Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

Roe v. Wade allows abortion in the third trimester to preserve the life or health of the mother, not just the life. Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, broadly defines health to include "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

---

Viability shouldn't be a basis for determination. Babies (in the womb or outside) and toddlers are not viable without the support of their mother or a substitute mother.

---

But they're human beings...

and a Fetus will become a Human being 99% of the time.

The argument always boils down to timing.

Why is it not OK to abort at birth or after? Time?

---

Aborting at birth or after, or by any time is a moral question. Viability as the determining factor is a poor choice for making that determination.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.

---

Contraception, properly applied, solves 99.9% of the problem.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.

---

Contraception, properly applied, solves 99.9% of the problem.

---

Only in the sense that you might "solve" the problem of unfair wages by never paying anyone. The problem cited by Booray was not the fact of pregnancy and child-rearing but the disproportionate burden placed on women.

Booray said:

---

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

There was a guy who didn't think of a certain ethnicity as human either, and he claimed the same right to end their life. I think he was from Europe.

Booray said:

---

My view is that a necessary characteristic of humanity is the capability of experiencing life. A pre-viability fetus lacks that capability.

---

There is so much wrong with what you said here. What does "experiencing life" mean, and when does it meet your threshold for acceptability? "Experiencing life" occurs in a kind of continuum, from the most nascient level all the way to the fully-developed and complex. And, there are even times when the complex regress to the rudimentary, as when a person becomes an invalid, quadriplegic, comatose, extremely old, etc, yet they never cease to be human.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

---

Its a fetus, period.. You are the one who wants to attach "human" as a qualifier.

---

Being that "fetus" can apply to any mammalian developing embryo, it is wholly appropriate to attach the "human" qualifier in this case.

But your effort to dehumanize the fetus is duly noted.

robby44 said:

---

Does a state that criminalizes abortion but ranks 50th in education really give a **** about children?

---

We know the answer. And if abortion's gonna be outlawed, paid medical leave for new mothers is more important than ever.

I will be honest here. I was not too long ago one of those wishy washy in the middle people that felt like the decision to terminate a pregnancy before 24 weeks was okay. Abortions in the case of rape or incest was okay. Abortions in the case of danger to the health of the mother was okay.

The Liberal Left's PUSH PUSH PUSH for abortion on demand these last two years even after an unwanted child's life is actually terminated after being born has changed my mind. The Democrats aggressive position has pushed me towards the right side. If the Left is not willing to be reasonable and meet in the middle, I am PRO-LIFE. Did not want to go there but they left me with no choice. Ending human life for the sake of convenience is just wrong. I am ashamed it took me so long to figure this out.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I will be honest here. I was not too long ago one of those wishy washy in the middle people that felt like the decision to terminate a pregnancy before 24 weeks was okay. Abortions in the case of rape or incest was okay. Abortions in the case of danger to the health of the mother was okay.

The Liberal Left's PUSH PUSH PUSH for abortion on demand these last two years even after an unwanted child's life is actually terminated after being born has changed my mind. The Democrats aggressive position has pushed me towards the right side. If the Left is not willing to be reasonable and meet in the middle, I am PRO-LIFE. Did not want to go there but they left me with no choice. Ending human life for the sake of convenience is just wrong. I am ashamed it took me so long to figure this out.

---

And I am pro-"let the women vote on it themselves."

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I will be honest here. I was not too long ago one of those wishy washy in the middle people that felt like the decision to terminate a pregnancy before 24 weeks was okay. Abortions in the case of rape or incest was okay. Abortions in the case of danger to the health of the mother was okay.

The Liberal Left's PUSH PUSH PUSH for abortion on demand these last two years even after an unwanted child's life is actually terminated after being born has changed my mind. The Democrats aggressive position has pushed me towards the right side. If the Left is not willing to be reasonable and meet in the middle, I am PRO-LIFE. Did not want to go there but they left me with no choice. Ending human life for the sake of convenience is just wrong. I am ashamed it took me so long to figure this out.

---

And I am pro-"let the women vote on it themselves."

---

Terminating life for the sake of "it is my decision and I don't care what anybody says" no longer works for me. I bought into it for a while. No more.

