No they are not and again - how desperate must one be? However for many there is more research on those inducing abortion than there is on I,licit drugs inducing abortion and yet many young women have face murder charges because they miscarried
10 years old? Yes it very very definitely was. https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2016/october/teenage-mothers https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-pregnancy And who gives you the right to judge the risk another person faces?
In some states they will be prosecuted for murder or attempted murder. Young women are figuring out very quickly that they don't want to live in a red state. Even if you leave the state for an abortion and come back, in some states you will be investigated for the missing fetus and prosecuted, or sued [Texas].
I don't believe that is true at all. Almost doesn't have any truth. Women who need abortions for legitimate medical reasons (and that is actually very rare) will be able to get them. Furthermore, even in the majority of cases where women do die from pregnancy (which are also still rare, these days), no indication existed beforehand that there was a very high risk of that happening. (In other words, no woman who was looking forward to a baby would have gotten an abortion under those circumstances)
Too bad those blue states have very high costs of living, or are in colder climates farther north where most people don't want to live. If these women decide to do this, you're going to see a lot of women from blue states who moved to red states over the last 25 years have to move back. And then I think those men who moved from blue states to red states will be out of luck, because there won't be easy women for them, with the resulting gender imbalance. So maybe many of them will come under pressure to move back too.
OHMYGAWD! Uh, sorry to inform you but the northern states are filled with people ....they are not the frozen tundras that you claim they are empty of all life..... Oh, and they have a thing called summer where it gets real hot. LOL, WHAT! What a silly fairy tale!! and the usual misogyny , TOO! What does that even mean??? You think states should regulate how many people of each sex should be in their state?? WOW...what authoritarian control !!! LOL, in your silly scenarion at least the moving companies will make a lot of money with all that moving back and forth....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
A woman should be empowered to do anything with, or to, her own body -- with exactly the same degree of authority and control that any man has over his body! If she wants to use abortifacients, a 'coat-hanger', get punched 'in the gut', or any other method to have an abortion that is her business, and her business ALONE! I keep pounding away on this because as a hard-core Conservative, I'm sick of having all these Leftist clowns accuse all of us who are right-of-center as tyrants who want to treat American like "slaves" to some kind of collective, domineering 'Male suppression'.... Nothing could be further from the truth! . So be it, your Majesty.... "You go, girl!"
No, this happens to be false. There are conditions where pregnancy carries serious chances of fatal or near fatal outcome for the woman, and yet anti-abortion legislation doesn't accept that medical treatment would include abortion. One clear example is the move to require 10yo rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term. But, that's not the only example.
This is just a failure to understand economics AND populations. It's expensive to live in California because so many people want to live there. I think the pressure against these draconian laws will come from many sectors. For example, we already have corporations that are evaluating whether they want the additional burden of hiring people into states that have these laws.
You agree that a woman cannot use her body to kill someone else, correct? It seems your argument then is not really exactly that she should be permitted do whatever she wants with her body, but rather that she would be able to have longer term freedom over her body. Not committing a murder on someone outside her womb only results in a limited infringement on her body, whereas not committing a killing on someone inside her womb may result in a greater limitation on her bodily rights. So far correct? You just don't believe she should have to be pregnant for 9 months, and believe she should have the right to kill to obtain that.
There are numerous conditions where best medical practice includes drugs such as methotrexate, chemotherapy, etc. that have implications for fetuses. The situation in many states today is that not even the doctors know what they may do legally. And, that is even in the case that the woman ISN'T pregnant, but might become pregnant. So, women are down the list of those who are making decisions about whether she gets to be treated for disease that she has.
I meant only what I said, Katz. Be clear on this -- I hate this whole damned thing -- BUT, in the United States a woman must have complete, total control over everything that is in her own body... EVERYTHING. If a person does not have complete possession over his/her own body, then how can be think of ourselves as free people? No. Do I personally LIKE abortion, per se? No. But my mere opinion, and yours, and anyone else's, and the government's opinion, does not matter. It MUST not matter. Every woman in the United States must be the only final authority over everything that is in her own body. And if that means that she can choose to interrupt the continued development of a fetus that is inside her body, and and fully attached to it, then she must (MUST) be accorded that right, without reservation. You and I are freedom-loving, right-wing guys, Katz, and sometimes that involves having to acknowledge practices that we don't particularly like, but must allow -- or else we would be the tyrants that the Left always accuses us of being....
If she steals a diamond and shoves it up her body, we agree that she should not have total control over the stolen goods, even though it may be inside her body, correct? I know that may not be a good analogy, but it does demonstrate that what you claim is not an absolute.
When she stole the diamond in this hypothetical situation, she committed a crime. Concealing the stolen property in her body does not absolve her from discovery, being charged for a crime, and the appropriate punishment when/if found guilty. Look, whatever else this may be, it is a situation where there is something (some call it a baby, some call it a fetus, some call it a 'blob of tissues') that grows inside her body, and is dependent upon her bodily functions in order to grow and develop. Therefore, we have no choice but to acknowledge her total control over everything involving this "item" which is totally inside her own body. It can be the right of no other person, or government, to make relevant decisions about how this "item" is handled.... From an ethical standpoint, which is wholly unrelated to the legality of abortion, THAT is a discussion that is held (if it is held at all) between the woman and herself, her concept of what is right and what is wrong, etc. The government must not intrude on that discussion, or that determination.
I don't think the one necessarily follows the other. I can think of examples like patients on a life support machine, someone in an iron lung who can't breathe on their own, a baby who relies on a mother's milk for sustenance, in an area where no other milk is available. Even conjoined twins with two heads who share the same body. Yes, the fetus is dependent on her, but she did cause that situation to arise. Imagine if I was responsible for an accident and then refused to save that person's life.
Well, for a start, getting pregnant is not a crime, whereas, stealing a diamond is a crime. Really, you may want to try a different tack in your pursuit of this. Look, you do something really stupid, like standing out in the sun for a long time, and develop skin cancer. Should it be a matter of involvement of the government to determine whether or not you have the right to have a skin cancer surgically-removed, simply because it grew on your face...? Am I making any sense?
NONE of those examples are the same as growing a fetus INSIDE a woman's body, inside and CONNECTED to. There's what YOU always come back to...Punish Women For Having Sex... ..very misogynistic No comparison
And once again you show a complete lack of research on this subject one in four women will suffer a miscarriage Death from pregnancy complications is far more common than you seem to realise
FoxHastings said: ↑ THERE IS NO "SOMEONE" IN HER WOMB. Yes, and you should stop doing that... kazenatsu said: ↑ You agree that a woman cannot use her body to kill someone else, correct? It seems your argument then is not really exactly that she should be permitted do whatever she wants with her body, but rather that she would be able to have longer term freedom over her body. Not committing a murder on someone outside her womb only results in a limited infringement on her body, whereas not committing a killing on someone inside her womb may result in a greater limitation on her bodily rights. So far correct?""""""""""
No. My point was that shifting the argument to something else does not mean my specific argument is wrong. That's not a rebuttal to my specific argument. So if I start an abortion thread to discuss one specific argument within the abortion debate, trying to shift the argument is just going off topic. If I make an argument, for example, that a person cannot use their body to kill someone else, then that type of argument obviously presumes that there is another "someone else" involved. It's true that if there were no "someone else" my argument would be rendered a moot point in the overall wider argument, but that still would not mean my specific argument is wrong. It is not a rebuttal to my specific argument. It's actually just an attempt to generalize the argument in the debate and make it about abortion. Hope that's not too "complicated" for anyone to follow.
