Question : Pro-lifers, Exactly How Would You End Elective Abortion?

I would like to see ALL people , female and male, be taught how not to get pregnant or cause a pregnancy.

This can best be done with good sex education and accessible , affordable and effective birth control (something the Right has been trying to take away).

 

Damned right I would. If the mother goes through nine months of hell, (try having a 30lb weight overtop your bladder 24/7) and then decides she doesn't want it, she must have a good reason. It's still HER body, not mine, yours or Glenn Beck's. Oh and a lot of the most justifiable abortions are just that sort, something comes up at the last minute that makes it nearly certain death for the mother. Delivery of a human baby is among the riskiest procedures known, and remains so even in the era of modern medicine, a woman should be able to just chicken out, most men would if they were asked to pass a bowling ball.

And Caesareans are not without considerable risk. Otherwise no physician would ever approve a natural birth

 

Reading your comments, by some young lady hoping to someday get married, have kids and live a happy life, must be disheartening. Factually, getting to child bearing age alone is more dangerous than having that "bowling ball" and about 10,000 people die everyday in the US, most not from old age. About 4 Million fetus in the US make it to birth and 650 do die from complications, many times from life style, also a choice.

 

Elective abortion is banned in some countries and it is banned after certain foetal age in most of the world. So you can look at those real world examples to see how bans on abortion work in practice.

The answer is, total bans on elective abortion are very hard to enforce. With easy availability of medical (non-surgical) abortion, it is almost impossible to enforce it effectively. Not to mention how hard it is to differentiate between natural miscarriages and abortions.

On the other hand, bans only on late-term elective abortions can be enforced quite well.

 

Nobody is trying to take anything away, designed to prevent pregnancy. Anybody can get any help they want from hundreds of sources, not excluding the Internet. Yes, some people, including me, are a little sick and tired of being blamed and charged (taxes/ACA) for those that simply don't follow the rules.

Near 60,000,000 abortions since RvW, has probably cost more than any other medical procedure and most were done, free of cost to the potential parent of the fetus.

If you or the many that feel, prevention is the States problem and education the answer....whatever State you live in, has school districts and school districts determine most the curriculum taught in their district. School districts also are required to hold public meeting (different in each State) where parents can attend...maybe informing parents, would work better, to achieve your goals.

 

Your first sentence translated to English and the current century: "" A woman, hoping to someday have a child and live a happy life , may be disheartened after reading your comments. ""

However, women should know all the risks involved in pregnancy and child birth. Knowledge is a good thing and with it they won't be conned by idiots who say pregnancy and childbirth cause no harm for the sole purpose of controlling/punishing women .

Then women can make THEIR OWN decisions and that's as it SHOULD BE.

 

[have not read all these pages of posts] This is not about consumer education. Our government does not normally 'require' consumers to get bone fide risk/benefit information concerning a medical procedure via auto-visual aides. That is because Government presumes that consumers can read a form describing risks and sign on the bottom line. We do not oblige doctors to show films prior to other medical surgeries. I can understand what my doctor is going to do during my vasectomy without a film playing in the lobby. Are only pregnant women too stupid to understand a point without seeing it on a film?

I am somewhat sympathetic with efforts to legitimately regulate a medical procedure or require some sensible consumer education on medical risks be provided, but there is no justification to turn a doctors office into a venue to shove the government's propaganda campaign as a duty on anyone else's dime or time. If the government wants to persuade women not to get abortion, it can buy time on network TV, produce its own pamplets, and play its own ultrasounds, in its own offices for its own purposes. It has no business usurping a clinical visit, and forcing a doctor to turn a patient's body and fetus into a starring vehicle in the government's infomercial.

This proposal has no real educational benefits to women. Its about propaganda and it is not a physician's job to sell someone's else's ideas.

.

 

Again, here is the problem. An old person dies, anywhere in this country, and the body will at least receive a cursory examination by a doctor or trained medical personal to determine that the person is indeed, dead.

The ONLY way to determine if a fetus has been aborted or has been miscarried is a pelvic examination. For a woman who has undergone the mental anguish of a miscarriage - this could only add to the trauma.

Any jilted boyfriend or angry rival could make a phone call claiming a woman had aborted a fetus, and the only way a woman could defend herself would be to subject herself to a pelvic exam (if she used a "day-after" pill, she would have to submit to blood tests as well).

I can't see the courts going along with allowing law enforcement to force women into having a pelvic exam - thus, I can't see anti-abortion laws as being enforceable.

 

Well again, in this hypothetical we're talking about a society that has determined that the unborn are people. Perhaps that'd mean that fetuses, even from a miscarriage, would go to some kind of a morgue. I understand any of these things might (really, would) be at least uncomfortable for the woman, potentially even traumatic - but again, in this hypothetical we're talking about a life, and anything that could be required of the woman would be an issue of privacy, which we don't hold as having primacy over life. For example requiring a DNA sample to be given is a violation of privacy - the fundamental right in question is already considered secondary to life.

What is obvious already is that people who are pro choice do not see it as a life and so don't see how a violation could be justified, but that is a problem of perception for those pro choice people. Yes. I can see how people would say it isn't a life, but if you can't deal with the hypothetical that we collectively determine a fetus is a life with human rights to life, then you shouldn't engage in the hypothetical (I'm here using the general "you").

It's of course possible a false report could be made out of spite - that happens in other legal areas today, and there a potential legal repercussions for doing so.

 

Quite simple really...to cover all the situations listed above the State need only take legal control of every females vagina after puberty.

 

as you say we already have bans in most countries on elective late-term abortions - interestingly except for Canada who have no legal restrictions on abortion REGARDLESS of the gestation period, and yet their abortion rate is lower than the USA in all trimester periods except the first trimester - and as far as I am aware there are few, if any, elective abortions occurring in the USA after 21 weeks (1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks) .. I have looked and have been unable to find any sort of breakdown of reasons for abortions performed after 21 weeks, this lack of data gives pro-lifers the opportunity to proclaim that elective abortion occurs regularly after 21 weeks when IMO abortion after that period is much more likely to be for very, very good reasons eg. fetal disability incompatible with life.
The assumption pro-lifers make is that just because a woman can elect to abort up to 24 weeks .. she will.

 

What a load of crap as usual.

 

As people, fetuses also have to adhere to the restrictions that all people do ie they do not have the right to use another persons body without their consent to do so, if they do then they are in violation of that persons rights and causing serious injures which the woman has every right to defend herself against, including deadly force .. just as you do .. the so called "right to life" does not over rule the right to defend yourself from non-consented injuries. Furthermore under the equal protection clause the state would have no option but to pay for abortion for EVERY women who wanted one.

What is obvious is that you have little idea of what pro-choice people think and this so called golden arrow of personhood for the fetus meaning their right to life over rules another persons right to not have their body invaded and injured is naive.

The OP asks the questions based on the very thing you state, yet you (general you) cannot answer with any degree of detail.

Yes false reports are made .. however these reports don't involve the accused being subjected to a very invasive internal examination.

 

Why should she be REQUIRED to see an ultra sound? What if she closes her eyes at the time its shown to her and she refuses to look at it? Whats the legal purpose behind this?

 

Any pro lifer who thinks abortion is muder is a total hypocrite if they dont want to actually punish the person commiting the murder.


Most pro lifers want to punish the doctor for some reason but give the woman a free pass or a slap on the wrist. There viewpoints are incredibly inconsistent.

 

How many women are actually going to close their eyes?
No, the issue is the abortion clinics do not want their customers to see.

 

BS, another assumption you have no proof of.....

 

This falls under the description of malicious coercion, something that courts would throw out in a heart beat as unconstitutional. It's nonsense and the rabid right needs to drop this nonsense.

All your achieving is shaming people for exercising their constitutional rights. That's the starting point of totalitarian theocratic fascism.

 

Actually that is being considerate to the parents (both the mothers and the fathers) because both parents are the victims when an abortion murders their baby.

The Doctor (or provider) is the one doing the murder.

It is similar to prostitution where the women are victimized and abused and exploited so punishing the woman as a prostitute is just punishing the victims of that crime.
Link = "a) criminalizes the buying of sex, and b) decriminalizes the selling of sex."

It even says a similar point in the SCOTUS case of "Roe v. Wade" that the final decision for any abortion is up to the Doctor.

See "The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor." LINK.

In any abortion the Doctor (or provider) is the murderer, and every parent is the victim.

 

LOL! Ya, go ahead, hire a hit man to kill someone for you and see if the law thinks YOU are a victim.

And before all the blather you'd have to get abortion declared "murder" and it isn't.

There is also no baby involved in abortion.

 

I appreciate that you can see that a hit-man is synonymous to an abortion murderer (provider).

I did not mean to imply that being a victim meant that the parents are thereby free from guilt - certainly not.

It would be the same sick reality as committing suicide as the victim is still guilty, or a drunkard is still guilty and a victim at the same time.

The abortion provider is the hands-on murderer (the hit man) and the two parents are accomplices as they get the so-called "Doctor" to destroy their own baby.

To be the victim and to be guilty at the same time is the reality for virtually all immoralities.

Sensible people understand that an abortion is a legalized murder, so the laws do not define the reality.

The people who have a morally upright conscience does not need nor want the laws to define right from wrong.

Those making this claim above means that they are not mature enough or not honest enough for this reality.

Even myself am not totally against killing people, and humanity has been killing babies since the beginning of time, so the dishonesty turns the reality of an abortion into a different criteria.

Any person that does not understand that an abortion is killing their own baby is thereby not mature enough to make that decision.

 

Mostly just your wet dreams and dishonest Anti-Choice rhetoric and yet another who doesn't know what giant words like "if" means ....but your "" Any person that does not understand that an abortion is killing their own baby is thereby not mature enough to make that decision."""

But you feel they ARE mature enough to have a kid....odd.


Now do show proof that abortion kills a baby.

There is none....you can call a fetus anything you want but science doesn't change because you do.


Oh, and you do NOT speak for "sensible people"....you can only speak for yourself.

 

Your comparison to a hit man is a BS Straw man, and you know it. If this is the limit of the imagination of most antichoice charlatans, then thank the lord above. Because frankly, the definition of murder requires there to be a murdered person involved. Since a fetus legally, socially and scientifically isn't a person, your argument holds about as much water as a fish net.

QUOTE=JP Cusick;1064913674]Any person that does not understand that an abortion is killing their own baby is thereby not mature enough to make that decision.

[/QUOTE]

Abortion is not killing a baby. Scientifically, social and legally, the definition of baby does not include a zygote or a fetus. Seriously, just stop.

 

Still no answers from the "Get women" group



Quote Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post

Pro-lifers, your chance to explain in detail how you would go about ending elective abortion.

1. What measures would have to be enforced by the state in order to ensure that as many elective abortions were prosecuted as possible?

2. By what means would the state be able to discover if a woman was pregnant?

3. Would a pregnant woman be banned from travelling to a foreign country where elective abortion was still legal?

4. Would states with the death penalty be allowed to use that in the conviction of a woman who "wilfully and premeditated with malice aforethought" obtained an illegal elective abortion?

5. How would the state distinguish between and gather evidence of, a natural abortion (miscarriage) and an elective abortion?