• 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!

Bans on Abortion hurt ALL women.

choiceone said:
It is that, the right to control one's own body, to keep others from kidnapping and violating it, that shows actual human dignity. That is the core of liberty, and it is as precious to me as life is to you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for elegantly stating what is so seldom mentioned but it is the most devastating aspect of overturning Roe: stripping women of their dignity as human beings by denying them the core concept of liberty, the freedom to make decisions about ones life.

That states can reestablish legal abortion if Roe is overturned will not return to American women the right to be valued conferred on them by the Supreme Court of the nation
 
Josie said:
This isn't remotely comparable to the Handmaid's Tale. No one will be forced to rape women. No women will be forced to be sex slaves. No wives will be forced to watch their husbands rape other women. It won't be against the law for husbands and wives to have sex. It won't be against the law to be a Baptist or Catholic. It won't be against the law for women to speak their mind, drive vehicles, read or look men in the eyes. The government won't be stoning women to death or making other women torture people. There's no Aunt Lydia, no Serena Joy, no Commanders and no angel wings.
Click to expand...
Yet.
 
Josie said:
Which of those things do you honestly think are a real possibility and what steps would need to happen in order for them to be put in place?
Click to expand...
Ten years ago, many things appeared not to be real possibilities.

A major political party claimed its 2020 presidential candidate only lost the election only because the opposition party cheated. There were careful election officials belonging to that party who voted for its candidate, who said there was no cheating. About 80 judges in all said in court challenges that this party had no evidence of substantial cheating.

On Jan.6, people of that party actually broke into the Capitol Building, broke windows, defecated on the floor, broke into the House Speaker's office and three papers around. Cops were attacked.

Despite even election recounts such as that in Arizona, that candidate lost the election fairly, but over 50% of the people in that political party still believe their candidate won and the opposition cheated.

No one would have dreamed it.

It is probably a real possibility that, if the GOP does not get its way, there is going to be violence all over the US. These people don't want a democracy. They want their own way. It's the same with the fetal personhood people.

They do not understand that Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey were already compromises that were made between pro-choice and anti-abortion groups. They will not be satisfied until they can force all women to be pregnant even in they have to rape them. They have just lost it upstairs in the head.
 
Josie said:
This isn't remotely comparable to the Handmaid's Tale. No one will be forced to rape women. No women will be forced to be sex slaves. No wives will be forced to watch their husbands rape other women. It won't be against the law for husbands and wives to have sex. It won't be against the law to be a Baptist or Catholic. It won't be against the law for women to speak their mind, drive vehicles, read or look men in the eyes. The government won't be stoning women to death or making other women torture people. There's no Aunt Lydia, no Serena Joy, no Commanders and no angel wings.
Click to expand...
Regulations do not have to get to the Aunt Lydia, Commanders and angel wing costume state to have freedom and dignity diminished for women. The Roe decision is the only place where the freedom to make personal choices is guaranteed to women. Overturning Roe leaves the open the possibility of denying women the right to make reproductive decisions about child bearing and contraception. The inability to control child bearing limits choices in education and careers. Our society extends dignity and value to people based largely on education and job performance. Limit that for women and you have limited the value society gives to women.

Multiple pregnancies keeps all classes women, except the extremely wealthy, out of careers, out of leadership roles and restricts wealth accumulation (keeps women and children poor).
 
Josie said:
Which of those things do you honestly think are a real possibility and what steps would need to happen in order for them to be put in place?
Click to expand...
There will be 30-36 states that will
Forbid chemical abortions. Make it fraud to send the pills through the mail. Monitor the mail for fraud.
Ban the morning after pills. Make it a fraud....etc monitor the mail
Label IUDs, hormone injections and implants, the pill as abortifacients and ban them . Make it fraud ...etc monitor the mail

Roe is the only place where the right to privacy is explicitly extended to women. If it is overturned privacy during pregnancy, in the rabidly anti-abortion states, can be denied and the entire pregnancy can, by law, be monitored and recorded and managed in various levels of intrusion depending on the state. Miscarriages would be investigated, documented and the mother would have to prove that the miscarriage was spontaneously. At that point it becomes the state's pregnancy with limited input from the woman.

