The One & Only Way To Reduce/Stop Abortions

[Robertinfremont]

Incorrect. The SC decision ruled on when states could restrict abortion. It did not make a law saying so. If you think it did, please cite the statute.

Thank you for framing your arguments as I had myself.

 

[Robertinfremont]

What??? Admitting privileges have nothing to do w/ that. But banning abortions would cause at least some of them to be done in those places. I knew a woman who did it that way before it was fully legal here. She almost died from complications.

Thanks for countering claims made here by Agent J in his posts.

 

[Peter King]

Interesting that you find that only applies to Trump when clearly Obama told a pack of lies on a daily basis.

You do know this is about abortion don't you?

And if Trump keeps lying, he does not need a space force, anyone can just shimmy up his nose because by this time it is almost nudging the moon. If he remains president, he could launch someone towards Mars by using his nose as a launching pole.

 

[minnie616]

While answers to financial hardships were not addressed.

I disagree with your statement. His / her ideas are not worthless.

Preventing/ lowering the number of unplanned pregnancies by providing birth control to women will decrease the numbers of unplanned pregnancies and thus decrease the numbers abortions.

Women do not abort wanted pregnancies unless something went medically wrong with the pregnancy or her physical health is at risk if she continues the pregnancy.

Well here's the answer to that...THEN DONT HAVR SEX!!!!..,.And if you do and get pregnant Abortion should not be the go to answer (oh it will be an inconvenience or cost to much. I'll just kill it....really) put it up for adoption and yes there are parents who wait years for a baby it would get adopted. Hell the state has programs for rent daycare food ....trust me people like me pay high taxes to help those in need out. And while I believe the help should be for a limited time I would much rather support a welfare mom than have them killl a kid.

Sent from my G9 using Tapatalk

Are you talking to me ... me personally?

I chose to abstain until I married the love of my life.

Oh , by the way my husband and I hoped for, wanted and planned to have 4 children.

My husband and I did have 4 children who are now adults.

I had two miscarriages between our 2ed child 3rd child.

The first miscarriage was early in the pregnancy about 5 to 6 weeks.

When I was about 20 weeks into my 4th pregnancy I started get very hard contractions.

My husband rushed me to the ER.
We were hoping they could prolong and save the pregnacy and that I would have a healthy little one.

The nurse at the ER had me take a pregnacy test. She informed my husband and I that I was no longer pregnant.
Our little one had died within me.

My doctor was out town and the doctor covering for him was called. He ordered meds to try to stop my contractions
. He either could not come in that night or did want to come so he told the nurse he would in the next day to perform the D and E
( dismemberment) abortion. That’s correct I was scheduled for dismemberment abortion. If a doctor needs to extract the fetus and contents from the uterus, even if the fetus is dead it is an abortion.

After the meds to stop the contractions the nurse wheeled me to my hospital room for night.
As I was transferring from the gurney to my bed my little one was expelled and I accidentally saw how malformed it was.

Luckily for me it was expelled and when the Dr came the next day I only needed to have a D and C so I did not an abortion. I nevered one
But I almost needed an abortion to save my life.

If a fetus is dying or dies within the uterus and is not expelled in a timely manner it puts her life at risk.

So yes lucky for me I did need the unwanted abortion.
Unluckily my little died because it so malformed.

My doctor Later told me even if I carried my little one longer it would never have survived.

He told me that pathology told him it was so malformed they could not even tell if was a boy or girl.

 

[AGENT J]

Thanks for countering claims made here by Agent J in his posts.

Hey look ANOTHER lie, those statements match with mine and it further proves how monumentally uneducated you are on this topic . .
Your posts totally falls apart again!LMAO

in fact lets revisit the question that totally exposed your false claims that you still haven't answered

Do you understand the fact that your very own doctor may not have admitting privileges? Yes or NO?

opcorn2:

 

[Lursa]

Wrong, Roe v Wade approved it in the first trimester only. When revisited by a later SC, it was extended to the 2nd trimester but in the 3rd it was not legal. A later revision called it viable when prohibited, presumably in the 3rd trimester.

RvW does not include any limit on when an abortion may take place. That's what I wrote and it is accurate. It left it up to the states if they choose to set one at viability.

 

[minnie616]

Here is where I personally believe your argument fails.

Children. As I have posted many times, up to age 18 for a lot of things, up to age 21 for other things, children have scant rights. Legally you can't kill children and it still puzzles me why 7 Justices would vote to promote child rights, how then can they vote to deny human rights. The unborn are humans.

