Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

I mean there has to be restrictions around abortion of some sort don’t you think? It might be arbitrary, but so are a lot of rules/laws. But then it comes back to when does life begin which is a topic that will never have an agreement. 

heartbeat detected at 6 weeks sure, but can the fetus survive outside the womb?

that doesnt usually happen until the lungs have developed. at at least 20 weeks.....

and God breathed life into Adam.....

I mean grown adults can’t survive without certain devices - but we don’t just cut their life off because they rely on something/someone to survive. 

honest question (and this isn't a "trap", just yes or no and that's it)

do you feel the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the host?

I don’t think it’s that simple. Equal rights until the scales are tilted harming the host is where I am at. 

Under that theory, you cannot support abortion no matter the length of the term. 

Well, you are right. I don’t “support” it. 

Out of My Mind and Time said:

Packing the courts is loser mentality 

says the guy who supported the biggest loser of all time. LOL

I believe the saying is "to the WINNER go the spoils". 

the WINNER gets to choose how this goes. 

the LOSER is still peddling his fantasy all over fox and newsmax about how he won the election. hahaha. 

maybe a mid-day surf would brighten your spirits?

drakeheuer14 said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

I mean there has to be restrictions around abortion of some sort don’t you think? It might be arbitrary, but so are a lot of rules/laws. But then it comes back to when does life begin which is a topic that will never have an agreement. 

heartbeat detected at 6 weeks sure, but can the fetus survive outside the womb?

that doesnt usually happen until the lungs have developed. at at least 20 weeks.....

and God breathed life into Adam.....

I mean grown adults can’t survive without certain devices - but we don’t just cut their life off because they rely on something/someone to survive. 

honest question (and this isn't a "trap", just yes or no and that's it)

do you feel the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the host?

I don’t think it’s that simple. Equal rights until the scales are tilted harming the host is where I am at. 

Under that theory, you cannot support abortion no matter the length of the term. 

Well, you are right. I don’t “support” it. 

I understand the position of those with opposing views and situations though. 

I think Bill Clinton said it perfectly when he said abortion should be safe and rare.  If we are going to ban it (or almost, like this law does) then we damned better be ready to create a massive new support network and welfare state for all of the mothers who don't want to be mothers and all of the children that will be abandoned to the state.  

Second, if you ever read the book Freakonomics, there was a compelling case that was made how the drop in the crime in the 90s and forward was tied directly to the federal legalization of abortion.  Unwanted children are not successful in life. 

Gern Blansten said:

drakeheuer14 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

I mean there has to be restrictions around abortion of some sort don’t you think? It might be arbitrary, but so are a lot of rules/laws. But then it comes back to when does life begin which is a topic that will never have an agreement. 

heartbeat detected at 6 weeks sure, but can the fetus survive outside the womb?

that doesnt usually happen until the lungs have developed. at at least 20 weeks.....

and God breathed life into Adam.....

I mean grown adults can’t survive without certain devices - but we don’t just cut their life off because they rely on something/someone to survive. 

honest question (and this isn't a "trap", just yes or no and that's it)

do you feel the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the host?

I don’t think it’s that simple. Equal rights until the scales are tilted harming the host is where I am at. 

Since I view them as two separate beings, equal is the only answer most of the time. 

So if a 13 year old is raped by her Father...becomes pregnant, but doesn't say anything out of fear, you are ok with the government forcing her to give birth to a rape baby? (if beyond the six week period being discussed here)

I don’t know is my only answer right now. 

drakeheuer14 said:

Gern Blansten said:

drakeheuer14 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

I mean there has to be restrictions around abortion of some sort don’t you think? It might be arbitrary, but so are a lot of rules/laws. But then it comes back to when does life begin which is a topic that will never have an agreement. 

heartbeat detected at 6 weeks sure, but can the fetus survive outside the womb?

that doesnt usually happen until the lungs have developed. at at least 20 weeks.....

and God breathed life into Adam.....

I mean grown adults can’t survive without certain devices - but we don’t just cut their life off because they rely on something/someone to survive. 

honest question (and this isn't a "trap", just yes or no and that's it)

do you feel the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the host?

I don’t think it’s that simple. Equal rights until the scales are tilted harming the host is where I am at. 

Since I view them as two separate beings, equal is the only answer most of the time. 

So if a 13 year old is raped by her Father...becomes pregnant, but doesn't say anything out of fear, you are ok with the government forcing her to give birth to a rape baby? (if beyond the six week period being discussed here)

I don’t know is my only answer right now. 

Isn’t the amount of cases from rape and incest really small compared to the number of abortions in total? Their are extremes in every situation. 

I'm sure that's the case....but the law still prevents it right? 

mickeyrat said:

every texas male who jerks off has aborted untold multitudes of potential babies.

sue them all.....

All of those poor babies that die in socks and toilet paper....tragic

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mickeyrat said:

drakeheuer14 said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

I mean there has to be restrictions around abortion of some sort don’t you think? It might be arbitrary, but so are a lot of rules/laws. But then it comes back to when does life begin which is a topic that will never have an agreement. 

heartbeat detected at 6 weeks sure, but can the fetus survive outside the womb?

that doesnt usually happen until the lungs have developed. at at least 20 weeks.....

and God breathed life into Adam.....

I mean grown adults can’t survive without certain devices - but we don’t just cut their life off because they rely on something/someone to survive. 

honest question (and this isn't a "trap", just yes or no and that's it)

do you feel the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the host?

I don’t think it’s that simple. Equal rights until the scales are tilted harming the host is where I am at. 

Under that theory, you cannot support abortion no matter the length of the term. 

Well, you are right. I don’t “support” it. 

I understand the position of those with opposing views and situations though. 

I think Bill Clinton said it perfectly when he said abortion should be safe and rare.  If we are going to ban it (or almost, like this law does) then we damned better be ready to create a massive new support network and welfare state for all of the mothers who don't want to be mothers and all of the children that will be abandoned to the state.  

Second, if you ever read the book Freakonomics, there was a compelling case that was made how the drop in the crime in the 90s and forward was tied directly to the federal legalization of abortion.  Unwanted children are not successful in life. 

And I agree it should be safe and rare when allowed. If we ban it, I completely agree with your proposal of providing proper support. 

drakeheuer14 said:

mickeyrat said:

lets do this, forced vasectomies for all pubescent boys, reversable of course. When buddy boy feels ready to be daddy. reverse it.....

This extreme solution always confuses me. I get it’s said in jest (mostly), but extreme situations aside, it takes two to party. So if the goal is prevention, how about we make females take the same over protective precaution at the same time? 

it highlights the inequality of the whole premise of the abortion debate. largely privleged while males get to decide what women of all races, colours, economic background and ethnicities get to do with their own bodies. it's absurd. why don't, instead, we make it a country-wide referendum? instead of these "representatives" deciding, let the people decide. 

and let's be real: if men were the ones who carried fetuses, this would NOT even be up for debate.