Will Trump overturn the 14th Amendment?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Bowerbird, Nov 14, 2016.

  1. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you missed it.

    Lethal self defense REQUIRES grave bodily harm or death. Your belief that pregnancy is equivalent to a gunshot to the stomach is the epitome of ridiculousness.

    Clearly, Roe V Wade would not be difficult to overturn, and your self-defense argument is one big gaping hole of a barrier.
     
  2. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really, then I suggest you actually take some time to research . .here let me help you out -

    "Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Nebraska’s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigan’s statute does the same work, defining “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.”

    The Supreme Court of California also disagrees with you on whether pregnancy is an injury - People vs Cross On Appeal

    A rapist who causes a woman to become pregnant will be treated as if he broke his victim’s leg, gave her severe head trauma, or shot her with a gun. That is, the victim’s pregnancy is treated the same as a broken bone, a concussion, or a gunshot wound. - https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/when-pregnancy-is-an-injury/

    !00% irrelevant, though I understand you have to keep evading the issue at hand.

    LMFAO .. I can give you their decision record if you want it .. oh and how hypocritical of you to claim "by proxy" when that is exactly what you do when you claim consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy.

    Yes you are, your original assertion was "Consent to risk is consent to potential consequences" therefore getting into a car is a consent to risk that has potential consequences which you much suffer if they occur .. now you want to move the goalposts to "Consent to risk is consent to potential consequences [as long as it doesn't involve another person dying]"
     
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I won't argue against rape, that's a clear go on usage of deadly force.

    California is a lunatic asylum.

    Just because Nebraska equates pregnancy to taking a hollow point to the stomach doesn't make it so.
     
  4. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but your assumption that the 5th does not pertain to individuals, whether they are being brought before justice locally, statewide, or federally---is wrong.
    http://public.getlegal.com/legal-info-center/5th-amendment/

    Like the 1st and 2nd Amendments, they are INDIVIDUAL rights.

    Your concerns about Roe V Wade being overturned the legalities that you imagine are of no concern of mine.

    The main focus is to ban federal tax monies going to dismember unborn humans.
     
  5. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Based on your definition of self-defense, I cannot shoot the man who breaks into my home in the middle of the night because I am acting out of fear that he might possibly harm me. Maybe he would run away if I turned on the light and confronted him. Maybe he would only steal my TV and run if I just kept quiet. If I just shoot him when he picks up my TV in the dark room... I have not been harmed at all... but according to the castle doctrine I would be within my rights because I fear that he might injure me in some way.

    If you are saying I have to wait until the intruder breaks my arm or shoots me in the stomach before I can defend myself, you must be one of those gun control advocates who believes we should all turn the other cheek instead of defending our homes. Is that what you are saying?

    A poll of women in the US would probably reveal that those who want a child believe the government has no right to override their personal decision (no matter how dangerous it might be for them) and those who do NOT want a child believe the government has no right to override their personal decision (even if they choose an abortion). Those who want the government to make that decision for them have probably bought into the conservative propaganda that women cannot be trusted with decisions of that magnitude and the church, or their husband, or the government, knows what's best for them.
     
  6. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just the opinion of some. The top 3 nations on your list Denmark, Sweden and Norway don't even allow its citizens even the right to have a firearm, let alone carry one for self defense.

    Nations that don't allow people the use of even 500 year old blackpower weapons to defend themselves even in their own homes makes me laugh at any suggestion they are somehow "more free."
    :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

    :flagus: :gun: :flagus:
     
  7. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If any infants wander into your house please feel free to attempt a self-defense argument.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Of course they have more freedom, we're the ones defending them.

    Let's see how it goes when their lil' socialist countries have to protect themselves.
     
  8. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just as I view your barbaric ideas that the unborn have no meaningful civil rights and are really nothing more than slaves in the master's womb.
     
  9. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, the Muslims are already stockpiling firearms in their no-go safe zones.

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/360675-sweden-migrants-police-zones/

    I'm hoping Trump will help supply arms to the victims of Islam when their religious wars heat up.
     
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just a quickie:

    ""Number of Privately Owned Firearms

    The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Sweden is 2,800,0001





    Compare
    Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population
    The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in Sweden is 31.61 firearms per 100 people





    Compare
    Number of Privately Owned Rifles
    In Sweden, the number of rifles in civilian possession is reported to be 1,115,0002





    Compare
    Number of Privately Owned Shotguns
    In Sweden, the number of shotguns in civilian possession is reported to be 915,0002





    Compare
    Number of Privately Owned Handguns
    In Sweden, the number of handguns in civilian possession is reported to be 155,0002





    Compare
    Number of Privately Owned Firearms - World Ranking
    In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Sweden ranked at No. 283
     
  11. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope they don't.

    Let progressives feel the full force of their decisions.
     
  12. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well---Sweden does not grant constitutional rights to firearm ownership. They are only privileges that can be taken away with a quick stroke of the keyboard.

    Your factoids on # of guns is about as meaningless as the # of guns in Chicago. Illegal guns are used in probably 99% of the murders there.

    And yes I would rank Sweden fairly low, but I would no give them a negative number as a rating: 283 out of 178. Is this Liberal Math?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Have mercy! :smile:
     
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They might not have a right but they sure have guns...:)
     
  14. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    My previous post for reference:
    The entire extent of your response to me:
    Since you offered no defense, I assume you have conceded that your definition for "self-defense" is inadequate since it fails to address the fact that you can, in fact, kill a person in self-defense because you fear they might cause harm to you or your family.

    You tossed out a new scenario, a child wandering into my house. If that child somehow sneaked inside my body (like a fetus) and I feared it was causing me harm, or if that child wandered in late at night and in the darkness I could not judge its size... are you saying I should alert an intruder to my presence and ask if he means me harm? Are you claiming that is the only way I can defend myself (if I give the intruder the opportunity to shoot me first)?? Or is that you just cannot admit that your definition of self-defense is artificially restrictive so you could try to rule out abortions?
     
  15. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assume whatever you want, just don't slap around too many toddlers in self defense it won't end well.

    Next time your foot hurts go ahead and lop that sucker off in self defense.

    Getting pregnant is your reproductive system functioning as designed, but you and those who believe it's self defense are welcome to your ridiculous argument.
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    There are more important freedoms than the right to behave like a Twonk with a weapon

    - - - Updated - - -

    And if that pregnancy triggers HELLP syndrome???
     
  17. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong as usual. When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction or great bodily harm or death, so in reality the use of deadly force does not require "grave bodily harm or death.", grave bodily harm is also known as serious bodily injury which is defined as "the serious physical harm caused to the human body." It usually refers to those injuries that create a substantial risk of death or that cause serious, permanent disfigurement or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ.

    Do yourself a favour and actually research things before making any more inane comments.
     
  18. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, tell me what is the difference between a pregnancy caused via rape and one caused via consensual sex, does the sperm somehow become something other than sperm, does the fertilization change in its method, does implantation become more aggressive .. the truth is that there is zero difference between a pregnancy via rape and one via consensual sex, the mechanics of the pregnancy initiation and progress are the same, the method of how the pregnancy came into being is irrelevant to the pregnancy itself.

    irrelevant

    It certainly does if ever a case citing self-defence as a justification for abortion comes before SCOTUS then state laws will be used as evidence of precedence.
     
  19. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nowhere did I say that the 5th does not pertain to individuals .. however under the original intent of the 5th it only applied to individuals in federal cases, not state cases. Until the ratification and inclusion of the 14th Amendment, under Due Process Clause of that amendment and by a series of SCOTUS decision that interpreted (inferred) the Fifth Amendment's provisions apply to the states.

    Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

    See above - United States v. Cruikshank

    I have zero concerns with Roe being overturned .. it won't happen.

    Which doesn't happen anyway in the majority of cases. The Hyde Amendment is a rider to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services (HHS)/Education appropriations bill which prevents Medicaid and any other programs under these departments from funding abortions, except in limited cases.

    Medicaid. The current version of the Hyde Amendment (adopted in 1997) allows federal Medicaid funding for abortion in cases of rape and incest, as well as life endangerment, but tightens the life exception to permit payment only when the woman’s life is threatened by “physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.” Note that the Hyde Amendment has explicitly been extended to include Medicaid managed care plans, hence is binding even in instances where Medicaid has been “privatized.”

    In short, the Hyde Amendment has never posed an absolute ban on federal funding for abortions. (However, without the Hyde Amendment restrictions, Medicaid would be liable for an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 additional abortions every year.)
    Only a small fraction of the cost of the 15.6% of Medicaid-financed abortions are paid with federal dollars. In 2010, the federal government paid for 331 Medicaid abortions, while states financed 113,000.

    Medicare. Again, because of the Hyde Amendment, abortions are not covered Medicare procedures “except if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.”

    Affordable Care Act. The ACA includes several provisions affecting abortion services. The ACA establishes a minimum level of benefits that must be offered in the individual and small group markets. However, abortion coverage is prohibited from being required as part of this federally-established essential benefits package
    President Obama signed an Executive Order 13535 extending Hyde Amendment restrictions to federally-subsidized coverage on the ACA health exchanges. That is, federal subsidies (for premiums or cost sharing) are prohibited from being used for coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law.
    The ACA also allows states to impose even greater restrictions than the Hyde Amendment on any abortion coverage provided by plans in their state Marketplace; to date, at least 25 states have enacted laws that place at least some additional restrictions on abortion coverage for all plans offered through the exchanges.
    Private insurance carriers may offer a plan in the state Marketplace that includes coverage of abortions beyond those permitted by federal law only if they comply with the requirement to segregate federal funds. In order to segregate funds, plans that choose to offer coverage for abortions beyond Hyde limitations must estimate the actuarial value of covering abortions by taking into account the cost of the abortion benefit (valued at least $1 per enrollee per month) and cannot take into account any savings that might be gained as a result of the abortions. Any state Marketplace plan that covers abortions and includes enrollees that receive federal subsidies must collect two separate premium payments from all enrollees – one payment for the value of abortion benefit and one payment for the value of all other covered services.

    Federal Employees and Dependents. FEHBP funds likewise cannot be used to pay for insurance coverage of abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest–a restriction renewed with each annual appropriations bill

    Military Personnel and Dependents. DOD funds also may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. This restriction applies both to care provided directly by military health facilities and staff and care provided by civilians and paid for through TRICARE, the health care and insurance program for military service personnel, their spouses, and their dependent children. Note that military facilities are barred from performing abortions even if they are paid for out of private funds, again excepting cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

    Indian Health Services (IHS). The IHS comprises several hundred hospitals, health centers, clinics and health stations that provide medical care to 2.2 million American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Since 1996, IHS funding has been subject to Hyde amendment restrictions permitting abortions solely in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. However, reportedly, “the vast majority of Indian Health Service facilities are unequipped to provide abortions under any circumstances,” resulting in less than 2 IHS-funded abortions per year.

    Women in Federal Prisons. The Department of Justice is prohibited from paying for abortions for women in federal prisons, except in cases of life endangerment or rape. Note that a female inmate who can afford to pay for an abortion is permitted to obtain one outside the prison using private funds; if so, she must be provided an escort at no cost (such escort obviously being a federal employee paid with taxpayer funds). However, there also is a “conscience” provision allowing workers in federal prisons to refuse to serve as an escort.

    Net Impact of Federal Abortion Restrictions. According to a survey by Guttmacher Institute of self-reported reasons for abortions, only 1% of abortions are due to rape and another 1/2% due to incest; 12% are due to mothers reporting “physical problems with my health” although probably only 2.8% represent ”life-endangering” situations. So it’s fair to say that the vast majority of abortions–more than 95%–would not meet the stringent Hyde Amendment standards.

    Basically you are saying that women who are pregnant via rape or incest, women who are at a life risk, or women who are pregnant with a fetus that has a disability incompatible with life, should not be allowed to have an abortion paid for by the state. ie, for the sake of your pocket you would let people die.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Just as your assertion that the USA citizens are the "freeist" in the world is mere opinion.

    - - - Updated - - -

    BS, the unborn, in my opinion, have the same rights as any other person .. it is you who wants to make the female a slave of the state.
     
  20. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh look an allusion to the "natural" argument .. problem is once you start assigning personhood to the fetus, pregnancy no longer is a "natural" occurrence .. Its a shame that there are people in the US who don't have a clue concerning the issue. Naturally occurring issues are not subject to law. Natural forces cannot break laws. The law is only relevant only to people, the state, or juridical entities such as corporations, and only when entities such as these become involved in the damage ot injuries caused by natural forces as laws applicable - as Mary Anne Case notes, "Law is precisely that which fights nature, If something were all that natural, a law would not be needed to bring it about," - Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy : Page 375. So if you are saying that pregnancy is a natural issue then it cannot be subjected to law, nor can the entity that causes it be subjected to law, nor can either be protected via law or the Constitution, so the female has every right to do everything in her power to stop the "natural" event from happening.

    It is ironic therefore that the pro-life forces and others that say the fetus must be considered to be a person that contradicts any depiction of pregnancy as natural. To the extent that pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that is a person, it is a product of human agency, not the product of a force of nature. The condition of pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that the Court has declared to be human life under the protection of the state. Pro-life forces insist that the fertilized ovum from the moment of conception is an actual person, just like a born person. Some states such as Missouri, have declared that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception onward.
    Because a fetus cannot be a person and a force of nature at the same time, to the extent that when a fetus attains human status it loses its status as a natural force. When it causes pregnancy it acts more like a mentally incompetent person than like a natural force.
    From the standpoint of law, therefore, pregnancy is not a natural process precisely because it is initiated and maintained by an entity, the fetus, that is protected by the state as human life, regardless of whether that human life has attained the status of a person. A woman's right to consent to what a fetus does to her when it makes her pregnant, therefore, derives directly from the state's designation of the fetus as protected human life.

    If the state were to categorize the fetus as a mass of living cells void of human identity, of course, the issue of consent disappears, but so, too, would the state's removal of abortion funding from health policies as a means to protect the fetus as human life disappears. Once the state declares the fetus to be under its protection as a form of human life, however, the issue no longer is merely the woman's right to chose what to do with her own body, but rather the woman's right to consent to what the fetus as a form of state protected human life does to her body. This is because whereas choice refers to only one individual (or entity, such as a corporation) consent necessarily refers to a relationship between two entities, both of whom have at least some attributes of a person or a juridical system. Consent is an agreement between two such entities that signifies that one agrees to let the other invade, her, his or its interests.
    Since consent legally is an agreement for a person's interests to be invaded by another, a person must have the choice of whether to consent or not. If people do not have a choice, the invasion of their interests is coercive, which is the antithesis of consent. Although there can be a choice without consent, as when people make decisions that refer only to themselves, there can be no consent without choice because consent refers to a relationship between two people one of whom invades the interest of the other. Without choice, that invasion is necessarily coercive, not consensual.

    The issue in abortion rights is not the state's interest in protecting potential life or even the personhood status of the unborn, but rather the state's justification for offering greater protection of potential life than born life. In other words, the issue is not the legitimacy of the state's interest in potential life but rather the state's justification for granting to pre-born potential life a greater right of access to another person's body than it grants born life.

    Furthermore, even if you natural allusion were to be correct there is no obligation for a person to use a part of their body in any way they do not want to. You for example do not have to use your nose to breath through and there is no legal system that can force you to do so . .yet you want to force a woman not only to forgo her right to determine who, what, where and when her body is used by another person, but you also want the state to force her to use a part of her body for something she doesn't want to .. what next forcing people to give up livers, kidneys etc
     
  21. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Then we agree that self-defense is allowed even in situations that have NOT actually caused you bodily harm. It can be based on your fear of harm.

    You can assume whatever you want for your own life as long as you do not infringe on anybody else's freedoms and rights. Don't lock any pregnant women in your basement to keep them from getting an abortion because that won't end well.

    The doctor lopped off my grandmother's lower leg when it threatened her health (blood clots). I know a guy who asked his doctor to amputate his arm (he had lost most function in that arm years before and the physical therapist suggested he would have better results with a prosthetic arm). These people had the right to have living human tissue removed from their bodies when they thought it was in their best interest to do so.

    The male reproductive system is designed to impregnate as many woman as possible, more than one a day. Does that mean we are guilty of "killing" several potential babies every day because we override that natural process? If we have a right to override that natural process, then we have a right to override it at any stage until a new person exists.
     
  22. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are many SC Justices that misinterpret the USC today as back in 1833. However today, Judicial Fiat is the guiding light of all Leftwing Activist Judges.

    I do not like the idea of the Federal Government dictating all aspects of health care. That should be left to the States, as the US should be a republic of strong states. I would keep the CDC and some other health agencies, but the states should again control most healthcare concerns.

    I may not like it, but I do take Medicare and Medicaid insurances at my office, so I've had to dirty my hands for the good of those who have the insurances. The horrific process of getting some of these plans, and the mountains of paperwork and hoops to jump through with them, make me want to take many of the people running these plans to the town square and have them horsewhipped.

    As I've said before, I'm not opposed to allowing abortions past the first few days for rape and incest and when the mom's life is actually in danger. If the states or federal employees want to fund these---that is okay.

    I want the unborn to have as much due process of law, and rights as possible.
     
  23. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you are misunderstanding, it is only down to those judges and the ratification of the 14th Amendment that the Due Process of the 5th Amendment applies to the State courts instead of just the Federal courts, if they had not done that then you would have no due process rights in the state courts.

    They are not, as far as I am aware you do not have to join a federal funded health program, you can obtain and manage your healthcare program from any insurance company offering it. I believe there are around 20 exemption clauses .. though I am no expert on it.

    Problem is that does not take into account the trauma associated with rape and incest, denial is a common symptom, and that there are women who do not realise they are pregnant until quite some time into a pregnancy.

    The issue I have is that this common incorrect assertion that elective abortions are funded by the taxpayer keeps raising its head, when the reality is that tax payer funding for abortions is for rape, incest, life threats to the female and fetal disability incompatible with life .. which I would hope no one would want to remove.

    Even if they did it wouldn't change the legality of abortion, it would just move from the right to choose, to the right to consent.

    If the goal is to, at least, reduce abortions, then surely the right approach is to ensure there is comprehensive age appropriate sex education in schools and free at source contraception of all types and thus reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and by default the number of elective abortions.

    There was a small but very enlightening study done in Louisiana a few years ago -

    In a study published today (Oct. 4) in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers provided free methods of reversible, reliable contraception to more than 9,000 teens and women in the St. Louis area. They found that the program reduced the abortion rate among these women by 62 percent to 78 percent.

    "The impact of providing no-cost birth control was far greater than we expected in terms of unintended pregnancies," lead author Jeff Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine, said in a statement. "We think improving access to birth control, particularly IUDs [intrauterine devices] and [hormone] implants, coupled with education on the most effective methods, has the potential to significantly decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country."

    The findings have implications for public policy, especially given that President Obama's health-care plan requires employers to offer plans that include birth control coverage. This requirement has been a point of controversy in the lead-up to the 2012 election.

    Between 2006 and 2008, 49 percent of all pregnancies in America were unplanned, according to the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth. About 43 percent of these unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Meanwhile, a 2011 study in the journal Contraception estimated that unintended births cost U.S. taxpayers about $11 billion a year.

    To see if access to free contraception could budge those numbers, Peipert and his colleagues recruited 9,256 women ages 14 to 45 living in the St. Louis area through flyers, doctors and word-of-mouth. They also recruited patients from the city's two abortion clinics. Participants were given the option of using any reversible birth control method, from the birth control pill to a hormonal birth control patch to a long-lasting IUD or hormonal implant.

    More than half of the women chose IUDs, 17 percent picked hormonal implants (tiny rods placed under the skin that release hormones), and the rest chose pills, patches and other hormonal methods. As a result, the researchers found, both teen births and overall abortion rates plummeted.

    Among women in the free contraceptive program, the teen birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 women, a huge difference from the national teen birth rate of 34.3 per 1,000 women.

    Likewise, the abortion rate among women in the program was 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 between 2008 and 2010. Nationally, there are 19.6 abortions per every thousand women, a 62 percent to 78 percent difference. In the St. Louis area, the overall abortion rate in that time frame was between 13.4 and 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

    The study highlights the importance of long-acting contraception methods such as the IUD, researchers said. Birth control pills have a higher failure rate than these methods, because women have to remember to take a pill at the same time every day. But IUDs, which last about 10 years, can cost more than $800, the researchers said, putting them out of reach for many lower-income women who may not be able to come up with that kind of money in one lump sum.

    "Unintended pregnancy remains a major health problem in the United States, with higher proportions among teenagers and women with less education and lower economic status," Peipert said. "The results of this study demonstrate that we can reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and this is key to reducing abortions in this country."
     
  24. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly someone who, like yourself, believes a gun shot is equivalent to pregnancy already has an argument somewhere between ludicrous and ridiculous.

    Plenty of women willfully become pregnant, and are happy to do so. I challenge you to find women who willfully and happily allow themselves to be shot.

    In cases of self-defense, the burden is on the person who takes another life to show that they were indeed in danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury. Since only about 600 women each year die from childbirth (out of about 4 million births), the self defense argument is again another one of your gaping-hole arguments.

    You can sit here and parrot your "pregnancy = being decapitated", but it's extremely foolish. It's one of the few arguments you have to base everything on, so I don't blame you for clinging to it.
     
  25. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Choice, obviously. You're not responsible for acts you don't choose to participate in.

    As far as your precedence argument, you should hope they don't look to states for it, because there's far more anti-abortion laws to set precedent.
     

Share This Page