Many states restricting abortion do allow for it when there is a risk to the mother’s life. Is there a legal standard for this? Maternal mortality is 17/100K live births in the US, the highest in the developed world and many magnitudes higher than the mortality in a age matched population of women who are not pregnant. So being pregnant is a risk. Does anybody know if restricted states have defined the magnitude of the risk at which abortion would be allowed?
Lol. Roe v. Wade was in 1973, which struck down 30 states' abortion laws. So it became an issue instantly.
After the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the Baptist Press ran an op-ed praising the decision, stating that it was up to the “conscience and religious convictions” of the person in question to determine whether or not to have an abortion.
OMG. One op-ed that was clearly out of step with the voters at the time? So what? The pro-life movement has been consistent in the 49 years since. It's amazing it survived this long when for 49 years Roe v Wade made it impossible to even get to the start line.
You eat meat, how do you justify slaughtering of animals with higher cognitive abilities and ability to feel pain than a fertilized egg?
Are you going to ignore this question because it is inconvenient?
Killing for food is different than killing for our own convenience or comfort. Killing humans is different from killing animals. We have unique cognitive abilities that set us apart and should be preserved over the rest of living organisms.
I really do enjoy all the false equivalencies pro-abortionists will present, it really does help work the mind.
I read up on this. Neither Sudan nor South Sudan has any national law allowing for this. As part of South Sudan’s new government, they were implementing national laws that would supersede local tribal customs like this.
A massive overreach by the federal Sudanese government if you ask me. They should adhere to local tribe rights when it comes to who you should be allowed to marry.
I read up on this. Neither Sudan nor South Sudan has any national law allowing for this. As part of South Sudan’s new government, they were implementing national laws that would supersede local tribal customs like this.
It also doesn't take into account fetuses that have a heartbeat but are not going to live past birth, that is just so sick, making a woman carry something for 9 months in her body, making her go through labor just to have it die within a week, sometimes an hour or a minute after birth. There are 12 other laws like it on hold right now in other states, waiting to take affect. It is absolutely NOT OK and any reasonable person can see this.
You ever heard of a still birth? Happens all the time. I mean, heck, about 10% of pregnancies die in utero on their own. My other brother's twins died in utero. It was difficult to have to deliver two dead babies, but it was likely psychologically easier than aborting two babies. The main difference is in one case an individual is taking a life, in the other a life is dying on its own. There is no guilt in the case of a still birth.
Forcing someone to carry something inside them for MONTHS that is known is going to die (either in the womb or right after birth) is just insane.
After the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the Baptist Press ran an op-ed praising the decision, stating that it was up to the “conscience and religious convictions” of the person in question to determine whether or not to have an abortion.
OMG. One op-ed that was clearly out of step with the voters at the time? So what? The pro-life movement has been consistent in the 49 years since. It's amazing it survived this long when for 49 years Roe v Wade made it impossible to even get to the start line.
“In 1970, a poll conducted by the Baptist Sunday School Board found that 70 percent of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion to protect the mental or physical health of the mother, 64 percent supported abortion in cases of fetal deformity and 71 percent in cases of rape.
Three years later, a poll conducted by the Baptist Standard newsjournal found that 90 percent of Texas Baptists believed their state’s abortion laws were too restrictive.”
W. A. Criswell, president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1968 to 1970, when asked about abortion in 1973: “I have always that it was only after the child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
Are you going to ignore this question because it is inconvenient?
Killing for food is different than killing for our own convenience or comfort. Killing humans is different from killing animals. We have unique cognitive abilities that set us apart and should be preserved over the rest of living organisms.
I really do enjoy all the false equivalencies pro-abortionists will present, it really does help work the mind.
Humans are animals.
But I am very much opposed to killing any living creature that has a sense of self.
State rights are not an affront to Democracy, rather, they are the hallmark of Democracy. All this opinion would mean is that it would be up to the states to determine their own policies rather than the Federal Government. Judges do not legislate. They have just determined (maybe, this was a draft drawn up by an underling) that it is acceptable for the states to determine their own restrictions by allowing the Mississippi law that sets a deadline of 15 weeks gestation (which allows for about 95% of abortions anyhow). Abortion isn't going away. What will likely happen is some states will restrict access to the first trimester or there abouts. Places like California and New York (where most people are up in arms) can celebrate as they will still have the right to kill babies up until the point of birth. Both of their economies have suffered from a downturn in tourism since COVID, so maybe this will boost their hospitality business.
Also, I'd like you to explain your "affront to democracy" point. The Supreme Court is not, and never has been, a democratic institution. In most countries, the judiciary is actually even further removed from the political process than in the United States (often, judges abroad are selected based on professional qualifications, not on party affiliation).
Supreme Court Justices are political appointees. They're selected and approved though entirely Partisan processes.
Justices voting to strike down Roe vs. Wade lied through their teeth in their Confirmation hearings about that intention.
When the Justices unwind a half-century of accepted legal principal, something's rotten in Denmark... Washington.
About twice as many people, more than half want to see Roe vs. Wade stand.
When the minority rule the majority, that's an "affront to democracy".
I read up on this. Neither Sudan nor South Sudan has any national law allowing for this. As part of South Sudan’s new government, they were implementing national laws that would supersede local tribal customs like this.
A massive overreach by the federal Sudanese government if you ask me. They should adhere to local tribe rights when it comes to who you should be allowed to marry.
Nice to know we can add serial animal rape to the activities you approve of...
The problem here is liberals find simply being disagreed with "inflammatory".
On LR, most posters enjoy arguing regardless of their political bent. Occasionally there are well thought out posts by one side or the other, but mostly it is rants lacking substance by a very small group of posters.
I have noticed liberal posts being deleted. Some conservative posts are probably deleted too. It is clear that from posts by the site officials that they lean conservative. That seems to be reflected in the message board as to what is allowed. It is ok to disagree. I suspect this post will be deleted for suggesting site bias.
Polls suggest that >60% of Americans are ok with legal abortions. Reading this thread, you would get the impression that it is 80+% against.
A majority of Americans are okay with banning abortion after 6 weeks.
If you think you're going to get useful idea of what a whole country thinks about any topic on a message board you're kidding yourself.
State rights are not an affront to Democracy, rather, they are the hallmark of Democracy. All this opinion would mean is that it would be up to the states to determine their own policies rather than the Federal Government. Judges do not legislate. They have just determined (maybe, this was a draft drawn up by an underling) that it is acceptable for the states to determine their own restrictions by allowing the Mississippi law that sets a deadline of 15 weeks gestation (which allows for about 95% of abortions anyhow). Abortion isn't going away. What will likely happen is some states will restrict access to the first trimester or there abouts. Places like California and New York (where most people are up in arms) can celebrate as they will still have the right to kill babies up until the point of birth. Both of their economies have suffered from a downturn in tourism since COVID, so maybe this will boost their hospitality business.
State rights are not an affront to Democracy, rather, they are the hallmark of Democracy. All this opinion would mean is that it would be up to the states to determine their own policies rather than the Federal Government. Judges do not legislate. They have just determined (maybe, this was a draft drawn up by an underling) that it is acceptable for the states to determine their own restrictions by allowing the Mississippi law that sets a deadline of 15 weeks gestation (which allows for about 95% of abortions anyhow). Abortion isn't going away. What will likely happen is some states will restrict access to the first trimester or there abouts. Places like California and New York (where most people are up in arms) can celebrate as they will still have the right to kill babies up until the point of birth. Both of their economies have suffered from a downturn in tourism since COVID, so maybe this will boost their hospitality business.
Is it right for the people of Austin, Texas to have their will overruled by the state government?
They voted for the government. The majority agrees. If you don't... move.
1. If you believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest, then you must conclude that abortion should be legal no matter the circumstances of conception. You have already conceded that fetal life is not infinitely precious, so who are you to assess the private circumstances of other pregnant women seeking abortions and determine that they must carry their fetuses to term? If fetal life is a life is a life, than it shouldn't make any difference to you how that life was begun. And if it does make a difference, then you've made yourself an arbiter of the value of human life--and, since life itself is no longer a universal good or right, then you must accept the subjectivity of your and others' decisions about the value of a specific fetal life.
2. In pregnancy, the life of the mother is always at risk. According to the CDC, in the U.S. in 2020, "the maternal mortality rate for 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births." Compare that with the patient mortality rate for abortions, which is about .41 deaths per 100,000 abortion procedures. Being pregnant anywhere is a life-threatening condition, but especially in the United States, which has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. Those who are okay with forcing women to choose the more perilous of two paths, the one that leads more often to their death, cannot also be not pro-life.
3. Human life should not be used as punishment for perceived "moral" or behavioral failings. It's that simple. Conservatives over the last few days have been talking about "unplanned" pregnancies, as though the difference between a happy pregnancy and a distressing one is just a matter of timing and convenience (and LetsRunners have been happy to pick up this thread). But for any number of reasons, a pregnancy may not be unplanned but explicitly unwanted. To force a woman to gestate and birth an unwanted life is an act of cruelty and control that is at odds with our American notion of personal freedom and with religious ideas about life's sacredness. A baby should not be a punishment. Those who use it as such (though they may not know it themselves) are not pro-life but, instead, essentially misanthropic. They hate the woman whom they have made a mother, and they have no particular love for the baby, either.
4. There is no "right to be born," and no one would miss you if you had never existed. This should be self-explanatory and patently obvious, but there is this belief, underlying this discussion, that somehow an abortion deprives an unborn human of the right of becoming. That is absurd. What about all the sex that isn't had, all the eggs that are not inseminated, all the fetuses that are miscarried all the dam time? Are all of these examples of unborn human beings being denied the right to exist--and support for the fear that you might have been among them, thus denying the world your amazingness? It's just too silly to contemplate.
On LR, most posters enjoy arguing regardless of their political bent. Occasionally there are well thought out posts by one side or the other, but mostly it is rants lacking substance by a very small group of posters.
I have noticed liberal posts being deleted. Some conservative posts are probably deleted too. It is clear that from posts by the site officials that they lean conservative. That seems to be reflected in the message board as to what is allowed. It is ok to disagree. I suspect this post will be deleted for suggesting site bias.
Polls suggest that >60% of Americans are ok with legal abortions. Reading this thread, you would get the impression that it is 80+% against.
A majority of Americans are okay with banning abortion after 6 weeks.
If you think you're going to get useful idea of what a whole country thinks about any topic on a message board you're kidding yourself.
Many states restricting abortion do allow for it when there is a risk to the mother’s life. Is there a legal standard for this? Maternal mortality is 17/100K live births in the US, the highest in the developed world and many magnitudes higher than the mortality in a age matched population of women who are not pregnant. So being pregnant is a risk. Does anybody know if restricted states have defined the magnitude of the risk at which abortion would be allowed?
Maternal mortality is primarily due to cardiac conditions on a part of the mother. The reason it is so high in the US is because we have so many fat people in this country (not necessarily because our medical care is somehow inferior).
Is it right for the people of Austin, Texas to have their will overruled by the state government?
In a way, no, but they can go somewhere where abortion is allowed if they want.
Ending Roe v. Wade brings things MORE in line with what voters want everywhere. Blue states will allow abortions, red states will ban or restrict them. It is unquestionably more democratic than Roe v. Wade, which forced a policy FAR LEFT OF what most Americans want on every state and local jurisdiction. The debate is not even close.
Is it right for the people of Austin, Texas to have their will overruled by the state government?
In a way, no, but they can go somewhere where abortion is allowed if they want.
If they have the money. Well-off people were always going to be ok on abortion. It’s the people who can’t afford to leave their state for one that will suffer here.
