KRISTEN'S BOARD

1408 => Politics => Topic started by: watcher1 on May 18, 2019, 05:05:09 AM

Title: Abortion
Post by: watcher1 on May 18, 2019, 05:05:09 AM: What is wrong with the politicians in Alabama and Missouri? Again, a mostly male make up gets to decide what women can and cannot do with their body. Speculation is that by passing these anti-abortion laws the Supreme Court will have to finally decide the issue and the conservatives are hoping that the Court will overturn Roe vs Wade.

I guess these politicians would rather see women regress back to the days when they sought out back alley butchers for abortions rather then having an abortion in a sterile environment of a hospital or other medical facility . Ugh
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 05:57:51 AM: Quote from: watcher1 on May 18, 2019, 05:05:09 AM
Speculation is that by passing these anti-abortion laws the Supreme Court will have to finally decide the issue...

They already did. Double Jeopardy, the Supreme Court has already heard the arguments, and Ruled. You can't just shuffle around a couple judges, and try again.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Katiebee on May 18, 2019, 06:40:03 AM: Sure they can. Different arguments to present. Same reason though, because God. Remember, this country was settled by religious zealots. Not even he Dutch, the most easy going Europeans could stand the Pilgims.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 04:17:49 PM: Quote from: watcher1 on May 18, 2019, 05:05:09 AM

Speculation is that by passing these anti-abortion laws the Supreme Court will have to finally decide the issue and the conservatives are hoping that the Court will overturn Roe vs Wade.

Well, it's not speculation. Lawmakers, politicians, and other proponents of these restrictive laws in both states -- along with Conservatives in general -- have specifically stated that that's their intention. They're perfectly aware that the laws they've passed are unconstitutional. They fully intend that they create a series of appeals that will eventually end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, and thus present the Court with the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Katiebee on May 18, 2019, 04:38:47 PM: The problem is, they aren’t pro-life. They are only pro-birth.
They wash their hands of the child after birth.

If they wanted to make abortions non-existent except for the most extreme cases, then they would support comprehensive sex education in school and not just abstinence.

They would support birth control at reasonable prices or even subsidized.

They would put their money where their mouth is and support subsidized child care.

They would support Medicare for low income kids,
They would support welfare for single moms.

But they don’t. They oppose all of those but want to outlaw abortion.

They are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 05:09:14 PM: Quote from: Katiebee on May 18, 2019, 06:40:03 AM
Different arguments to present.

You're going to have to tell me what new, and different argument they've come up with since 1973.

My problem with the "Pro-Life" movement as a whole is that they don't really seem to support Life. Like KB said:

Quote from: Katiebee on May 18, 2019, 04:38:47 PM
The problem is, they aren’t pro-life. They are only pro-birth.

Life is what happens after birth, and the same "Right" support Guns. What's "Pro-Life" about guns? What good is children being born, only to live in fear that a man will show up to their school with a semi-automatic, and a faulty sense of Justice?

Also, the method to their madness irks me. Operation Rescue bombed hospitals, and assassinated doctors with the battle cry "Life is Precious!" Murdering people to show them that doctors are Murders is somehow supposed to convey the message: "Thou Shalt Not Kill," under any circumstances, or does it imply that there are situations where it's all right?

Which begs the question, when is it okay to kill? That's the central argument, that "Abortion is Murder," right? Self defense, that's a universally accepted caveat for Justifiable Homocide, right? "I feared for my life!"

So, if they made any effort to be logically consistent, then when the life of the mother, and child is in danger, that Homicide should be justifiable. That's not the decision in Alabama. They're intentionally making it as Draconian as possible, so that someone is forced to take it to the Supreme Court. That's the real strategy here, if it was a Reasonable Abortion Ban, then the liberals wouldn't have any reason to Appeal to Justice Kavanaugh.

Let's hope he shows up for work sober that day. AFAICT, that's the only new argument here: Justice Kavanaugh will break the tie.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: RopeFiend on May 18, 2019, 05:31:57 PM: Quote from: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 05:57:51 AM
Quote from: watcher1 on May 18, 2019, 05:05:09 AM
Speculation is that by passing these anti-abortion laws the Supreme Court will have to finally decide the issue...

They already did. Double Jeopardy, the Supreme Court has already heard the arguments, and Ruled. You can't just shuffle around a couple judges, and try again.

