Does a woman have a right...

[Scrabaholic]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

Abortion is termination of pregnancy. It's impossible to have an abortion if you are not pregnant.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I am not talking about government restriction at all. In Canada does the government pay for or subsidize abortions or simply let those who can pay for them have them from willing private providers?

Abortion is covered under our universal health care system.

 

[Lursa]

Those questions were others that I had thought of when postulating my thought line. Abortion ended up being the one I choose.
By your logic then, abortion could be made illegal with no violation of right, yet that never seems to be the argument. So what rights are violates if abortion is made Illegal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

It's ALWAYS the argument, or part of it, because a great great number of pro-life supporters either dont know or refuse to acknowledge what it would actually mean for the govt to enact laws preventing abortion.

When informed of what it means, they either deny it or leave the discussion. Or demonstrate that they value the imagined rights of the unborn more than those of women.

 

[soylentgreen]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

It would depend on how a person wants to present the issue of abortion. By claiming it a right you make the mistake of naming it a legal issue. Abortion should not be a matter of law because it is a medical issue, not a legal one. The discussion about whether to have an abortion is one that should be held between a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her lawyer.

There are two basic tenets of abortion that if not agreed to then the conversation cannot progress.
First is that abortion is not a right, it is a decision.
Secondly only the pregnant woman has a right to make that decision.

The question to be asked is not does she have a right to an abortion. Instead it should be does a woman have the right to make her own decisions.

 

[Gianna_Flores]

Yes! a woman should have right to abort an unwanted pregnancy in case she doesn't want to have the child yet and she doesn't feel herself capable of handling a responsibility of a child.

Abortion Pill Clinic Tampa
Tampa Abortion Clinics
Medical Abortion Clinic Tampa

 

[TheParser]

Of course, a woman should have a right to an abortion.

Just think of all the unwanted children who grew up and became violent criminals.


in fact, a woman who does not want to be a mother has a duty to society to get an abortion.

 

[CFI302]

I hold that a woman has a right to an abortion (up to a certain point of fetal development established by law) if she gets pregnant and chooses to do so.

It is a right that exists within the right to control ones own body regardless of whether she has gotten pregnant or not.

Still, I wonder where this is leading? :unsure13:

I hold that when the woman chooses not to have an abortion, a choice equal to the one you state she has to have an abortion, and that woman can't afford to support the results of the choice SHE made, the rest of us are not responsible for doing so.

Do you agree that with choices come responsibilities of those making them?

 

[CFI302]

I'm not sure what you mean by having a right to a private good/service. I have a right to eat steak in a restaurant which elects to offer it on their menu if, and only if, I pay them for it. I have no right to make a given restaurant serve me steak (if they chose not to put that on their menu) and I have no right to have others pay for my menu choice via taxation.

Do you think you have a right to expect your fellow patrons pay for that steak after having eaten it if you don't have the means by which to do it yourself?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Do you think you have a right to expect your fellow patrons pay for that steak after having eaten it if you don't have the means by which to do it yourself?

Of course, not. The idea that "access to" a private good/service is being denied if one must pay for it themselves and lacks the funds at their time of want (need?) is ridiculous.

 

[code1211]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Out of curiosity, what is this woman going to abort if she's not pregnant?

 

[CFI302]

Of course, not. The moronic idea that "access to" a private good/service is being denied if one must pay for it themselves and lacks the funds at their time of want (need?) is ridiculous.

Can I assume you believe that if a woman chooses to keep the child because she didn't have an abortion that the taxpayers hold no responsibility to her for supporting that child when she can't afford to do it?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can I assume you believe that if a woman chooses to keep the child because she didn't have an abortion that the taxpayers hold no responsibility to her for supporting that child when she can't afford to do it?

That is an entirely different matter. It is poor public policy to have children suffer needlessly for the 'sins' of their parent(s). To discuss this matter further would derail this thread - let's not do so.

 

[CFI302]

Of course, a woman should have a right to an abortion.

Just think of all the unwanted children who grew up and became violent criminals.


in fact, a woman who does not want to be a mother has a duty to society to get an abortion.

Does that woman who chose not to get one and can't afford to support that child have a right to demand those she told to butt out of her body pay for it?

 

[CFI302]

That is an entirely different matter. It is poor public policy to have children suffer needlessly for the 'sins' of their parent(s). To discuss this matter further would derail this thread - let's not do so.

It's not a different matter when the choice not to do something is on the same level as the choice to do it. This thread is about choice and abortion. Those results are part of a choice not to have one.

It's also not the responsibility for those unrelated to the situation to pay for the sins of those parents.

It's poor public policy to force those that were told to butt out of a choice, whatever that choice may be, to pay for it when the one telling them to butt out doesn't like the result. Taxpayers are the ATM for people making bad choices.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's not a different matter when the choice not to do something is on the same level as the choice to do it. This thread is about choice and abortion. Those results are part of a choice not to have one.

It's also not the responsibility for those unrelated to the situation to pay for the sins of those parents.

It's poor public policy to force those that were told to butt out of a choice, whatever that choice may be, to pay for it when the one telling them to butt out doesn't like the result. Taxpayers are the ATM for people making bad choices.

This thread is about whether abortion is a right - not whether a right means that a private good/service must be offered to "the poor" at public expense. I take that question to be along the same lines as "is having a restaurant meal a right". It is not up to society to decide whether one can or can't patronize a restaurant to get a meal so, in that sense, it is a right (that personal choice should not be hindered by society).

Obviously, circumstances can change drastically between (early?) pregnancy and when any resulting child becomes an adult. Your simplistic assertion that one could (should be able to?) foresee future financial problems (loss of a spouse, illness, injury or job loss) after the birth of that child, yet before that child no longer requires parental support, and thus made the wrong choice by having that child is ridiculous.

 

[CFI302]

This thread is about whether abortion is a right - not whether a right means that a private good/service must be offered to "the poor" at public expense. I take that question to be along the same lines as "is having a restaurant meal a right". It is not up to society to decide whether one can or can't patronize a restaurant to get a meal so, in that sense, it is a right (that personal choice should not be hindered by society).

Obviously, circumstances can change drastically between (early?) pregnancy and when any resulting child becomes an adult. Your simplistic assertion that one could (should be able to?) foresee future financial problems (loss of a spouse, illness, injury or job loss) after the birth of that child, yet before that child no longer requires parental support, and thus made the wrong choice by having that child is ridiculous.

Are you saying that the woman choosing not to have an abortion isn't part of what you claim is her right to decide? Since the woman demanding someone else be forced to support the kid(s) SHE chose to have as part of what you claim is a right, it's as much a part of the discussion because it couldn't take place without her choice.

I'm not using the future at all. There are plenty of situations where the mother choosing to have a child already has children she can't support and is relying on those very people she told to butt out of her body choices to support them. Does she think having more will make the situation better?

This is just one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

At the :50 mark, she says someone needs to pay for all her children. While only one baby daddy was identified and for 10 of her children, that means at least one or more baby daddies helped produce the other 5. Don't know how many and don't care. I can say two things with no uncertainty. One, those that produced the children with her need to pay and two, I'm not one of them, therefore, I'm not one that should be paying.

I've heard the argument that the children shouldn't pay for the sins of parent(s). You claim to be a Libertarian yet you have no problem with the government forcing those of us that didn't "sin" to pay for sins we didn't commit.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Are you saying that the woman choosing not to have an abortion isn't part of what you claim is her right to decide? Since the woman demanding someone else be forced to support the kid(s) SHE chose to have as part of what you claim is a right, it's as much a part of the discussion because it couldn't take place without her choice.

I'm not using the future at all. There are plenty of situations where the mother choosing to have a child already has children she can't support and is relying on those very people she told to butt out of her body choices to support them. Does she think having more will make the situation better?

This is just one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

At the :50 mark, she says someone needs to pay for all her children. While only one baby daddy was identified and for 10 of her children, that means at least one or more baby daddies helped produce the other 5. Don't know how many and don't care. I can say two things with no uncertainty. One, those that produced the children with her need to pay and two, I'm not one of them, therefore, I'm not one that should be paying.

I've heard the argument that the children shouldn't pay for the sins of parent(s). You claim to be a Libertarian yet you have no problem with the government forcing those of us that didn't "sin" to pay for sins we didn't commit.

I'm confused about what your point is. Are you asserting that children born in poverty should not be given pubic assistance? If so, what does that have to do with abortion as a choice? It seems that you favor forced abortion for the poor and/or refusing public aid to the children of the poor.

 

[CFI302]

I'm confused about what your point is. Are you asserting that children born in poverty should not be given pubic assistance? If so, what does that have to do with abortion as a choice? It seems that you favor forced abortion for the poor and/or refusing public aid to the children of the poor.

No one should be given public assistance. If you want to help someone, reach into your own pocket. There are plenty of bleeding hearts that claim to care yet there only answer to help is to get the government to force someone else they think has too much money to fund it. It's not the public's responsibility to pay for your private situation.

To have an abortion or NOT have an abortion are equal choices for a pregnant woman. If a woman in poverty that already had kids she can't afford gets pregnant and chooses to have the child because she chose not to have an abortion, it's not anyone else's place to pay for HER choice.

You're not confused. You've gone into troll mode because you can't defend forcing those that didn't make the choice or aren't part of how the child was produced to pay for it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No one should be given public assistance. If you want to help someone, reach into your own pocket. There are plenty of bleeding hearts that claim to care yet there only answer to help is to get the government to force someone else they think has too much money to fund it. It's not the public's responsibility to pay for your private situation.

To have an abortion or NOT have an abortion are equal choices for a pregnant woman. If a woman in poverty that already had kids she can't afford gets pregnant and chooses to have the child because she chose not to have an abortion, it's not anyone else's place to pay for HER choice.

You're not confused. You've gone into troll mode because you can't defend forcing those that didn't make the choice or aren't part of how the child was produced to pay for it.

OK, vote for candidates who share your views. Best of luck. HAND

 

[CFI302]

OK, vote for candidates who share your views. Best of luck. HAND

At least you're honest about being a supporter of freeloaders, the unworthy, and irresponsible wastes of good oxygen.

 

[prometeus]

No one should be given public assistance.

What an asshole attitude. I bet you proclaim to be a Christian too along the very conservative.

 

[zyzygy]

No one should be given public assistance. If you want to help someone, reach into your own pocket. There are plenty of bleeding hearts that claim to care yet there only answer to help is to get the government to force someone else they think has too much money to fund it. It's not the public's responsibility to pay for your private situation.

To have an abortion or NOT have an abortion are equal choices for a pregnant woman. If a woman in poverty that already had kids she can't afford gets pregnant and chooses to have the child because she chose not to have an abortion, it's not anyone else's place to pay for HER choice.

You're not confused. You've gone into troll mode because you can't defend forcing those that didn't make the choice or aren't part of how the child was produced to pay for it.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

— Proverbs 31:8-9
Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.

— Proverbs 22:22-23

Proverbs 22:9

Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.


The wicked go down to the realm of the dead, all the nations that forget God. But God will never forget the needy; the hope of the afflicted will never perish.

— Psalm 9: 17-18

“Because the poor are plundered and the needy groan, I will now arise,” says the Lord. “I will protect them from those who malign them.”

— Psalm 12:5

If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

— 1 John 3:17

 

[DarkWizard12]

Women have the right within the law to choose who gets born and who doesn't. Our laws now have elevated all women to demi-god status. Time to move on with this argument and any aspect of it. Women are now demi-gods get over it.

I guess there is a point there. Everytime I got in trouble, my mom would tell me she has a right to decide if I get to survive the next day lol

But, what my mom was saying was merely a figure of speech. She wasn't actually going to kill me, although I'm sure she wanted to. In Abortion, there are people, women, literally decided if a baby gets to be born. You don't have 'more' life the minute you are born than the hour before you were still in the womb. Science actually shows this with viability as well.

 

[Lursa]

Of course, a woman should have a right to an abortion.

Just think of all the unwanted children who grew up and became violent criminals.


in fact, a woman who does not want to be a mother has a duty to society to get an abortion.

Certainly when you consider that there are already more than 100,000 kids waiting to be adopted in the US, it seems unconscionable to me to have or encourage others to have an unwanted/unaffordable kid with the intent of putting it up for adoption. That means one of those other kids has less chance of getting a home and family.

 

[Lursa]

Do you think you have a right to expect your fellow patrons pay for that steak after having eaten it if you don't have the means by which to do it yourself?

It's much much cheaper to provide free or subsidized birth control.

U.S. Taxpayers Save $7 For Every Dollar The Government Spends On Family Planning – ThinkProgress

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/2015/publicly-funded-family-planning-services-united-states

I'm almost embarrassed to have to type this out for you, but you do realize that the more birth control is used, the fewer abortions occur?