Be responsible. Use birth control. Don't take out payday loans at 200 percent interest. Be an adult.

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I will be honest here. I was not too long ago one of those wishy washy in the middle people that felt like the decision to terminate a pregnancy before 24 weeks was okay. Abortions in the case of rape or incest was okay. Abortions in the case of danger to the health of the mother was okay.

The Liberal Left's PUSH PUSH PUSH for abortion on demand these last two years even after an unwanted child's life is actually terminated after being born has changed my mind. The Democrats aggressive position has pushed me towards the right side. If the Left is not willing to be reasonable and meet in the middle, I am PRO-LIFE. Did not want to go there but they left me with no choice. Ending human life for the sake of convenience is just wrong. I am ashamed it took me so long to figure this out.

---

And I am pro-"let the women vote on it themselves."

---

I am pro 'protect innocent life'

Oldbear83 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

cinque: first in made-up assertions and self-righteous hypocrisy.

---

Why do pro birthers such as yourself think that more gun laws will not stop unchecked gun violence but believe that more abortion laws will stop abortion?

---

poor cinque, desperately trying to change the topic as another effort to lie through a thread blows up in cinque's face

---

Chuckle, good answer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.

---

Contraception, properly applied, solves 99.9% of the problem.

---

Only in the sense that you might "solve" the problem of unfair wages by never paying anyone. The problem cited by Booray was not the fact of pregnancy and child-rearing but the disproportionate burden placed on women.

---

If what you are saying is single parent child rearing is disproportionately placed upon women without any assistance from the father, I agree. All I'm saying is the practice of contraception would eliminate the vast majority of these unfortunate situations. I do believe that the fathers should be required to provide adequate financial support for raising those children. There need to be harsh penalties for father's who duck that responsibility.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.

---

Contraception, properly applied, solves 99.9% of the problem.

---

Only in the sense that you might "solve" the problem of unfair wages by never paying anyone. The problem cited by Booray was not the fact of pregnancy and child-rearing but the disproportionate burden placed on women.

---

All I'm saying is the practice of contraception would eliminate the vast majority of these unfortunate situations.

---

That was the theory. The actual results have been decidedly opposite.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.

---

Contraception, properly applied, solves 99.9% of the problem.

---

Only in the sense that you might "solve" the problem of unfair wages by never paying anyone. The problem cited by Booray was not the fact of pregnancy and child-rearing but the disproportionate burden placed on women.

---

All I'm saying is the practice of contraception would eliminate the vast majority of these unfortunate situations.

---

That was the theory. The actual results have been decidedly opposite.

---

Education and availability of contraception, plus requiring fathers to bear their share of the responsibility for rearing children would improve the current situation. Sterilization incentives might be another option for addressing some of the most egregious abuses of multiple preganancies while on government assistance.

I found the results of the MSN poll this morning very interesting:



1. Should abortion be legal in the case of rape or incest? 84% of 832,039 respondents said YES.

2. Should abortion be legal if the mother's life is threatened? 90% of 561,702 respondents said YES.

3. Should abortion be legal in the case of severe fetal defects? 77% of 485,176 respondents said YES.

4. Should abortions be legal if a fetal heartbeat is detected? 42% of 446,019 respondents said YES.
(This was a tougher question if the previous three questions are factored in).

5. Should abortions be legal in the third trimester? 77% of 427,089 respondents said NO.

6. Should the consent of parents be required for underage girls to have an abortion? 70% of 416,845
respondents said YES.



This seems like a pretty darned good sample size as far as surveys are concerned. The takeaway here is that no abortions under any circumstances is an EXTREME. Terminating pregnancies close to full term is an EXTREME. Question #5 tells us that most Americans do not think third trimester abortions should be allowed.

R2: "This seems like a pretty darned good sample size as far as surveys are concerned. "

That's a common error in poll discussions, the idea that a big sample size means better reliability.

Accuracy is dependent on a number of factors, and a well-done small poll can be much more reliable than a big poll. The classic example would be Gallup v. Literary Digest. In 1935, Literary Digest had a massive readership, and was considered very much in line with public opinion. LD ran a poll with a sample size of 2.4 million respondents, and that poll predicted Alf Landon would collect 57% of the popular vote.

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html

At the same time, George Gallup ran a poll of his own, his first Presidential Election poll, and Gallup predicted FDR would win re-election with 54% of the popular vote. Gallup's poll had roughly 3,000 respondents.

https://www.pbs.org/fmc/segments/progseg7.htm

The actual election saw FDR claim 60.8% of the popular vote.

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

---

Yes!

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

Roe v. Wade allows abortion in the third trimester to preserve the life or health of the mother, not just the life. Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, broadly defines health to include "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

---

Viability shouldn't be a basis for determination. Babies (in the womb or outside) and toddlers are not viable without the support of their mother or a substitute mother.

---

But they're human beings...

and a Fetus will become a Human being 99% of the time.

The argument always boils down to timing.

Why is it not OK to abort at birth or after? Time?

---

Aborting at birth or after, or by any time is a moral question. Viability as the determining factor is a poor choice for making that determination.

---

Viability begins at conception.

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

---

We need a problem before there can be "solutions."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

There was a guy who didn't think of a certain ethnicity as human either, and he claimed the same right to end their life. I think he was from Europe.

---

If calling abortion murder doesn't shut down the discussion then break out the Hitler card.

Great ****ing job.

No lives were saved but by golly you established your ideological bone fides.

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

---

I say free birth control. Let women have the pill...while I realize that socialist, it outweighs what we currently have.

Taking a pill > abortion

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

---

I say free birth control. Let women have the pill...while I realize that socialist, it outweighs what we currently have.

Taking a pill > abortion

---

Agree. As a conservative I'm more than willing to agree to free/subsidized BC for all women in exchange for limited abortions (rape, life of mother, etc.). Not a perfect solution, nor does it address the socio-cultural issue we have around irresponsible sexual behavior, but in exchange for human life, I'm willing to move in that direction of compromise.

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

---

I say free birth control. Let women have the pill...while I realize that socialist, it outweighs what we currently have.

Taking a pill > abortion

---

Kind of like how required childhood vaccinations are no deductible covered on most health plans, this could be a part of the coverage covered with no deductible. Even on medicare/medicaid. It may already be on most plans.

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

---

This is one area where I have been so impressed with Bono. His charitable endeavors have been successful in large parts because he looks actively for areas of agreement.

We went to U2 in Nashville last year. He stopped the show to thank people in the audience who had helped on different issues: Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Frist. The politics of that group of people is pretty varied, but they can all do good things.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

Roe v. Wade allows abortion in the third trimester to preserve the life or health of the mother, not just the life. Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, broadly defines health to include "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

---

Viability shouldn't be a basis for determination. Babies (in the womb or outside) and toddlers are not viable without the support of their mother or a substitute mother.

---

But they're human beings...

and a Fetus will become a Human being 99% of the time.

The argument always boils down to timing.

Why is it not OK to abort at birth or after? Time?

---

Aborting at birth or after, or by any time is a moral question. Viability as the determining factor is a poor choice for making that determination.

---

Viability begins at conception.

---

Life begins at conception. Viability is related to survivability without a mother's life giving support.

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I will be honest here. I was not too long ago one of those wishy washy in the middle people that felt like the decision to terminate a pregnancy before 24 weeks was okay. Abortions in the case of rape or incest was okay. Abortions in the case of danger to the health of the mother was okay.

The Liberal Left's PUSH PUSH PUSH for abortion on demand these last two years even after an unwanted child's life is actually terminated after being born has changed my mind. The Democrats aggressive position has pushed me towards the right side. If the Left is not willing to be reasonable and meet in the middle, I am PRO-LIFE. Did not want to go there but they left me with no choice. Ending human life for the sake of convenience is just wrong. I am ashamed it took me so long to figure this out.

---

And I am pro-"let the women vote on it themselves."

---

Why would only women vote on it? That child has a father, too. He may not be in favor of someone killing his child. I know I wouldn't.

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

Not in my book

Literally this entire thread:

Babylon bee is the best LMAO