There is no right to have an abortion

I do because it doesn't happen for elective reason Canada proves that.

 

Utter BS

 

I see trolling as usual .. never mind as they say children will play.

 

Or like if her life is at risk, but she happens to life in a country that elevates the potential life of the fetus above the actual life of the woman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/w...in-death-of-indian-woman-in-ireland.html?_r=0
From this article:
"The six-man, five-woman jury agreed that Ms. Halappanavar, 31, died from “medical misadventure” involving the failure of the hospital’s staff to identify, document or address her development of blood poisoning. Ms. Halappanavar’s husband, Praveen, said the hospital staff refused to give his wife an abortion even though her fetus had no chance of survival, citing the country’s Roman Catholic social policies against abortions."

 

SOME people want women and/or doctors punished for seeking abortion. A whole lot of people say the woman has the right to choose (especially before the third trimester). In my opinion the people who want to legislate it value control more than they value people. They used to be called Pharisees.

 

So the fetus is a living tissue. It is still just an empty vessel until sometime in the third trimester when it has developed enough to become sentient. If you want a baby, you should nurture and protect it. If you do NOT want to have a baby, you should remove it as quickly as possible. If you are in the third trimester we can assume you wanted the baby, so why would you even consider an abortion at that point?

 

And, of course, you can't point out where I lied about you.......

And you can't show where I "whined".....because I didn't. I think you may have a strong case of "projection".




Thank you for providing a link that shows a fetus is called a fetus until it's born.

 

You expressed concern over the damage women might do during pregnancy. I did not say *convince* them to abort a baby. I am saying it would irresponsible and dishonest to withhold options from a woman who is in a position to trust you as a counselor. Are you elevating your personal bias above the needs of your client? Or are you working for an organization that prohibits you from suggesting that option?

Now let's think about the situation you described earlier. You indicated that you counsel pregnant women who are taking drugs. I assume you (at least) warn them that the drugs could lead to damage for their newborn. If you can convince them to give up the drugs for a few months that is the best resolution. If they can do that, maybe they will stay off drugs for the sake of the baby. If you are dealing with a woman who will not give up the drugs at all, what do you think will happen to her baby (especially if it has a disability) when it goes home with this woman?

I see you only imagined two options for the fetus. What about (3) this is the wrong vessel for you... wait until the next vessel is formed in a time and place where you can grow and flourish?

 

In America, some hospitals allow their religious convictions to put the life of the mother at risk in cases where medical science indicates an abortion is appropriate.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...en-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners
"This story is just one example of how a single Catholic hospital risked the health of five different women in a span of 17 months, according to a new report leaked to the Guardian."

The report reveals that in one case "... staff at the Mercy Health Partners hospital in Muskegon, Michigan would not induce labor for another 10 hours. Instead, they followed a set of directives written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that forbid terminating a pregnancy unless the mother is in grave condition.

This hospital is allowing the bishops (who probably do not have medical training) to interfere with medical treatment for patients that they (the bishops) have not seen. This is dangerous and irresponsible.

 

I agree with Canada that there should be no laws interfering with the pregnant woman's medical care. If a woman has protected and nurtured the child until the day before birth, she must have a very good reason for considering an abortion. If she learned that the fetus is brain-dead and is causing toxic shock to her system (putting her life in danger) would you call in the police and force her to keep that fetus in her womb until it pops out or she dies?

 

I think people want to deny that there is legal punishment for abortion in this country, so they can have their narrative that Repubs are demons who want to impose punishment on pregnant women. You cannot deny it: the US punishes some for abortion. Restrictions means punishment. Otherwise there is no restriction.

 

Indeed, Roe will be struck down, and it will go down as a worse decision than Buck v Bell.

 

Why hasn't it been?

 

I see no possibility of this. If anything the court will become MORE liberal

 

I'm not even sure what you are talking about. Are you really saying that no woman would ever elect to have an abortion in the third trimester? If so you are in a fantasy world.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't got started on it yet.

 

We the People don't make laws just in case something might happen.

We make laws when there is factual evidence that something is happening that needs to be regulated.

For example when Thalidomide caused malformed infants to be born the FDA regulations were changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Get back to us when you have hard evidence that these imaginary "sick doctors" of yours exist and are actually doing what you allege.

 

So we didn't make a law to prevent human cloning, even though a human clone was never created?

 

Good luck, you've had conservative judges and Republican administrations and guess what? RvW still protects women.


Canada has no abortion laws and women there do not wait through the "joys" of 8 1/2 months of pregnancy for the "fun" of having an abortion.

 

I have already stated many times that I believe in exceptions for life/health of the mother. I don't think the mother should be mandated to risk her life or serious bodily harm to save her child, whether in the womb, or in a house fire.

- - - Updated - - -

Well apparently I know humans better than you do, so I don't believe you.

 

I believe in precedence. We can't just flip flop on laws, unless a powerful argument is supplied (and admittedly, because of their tying abortion with religion, pro-lifers haven't made one yet). But the argument is there, waiting to be articulated. That's what I'm doing here.

 

Not very effectively it seems

 

Again, there are already restrictions on abortion in many states in this country. Restrictions implies punishment.

 

I'm just getting started. I've partied and traveled the world for decades without a care for politics. or any issue. States will have to act on these drug babies. The issue is exploding. They haven't yet because of Roe. If a woman can abort her fetus, how can you tell her not to drug it?