If there was a line in the Ninth Amendment which even REMOTELY describes abortion, you would have already quoted it!
Did I say anything about "scraping?" Sure, and having some doctor, usually a man, digging around inside of a woman to suck out a fetus, is hardly an expression of that woman's bodily autonomy!
Because it's not her who who is doing the actual killing of the unborn life. It's the pill or abortionist. Now if a woman was able to somehow do it herself, and she was arrested for it, THAT would absolutely be a violation of bodily autonomy. She should have every right to do it herself, but that would obviously be ill-advised. Piercing your ears: Doing it yourself, or by going to a professional for them to do it? Taking a vaccine: I am STAUNCHLY against vaccine mandates, but at the end of the day, unless someone is pinning you down and forcing the needle into you, it's not a violation of bodily autonomy. Are vaccine mandates just as bad on principle, and basically have the same effect as the latter in the sense that it's not what you desire? Sure, but it's still not a violation of bodily autonomy. Anyway, the 'vaccine' equivalent to banning abortion, would be banning vaccines, taking them off the market. This would be the same as banning the abortion pill. Either way, not a violation of bodily autonomy. No it's just a derivative of a society that is okay with her having her fetus killed.
Republicans are making laws against women doing it themselves. Besides, it is standard practice for doctors to attend to our healthcare needs. Pretending that our decisions on what care we want have nothing to do with bodily autonomy is just obvious BULL. Your whole argument here is nonsense.
Of the 5,000 some comments in this thread he has been told that many times and he seems to be in a pathological state of denial. Did you notice in the GOP presidential debate, "devout Christian", Pence, seemingly the candidate with the most opposition to abortion, said he wants to put a national ban on abortion after 15 weeks? Doesn't that make him pro-choice in the first 3 months of pregnancy?
Good points, including about Pence. However, 15 weeks isn't even half of a normal pregnancy. The idea that doctors are at risk of prosecution for treatment of women after that point is still a humanitarian atrocity being perpetrated against women. There is NO justification for that atrocity. Beyond that, it is an insult to women as well as to doctors, that Pence and the other Republicans believe that women and doctors are so bereft of morality that state prosecutors and the courts must get involved in women's healthcare. Sorry - In general, I'm aware of your views here. But, I just couldn't stop myself!!
Can you support this claim? I would stand with you in condemning such laws. Absolutely, but how is abortion "healthcare" exactly? This is what pro-abortion folk can never answer. Does this apply to anything else in life that we "want?" Or just the "care we want?" Then you will have no problem whatsoever in debunking it. And I look forward to it. If you reply that is, which is far from certain!
Alright, well that's interesting actually. I respect your honesty. So you believe that the fetus is possibly a human. So then shouldn't you 'err on the side of caution' and say that elective abortion should be illegal?
I've cited a good number of healthcare professionals as well as general analyses indicating the damage to women's healthcare. I've done so on this thread and others.
Okay, so you answered the question on 'abortion as healthcare.' Great. These challenges however, you have yet to reply to: 1. Can you support this claim? (That "Republicans are making laws against women doing it themselves.") 2. Does this apply to anything else in life that we "want?" Or just the "care we want?"
I responded to your seeming ignorance concerning healthcare being impacted by these draconian laws against women's healthcare. NOW you suggest that this is about something than HEALTHCARE??? Your arguments are always information free and without regard to facts presented. And, this claim of "something else in life" is just one more indication that you have NO concern about healthcare. So, its no wonder that you're just not following along on healthcare issues.
WHICH draconian laws? Well it is your claim that abortion is healthcare, but you have yet to support that claim. If your position is that abortion is sometimes healthcare, then that we can agree on. Then you will have no problem whatsoever in debunking my arguments. But you're not doing very well thus far. What do you mean my "claim" of "something else in life?"
I've supported the facts concerning healthcare with links from healthcare professionals over and over again, including on this thread and to YOU. I'm REALLY tired of the willful ignorance on this topic. Read you own post about your question in the last sentence.
It's quite telling that you were unable to reply to this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-on-abortion.580016/page-209#post-1074406952
These only have to do with SOME cases of abortion.There is NOTHING to suggest that every single abortion has to do with healthcare! If a woman simply decides that she is not ready to have a kid, and that is the ONLY reason that she wants to abort, well that is simply not healthcare buddy! Evidently you are REALLY tired of having to stand by your position under my scrutiny. I have become used to that though. I said the words "something else in life" in a QUESTION to you! The question was: "Does this apply to anything else in life that we "want?" Or just the "care we want?"" But you referred to my question as a "claim!" So what did you mean?
Once we start scrutinizing the pro-abort position, analyzing things logically and in closer detail, things start falling apart and it really doesn't look so good.
Yes, I quoted a news article out of Texas on particular decisions by doctors, those running OB/GYN schools, analysts at the Kaiser Foundation, etc., etc. What did YOU want?
Evidently you are REALLY tired of having to stand by your position under my scrutiny. I have become used to that though. I said the words "something else in life" in a QUESTION to you! The question was: "Does this apply to anything else in life that we "want?" Or just the "care we want?"" But you referred to my question as a "claim!" So what did you mean?[/QUOTE] Laws as written today threaten doctors with prosecution for medical decisions they make. Medical solutions for various diseases and conditions includes abortion being necessary. The risk of not being treated is a medical judgement that prosecutors can second guess in courts by hiring testimony of doctors unrelated to the case. The risk to the doctor includes a number of penalties, including loss of their career as a doctor. That can not help but move doctors away from these fields of medicine in states with such laws, as shown by decisions by medical schools to avoid these states. The majority of America believes that women have rights of bodily autonomy - that abortion should be legal in most or all cases. The notion that a legislature can choose when a fetus is inviolate is ludicrous. Ideas such as abortion being legal at 1 week, but not 10 weeks can not be supported other than by magic - magic that legislatures do not have.
Maybe the solution is to try to make laws more exact and precise, so there are fewer unknowns? This certainly isn't the only medical-legal issue with trade-offs. It is also the case for doctors who prescribe opiate pain-killers. At the same time some doctors were facing excessive and wrongful prosecutions, the opiate crisis was going on and people were dying because some doctors were excessively prescribing the pills (for profit) when they shouldn't have been.
I think you're exaggerating. It wouldn't be so bad that it would cause doctors to move away. What you're talking about would only involve a very small percentage of patients, at most.
