Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

drakeheuer14 said:

To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day. 

Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though… 

To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic? 

Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient. 

And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous. 

To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense. 

Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is  the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases.  If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.  

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this.  Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again.  Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion.  For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place.  However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception.  It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.  

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history,  what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so. 

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.

The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to. 

It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear.
Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.

1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control.  For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy.  It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.

Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today.  My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control.  Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type. 

I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer. 

Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely 

I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not.
I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.

Here is an entirely plausible law.  

Texas already has a law that refers parents who give their minor children access to gender affirmation care for possible prosecution  for child abuse. 

What’s stopping them from saying any girl under 18 years old can’t get birth control and any doctor or parent who seeks out the medication are guilty of abuse.  most girls start the pill at 16.  That’s a logical birth control target.  

Some states  could make birth control only available to married women.  Why wouldn’t they? It goes along with basically everything else they have been saying and that’s how it use to be as unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.

“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”

That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists 

Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy.  As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since.  Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too.  Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control.  It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation 

cblock4life said:

drakeheuer14 said:

To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day. 

Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though… 

To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic? 

Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient. 

And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous. 

To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense. 

Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…

If you look a few posts back I definitely support a woman taking the fathers feelings into consideration.  

I’m probably in the minority but I’m ok with assisted suicide and with the freedom to use drugs as long as you can keep it your thing without harming others in any way shape or form.  Women don’t discuss their abortions, don’t admit to them.  A woman can keep an abortion all to herself for the rest of her life…..are you starting to see this now as women see this?  It’s not difficult, most of the men around here get it.  I’m not seeing a lot of other women willing to discuss this which proves my point.  It’s a thing that belongs only to that women…no one else is going to feel the same way about it….it’s a unique feeling to each individual.  It’s truly for no one else to decide. 

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is  the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases.  If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.  

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this.  Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again.  Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion.  For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place.  However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception.  It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.  

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history,  what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so. 

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.

The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to. 

It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear.
Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.

1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control.  For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy.  It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.

Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today.  My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control.  Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type. 

I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer. 

Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely 

I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not.
I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.

Here is an entirely plausible law.  

Texas already has a law that refers parents who give their minor children access to gender affirmation care for possible prosecution  for child abuse. 

What’s stopping them from saying any girl under 18 years old can’t get birth control and any doctor or parent who seeks out the medication are guilty of abuse.  most girls start the pill at 16.  That’s a logical birth control target.  

Some states  could make birth control only available to married women.  Why wouldn’t they? It goes along with basically everything else they have been saying and that’s how it use to be as unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.

“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”

That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists 

Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy.  As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since.  Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too.  Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control.  It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation 

I was disappointed when that thread on the TX law got shut down, I was interested in having a conversation on that. I’ve been well aware of some impacts and mental health issues involved. But wasn’t too informed on the basis of medical treatments. What I learned from reading a little is that Texas law aligns with the WPATH (world professional association for transgendered health) guidelines. They recommend an age of at least 16 before introducing hormone therapy because how it impacts the body, can alter growth and so on. I don’t see a reason to be upset with laws that follow the guidelines set by the leading health organization in that area, unless there is reason to believe said organization has faulty data. But I haven’t seen that.
Sp I don’t see that ad a comparison. It’s not like Texas made laws just willy nilly and random ages to discriminate. It was based on health recommendations from a leading organization. Therefore I can’t see that as justification that a state is just going to willy nilly make laws about birth control.
If there is medical research about when it is safe to take birth control, then yes, maybe some states will have laws around that. And why is that bad, if it’s based on health recommendations from leading doctors?

The HPV vaccine is recommended at 13 for girls, that’s science. Before they are sexually active.  Science plays no basis for any decisions most conservatives take on reproductive health, STD’s, or Transgender health care. As the religious right is convinced it “encourages sexual behaviour” if you are protected. 

They will use science of it helps their position, but that’s not the same thing as basing a decision on science. In any case you are a minor until 18 in reference to gender affirming care. It’s putting the government directly between a family and their doctor.  The state only does this on issues that affect these types of groups.  In any other setting they believe in absolute parental rights.  If you believe the state is enforcing this out of a genuine concern for transgender teens, you are sorely mistaken 

when your kid is gay or transgender you know way earlier than that .  All of these issues abortion, gay rights, transgender issues etc are connected and a targeted effort to deny rights to people who aren’t like them or who don’t believe what they believe. It’s an attack on multiple fronts at the same time, and it’s by design 

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?

I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion.  I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?

I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion.  I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.

I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.

PJ_Soul said:

Cropduster-80 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?

I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion.  I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.

I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.

It all about the man’s money 

men are all about “it’s my money” in a divorce, and they fight tooth and nail to keep what’s “theirs”,  but then a woman saying “it’s my body and my choice what to do” and then all of a sudden it’s not fair? If I don’t want the kid I shouldn’t have to pay for it or if I want the kid then you have to keep it. Both are attempts to get to decide a course of action in a way that benefits the man. 

I don’t know a single divorced man who believes their ex got a fair amount in a divorce even if it’s 50/50. To a man it’s she took “my money”. It’s never “our money”. I know a lot of divorced men so my observation pool is large. 

It’s basically male psychology for a lot of men to think what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is also mine. The expectation of having a say is really an expectation they can decide what works best for them.

Yeah, you're totally right (yes guys, not all men. But most).

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?

I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion.  I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.

I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.

and in those cases where a man was told the woman is on the pill but really isnt. what then in those cases?

PJ_Soul said:

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?

I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion.  I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.

I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.

and in those cases where a man was told the woman is on the pill but really isnt. what then in those cases?

Then nothing, lol. He still decided to stick it in her. More fool him for just believing what someone says like that, hahaha. WHEN YOU STICK IT IN, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE. Unless you had a vasectomy, in which case you have nothing to worry about. I mean, you ask that question... What if she says she's on birth control, is telling the truth, and is then the 1 out of 100 women who gets pregnant anyhow?? If you're not fixed, don't have sex, or it's your fault if you get stuck with a baby. Period.

My mind keeps going on this, lol.... Just thinking about if a woman just believed a guy when he said he's fixed, but then gets pregnant because he lied.... and then apparently some would think she has no legal responsibility for the baby she gives birth to... What a ridiculous idea.