Ummm, I call 'bullshit'. You don't understand the intent of the legal system. The Supreme Court can AND HAS overturned their previous decisions. Toe could probably give specific examples, but gay rights is one I remember them overturning. Prior rulings are never cast in stone for all eternity. Times and morals change, and so must the Supreme Court or else they're not responsive to We the People.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 06:01:55 PM: Quote from: RopeFiend on May 18, 2019, 05:31:57 PM
Ummm, I call 'bullshit'. You don't understand the intent of the legal system. The Supreme Court can AND HAS overturned their previous decisions. Toe could probably give specific examples, but gay rights is one I remember them overturning. Prior rulings are never cast in stone for all eternity. Times and morals change, and so must the Supreme Court or else they're not responsive to We the People.

Right, but at the same time, the Justices are supposed to review the Law, including the law as it stands, on it's merits. Not as a favor to the congress that overlooked the drunken indescretions of his youth in the hopes that he will make the Right decision in return.

Now, apply that to the same old arguments against Abortion: "I was drunk!" is used as a legal defense for sexual assault. So is "She was drunk!" Now, when she goes into the clinic, past the protesters, to deal with a life threatening medical condition in let's say Selma Alabama, would it matter if she was drunk? Would it matter if he does? Under state law, no because it's a Zero Tolerance law, passed by men for the sole purpose of setting a precedent, and pissing off the Liberals so they're forced to take it to the Supreme Court, in the hopes that they will vote in their favor, and overturn Roe v. Wade.

This isn't a new argument, it's Assuming Favoritism, because of 1 man who's had his entitlement to underage drinking, and sexual assault Confirmed by the Senate who will be responsible for drafting the new legislation banning Abortion.

What do you think the odds are that it will be a Zero Tolerance policy? What do you think the odds are that Alcohol being involved in the decision will be taken into account? Any way you look at it, Men stand to gain Reproductive Rights in these decisions.

Women can only lose them.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 06:06:36 PM: Quote from: RopeFiend on May 18, 2019, 05:31:57 PM
Quote from: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 05:57:51 AM
Quote from: watcher1 on May 18, 2019, 05:05:09 AM

Speculation is that by passing these anti-abortion laws the Supreme Court will have to finally decide the issue...

They already did. Double Jeopardy, the Supreme Court has already heard the arguments, and Ruled. You can't just shuffle around a couple judges, and try again.

Ummm, I call 'bullshit'. You don't understand the intent of the legal system. The Supreme Court can AND HAS overturned their previous decisions. Toe could probably give specific examples, but gay rights is one I remember them overturning. Prior rulings are never cast in stone for all eternity. Times and morals change, and so must the Supreme Court or else they're not responsive to We the People.

By and large, I agree with you.

On the one hand, what the Fifth Amendment refers to as "Double Jeopardy" -- "...Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." -- does not even remotely apply here. This isn't a criminal trial.

On the other hand, the principle of "stare decisis" -- basing current decision-making on historical precedent -- is just that, a principle, and not a requirement. And yes, there a are dozens and dozens of examples.

[Toe, please help out here!]

On top of that, in a very real way, this particular situation has nothing to do with one's personal opinion on whether abortion is right or wrong, nor one's personal opinion on whether it should be legal or illegal. That debate has already been hashed out hundreds of thousands of times (or more), and debating it again is both beating a dead horse, and distracting from the important issues at hand.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 06:14:38 PM: Let's just look at the "Assumed" split on the bench, shall we?

Clarence Thomas, (Chief Justice) John Roberts, Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch.

v Ruth Ginsburgh, Elana Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer, and Stephen Bryer.

Notice any patterns here? I wonder how they'll vote. Let's look at their track record, shall we? Gorsuch supported Hobby Lobby when it came to their stance on Contraceptives. (What horse a Craft store has in contraceptives is beyond me. I mean yeah, you can make things out of Condoms, but I don't go to Michaels to buy them.)

Just skipping over the 2 that were Confirmed over the testimony of their (Alleged) victims. Okay, I'll point out that both of them were Appointed by accused sexual predators.

Do I have to point out the Male Majority? Do I have to point out the gender of the Anti-Choice contingent? Race doesn't appear to be a factor in the SCotUS, but it sure is when it comes to Access to Affordable Healthcare for nonwhites (And Asians)

Let's just pretend that this is about the Right to Life, shall we? Let's just pretend that it's not about Men being entitled to women's bodies, and making choices for them.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 06:21:25 PM: Quote from: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 06:14:38 PM

Do I have to point out the Male Majority? Do I have to point out the gender of the Anti-Choice contingent? Race doesn't appear to be a factor in the SCotUS, but it sure is when it comes to Access to Affordable Healthcare for nonwhites (And Asians)

Let's just pretend that this is about the Right to Life, shall we? Let's just pretend that it's not about Men being entitled to women's bodies, and making choices for them.

That argument breaks down very quickly when you consider one simple fact: All seven of the Justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade were men: Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, William Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, & Lewis Powell.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 06:26:03 PM: Quote from: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 06:21:25 PM
That argument breaks down very quickly when you consider one simple fact: All seven of the Justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade were men: Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, William Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, & Lewis Powell.

There's 2 ways to look at #NotAllMen. While there are some men who voted for Roe vs Wade, how many Women voted against it?

There weren't any women on the 1973 Supreme Court, because it was All Men. Convenient! So yeah, it was 7-2 and the 7 were All men, but only because No Women were involved in the vote.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 06:38:17 PM: Quote from: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 06:26:03 PM
Quote from: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 06:21:25 PM

That argument breaks down very quickly when you consider one simple fact: All seven of the Justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade were men: Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, William Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, & Lewis Powell.

There's 2 ways to look at #NotAllMen. While there are some men who voted for Roe vs Wade, how many Women voted against it?

There weren't any women on the 1973 Supreme Court, because it was All Men. Convenient! So yeah, it was 7-2 and the 7 were All men, but only because No Women were involved in the vote.

"Convenient?" No. History, and reality.

Roe v. Wade passed by a clear 7-2 majority despite the fact that not a single women served on the Court at that time. Following your reasoning, the majority would have been even greater were their female justices.

Regardless, your entire line of reasoning is based on projections and predictions about how the justices "will" vote on this potential new case, and they are based on your perceived biases. Nowhere do you even admit the possibility that some justices might actually vote objectively, based on the case on front of them.

You are, of course, free to speculate however you wish, and based on whatever information you wish. I prefer to stick with history.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: _priapism on May 18, 2019, 06:44:00 PM: Quote from: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 06:06:36 PM

[Toe, please help out here!]

“Double jeopardy” is a legal principle that applies only in criminal cases. A person can’t be tried twice for the same crime, including “lesser included offenses.”

American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.

This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

1. States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.

2. The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases (https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 06:49:46 PM: Quote from: MissBarbara on May 18, 2019, 06:38:17 PM
"Convenient?" No. History, and reality.

I know. That's why i pointed out the real reason why all the men who voted in favor of Norma McCorvy were all men. You skipped past the part that all the people who Voted were men.

Quote
Regardless, your entire line of reasoning is based on projections and predictions about how the justices "will" vote on this potential new case, and they are based on your perceived biases. Nowhere do you even admit the possibility that some justices might actually vote objectively, based on the case on front of them.[/b]

Because that's the apparent strategy of the Alabama Legislature. I wasn't predicting how the SCotUS WILL vote. I was pointing out how the Alabama Legislature wants them to vote, which is why they waited for a majority in SCotUS to try this.

Again. This isn't the first time it's been attempted since 1973 (The year I was BORN, incidentally.) I was supposing the Bias of the Pro-life movement, and i even went to great lengths to say the words "Seem," and "Appears to be..." These weren't statements of fact, they were my opinions on the apparent legal strategy.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: _priapism on May 18, 2019, 07:03:25 PM: I think the Alabama legislature drafted an EXTREME anti-abortion bill to force the Supreme Court’s hand. If they don’t act, women will go to prison for having an arbortion or causing a miscarriage. The hope is the Supremes will revisit the question of whether abortion and procreative choice are fundamental rights or not.

The courts should decide this case on the narrowest grounds possible under stare decisis , and that is to simply strike down the penalties etc., as violating currently recognized Constitution rights. The trouble is, Republicans have no respect for things they don’t like, and are capable of most anything.

Hoping Kavanaugh will remember all the abortions he paid for, and leave Roe v. Wade alone.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 07:30:32 PM: Quote from: ToeinH20 on May 18, 2019, 07:03:25 PM
The courts should decide this case on the narrowest grounds possible under stare decisis , and that is to simply strike down the penalties etc., as violating currently recognized Constitution rights.

That's a good point. With the decisive (Partisan) issues like this, there's the natural tendency to gravitate toward the Extreme positions. 0 Tolerance, or abortions for everyone! (Facetious)

When honestly, the Supreme Court can argue every point, instead of return a Yes/No decision. It doesn't have to be overturned completely, especially in new light, it can be Amended. Stipulations can be added, or modified, rather than rising to the bait of the Extreme Right legislation.

For one thing, AN Abortion isn't a State decision. It's a personal decision, which may involve more people, such as the Doctors who have done enough testing to truly estimate the risks involved.

In THIS Pregnancy. That's where the decision ultimately lies, not in the federal guidelines of EVERY pregnancy. The laws are there to prevent Abuse. Murder isn't defined, and sentenced as 1 human being killing another human being, it's punished based on the Circumstances of the death. Accidental death caused by depraved indifference, such as a drunk driver is Vehicular Manslaughter, whereas writing your ex husband's name on the bumper before you get in and run him down is premeditation, and therefore 1st degree Murder. (A capital offense.)

What appears to be going on here is the opposition to Mother's rights want to redefine Abortion as Murder (Therefore the stage of incubation you can call a fetus, or fertilized egg a human being, and citizen with rights) and punish it as such, to the full extent of the law. To extend the law further, and punish more women.

The intent is to punish women. Abortion is another excuse for punishing women, and call them murderers, for considering their own lives, and wellbeing. Sure, they hold up a baby to pull heartstrings and add emotional weight to the argument, but there's no mention of the Health of the infant. It doesn't mention birth defects, at all. If the infant doesn't have a working heart, or lungs, and won't be able to survive without an artificial umbilicus, it's still Murder.

That's an extreme example, but I use it to illustrate how extreme 0 Tolerance actually is.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 07:36:35 PM: Why isn't there a ban on Circumcision? Let me reword that: Why isn't legislation for Circumcision even discussed? If i add up all the issues involved here (Except for the nebulous, and conveniently defined point where someone is considered to be Alive) it's pretty much the same issue.

Why aren't men more concerned about, and protective of their own penises than they are worried about women's bodies, and who gets to make decisions for them?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Athos_131 on May 18, 2019, 09:26:32 PM: Quote from: ToeinH20 on May 18, 2019, 06:44:00 PM
“Double jeopardy” is a legal principle that applies only in criminal cases. A person can’t be tried twice for the same crime, including “lesser included offenses.”

American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.

This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

1. States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.

2. The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases (https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm)

Thank you for clearing this up. Someone lying in this thread on the same point for the second time was upsetting my sensibilities.

#Resist
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 18, 2019, 10:28:20 PM: Quote from: Athos_131 on May 18, 2019, 09:26:32 PM
Someone lying in this thread on the same point for the second time was upsetting my sensibilities.

What was the second time?

Also, upsetting your tender sensibilities is a pretty low bar.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Athos_131 on May 19, 2019, 01:33:44 AM: http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=64465.msg526283#msg526283

Quote from: psiberzerker on November 25, 2018, 07:29:05 PM
Roe v Wade has already passed SCotUS. It hasn't changed, the ruling can't be changed. It's specifically set up so that you can't just replace the bench, and ask again. The Supreme Court is not a magic 8 ball. They have no party affiliation, the law has no party affiliation.

Double Jeopardy. Asked, and answered. Moving on...

#Resist
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 19, 2019, 01:41:11 AM: Well, look who grew the balls to Boo me personally, instead of Wooing others, 3 a day, for talking shit to me themselves.

Like having the old you back again. Wouldn't want you to break your record for booing the most people on this board.

Makes me feel special. Just knowing you hate me so much, you'll take the Anti-Choice side, just to spite me.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Lois on May 20, 2019, 08:06:58 AM: Interestingly, many conservatives think Alabama is going too far, and the whole thing will backfire on them.

Want to stop abortion? Make free contraception availabe to everyone.

As for zygotes awaiting in test tubes, ask for volunteers from among the pro-lifers to carry them to term and raise them as their own.

And accidents do happen and there are people willing to adopt. The woman who bears a child should be able to reap at least 80% of the adoption fees.

And of course, women should still have the right to choose.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 20, 2019, 01:42:19 PM: Quote from: Farmer Miles on May 20, 2019, 09:58:28 AM
a right to choose death of another being over a change in their lifestyle

A "Change in her lifestyle" isn't a good reason to decide to go through something this invasive. Some are arguing in cases of Rape (Which changes her life) Incest, (Ditto) and when the life of the mother or child is in jeopardy. Not so that she doesn't look fat for 6 months. I agree that that's not a valid reason for making such a choice, but this argument ignores the specific valid reasons by appealing to the sterotype of women being Vain.

Quote from: Farmer Miles on May 20, 2019, 09:58:28 AM
it is not and should not be considered an inalienable right.

Who is arguing that it is an "Inalienable right?"

Quote from: Farmer Miles on May 20, 2019, 09:58:28 AM
it is absolutely an issue that affects us all.

How? How are we all affected by Abortion? Do you mean everyone, all Americans are Affected, or some smaller set of {Us all}?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 20, 2019, 02:16:18 PM: Quote from: Farmer Miles on May 20, 2019, 02:04:16 PM
It is the entirety of the argument in favour of abortions for some.

Who? Not just who says that (The question you avoided) but now, who considers that the Entirety of their argument?

Quote
Larger. I'm not American.

Well, then there's a way around it for you. If you make it International Law, like nuclear weapons, and Carbon Emissions, than the Supreme Court can not rule that it's okay for America, over International Law. This started as a discussion of banning Abortion in Alabama, to take it to the SCotUS.

Quote
It is one of many things that defines society and it's values. Unplanned pregnancies are also extremely common, meaning the availability and legality and perception of abortions will be taken into consideration for many people at some point in their lives and has been a deciding factor in determining who was allowed to live and who was denied that right.

Guns, Beer, and Cars define US. American Society, and they kill people. Not just guns, so do cars. Also, the pollution from cars affects Everyone, throughout the world. So, we should ban cars, simply because most people know someone who has been killed by one?

Here in America, Guns are considered an Inalienable Right. In fact, there are people (I can even specifically name the NRA) for whom the 2nd Amendment is the basis of their entire argument. Despite the fact that they're specifically designed to kill, people.

I would argue that our stance on guns defines our society more than our stance on Abortion.

Now, we have an exception to Murder, where your life is in danger. Why is it wrong to apply that to childbirth?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 20, 2019, 02:52:18 PM: Quote from: Farmer Miles on May 20, 2019, 09:58:28 AM
I believe that the insistence that women have a right to choose death of another being over a change in their lifestyle will be viewed harshly in history books...

Viewing it as a gender issue middies the water too, in my opinion.

This confuses me too. (I'm mostly confused.) When a woman decides that the life of Her child is less important than a change in Her lifestyle.

Is it a woman's issue then? Is it that woman's issue, or the father's?

Why is it anyone else's issue?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 20, 2019, 03:42:55 PM: Quote from: Farmer Miles on May 20, 2019, 03:21:46 PM
I would guess that Katie and Lois at least would be comfortable claiming that the right to choose is an unalienable right, based on discussions that have happened in the past.

You also don't seem to have any problem assuming that that is the ENTIRETY of their argument, which makes it easy to ignore any other point.

Quote
I don't care to find an example and it doesn't bother me if you don't believe me but I don't think it's a controversial claim.

I don't care to bother you, but it would help me to see the extremists, who ruin the argument for those of us that do have other points, or don't believe that it is a "Right" across the board. It isn't, it's a serious, and complex issue. If there were people like that, then it would hurt people like me, who want to discuss the Gestalt of the complex issue, instead of just call it a "Right." Simplifying it down to 1 thing basically ignores all the complexities, and remove the People in the decision. Every time someone is forced to make that decision. It reduces people, with lives, and feelings, down to murder statistics.

Quote
The implication of the concept of a woman's right to choose is that a woman has the choice to choose their own lifestyle over the other life that they are carrying.

It's not the only, nor most important thing to consider, but I would say that the parent's lifestyle is significant to the lifestyle of the children, should they be born. Not the Change in that lifestyle (The man has to deal with loss of sleep as well) but are They ready for a child? Are they in the financial situation to provide for that child, and do they have the Time to invest in him or her?

Yes, the mother may have to give up her job, if it doesn't provide maternity leave, and that is a woman's issue. However, what I am arguing is that the Courts taking that decision away from them is an Abuse of Power. It's not just a woman's choice, but when there is a single mother, it is that woman's choice. Whether she is capable of raising a child. Just like the choice to put him, or her up for Adoption, or other options that need to be taken into account.

It doesn't take Any of that into account. It just removes the option. It just takes the choice away from the Parents (All mothers are women, and not all women have a man in the picture.) Even when her Life, not her Lifestyle is in danger. Even when her lifestyle wouldn't be good for the baby. If she's an Alcoholic, then it's better to risk Fetal Alcohol Syndrome than consider the option of Abortion. If she's addicted to Speedball, it's better the child be born addicted to Opiates, and Stimulants, than to consider the option of Abortion. If she's homeless, and living in a box, that "Lifestyle" isn't a significant factor in that decision? What if she's not homeless, but she can barely make rent without a child to take care of? Should the courts decide that she be put out, on the streets, and risk both of their lives, because the life of the Child is more important than Both of their lives, and both of their lifestyles changing, that drastically?

This is the problem with the unilateral 0 Tolerance position, that it's Always murder, and just about women being afraid of their lifestyle changes. I would argue that "lifestyle changes" is at least an understatement.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: psiberzerker on May 20, 2019, 03:56:06 PM: I would have an easier time swallowing the argument, if it came with funding for the Consequences of banning Abortion. Not just tougher punishment for women that get them, and murdering doctors to make a point.

Adoption

This is an obvious alternative to Abortion, right? (In the case where there's no medical risks to the Pregnancy itself.) So, how about a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood, and invests that money in our Adoption system? That's the capitalist argument: That we're wasting taxpayer dollars funding murder clinics, but where does the money saved go? To Children's Services?

No, it appears to go into the pockets of the Legislators who're lobbied to ban Abortion. I'd look at Adoption (Starting Here (https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics), and see how viable an option that was, if I had that choice to make. If i were a pregnant woman, or a man with a pregnant girlfriend, we decided together that we're not ready to raise a child, and as part of choosing Adoption, we'd want to look into that, right?

Politically, it would make a stronger case, to the prospective parents, if Adoption was a more Attractive option. if parents had some assurance that their children would be better off in that system. I don't see any efforts in that direction.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Lois on May 22, 2019, 07:47:25 AM: I spoke to a woman today that was in her 8th month of pregnancy. Her signifiant other tried to force her to have an abortion. He beat her badly when she refused.

Choice goes both ways, and it goes with free will. No one should force a woman to abort or force her to bear children. It is not for anyone else to force a decision one way or the other.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Katiebee on May 22, 2019, 06:48:11 PM: Absolutely!!!!!
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: _priapism on May 22, 2019, 07:20:51 PM: (https://cbsnews3-cbsistatic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2019/05/21/c7362128-99a9-460e-9eb0-9640407a4dc1/thumbnail/640x360/3eb9fff3a314ce50289ca1ff4a60d363/1-roe-all.png#)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/majority-of-americans-dont-want-roe-v-wade-overturned-cbs-news-poll-finds/
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: RopeFiend on June 17, 2019, 03:55:33 AM: (https://imgur.com/UzNwN5j.jpg)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Lois on June 17, 2019, 04:07:04 AM: Tell it like it is!

A Man’s Guide to Abortion
You don’t have to be a woman to stand up for reproductive rights.
By Katha Pollitt

As abortion bans spring up in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and elsewhere, it’s a good time to talk about men. Where are they? Polls show that in the United States there is little difference of opinion between men and women on abortion. According to Pew, 60 percent of women and 57 percent of men say abortion should be legal in “all or most cases.” But checking a box on a questionnaire doesn’t tell us much, because polls don’t measure intensity. There is no box for “sure, babe, whatever” or for “Yes! Abortion rights is the hill I would die on.”

In my experience, there’s a big difference in intensity between genders on the pro-choice side. Men are all over the anti-abortion movement—staffing and running organizations, protesting at clinics, harassing patients, and participating in mass protests like 40 Days for Life. I’ve been involved with reproductive rights for decades, and I have never seen more than a sprinkling of men at any conference, meeting, fund-raiser, or volunteer activity on the pro-choice side. With the exception of gatherings of abortion providers, many of whom are men, just about the only time I see our pro-choice brothers representing us is when there’s a really big march. And even then, they’re way under half the crowd.

Why? It’s obvious. For anti-choicers, abortion is about “the unborn,” who are as likely to be male as female—which means actually caring about how women fare isn’t required to be part of that movement. It’s also about maintaining traditional gender roles that put men in charge of women and cast women as wives and mothers. (And if the track record of Republican politicians is any guide, pro-life men don’t seem to have much trouble ignoring the sexual-responsibility and marital-fidelity requirements of those arrangements. Among many others, just look at thrice-married Newt Gingrich, Mark “Appalachian Trail” Sanford, and of course, the pussy-grabber-in-chief.)

On the pro-choice side, even when abortion isn’t dismissed as a cultural issue, it is nonetheless upheld, often by both sexes, as a women’s issue. The whole basis of the pro-choice perspective is that the woman is the protagonist: She, not the fertilized egg or embryo or fetus—and certainly not the man who impregnated her—is the one with rights. This is as it should be: Women are the ones whose physical well-being is at risk in pregnancy and childbirth and whose personhood is denied when abortion is made illegal or inaccessible. They, not their impregnators, are the ones who are punished for becoming pregnant outside marriage. Motherhood has a huge effect on women’s futures in every way, and it’s usually much greater than the effect that fatherhood has on men. That’s why the decision to end a pregnancy must always be up to the pregnant woman—and her alone. Anything else turns her into a vessel and a vassal.

That doesn’t mean men can sit back, though. After all, they have a big personal stake in keeping abortion safe and legal. I’m not talking about reproductive criminals—the rapists, hit-and-run artists, and men who refuse to wear a condom—or those who practice reproductive sabotage, putting holes in condoms or throwing away their partner’s pills. I’m not talking about men who ghost when a girlfriend gets pregnant. I’m talking about reasonably decent pro-choice men who think they have more important concerns than standing up for our rights. Because for every woman with an ill-timed, unwanted pregnancy, there is probably a man who is unhappy about it, too.

Men, too, can have their lives stunted by unwanted childbearing. They, too, suffer when a pregnancy pushes them into marriage, or into marriage with the wrong person. For men as for women, ill-timed or unwanted children can mean giving up ambitions and dreams. It can mean decades of regret for not doing right by children you didn’t mean to have or have no real connection to or perhaps have never even met. These are things women think about all the time. They know the stakes can be very high. But when you consider how few men use condoms every time, it doesn’t seem that nearly enough of them have absorbed the message. Where is the men’s mass movement demanding a male birth-control pill?

Men: With abortion becoming ever harder to access and no doubt with birth control soon to follow, you have to do better. A lot better. For starters, you need to volunteer as clinic defenders and patient escorts, as political-campaign workers and fund-raisers. Support pro-choice candidates. March and demonstrate—and not just once a year. Talk to other men about abortion and get active together. That dollar you earn compared with the average woman’s 80 cents? Put it to work by donating today to an abortion fund in one of the abortion-ban states. For example, the Gateway Women’s Access Fund helps people in Missouri, a state of over 6 million people with only one clinic and where a super-restrictive “heartbeat bill” was just passed. You can find the fund, along with many others, at abortionfunds.org.

At the personal level, use condoms. If you don’t want to be a father or you’ve had all the children you want, get a vasectomy. Do you have any idea how much pain women go through because of their reproductive systems, how much effort they put in to stay unpregnant? Unless you plan a future with (more) kids, your partners have to do that only because of your love of your own sperm.

Oh, and should you impregnate a woman who wants an abortion, pay the whole bill. Not half—half is fake equality. She is going through a not-fun visit to a clinic, with sanitary napkins and follow-up visits and other tiresome stuff. That’s her share. And while you’re at it, make a donation to the clinic, too. The staffers put their lives on the line for you.

I know men like sports metaphors, so here are a few to remember: Step up to the plate. Make a full-court press. Go to the mat. Keep your eye on the ball. Let’s push abortion rights over the goal line together.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: _priapism on March 27, 2020, 07:05:35 PM: Coronavirus abortion bans leave women stranded (https://apple.news/AkeTHCq9CSLen4TJbUfa4yA)

Alabama
Ohio
Texas

There were already women in the waiting room when the clinic’s lawyers called to deliver the news: Until further notice, abortion was illegal in Texas.

They’d been hoping to find some way around Monday’s executive order, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had been clear, the lawyers told Kathy Kleinfeld, the administrator at Houston Women’s Reproductive Services: To better combat coronavirus, doctors “must immediately stop” performing procedures deemed “medically unnecessary,” including abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Lois on March 27, 2020, 09:42:22 PM: Wow! Ohio tried that and they were overuled by the courts. I hope the courts step in and stop this BS from Texas.