Once a state has started any of the above it is impossible to tell what the next steps would be but they would certainly not be toward leaving women in control of her privacy or her own body. Read some of the bills the religious right has introduced into their legislature to get an idea of what laws they want .

It doesn't take much to institute rigid rules for controlling people: an angry and aggressive religion and a willing state is all it takes.
 
weaver2 said:
There will be 30-36 states that will
Forbid chemical abortions. Make it fraud to send the pills through the mail. Monitor the mail for fraud.
Ban the morning after pills. Make it a fraud....etc monitor the mail
Label IUDs, hormone injections and implants, the pill as abortifacients and ban them . Make it fraud ...etc monitor the mail
Click to expand...

I’m curious which states you think will do all of these things.

weaver2 said:
Roe is the only place where the right to privacy is explicitly extended to women. If it is overturned privacy during pregnancy, in the rabidly anti-abortion states, can be denied and the entire pregnancy can, by law, be monitored and recorded and managed in various levels of intrusion depending on the state. Miscarriages would be investigated, documented and the mother would have to prove that the miscarriage was spontaneously. At that point it becomes the state's pregnancy with limited input from the woman.

Once a state has started any of the above it is impossible to tell what the next steps would be but they would certainly not be toward leaving women in control of her privacy or her own body. Read some of the bills the religious right has introduced into their legislature to get an idea of what laws they want .

It doesn't take much to institute rigid rules for controlling people: an angry and aggressive religion and a willing state is all it takes.
Click to expand...
 
Josie said:
I’m curious which states you think will do all of these things.
Click to expand...
I don't remember where I read that 30 to 36 states that would restrict abortion but it was overly pessimistic. I have no inside knowledge of what each state will do but in general the following 22 states will ban abortions either because they never repealed the old pre-Roe bans or because they have laws already passed and ready to go as soon as Roe is overturned or they intend to pass highly restrictive abortion laws.
AL
AZ
AR
ID
GA
IA
KY
KS
LA
MI
MX
MO
ND
OH
OK
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
WV
WI
 
weaver2 said:
I don't remember where I read that 30 to 36 states that would restrict abortion but it was overly pessimistic. I have no inside knowledge of what each state will do but in general the following 22 states will ban abortions either because they never repealed the old pre-Roe bans or because they have laws already passed and ready to go as soon as Roe is overturned or they intend to pass highly restrictive abortion laws.
AL
AZ
AR
ID
GA
IA
KY
KS
LA
MI
MX
MO
ND
OH
OK
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
WV
WI
Click to expand...

Oh. Your comment was about banning contraceptives, mail fraud, etc. I'd like to read where you got that from. If you find it, let me know.

What's not a "highly-restrictive" abortion law, in your opinion?
 
Josie said:
Oh. Your comment was about banning contraceptives, mail fraud, etc. I'd like to read where you got that from. If you find it, let me know.

What's not a "highly-restrictive" abortion law, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
You asked what could happen in states that banned abortion that would resemble a Handmaids Tale. I didn't get any of those restrictions or requirements or bans from anywhere. I was just speculating based on what the pro-life people put out on the internet and they have stated pretty clearly that IUDs, hormone injections and implants are abortifacients. The USCCB have started calling the pill an abortifacient.

In general non-restrictive law would look something like the present law with no-questions-asked abortions up to the 3rd trimester or 24-28 week viability. After that date there would be examinations and interviews by medical and psychiatric professional and a medical decision wold be made. Religious organizations would be banned from that process.
 
Last edited:
weaver2 said:
You asked what could happen in states that banned abortion that would resemble a Handmaids Tale. I didn't get any of those restrictions or requirements or bans from anywhere. I was just speculating based on what the pro-life people put out on the internet.

In general non-restrictive law would look something like the present law with no-questions-asked abortions up to the 3rd trimester or 24-28 week viability. After that date there would be examinations and interviews by medical professional
Click to expand...

