• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you okay with police/the State accessing a women's medical records if they think she had an abortion (to prosecute her/send her to prison)?

Are you okay with police/the State accessing a women's medical records if they think she had an abor

  • Total voters
    44
What if...? said:
So is it a crime yet to talk to your doctor in a hell state about going to a normal state for an abortion?

And shouldn’t all women be randomly tested to see if they’re pregnant? Hell, lock ‘em up until they give birth if they are, just to make sure they can’t thwart y’all’s will by escaping to another state for an abortion.
Click to expand...
Maybe they should all just be locked up so we can have them available to be impregnated?
 
mrjurrs said:
Who is being murdered?
Click to expand...
Murder isn't the only crime. If abortion is a crime, then it's a crime, and the same criminal defense rights and processes apply. That said, I can't see how being a woman or a woman who was pregnant but now isn't could fairly constitute probable cause.
 
BirdinHand said:
Nope.

Firmly believe that medical records should be private and require a medical release voluntarily by the patient. And that under no circumstances should the government be allowed to "demand" access to medical records nor require medical records for any purpose.
Click to expand...
Well, medical records currently can be accessed by the police if they get a warrant supported by probable cause that the records contain evidence of a crime.
BirdinHand said:
Also firmly believe that any situations where employers require medical records, they should be forced to prove WHY they need access to medical records.
Click to expand...
I take it you don't agree with the "they're private employers, they can do what they want" rule in this case?

But, anyway, I would agree. I think there should be a law that says employers may not make employment contingent on allowing an employer to look at medical records. Absolutely.
 
HIP56948 said:
I wish there was a law akin to having a private meeting with your lawyer, regarding privacy. It's nobody's business what you and your Medical Doctor talk about or do.
Click to expand...
Privacy has a lot to do with this. While I am predominantly an "originalist" on Constitutional matters, I do look at what the drafters were probably thinking when they wrote it. If there were not a long tradition of respect for privacy in English law, summed up as "A man's home is his castle.", I don't know why the 4th Amendment would have been written.

Yes, abortion was against the law in Colonial times. However, this was likely from a desire to protect women from the dangers of surgery, long before the advent of "anti-septic" surgery in the late 19th Century. Previous to that, ANY internal surgery was dangerous. The hazards of normal childbirth were probably less than those of abortion.

Now that the odds have decidedly flipped, it is hard to justify the idea that the contents of my desk are protected from state rummaging, but the contents of a woman's uterus are not.

Also, it is hard to justify a ban on early abortions, when they seem to almost solely offend those of certain religious affiliations, in a country founded on freedom of religion.
 
No.
It is none of the State's business.
 
coyote505 said:
Privacy has a lot to do with this. While I am predominantly an "originalist" on Constitutional matters, I do look at what the drafters were probably thinking when they wrote it. If there were not a long tradition of respect for privacy in English law, summed up as "A man's home is his castle.", I don't know why the 4th Amendment would have been written.

Yes, abortion was against the law in Colonial times. However, this was likely from a desire to protect women from the dangers of surgery, long before the advent of "anti-septic" surgery in the late 19th Century. Previous to that, ANY internal surgery was dangerous. The hazards of normal childbirth were probably less than those of abortion.

Now that the odds have decidedly flipped, it is hard to justify the idea that the contents of my desk are protected from state rummaging, but the contents of a woman's uterus are not.

Also, it is hard to justify a ban on early abortions, when they seem to almost solely offend those of certain religious affiliations, in a country founded on freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
Well, the contents of your desk are only protected in the sense that the cops can't search your desk without a warrant, based on probable cause (generally speaking). Cops generally need a warrant based on probable cause to draw your blood (but in some cases they don't even need that). Bodily integrity is not absolute when it comes to criminal investigation now. The 4th amendment says there should be no "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and warrants will only issue on probable cause. It doesn't make any records sacrosanct.

Also, regarding abortion in the 18th century, I think the british rule was that abortion was not a crime if it occurred before the "quickening" - when the fetus starts to move. Not a bad rule, actually. To this day, we have not been able to agree on a better one.
 
The same people who pretend to respect life but are happy to execute prisoners, call for the execution of foreigners and liberals, and had no issue spreading Covid and killing over a million Americans are hypocritical pieces of shit. The abortion reversal has nothing to do with life and everything to do with the right wanting to exercise control over as many people as they can and they especially don't think women should be able to make decisions.