I think it is such a huge problem, we must find out why children are denied rights, but the siblings unborn brothers and sisters are denied rights. The two dissenting Justices pointed out that there are (at that time anyway) no words in the constitution saying privacy.

Once born in the US the baby/child is a US citizen.

The unborn has no rights. It is not yet a person and until viability there is 15 to 20 percent it will miscarry.

 

[year2late]

What's very wrong is your hyperpartisan BS.

Being pro choice or prolife does not mean you are Republican or Democrat. Being pro choice also doesn't mean you would personally have an abortion.

Most decisions to let someone die rather than resuscitate are based on religious beliefs.

Most women and girls who have abortions cannot afford a child, are not ready for a child. But you want them to bring one into the world anyway? Do you think a kid is going to cure them of being selfish?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

It is not just that they cannot afford to care for a child, they are ill equipped a an individual to be pregnant.

Most women who choose abortion have either no insurance or crappy access to health care (Medicaid for example). Most are struggling to make ends meet. Working low wage nonbenefited jobs to barely pay the rent. Because of financial issues, she may be stuck going to overburdened under resourced county clinics that have long waits even with appointments. She may be stuck with multiple bus rides to get to the clinic that accepts her. Each visit making it less possible to take shifts to help her pay the rent. So it is even a hardship (housing insecurity is no joke)even before she becomes to pregnant to work. Heck, if she is not a regular staff member, she may just not be offered shifts, even when she feels well. Then if she has an uncomplicated pregnancy - but needs a C-section....her ability to work may be compromised for a couple of months.

These issues are even before financial issues with raising a child come into play.

If I was under resourced during my pregnancy...it is very likely I would have ended up on dialysis or dead. My pregnancy which was expected to be uncomplicated...ended up with me being required to be off work for near 6 months.

 

[Lursa]

What I do get is you are not a lawyer. I get that you plan to keep trying to boss me around.

Repeat, i get that you are not a lawyer. I get it you have no legal training.

I get that I do have legal training including about rights.

We have sourced the amendments, the rights, and the precedents. All you keep doing is saying, "na huh!"

I understand quite a bit about the legal aspects of abortion...you: zero. That is all you have demonstrated here.

Why come to a discussion forum if all you can do is say, "na huh!"? You do so because you are incapable of refuting my arguments.

 

[Lursa]

If it is anything, it is no lie. I honestly believed you claimed an amendment can't be made and of course you demanded words created by me and my reply was and is that I am not in charge of making laws and it has to be done by lawful crafters of law. I was rejected on that point and you persisted that I must craft law. I explained why I do not craft law.

You lied out of convenience and victimhood and I called you on it.

Nobody asked you to craft law or an amendment...the simple purpose you'd want either to accomplish would be a start.

You cannot even provide that. And yet, here you are in a thread about solutions for the abortion issue...claimed you had something...and then refused to describe any law or amendment :doh

 

[year2late]

I know personally all about a few abortions and know the circumstances of the females involved.

Abortion #1 was (She claimed to me) that she feared the baby would have been born with kind of poison blood inside the child. And at the time she led me to believe her life was at rick. So I drove her to Kaiser hospital. I chatted days ago with my Nurse Daughter by my last wife and she explained again this idea of poison blood and said the blood of the born baby was poison and would have to be removed and new blood installed.

Abortion 2 was that the boyfriend kicked her out for being pregnant. But she in real life lacked an income and no way could support her own child. So I took her to the abortion place and there her child was killed. Once she was not pregnant, this lousy example of manhood wanted to screw her more so she went back. He was only in her life for a brief period when he took her back to keep screwing her.

#3 was a GF who informed me she believed she just may be pregnant. She professed her love for me but snuck off and lied to me, to go to SF for an abortion there and tried to hide she had an abortion. We broke up.

#4 was also a GF who asked me to go to a restaurant we liked where she confessed she definitely was pregnant. I said, Let's get married since I am in love with you. She informed me PP would perform the abortion but did not use the words planned parenthood but told me I needed to come to pick her up when she called me to then disclose the clinic and location.

I picked her up and both of us mourned the lost child. It took longer but we did end up breaking up and it ruined our love and we never were friends after at my request.

So none of you give actual examples so I submit this as real life examples.

Later on the AOL forum now closed, a young girl told us her story. She was to be aborted but her mom decided to save her life. She found the mom later in life and thanked her for sparing her life. She later graduated from a university in TX and went into the TV News business at a FOX affiliate. I then lost track of her since I left AOL years ago. She was like a blessing to the entire forum telling how her life was spared. She did not accept she simply had been an embryo. She was born and has a nice life I believe.

Why do all these women around you have abortions?

 

[year2late]

God gives life and takes it away, without him there would be no life and there is a reason for everything he does. Maybe that mom who lost her baby ends up adoring now a child that would not have been adopted by her if the other child lived. Or maybe he took the baby knowing you turned away from him and he loves you so much. Knowing in grief you would turn back to him and by doing this end up in heaven istead of going with so many others straight to hell

Sent from my G9 using Tapatalk

Sounds like you are saying that God is the #1 abortion provider.

 

[roguenuke]

At least you admit an amendment can be made. I told and told Lursa about that and from what she said back, I took her word that this is not possible.

An Amendment is possible, not probable to give unborn rights because it would mean restricting rights of a mother, all expectant mothers, as any miscarriage could be investigated as involuntary manslaughter. Most even prolife people dont want that to happen.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Here is where I personally believe your argument fails.

Children. As I have posted many times, up to age 18 for a lot of things, up to age 21 for other things, children have scant rights. Legally you can't kill children and it still puzzles me why 7 Justices would vote to promote child rights, how then can they vote to deny human rights. The unborn are humans.

I think it is such a huge problem, we must find out why children are denied rights, but the siblings unborn brothers and sisters are denied rights. The two dissenting Justices pointed out that there are (at that time anyway) no words in the constitution saying privacy.

Children are considered citizens, recognized as having rights at birth. There are very few rights children do not have that adults have.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

An Amendment is possible, not probable to give unborn rights because it would mean restricting rights of a mother, all expectant mothers, as any miscarriage could be investigated as involuntary manslaughter. Most even prolife people dont want that to happen.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

He does not get this concept at all. He keeps implying that since we and he are not lawyers, we're not even capable of discussing it.

Which is BS since many of us have studied the legal aspects of this issue and we have provided the links to source what our opinions are based on.

He refuses to look 'downstream' at what effects on women's rights making abortion illegal would have. He's offered nothing more than, "just make a new law/amendment!" And will not even describe what they'd say.

 

[roguenuke]

Well abortion is not done to remove her womb. My argument is the womb does not contain her body. The womb contains some other life.

So does your stomach and other parts of your body, since we have needed bacteria throughout different parts of our body, all being living things. Still allowed to kill those that can be even just a little harmful.

And would you say women should be legally restricted on what they can or cannot do while pregnant? Should something that can knowingly cause a miscarriage be banned for them? After all, your argument is that the unborn child should have the rights of at least born children, who are legally protected in many ways from a parent or guardian putting them in what can be very minimal risk of harm in some cases.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

So does your stomach and other parts of your body, since we have needed bacteria throughout different parts of our body, all being living things. Still allowed to kill those that can be even just a little harmful.

And would you say women should be legally restricted on what they can or cannot do while pregnant? Should something that can knowingly cause a miscarriage be banned for them? After all, your argument is that the unborn child should have the rights of at least born children, who are legally protected in many ways from a parent or guardian putting them in what can be very minimal risk of harm in some cases.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Should a pregnant woman be able to cross state lines into a state where abortion is legal? Would she be charged with murder if she returned to her home state?

Would all women be checked at the borders to see if they are pregnant...and then all pregnant ones checked again on their return to make sure they are still pregnant?

 

[minnie616]

Wrong, Roe v Wade approved it in the first trimester only. When revisited by a later SC, it was extended to the 2nd trimester but in the 3rd it was not legal. A later revision called it viable when prohibited, presumably in the 3rd trimester.

You are mistaken.

Roe did not set limits abortion limits on the woman.

It set limits on the when states could set regulations regarding the woman’s health and Roe said that states could take a compelling interest in the potentially of life and ban abortions after the third trimester unless the woman’s health or life was threatened by the pregnancy.

Each state chose whether or not to take a compelling interest.
There are several states who have no laws regarding abortions.

And Roe never set a limit how late a late term abortion can be.

But as explained there are no abortions in last month and likely the last 6 or 8 weeks of pregnancy ,
Because by then the abortion would be more risky for the woman’s life than a stat c section.

 

[Robertinfremont]

So does your stomach and other parts of your body, since we have needed bacteria throughout different parts of our body, all being living things. Still allowed to kill those that can be even just a little harmful.

And would you say women should be legally restricted on what they can or cannot do while pregnant? Should something that can knowingly cause a miscarriage be banned for them? After all, your argument is that the unborn child should have the rights of at least born children, who are legally protected in many ways from a parent or guardian putting them in what can be very minimal risk of harm in some cases.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

HEY, I truly enjoyed your questions this time. Perhaps from now forward you can post enjoyable questions?

And so creative to compare her not yet born child to bacteria.

Given males also have bacteria as she does, I suggest only eradicationg the harmful types, perhaps using antibiotics. So when she is pregnant, we need to give her shots like for Bacteria? Perhaps you have some good ways how.

I would treat her problem as I would if some man came up to her and forced her to abort, maybe he punches her womb.

When I say equal rights, not as adults have, only as children have.

As you know, I never read an argument that one may go to a clinic to get rid of her born children.

 

[Robertinfremont]

You are mistaken.

Roe did not set limits abortion limits on the woman.

It set limits on the when states could set regulations regarding the woman’s health and Roe said that states could take a compelling interest in the potentially of life and ban abortions after the third trimester unless the woman’s health or life was threatened by the pregnancy.

Each state chose whether or not to take a compelling interest.
There are several states who have no laws regarding abortions.

And Roe never set a limit how late a late term abortion can be.

But as explained there are no abortions in last month and likely the last 6 or 8 weeks of pregnancy ,
Because by then the abortion would be more risky for the woman’s life than a stat c section.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide.

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

 

[Robertinfremont]

Why do all these women around you have abortions?

Case 2 was was about HER and her Boyfriend. He was disgusted she was pregnant and told her to get lost.

Women I was in a loving relationship with had various reasons. They were around me to enjoy good sex. And be treated as top rated citizens and to engage in hours of great conversation and also I loved to take them many places for fun.

 

[roguenuke]

HEY, I truly enjoyed your questions this time. Perhaps from now forward you can post enjoyable questions?

And so creative to compare her not yet born child to bacteria.

Given males also have bacteria as she does, I suggest only eradicationg the harmful types, perhaps using antibiotics. So when she is pregnant, we need to give her shots like for Bacteria? Perhaps you have some good ways how.

I would treat her problem as I would if some man came up to her and forced her to abort, maybe he punches her womb.

When I say equal rights, not as adults have, only as children have.

As you know, I never read an argument that one may go to a clinic to get rid of her born children.

Children have most of the same rights as adults. Are you unaware of this? There are few they dont have (such as voting).

And we protect born children by restricting what they can be involved in, participate in, do based on potential for harm. So if that is how we treat born children, then why would it be different for unborn children?

Plus, you are the one who said there was something living in her womb. It isnt just shots that can harm bacteria and viruses.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

When I say equal rights, not as adults have, only as children have.

OK cool. So...which rights should the unborn have? Can you please name some?

 

[AGENT J]

When I say equal rights, not as adults have, only as children have.

aaaaaand once again how would you do this without infringing on the woman's current rights and making her a lesser

opcorn2:

 

[Robertinfremont]

Should a pregnant woman be able to cross state lines into a state where abortion is legal? Would she be charged with murder if she returned to her home state?

Would all women be checked at the borders to see if they are pregnant...and then all pregnant ones checked again on their return to make sure they are still pregnant?

States are separate soverigns . If one state an act is lawful, it may still be unlawful in other states.

Take CA laws for instance. You will be arrested if you openly carry guns into stores. In Texas you will not.

A famous baseball player was arrested in CA though all he had done was lock up his car with his gun in the open. Jose Canseco case.

Loaded Pistol on Floor of His Car Gets A'''s Canseco Arrested in San Francisco - Los Angeles Times

Show Search
Facebook
Twitter
Show more sharing options
Loaded Pistol on Floor of His Car Gets A’s Canseco Arrested in San Francisco
APRIL 22, 1989 12 AM
ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO — Jose Canseco of the Oakland Athletics was arrested Friday on a campus of the University of California for investigation of carrying a loaded gun, police said.
Canseco, the American League’s Most Valuable Player in 1988, was “totally cooperative” when arrested by campus police at 1:40 p.m. as he returned to his sports car after an examination of his injured wrist at the university’s Laurel Heights campus, Lt. Mark Kurtz said.

The A’s right fielder, who is out of the lineup for at least three more weeks, was booked at the Hall of Justice for investigation of possession of a loaded firearm on university property, a felony, Kurtz said.

Canseco, 24, was released several hours later, after his wife, Esther, posted $5,000 bail.