What about a 20 week ban? Is that "highly-restrictive" to you?
 
MrWonka said:
So you think you don't like abortion. You can't imagine ever doing something like that to your child and you think women who abort are murders.
Click to expand...
The illogical reasoning of your post is astounding!!! Let's start with your last statement. Unless it's rape, the sperm that is injected into the vagina and ultimately the egg was voluntarily allowed and demanded in fact. Those who are being forced to have a vaccine injected into them were not demanded nor voluntarily allowed. How could you possible logically believe you gave a coherent example? Unbelievable.
Your gun example is completely incoherent. Banning guns won't prevent bad buys from getting them illegally. But, banning guns will prevent good people from having guns. Do you know that there are about 1.2 million verifiable accounts of people using guns to ward off an attack? Most guns used for gang and other criminal use are not registered anyways. What a bogus example. Pathetic. As far as abortion on demand for the purpose of birth control and selfish careers, they are not innocent. They killed babies. It was the babies that were the innocent ones. They were the "bad" people. So, you may be right that bad women will still kill the innocent of all innocent. Murder is a crime.

And, why would you call the police for a miscarriage? 911, I just had a miscarriage, could you investigate why the baby died at 4 weeks old? What another pathetic example. LOL!!!

In your 4th paragraph, you start by talking about abortion being safe and legal for almost 50 years and why change now because it may confuse people who never lived in a time without abortion. Let me rewrite this...."We've been living in a sick country where murder of innocent unborn children has been deemed legal to murder for almost 50 years." Then, you try to equate prohibition of drugs and alcohol to a butcher shop of children? Uggg!!! My head is splitting! Good night Irene...
 
Josie said:
What about a 20 week ban? Is that "highly-restrictive" to you?
Click to expand...
So few preemies survive at 20 to 24 weeks that its hard to say that they are actually points of viability in embryology. Even if they survive the chances of morbidity are extremely high.RTEmagicC_ad55af5_OBGM_1215_Editorial_t1.jpg.jpg
 
weaver2 said:
So few preemies survive at 20 to 24 weeks that its hard to say that they are actually points of viability in embryology. Even if they survive the chances of morbidity are extremely high.View attachment 67363789
Click to expand...

Okay. So would that law be "highly-restrictive" to you?
 
NatMorton said:
This logic would seem to argue for also making rape legal since we cannot stop all rape.
Click to expand...
That is a stupid statement, The truth is the pro-life simply means pro-illegal abortionists because women will always seek to control their own bodies. That was a major reason it became legal to begin with. Not to mention the fact the in countries where abortion is illegal there are more abortions performed per capita than where it is safe and legal. This is purely a religious/ political fight that is an insult to the freedom of all women. What's next? Not allowing them to vote or drive a car?

ILLEGAL ABORTIONS WERE COMMON​

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue
 
Grasshopper121212 said:
The illogical reasoning of your post is astounding!!! Let's start with your last statement. Unless it's rape, the sperm that is injected into the vagina and ultimately the egg was voluntarily allowed and demanded in fact.
Click to expand...
So if a woman says she was raped and wants an abortion how are you going to prove she's lying? Does someone have to be charged and convicted before she can abort?
Of course not. The burden of proof would be on the state, and all a woman has to do is claim she was raped to get an abortion. If that's true, why waste your time?
Worse yet, if you manage to successfully ban abortion the number of clinics in the country will drop to zero. So where is a raped woman supposed to get the abortion she wants?
Grasshopper121212 said:
Those who are being forced to have a vaccine injected into them were not demanded nor voluntarily allowed.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. They are at-will employees. If they don't agree with the terms of their employment they can find another job.

Grasshopper121212 said:
How could you possible logically believe you gave a coherent example? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Believe it. I'm correct, and you are very obviously wrong.

Grasshopper121212 said:
Your gun example is completely incoherent. Banning guns won't prevent bad buys from getting them illegally. But, banning guns will prevent good people from having guns. Do you know that there are about 1.2 million verifiable accounts of people using guns to ward off an attack?
Click to expand...
This is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. You believe guns are good, I believe women having the freedom to control their bodies is good.
The point is that banning either one will not eliminate them. It will make it harder for women who need and deserve abortion for necessary reasons to get them. Meanwhile, women simply using abortion for birth control will still get them.
Grasshopper121212 said:
As far as abortion on demand for the purpose of birth control and selfish careers, they are not innocent. They killed babies.
Click to expand...
No, they did not. A fetus is not a baby. It has no brain activity. It fails the test, "I think therefore I am." Furthermore, even if you're silly enough to think it's a baby it has no right to invade a woman's body against her will. They are causing her pain, sickness, and potentially permanent damage to her health. Whether they did it intentionally or not they have no right to inhabit someone else's body.
Grasshopper121212 said:
So, you may be right that bad women will still kill the innocent of all innocent. Murder is a crime.
Click to expand...
And every woman that has a miscarriage will have to be treated like a murder suspect. Every miscarriage will require a homicide investigation.
Whether you had an abortion or not, whether you want your child or not, every single solitary woman who has a miscarriage will have to be questioned.
Grasshopper121212 said:
And, why would you call the police for a miscarriage?
Click to expand...
Because you don't know whether it was a miscarriage or an intentional homicide unless you investigate it.
If you find a dead body anywhere the police must be called and an investigation into the cause of death must be held.
What happens if the woman took drugs? Alcohol? These things can lead to a miscarriage. Is that a murder? Is it negligent manslaughter? Is it an innocent miscarriage?

You can't call abortion murder and then not have a homicide investigation when the body of a dead fetus is found. This applies to all dead fetuses, even natural miscarriages.
 
MrWonka said:
So if a woman says she was raped and wants an abortion how are you going to prove she's lying? Does someone have to be charged and convicted before she can abort?
Of course not. The burden of proof would be on the state, and all a woman has to do is claim she was raped to get an abortion. If that's true, why waste your time?
Worse yet, if you manage to successfully ban abortion the number of clinics in the country will drop to zero. So where is a raped woman supposed to get the abortion she wants?
Click to expand...
Who says I want to prove she is lying? If she is raped, she's raped. Easy enough. When you are raped, call the police. Oh ya, you libs all want to defund the police. And, do I care about abortion clinics that will have to close down? No. Close down. Good riddance murder clinics. One again, abortion was once the right of the state to decide. There were states that already allowed for abortions. And, you can run to another state and get your abortion. Let me ask you, if you want to kill your wife, where are you supposed to go and kill your wife? Oh ya, you could go to Iran.

MW: Yes, they are. They are at-will employees. If they don't agree with the terms of their employment they can find another job.

What is an "at-will-employee?" Are you drinking some eggnog and rum? No, they can't just find another job if they are firemen, policemen or many other jobs that pay the same. They are being force to have injected into them a foreign substance which is completely opposite of your wife, girlfriend or loose date asking for your sperm. It's a dumb analogy and completely illogical.

MW: Believe it. I'm correct, and you are very obviously wrong.

You haven't been correct so far. You've missed the broad side of your barn over and over. You are completely wrong, again.

MW: This is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. You believe guns are good, I believe women having the freedom to control their bodies is good.
The point is that banning either one will not eliminate them. It will make it harder for women who need and deserve abortion for necessary reasons to get them. Meanwhile, women simply using abortion for birth control will still get them.

Again, we aren't talking about the woman's body. Abortion is the body of a separate person yet born. My analogy is completely relevant and shows your logic non-existent. The question also isn't stopping either one. It's about dealing with bad behavior of those that misuse guns and misuse their power to replenish the earth with life by killing babies for their own pleasures. There never is a necessary reason to get an abortion for birth control any more that there is a necessary reason to murder someone. Whether jail time or the death penalty is used to punish killers has nothing to do with stopping anyone from doing it later down the road. It's about breaking the law and justice. Mercy cannot rob justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom