Vast majority of the time there are no exceptional health reasons, just a normal pregnancy. When you talk about "women's health" are you talking about a normal pregnancy?
There may be one iota of logic in that but it is crying for lonliness. I think it rests on a profound misconception that all poor people are “lazy” At the same tome ignoring the fact that most abortions are obtained by women living in poverty
You have no idea about those women, not a clue. You are not the judge, you will never be the judge, your morality is not an imperative for anyone else. I have been a soldier: you have not a clue about what is life and death. If you support PP, healthier women and less abortions.
Being pro-choice but anti-abortion (in that I think its generally reprehensible, but should remain entirely legal), I can't speak for other conservatives. I support social safety nets for children. Theres multiple threads in this forum where I promote subsidizing adoption costs to promote it as a more affordable option to abortion (the average adoption currently costs $40,000) for example. Theres plenty of fit parents who would adopt, but dont have that much spare cash laying around. I would also support free healthcare for all under the age of 18. That would be a great start toward helping children. The problem with welfare isn't the children receiving it, but their parents squandering it on trivialities while the children remain neglected. I don't have a solution to this problem (beyond the free healthcare for all under 18), but throwing more money at it isn't acceptable. And neither is killing the children instead. The big disconnect as I see it is that the 'pro-life' see more tragedy in a human that wasn't even allowed to try to overcome adversity and prosper, while the 'pro-choice' see more tragedy in a human that was doomed to suffer in poverty and neglect with a false start. I see the former. But due credit to the latter- what good is the opportunity to prosper if we don't have the freedom of choice to make it happen? Body autonomy is foundational to that freedom of choice, and to the dynamic that gives humans the ability to overcome and succeed despite an impoverished, neglected startup. As much as I despise abortion for preventing humans from the experience, challenge and potential joy of life and adding to our great legacy, I despise the authoritarian controls that would undermine that legacy even more. All this 'they just hate babies' and 'they just hate women' crap I find disingenuously simplistic and ignorant.
Isn't it sometimes less expensive to prevent killing of life rather than saving it? Show me the numbers, and if it turns out more cost effective to administer medical care to a newborn than a woman going through with a pregnancy, I'll support it.
Nope, kaze, answer the question first before you answer with a question. Why won't you "support things that will reduce the infant mortality rate"?
Sorry we are talking BORN children. What use is it to lobby to “save lives” only to have those babies die of overwhelming infections due to undernourishment
Oh! What is it with the “simple fix” people that they seem incapable of simple math There are over 500,000 abortions every year in the USA. There are less that half that number wanting to adopt so in less than 2 years you will have flooded the market What next “workhouses”?
Why was the US importing babies from Guatemala then? https://www.worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/adoption-scandal-the-lost-children-of-guatemala
5,000 per year...... How many abortions are there every year? Now these “adoptions” from Guatemala. At best they are a scam, at worst, well there is a lucrative black market for organs........ Now one of the multitude of erroneous ideas you have on this subject is the mistaken premise that adoptions are expensive due to scarcity of available suitable babies https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/why-is-adoption-so-expensive In other words more babies will not make the process cheaper Of course there is always the Victorian idea of the “workhouse”
Until they are born you are dealing with an adult woman who carries a fetus....afterward you are dealing with a Baby.
I like much of what you have said - and it seems you have some understanding of - for lack of a better phrase "the liberty equation". For me this is not just a moral question but a legal question as well - by legal I am referring to the principles by which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted. I do believe that at some point during the pregnancy the fetus qualifies as a person. For me this is at the point of sentience - when significant brain function exists. I will not dwell on this other than to say that what I do not believe is that the zygote qualifies. This is a single human cell that will never even be part of the human being created - never mind being a human itself. The best the Pro-Life side can get to - with respect to the zygote - is "experts disagree" = We don't know. Making law is forcing belief on others through physical violence. Individual liberty is supposed to be "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Law on the basis of "we don't know" / we don't know otherwise - is then an anathema to law - the founding principles - the rule of law -and as such is a moral offence - violating the Golden Rule - Do unto others = If you don't want others forcing their personal or religious beliefs on you through physical violence - messing with your individual liberty through force and physical violence (Law) - then do not do this to others. And this is exactly what the religious right - Red Establishment - and Blue Establishment - loves to do. The are control freaks. These people are human garbage in my books - hypocritical scum. The question of a referendum (say on alcohol) is not "Do you like Alcohol". The question of a referendum is "Do you have sufficient valid justification to force others not to drink through physical violence - Law. I don't like to drink alcohol - is not a valid justification. If you don't like alcohol - don't drink. Perhaps I don't like bubble gum - this is not valid justification for me forcing others not to consume the stuff. "God says so" is also not a valid argument ... Prove it. Prove that this is what God says - Did God show up for tea at your place the other day ? Part of the problem is that through 12 years of school we manage not to teach the principles on which this nation was founded - essential liberty, what a republic is, the limits to Gov't power - Legitimacy of authority .. and so on. Its in the definition for God sake's So even if you had a valid justification - or what one thinks is a valid justification - you need an "Overwhelming Majority" to agree with you in order to mess with essential liberty. Guess what 50+1 is not enough .. nor is "Simple Majority Mandate" - that some person gets elected and claims a "mandate" on that basis. Both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism refer to this as "Tyranny of the Majority". The bar is "overwhelming majority" - at least 2/3ds
I like much of what you have said - and it seems you have some understanding of - for lack of a better phrase "the liberty equation". For me this is not just a moral question but a legal question as well - by legal I am referring to the principles by which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted. I do believe that at some point during the pregnancy the fetus qualifies as a person. For me this is at the point of sentience - when significant brain function exists. I will not dwell on this other than to say that what I do not believe is that the zygote qualifies. This is a single human cell that will never even be part of the human being created - never mind being a human itself. The best the Pro-Life side can get to - with respect to the zygote - is "experts disagree" = We don't know. Making law is forcing belief on others through physical violence. Individual liberty is supposed to be "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Law on the basis of "we don't know" / we don't know otherwise - is then an anathema to law - the founding principles - the rule of law -and as such is a moral offence - violating the Golden Rule - Do unto others = If you don't want others forcing their personal or religious beliefs on you through physical violence - messing with your individual liberty through force and physical violence (Law) - then do not do this to others. And this is exactly what the religious right - Red Establishment - and Blue Establishment - loves to do. The are control freaks. These people are human garbage in my books - hypocritical scum. The question of a referendum (say on alcohol) is not "Do you like Alcohol". The question of a referendum is "Do you have sufficient valid justification to force others not to drink through physical violence - Law. I don't like to drink alcohol - is not a valid justification. If you don't like alcohol - don't drink. Perhaps I don't like bubble gum - this is not valid justification for me forcing others not to consume the stuff. "God says so" is also not a valid argument ... Prove it. Prove that this is what God says - Did God show up for tea at your place the other day ? Part of the problem is that through 12 years of school we manage not to teach the principles on which this nation was founded - essential liberty, what a republic is, the limits to Gov't power - Legitimacy of authority .. and so on. Its in the definition for God sake's So even if you had a valid justification - or what one thinks is a valid justification - you need an "Overwhelming Majority" to agree with you in order to mess with essential liberty. Guess what 50+1 is not enough .. nor is "Simple Majority Mandate" - that some person gets elected and claims a "mandate" on that basis. Both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism refer to this as "Tyranny of the Majority". The bar is "overwhelming majority" - at least 2/3ds
The mother's life and health issues are paramount in the first trimesters in the law. The new 'heart beat' laws will not stand when or if they get to SCOTUS.
Sure you will.....because YOU are NOT the woman going through the pregnancy.....YOU are not the one whose body is being damage by 9 months of pregnancy, You are not the one going through 9 months of pain followed by the painful act of childbirth.. WHO TF are YOU to have any say in that at all??
Pro-life has always been a title that's used because it sounds noble and righteous, but it is also not an accurate depiction in most cases of the folks claiming it. The circumstances under which this "pro-life" position actually lives up to it's namesake are very narrow and specific. It's like if I walked around calling myself a wine connoisseur but I've only ever drank one flavor of wine made by one single winery. Being pro-birth in one single specific circumstance does not then confer upon you the status of being "pro-LIFE". You are simply pro-birth, or anti-abortion, whichever you prefer more. Lets knock the righteous fantasy down a few notches and get it a little closer to the reality of the situation.
excerpt from original Hippocratic oath in Greek: I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. excerpt from modern version of Hippocratic oath: Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