The right has power and control over the moronic in this country and are using that stupidity to flex more control. It probably won't be long before they demand medical records.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Well, the contents of your desk are only protected in the sense that the cops can't search your desk without a warrant, based on probable cause (generally speaking). Cops generally need a warrant based on probable cause to draw your blood (but in some cases they don't even need that). Bodily integrity is not absolute when it comes to criminal investigation now. The 4th amendment says there should be no "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and warrants will only issue on probable cause. It doesn't make any records sacrosanct.

Also, regarding abortion in the 18th century, I think the british rule was that abortion was not a crime if it occurred before the "quickening" - when the fetus starts to move. Not a bad rule, actually. To this day, we have not been able to agree on a better one.
Click to expand...
Liberals have an odd idea of what the law is. It's whatever they want it to be at the moment.
The debauchery of the democrats is dragging the nation into decline and they like it like that. Communist influence among the democrats is strong.

edberry.com

The 45 Communist Goals (1963)

Albert Herong, Jr., entered The Communist Goals into the Congressional Record, as follows:
edberry.com edberry.com
 
Kreton said:
The same people who pretend to respect life but are happy to execute prisoners, call for the execution of foreigners and liberals, and had no issue spreading Covid and killing over a million Americans are hypocritical pieces of shit. The abortion reversal has nothing to do with life and everything to do with the right wanting to exercise control over as many people as they can and they especially don't think women should be able to make decisions.

The right has power and control over the moronic in this country and are using that stupidity to flex more control. It probably won't be long before they demand medical records.
Click to expand...

The right has power and control over the moronic in what country? Canada?

The rest of your fact free post is dismissed.
 
Last edited:
WorldWatcher said:
The baby. That's what some anti-abortion told everyone for around 50 years. That abortion is murder.

WW
Click to expand...
Murder is a crime. Until now in some states, abortion isn't a crime.

Ipso facto, abortion isn't murder.

A baby is born. An abortion takes place before birth.

Ipso facto, babies are not aborted.
 
WorldWatcher said:
The baby. That's what some anti-abortion told everyone for around 50 years. That abortion is murder.

WW
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be "murder" for it to be illegal. It's not murder to kill a dog, but it is a crime.

The only solution to the abortion issue, as a practical matter, is compromise, and until we start discussing this pragmatically, and stop arguing unwinnable points, like "is it murder or is it not murder", then we will never settle it.

Abortion should be allowed on demand early on, and then after a certain point the State has an interest in preserving the life of the fetus (whether killing it would be murder or not), and there should be protection for women who need an abortion to save their life or the like. Where the lines are drawn should be what the political discussion is about. The reason why it's not about that in the US, is because our "narratives" have been so polarized, that we are incapable of discussing it sensibly. In Europe, they have abortions generally, but there are limits and there are rules. In some countries, they need doctor approvals (like in the UK) and they need "reasons" and they can only be performed in hospitals, and they have more restrictions as the weeks go by during pregnancies, and yet they seem to be fine with it.

Why is it that in the US the discussion has to be "it's an absolute righto have an abortion at any time for any reason or no reason at all" on the one hand, and "never can there be an abortion after conception" on the other?

Shit - I'm apparently a "right winger" here and yet I'm like - for sure, morning after pills, abortion pills, etc.., are fine, and on demand through 12 weeks sounds prett fair. And, then having good reasons after 12 weeks sounds pretty fair, too. I have daughters, and if some asshat rapes one and impregnates her, legal or not legal, I'm not making her suffer through a pregnanch caused by a rape, for example. And, if she just made a mistake and can come to me and say "dad, I made a mistake" then she should be able to tell me that early, so that we can go together and get it taken care of as early as possible. It's not a "baby" at 6 weeks. It's not "clump of cells" at 22 weeks. The discussion needs to recognize this.
 
mrjurrs said:
Murder is a crime. Until now in some states, abortion isn't a crime.

Ipso facto, abortion isn't murder.

A baby is born. An abortion takes place before birth.

Ipso facto, babies are not aborted.
Click to expand...
If an abortion occurs at 37 weeks, it's killing a baby. Murder is a legal definition, and some killings aren't murder. Some killings that aren't murder are still crimes. Some crimes involve things that aren't killing.

This "is it murder" argument is a red herring.
 
mrjurrs said:
Murder is a crime. Until now in some states, abortion isn't a crime.

Ipso facto, abortion isn't murder.

A baby is born. An abortion takes place before birth.

Ipso facto, babies are not aborted.
Click to expand...
The Jews believe the soul enters the body with the first breath.

