I got into a heated discussion on this in another thread. I claim that both pro-abortion laws and anti-abortion laws exist. He/she claims all laws are anti-abortion. I even showed this link (which is highly pro-choice) and he/she still denies it. Well I will point out some laws in the link that are clearly pro-abortion first the link. I will not state my opinion on them at this time, but will say I agree with some pro-abortion laws and some anti-abortion laws http://www.politicalforum.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=39 Now for some examples CA- Low-income women access to abortion- basically provides state funds for low income women to obtain abortion CA-Protection against clinical violence- Nobody can damage, or destroy an abortion clinic, or prevent someone from entering, or exiting a clinic. those that do are subject to fines and jail time CA- State Constitution- goes further then the protections granted under federal law in that minors do not need consent, or a judicial waiver to obtain an abortion CA- freedom of choice act- does not legalize abortion, but states a woman has a right to choose. This would be in effect still even if Roe V Wade were overturned, so abortion would still be very much legal in CA OR- Emergency Contraceptives for sexual assault survivors- provides emergency contraceptives and medical care for sexual assault survivors. This law deals with more then just abortion, but it is still a pro-abortion law with the EC rule, which unless I'm mistaken is used like the morning after pill to induce an abortion, if the woman did become pregnant during the sexual assault. OR- has a similar Low income law as CA There are many others, just simply click on the State and read what laws they have on the books.
Making abortion legal is NOT being PRO abortion....it's saying if you want an abortion you can have one , it is NOT advocating for abortion or advertising for abortion or promoting abortion it is ALLOWING abortion and wouldn't be needed at all if self-righteous egotistical narrow minded ignorant busybodies would mind their own business and take care of their own morals...
then making abortion illegal isn't anti-abortion then. correct? you cant have it both ways so according to your failed logic I cant condemn some one for murder because I to have done immoral acts and should mind my own business
you must not read polls im on the winning side im with the majority your the extremist not me and the prolife movement gains more supporters year after year "Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41% prolife 50% prochoice 41% http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
not if they declare the unborn as human and deserves equal protection under the law as any other human
pro-lifers believe the gov should be able to force you to give birth pro-abortionists believe the gov should be able to force you to abort your birth PRO-CHOICEers believe this should be the womens choice, not the governments choice
so you are suggesting the supreme court will ignore science over a belief? - - - Updated - - - so when does the unborn have a choice who gets to be their voice? I get it because they have no voice and they cant vote they don't matter [
Strange that when you look at the number of people who actually want Roe overturned and of those who are dissatisfied with the nations policies concerning abortion - Doesn't really show that the majority of Americans want any changes to the current policies, anyone can cherry pick parts of polls to support their agenda, problem is when you actually look in more detail the cherry picking becomes obvious.
Wouldn't make that much difference, as no person can be compelled by law to give up their body, or parts there of, in order to sustain the life of another.
because most do not know what Row v Wade curtails they think all the case did was make abortion legal and most want abortion legal in some circumstances Roe V Wade sates abortion is legal up to 24 weeks but the vast majority agree with restricting abortions under 20 weeks The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal without restriction during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, but 56 percent of Americans would prefer to impose restrictions after only 20 weeks, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll. Only 27 percent of respondents prefer the current 24-week threshold http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-of-americans-support-20-week-abortion-ban/
they can if they voluntary agree to it when you give consent to sex you are also giving consent to the consequences that is possible for having sex it would be the same as me asking you to hit me and you agree to do so then I shot you after you did it and claim self defense
YUP! It means being FOR abortion....I'm not FOR abortions, I'm Pro-Choice...do you know what the definition of PRO-CHOICE is??
Roe does no such thing, Roe did not create any legality of abortion it struck down illegal laws against abortion, and thus returned it to the point before illegal laws were made against it. Like most pro-lifers you fail to realize that for the majority of the existence of the US abortion was not illegal, and was only made illegal under poison laws (as the majority of remedies used were very dangerous to the woman), the actual 'personhood' of the fetus was NEVER an issue when those laws were being made. Further restrictions were brought to bear simply because the physicians of the time wanted to stop the local 'herb' doctors from practicing, again NOTHING to do with the 'personhood' of the fetus. In fact the whole issue of the 'personhood' has only been around for about 30 years. The poll, which surveyed 1,002 adults between July 18 and 21, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 points, so hardly a majority especially as no one under 18 was questioned, the age group 15-17 make up 6% of abortions in the USA overall. Other interested parts of the article also state - ... the poll also handed some heartening data to supporters of abortion rights: 55 percent of respondents say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 41 percent believe it should be illegal in all or most cases. And by a margin of 54 to 40 percent, Americans oppose legislation that makes it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate. and you are incorrect about abortion being legal without restriction up to 24 weeks. PP Vs Casey (1992) states the following; In 1992, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court released a lengthy, multipart decision ruling that Roe v. Wade was affirmed but that the bulk of the Pennsylvania law was constitutional nonetheless. Reiterating some of the reasoning in Roe, the Court first declared that a woman's decision to get an abortion implicates important "liberty interests" and "privacy interests" that the Constitution's Due Process Clause protects against state interference. Together, these interests form a "substantive right to privacy" that is protected from state interference in "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." This right also protects the abortion decision, the Court again argued, because it implicates equally intimate questions of a woman's personal autonomy, personal sacrifices, emotional and mental health, and fundamental right to define her life. With the constitutional right to an abortion reaffirmed, the Court next reiterated Roe's ruling that, first, states could not ban abortions before the "viability" point (the point at which the fetus is able to sustain life outside the womb), and second, that in no case may states ban abortions that help preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court also rejected parts of Roe, holding that the state can legally pass laws protecting the life and health of the fetus or mother in far broader circumstances. For example, while in Roe the Court had held that the state could not regulate any aspect of abortions performed during the first trimester, the Court now held that states could pass such regulations affecting the first trimester, but only to safeguard a woman's health, not to limit a woman's access to abortions. In another change, the Court now held that, with the advance of life-preserving medicines, the point at which a fetus might become "viable" (the point at which states may constitutionally outlaw abortions) could be slightly before the third trimester. Finally, the Court proclaimed that any regulation that imposes a "substantial obstacle" preventing a woman from obtaining a legal abortion is an "undue burden" that violates the woman's constitutional right to an abortion. With these new rules established, the Court examined the Pennsylvania law and measured its constitutionality. The Court ruled that one of the more controversial provisions of the law, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, was not an undue burden and was thus constitutional. This provision's purpose, to promote well-considered abortions, was legitimate and only incidentally and slightly limited access to abortions. Next, the Court ruled that the spousal consent provision did constitute an undue burden, because husbands could potentially resort to abuse and obstruction upon learning of their spouses' abortion plans. The Court upheld the remaining portion of the law, including a parental consent provision for minors. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, though less famous than Roe v. Wade, is actually a more important case. In Casey, a more recent Supreme Court not only affirmed Roe's abortion right, but broadened the states authority to regulate it. And yet the decision remains as controversial as Roe, not just politically or morally, but legally. The "undue burden" test is more ambiguous and difficult to apply. With Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito joining the Supreme Court in its 2005 term, it may revisit the constitutional status of the abortion right that Casey, in part, preserved. So in fact the 1992 ruling enabled states to place MORE restrictions on abortion than the original 1973 ruling did, had the total of Roe been upheld there would be no mandatory waiting periods, no husband/parent consent required and pretty much none of the other TRAP laws enforced.
pro-abortion is favoring the legalization of abortion, it is not being for abortion. yes I do pro-choice is favoring the legalization of abortion. pro-abortion and pro-choice are the same exact thing. I believe it has been mentioned before that pro-choice=pro-abortion and pro-life=anti-choice. Now some on the pro-choice side will try to twist anti-choice into meaning something completely different and that pro-life people are somehow against women having equal pay, holding political office, basically that men should control everything. That is not giving the pro-choice movements own made up term anti-choice any justice. And pro-life people will twist pro-abortion to somehow mean all pro-choice think abortion is good. No but I think pro-choice do support abortion. Even some pro-life like myself support abortion in some cases. Don't take my word for it though on pro-choice= pro-abortion or pro-life=anti-choice. Look it up for yourself, it has already been covered before as well
Then you have to prove that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, care to try, because I have a ream of proof, legally it is not.
Oh who gives a flying ...whatever.... I don't think any of that REALLY has anything to do with keeping abortion legal.....yak yak yak,..I shall continue to call Anti-Choicers Anti-Choicers because they are against Choice, Freedom, Liberty, and minding their own business.
You can call people whatever you want Fox. BTW the future of my country is my business. Laws that support what I'm against is my business. You don't have to agree with my stance, but I will still fight for what I think is best for my country. Those that don't fight can't say a word when things don't go their way.