abortion is based on their Christian faith's contempt for personal (sexual) pleasure. It is - for some reason - especially problematic if a woman is having a good time with her body and enjoying herself.

Look at how Hasidic Jews and Muslims demand their women to cover up. Super weird. Various Christian groups do the same with their purity rings and other cringey father-daughter things.