So there is no “child” before it is born. Just an empty vessel. Other faiths believe in reincarnation of some kind, so nobody actually dies in an abortion. Empty vessel again.

But Christian’s need to establish their take as law.

Because they always go after anything that makes life suck less.

The reason?

It’s hard to sell subjugation and privation in this life in exchange for a paradise afterlife if life is, well, good. It needs to suck as much as possible to keep those collection plates full.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
It doesn't have to be "murder" for it to be illegal. It's not murder to kill a dog, but it is a crime.

The only solution to the abortion issue, as a practical matter, is compromise, and until we start discussing this pragmatically, and stop arguing unwinnable points, like "is it murder or is it not murder", then we will never settle it.

Abortion should be allowed on demand early on, and then after a certain point the State has an interest in preserving the life of the fetus (whether killing it would be murder or not), and there should be protection for women who need an abortion to save their life or the like. Where the lines are drawn should be what the political discussion is about. The reason why it's not about that in the US, is because our "narratives" have been so polarized, that we are incapable of discussing it sensibly. In Europe, they have abortions generally, but there are limits and there are rules. In some countries, they need doctor approvals (like in the UK) and they need "reasons" and they can only be performed in hospitals, and they have more restrictions as the weeks go by during pregnancies, and yet they seem to be fine with it.

Why is it that in the US the discussion has to be "it's an absolute righto have an abortion at any time for any reason or no reason at all" on the one hand, and "never can there be an abortion after conception" on the other?

Shit - I'm apparently a "right winger" here and yet I'm like - for sure, morning after pills, abortion pills, etc.., are fine, and on demand through 12 weeks sounds prett fair. And, then having good reasons after 12 weeks sounds pretty fair, too. I have daughters, and if some asshat rapes one and impregnates her, legal or not legal, I'm not making her suffer through a pregnanch caused by a rape, for example. And, if she just made a mistake and can come to me and say "dad, I made a mistake" then she should be able to tell me that early, so that we can go together and get it taken care of as early as possible. It's not a "baby" at 6 weeks. It's not "clump of cells" at 22 weeks. The discussion needs to recognize this.
Click to expand...
The religious right has political power and has always enlisted the state to enforce its edicts when it can.

I don’t know any pro choice folks that actually believe abortion should be at any point for any reason. The Roe limit seems fine to all the ones I know.

But the evangelicals demand zero ever. Even if it’s rape or incest. Or poses a threat to the life of the mother.

And republicans can’t lose a single voter at this point in history, so they pander to them, the trumpists, try to not offend the independents too much, you get the idea.

That’s the dynamic you are describing. Good old hunger for power.
 
LouC said:
I voted YES because I welcome the Pregnancy Gazpacho era in MAGA America!

Actually I mistakenly chose the YES button and could not see an option to correct my vote.
Click to expand...

Lol. I saw that and was looking for your reasoning, as I couldn't believe you thought that.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Plenty of countries have plenty of restrictions on abortion. Heck, in Ireland it was illegal to have an abortion until like 3 years ago. Every other industrialized country has limits on abortion (well, maybe not every other - but most do). I like Canada's system, which doesn't have a specific law prohibiting it, but the regulation of the medical field effectively prevents later term abortions past like 20 or 21 weeks, unless the mother's life is in danger. At least that's my basic undertanding - I'm sure there is nuance.

I think what people are missing is that almost no other country in the world has a "right to abortion" which the State cannot regulate or restrict. UK does. France does. Germany does. Etc. Can't we be like them?
Click to expand...
We were like them until 5 days ago.
 
If Lou hadn't accidentally voted yes then we would only have one person, one conservative/republican, who admits what they have voted for.
 
No, but only because I don't think women should be prosecuted for getting abortions. I don't think there's anything wrong with police/a court accessing someone's medical records as long as they follow proper procedures to do it. That's already possible for a variety of reasons.
 
What if...? said:
The Jews believe the soul enters the body with the first breath.

So there is no “child” before it is born. Just an empty vessel. Other faiths believe in reincarnation of some kind, so nobody actually dies in an abortion. Empty vessel again.

But Christian’s need to establish their take as law.

Because they always go after anything that makes life suck less.

The reason?

It’s hard to sell subjugation and privation in this life in exchange for a paradise afterlife if life is, well, good. It needs to suck as much as possible to keep those collection plates full.
Click to expand...
Well put, kind of like the reason djt won't run for President again...it would interrupt his grift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom