Abortion Rights On the Chopping Block

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't consider it a child till it is viable. And if we want to be technical even bacteria are alive, but they aren't people.

Either way no it is not easy to see why it's acceptable to allow abortions in some cases and not others. I suppose even if I saw it as a person at the moment of conception then I'd say no one gets to use my body without my consent. If preventing them using my body without my consent means they die...well too bad.

But is there any exception that would account for this like as long as you make the appointment by a certain date, then it's the hospitals responsibility to get it for you before six weeks is up, otherwise they still have to do it anyway and any legal consequences for being late will fall on them? Like make it a law that the hospital has to do it right away, because of the law, no exceptions?

Plus how long after getting pregnant does a pregnancy test work in order to know?

That seems to be the prevailing pro-murder rationale. As is typically the case, whether we're talking about "classic" murder, unprovoked war (or really any violent invasion), killing babies in the womb, or even suicide--we're really just talking about a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

What's the real issue with bringing babies to term? In most situations where homeowners can't pay their mortgages or renters can't pay their rent, banks and landlords still have a lengthy legal process they are obligated to follow before they can forcibly remove someone from their home. They don't normally come in with the FBI, the ATF, a SWAT team, and the National Guard just because you refuse to move out. They certainly don't kill you. And considering that you can just have the baby and someone else will take care of it, you never have to see your baby again, it really takes the air out of the whole "my body, my choice" argument.

Unless you really are facing a threat on your life, there's no justification for killing someone. The "Stand Your Ground" doctrine in some jurisdictions--the doctrine that you have the right to kill any unauthorized person on your property--loses its steam when an unarmed intruder is trying to get away from you.

On a totally irrelevant side note: While I do tend to prioritize saving the lives of all human persons, the facts remain that EVEN IF Roe is overturned, abortion will NOT become illegal. All it means is that it's left up to individuals and the states separately to decide the issue. If Mississippi or Texas collectively sees abortion as wrong, then you just can't get an abortion in Mississippi or Texas. You find out where you CAN have an abortion and go there. And because abortion will remain legal and available, that means giving birth remains a conscious choice on the part of the mother. And because mothers can decide whether to let her baby live or not, it does obligate her to take care of her child until the child reaches the majority age. The state of welfare is such that, at least where I'm from, there is big money in having babies. BIG money. As in one year when we had a baby we received more money in our tax refund than we paid in, and we purposefully fudge our tax papers to withhold EVERYTHING (no dependents when we actually do have 4 kids). I've seen households with three generations of single mothers, some going their entire lives on state assistance and never missing a meal or hospital visits. There's no excuse for not giving your child basic needs and providing every opportunity to achieve more in life. I guess the only positive I can give in favor of unrestricted abortion is at least those parents aren't condemning their kids to a cycle of perpetual poverty or abuse--whether the abuse comes from neglect, mistreatment, or the horrors of foster homes.

having worked in an L & D for over 2 decades, i can say for a FACT that if you took a typical antiabortion/anti-birth-control conservative man and made him magically get pregnant and give birth, he'd change his tune in a heartbeat, before the first contraction in fact.

I don't have 9 months available to give up for pregnancy, as is I am looking for a part time job to help me and my boyfriends financial situation. So, keeping a pregnancy to term and giving up the baby would not work in our situation either. Plus, I don't want any children to begin with so why would I put my health at risk to keep a pregnancy to term when I don't even want a child? There are already enough children up for adoption anyways.

Also, someone staying in a house they can't pay mortgage for or whatever is not the same thing as someone taking residence in your body. I am already in a state that will continue to have abortion access, so I'll just stay here.

That's a little cruel, at least see if they can handle a period first.

Remember, abortion is a right that can only be interfered with, it can't actually be denied.

https://jewishcurrents.org/how-to-give- ... -abortion/

^^^^that is a public service.

Indeed, it's a public service that allows grassroots resistance to authoritarian government. Anti-choicers can't win as long as enough people are willing to invest time and effort into ensuring their cause fails.

if they can't win then they'll just enslave the rest of us and kill those who resist.

That sounds like how liberals demoralize the rest of us from fighting back against the American Taliban types. They can't enslave and kill us unless we allow them to and if that's what they want I guarantee it will come with a large price tag.

that is what civil wars are made of. one side refusing to be subjugated by the other.

The alternative is being subjugated by people who will make the Nazis seem kind and humane by comparison.

which makes it seem plain and inevitable that a civil war of sorts will be the trend.

There is no exception, after six weeks it would be illegal. In the case of Texas the hospital would most likely get sued.



Yes, the legal consequences for performing an illegal abortion would fall on the hospital. The hospital doesn't want to get in trouble with the law so they would refuse to do it.

This isn't a law saying hospitals have to perform abortions right away, this a law preventing them from performing abortions.

Oh okay. Could they make a law saying that the hospitals MUST perform an abortion before six weeks, in order for the law to be more do-able, or is Texas not going to make that law for hospitals?