[W:962]The right to intervene in someone's private life.

[Ahlevah]

Seems like a very large # of Americans support it...and realize that there's no reason for concern over late term abortions, since no elective abortions of healthy viable fetuses occur. A whole bunch of American who consider the issue on reality and not emotions.

Yeah, we have a lot of idiots in this country who haven't properly thought through the consequences of what they're saying. I mean, one day killing a fetus is a woman's choice. If it's born the next day that's different. Then it' murder. What a bunch of morons.

And you manufacturing such silly scenarios shows the weakness of your argument. I've seen zero data on that...so if they occur, it's certainly not enough to create laws that violate all women's rights.

I'll bet it's not so silly that you wouldn't defend or justify a woman doing it.

Well you imagined it, so it really reflects on you. Or, prove that a significant number of women do that. Or any!

Significant number? No, but that's not the point. The fact that the society would condone or accept any minimal justification for an abortion doesn't speak well to its values. But, yeah, there have been cases over the years in that vein, usually involving celebrities who were pressured to get abortions in order to maintain an image or their physical looks. Anyway, I can think of quite a few silly scenarios, all plausible. Besides the Hollywood starlet pressured by a studio exec, how about a lonely but horny housewife who has an abortion so her husband won't find out she slept with a Zoosk hookup; or a congressman who pays for an abortion for his mistress so his wife won't find he he cheated on her, or he's afraid he'll be discovered as a pro-life phony; or an executive secretary who has an abortion after her married boss tells her if she wants a promotion she needs to take care of "the problem"; a singer/songwriter who has an abortion because a baby would interfere with her creativity time; and so forth.

So now you assume women are stupid?

Women, men, gender neutrals, binaries... all different types. All stupid.

Specifically, what do you think the drs should tell women re: abortion?

I would think the main thing would be the risks and possible complications during the procedure. Beyond that, I haven't really thought about it. I don't know.

So then, please enlighten me, what is your answer to the question: What is that state's interest? Please be specific? Esp. how it outweighs that of the woman's life, health, and contributions to society

You still stuck on that? I already told you! But here it is--again:

As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

Basically, you're asking the wrong question. The woman's health IS one of the state's interests, along with "preserving prenatal life." The court balanced those interests against the mother's right to privacy and, from what I can tell, nothing else. It didn't state her position or special insight trumped those interests, and I don't think they do, either. It just didn't. If you don't see that by now you probably won't. I can't help you. Sorry.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, we have a lot of idiots in this country who haven't properly thought through the consequences of what they're saying. I mean, one day killing a fetus is a woman's choice. If it's born the next day that's different. Then it' murder.

You confirm my claim that you think only of the unborn. The state cannot act on the unborn without violating the woman's rights, her body, her bodily sovereignty, without the woman's consent. The state can act on the unborn without doing those things (with due process) after the birth.

It's not all about the unborn, yet that's all you see.

I'll bet it's not so silly that you wouldn't defend or justify a woman doing it.

Empty bluster,you have no way to refute it but hey, you dont like it so you toss out a baseless comment.

Significant number? No, but that's not the point. The fact that the society would condone or accept any minimal justification for an abortion doesn't speak well to its values.

"Significant number? No, but that's not the point." You wrote it, own it. She can act according to HER values. Why should your values be imposed on her body? Her life? It can cost her life..."Is it a significant number? No, but that's not the point." thanks for that...it works nicely.

there have been cases over the years in that vein, usually involving celebrities who were pressured to get abortions in order to maintain an image or their physical looks.

Proof?

Anyway, I can think of quite a few silly scenarios, all plausible. Besides the Hollywood starlet pressured by a studio exec, how about a lonely but horny housewife who has an abortion so her husband won't find out she slept with a Zoosk hookup; or a congressman who pays for an abortion for his mistress so his wife won't find he he cheated on her, or he's afraid he'll be discovered as a pro-life phony; or an executive secretary who has an abortion after her married boss tells her if she wants a promotion she needs to take care of "the problem"; a singer/songwriter who has an abortion because a baby would interfere with her creativity time; and so forth.

So? And if some people are so emotionally corrupt, what kind of parents would they make? (Dont bother with the adoption bit again, we already know that it's cruel to those 100,000 already waiting). Look at you, having to invent reasons, imagine such things of women...where's the proof?

Women, men, gender neutrals, binaries... all different types. All stupid.

Anyone that disagrees with your opinion What you have not explained is why anyone that doesnt believe the same should care? Or be stuck with it?

I would think the main thing would be the risks and possible complications during the procedure. I don't know.

You seemed to assume they didnt provide that. Of course they do. Again you dismiss women being capable of considering the factors in a difficult decision. Your disrespect of women becomes more apparent with each post...each where you've failed to explain beyond your own opinion, why elective abortion is wrong.

 

[Lursa]

Basically, you're asking the wrong question. The woman's health IS one of the state's interests, along with "preserving prenatal life." The court balanced those interests against the mother's right to privacy and, from what I can tell, nothing else. It didn't state her position or special insight trumped those interests, and I don't think they do, either. It just didn't. If you don't see that by now you probably won't. I can't help you. Sorry.

It still doesnt answer the question, but that's fine. No one else has either. (What's the interest in a life? We dont have any shortage of people.)

None of that refutes how it outweighs that of the woman's life, health, and contributions to society? When the unborn has not even survived to be born, and may be born severely defective.

2/3rds of embryos don’t survive ​

​

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm​

​

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die.​

So I still dont understand how the state's interest in the unborn can ever outweigh that of the woman's life and any violations of her Const rights that would be violated if the state implemented investigations and tracking to make sure women didnt have abortions. Can you explain?

 

[minnie616]

Yeah, we have a lot of idiots in this country who haven't properly thought through the consequences of what they're saying. I mean, one day killing a fetus is a woman's choice. If it's born the next day that's different. Then it' murder. What a bunch of morons.

An abortion within the parameters of Roe v Wade is a right to privacy between the woman and her doctor.

Once it is born it is a person and if born in the United States it is a citizen with the rights of a citizen.

[“Ahlevah,]


Significant number? No, but that's not the point.

Actually , a woman does not need a significant reason for an abortion but the vast majority of women were very careful and consistently used birth control when they were not trying to become pregnant.

Also, women do not have abortions on a whim. They thoughtfullly consider their obligations and responsibilities they already have and their health and the health of fetus.

Statistically speaking in 2004 :

When pregnant women were asked why they sought an abortion ……

13 percent said : Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

12 percent said : Physical problem with my health

Page 4 table 2

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

[QUOTE =][“Ahlevah ,]


You still stuck on that? I already told you! But here it is--again:

Basically, you're asking the wrong question. The woman's health IS one of the state's interests, along with "preserving prenatal life." The court balanced those interests against the mother's right to privacy and, from what I can tell, nothing else. It didn't state her position or special insight trumped those interests, and I don't think they do, either. It just didn't. If you don't see that by now you probably won't. I can't help you. Sorry.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, an abortion is 13 times safer for a woman than pregnacy or childbirth.

States do have a right to protect citizens from harmful medical procedures and when states first banned abortions, they were harmful to the citizens ( the pregnant woman). By the 1970s ( when Roe was decided )
They were safer than pregnacy or childbirth.
There states can no longer use harmfulmedical procedures as an excuse to restrict abortions before viability.[/B]

 

[minnie616]

Basically, you're asking the wrong question. The woman's health IS one of the state's interests, along with "preserving prenatal life." The court balanced those interests against the mother's right to privacy and, from what I can tell, nothing else. It didn't state her position or special insight trumped those interests, and I don't think they do, either. It just didn't. If you don't see that by now you probably won't. I can't help you. Sorry.

Actually, here were some of the of the Arguments for Roe.

Arguments for Roe:

1. The Texas law infringes upon the right of privacy recognized in Griswold.
---Griswold protected the decision whether or not to bear a child.
---This is a liberty protected by the due process clause, or an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment

2. The right to an abortion should be recognized as a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny because of the great impact childbearing and childbirth has on a woman's life.

---Risk to a woman's health of childbirth (during first trimester, abortions have a death rate that is more than five times lower than the risk of death to mothers from childbirth.)

---Unwanted pregancies disrupt life (financial burdern, psychological burden, physical experience of pregnancy itself, stigma of being an unwed mother)

3. The Texas law violates the fundamental right of doctors to give medical care.
---State could not deny treatment of venereal disease as a means of discouraging promiscuity
---State could not ban all forms of surgeries

4. The Texas law is not supported by a compelling state interest.

---Interest in protecting fetal life not compelling because fetuses have no rights under Texas law and self-abortions are legal (women seen as victims under Texas law)
---Interest in preventing promiscuity is not very important and not closely-tailored to this law
---Interest in protecting mother's health does not justify total ban, only regulation to increase safety of procedure

5. Fetuses are not "persons" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
---Abortions more common in 1868 than in 1973, therefore could be no intent to make fetuses persons
---"Persons" elsewhere in Constitution clearly refers to persons after birth, as it the enumeration (or census) clause.

6. The Texas law is unconstitutionally vague.
---Doctors have to guess as to whether or not an abortion procedure is criminal (What if it shortens a woman's life? What if there is a 20% chance that childbirth might result in the mother's death? What if continued pregnancy increases significantly the risk of suicide?)

 

[Ahlevah]

You confirm my claim that you think only of the unborn.

I use my brain. There comes a point where the life of a fetus is worth more than stretch marks.

The state cannot act on the unborn without violating the woman's rights, her body, her bodily sovereignty, without the woman's consent. The state can act on the unborn without doing those things (with due process) after the birth.

And the woman cannot act on the unborn without the consent of the state. So she can take her sovereignty and stick it up her ass.

Proof?

I guess you don't remember this guy:

Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy has resigned after a report surfaced earlier this week that he had asked an extramarital lover to end her pregnancy.

Anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy resigns after report he asked lover to end pregnancy

Murphy's office had no comment when asked about the report.

abcnews.go.com

Don't be lazy. Just Google it.

You seemed to assume they didnt provide that. Of course they do. Again you dismiss women being capable of considering the factors in a difficult decision.

How do you come to that conclusion? You asked me what doctors should tell a woman regarding abortion. I responded they should tell her about the risks and possible complications, but beyond that I didn't know. And then you morphed that response into dismissing women being incapable of considering the factors "in a difficult decision." You're good. I can't top you making shit up.

Your disrespect of women becomes more apparent with each post...each where you've failed to explain beyond your own opinion, why elective abortion is wrong.

The ones I struggle to respect are the ones who took a nonchalant attitude towards birth control but then placed, say, their careers above a human life. Frankly, I think I give them more respect than they deserve.

 

[Ahlevah]

I am back online now.

This weekend , our area in Southeast Michigan, was hit by major storms , a tornado hit near by and we had over 5 inches of rain that fell within an hour. Thank goodness my family , friends and neighbors are safe. They say a few people had minor injuries but we were very lucky.

We just got our internet restored.

I've endured several hurricanes, the last on being Zeta last fall, but I think the thing I fear most is losing my internet service. But glad to hear all is finally well.

 

[Ahlevah]

Anyone that disagrees with your opinion What you have not explained is why anyone that doesnt believe the same should care? Or be stuck with it?

What about it? We all have opinions. We live in representative republic. We have laws. We (hopefully) follow them. No one has to care if they don't want to. What else do you need to know?

 

[SarahSun]

It's the woman who does all the work in "making a baby". The man's contribution is a few seconds of intense pleasure.

In a steady, loving relationship, chances are the woman will involve her partner. She is under no such obligation in a casual relationship or a one night stand, esp. if the man didn't stick around after getting his rocks off.

And what if he WANTS her to abort?

You are right. If i love a man then i would talk it over with my love, then decide. Other than that its 100% my decision.

 

[Ahlevah]

Actually , a woman does not need a significant reason for an abortion but the vast majority of women were very careful and consistently used birth control when they were not trying to become pregnant.

That depends, doesn't it? If she's in the third trimester she can't get an abortion to avoid stretch marks, correct?

Also, women do not have abortions on a whim.

A whim, probably not, but then I've seen some pretty dumb reasons for getting one.

Actually, an abortion is 13 times safer for a woman than pregnacy or childbirth.

No doubt it's safer than it used to be, but the state interest in ensuring the health of the mother is still there, e.g. through regulation. For example, a woman can't get an abortion in unsanitary conditions or have it done by a midwife.

The Texas law is not supported by a compelling state interest.

Well, SCOTUS said Texas couldn't make a blanket law against the practice. Bur Roe didn't invalidate the state's interest in protecting prenatal life and ensuring the health of the mother. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite it.

 

[Lursa]

I use my brain. There comes a point where the life of a fetus is worth more than stretch marks.

You have yet to prove any significant number of women abort for that reason and more tellingly, have yet to acknowledge the valid reasons that affect our lives, health, and the lives of others we have responsibilities and obligations too.

So I see little evidence of your first sentence...clearly there are limitations to what you'll absorb.

And the woman cannot act on the unborn without the consent of the state.

Where did you get that idea from? It's not correct. Or...source it.

So she can take her sovereignty and stick it up her ass.

I see that your failure to uphold arguments that support your views has triggered some nastiness and is further exposing your disrespect for women and our lives.

I guess you don't remember this guy:

Yeah, he was a hypocritical asshole and she refused. LOL another fail for you.

Don't be lazy. Just Google it.

No, you've failed all along to support this crap. It's a desperate move and we all know it's not any significant cause of abortions.

How do you come to that conclusion? You asked me what doctors should tell a woman regarding abortion. I responded they should tell her about the risks and possible complications, but beyond that I didn't know. And then you morphed that response into dismissing women being incapable of considering the factors "in a difficult decision." You're good. I can't top you making shit up.

I ran into the character limit. I know what you wrote...the most obvious things and what any Dr would tell a patient before any procedure.

And I never said women were incapable of making decisions...that's just your personal projection, more reflection of your disrespect...but I was acknowledging that her discussions with her Dr would help her with a difficult decision. Now...quote what I made up? Or stop lying...your failure here is past the point of lying helping you.

The ones I struggle to respect are the ones who took a nonchalant attitude towards birth control but then placed, say, their careers above a human life. Frankly, I think I give them more respect than they deserve.

And you know which women these are Big Brother? You just assume you know?

And at this point, IMO your respect would be worthless. You only award it based on a judgmental, misogynistic low-information perspective. Thus it has no foundation in real life.

 

[Lursa]

What about it? We all have opinions. We live in representative republic. We have laws. We (hopefully) follow them. No one has to care if they don't want to. What else do you need to know?

So what are you doing in a discussion forum, and constantly complaining when I call out your opinions as based on disrespect and ignorance rather than facts and reality? When you cant refute my responses, that's what you resort to...complaining as a diversion.

I've written several times that you are welcome to your opinions, just not imposing them on women that dont agree with you. And yet you complain over and over as if you havent seen me do so...that's dishonest.

In a debate, people support their opinions with those things (facts, reality, substance). Or, people that dont do so come across as blindly biased, dogmatic, and bitter with no credibility.

 

[minnie616]

Well, SCOTUS said Texas couldn't make a blanket law against the practice. Bur Roe didn't invalidate the state's interest in protecting prenatal life and ensuring the health of the mother. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite it.

Well, before Blackmun became a member of SCOTUS he was an attorney for the Mayo Clinic he knew women do not want a third term abortion . SCOTUS needed to take both the woman’s right to privacy and a states compelling intest into fetal life into consideration,so they decided to compromise and allow states to take a compelling when the interest in the third trimester when it might survive outside the womb. During a later case in Casey v Planned Parenthood the states compelling interest was changed to viability because by the infant CPAP had moved the survival rate from about 27 weeks to 24 weeks. (24 weeks is still the limit of viability today ) .

Women do seek elective abortions that late.
The only abortions that late are for the extreme health risks I have listed.


Even though we have the child protection act of 2002

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.
….. ……
The Born Alive infants Protection Act of 2002 :

Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual"
Gives rights as a human to any child born within the United States

Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

…………
Anti abortion/pro life activists tried to pass laws that would not allow a doctor, a clinic, or a hospital to offer Palliative care to an infant that will only live a few minutes or hours.

They tried to pass a law the would make that illegal. Instead by law it would be rushed away for extra ordinary care , ….stuck with needles and tubes and the mother never has a chance to hold or comfort the infant. Women should be able to choose whether they wish extraordinary care or Pallitive care.

Some want to choose the extra ordinary care , others want to choose Pallitive care and to be able to hold them while they take their last few breaths.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Significant number? No, but that's not the point. The fact that the society would condone or accept any minimal justification for an abortion doesn't speak well to its values. But, yeah, there have been cases over the years in that vein, usually involving celebrities who were pressured to get abortions in order to maintain an image or their physical looks. Anyway, I can think of quite a few silly scenarios, all plausible. Besides the Hollywood starlet pressured by a studio exec, how about a lonely but horny housewife who has an abortion so her husband won't find out she slept with a Zoosk hookup; or a congressman who pays for an abortion for his mistress so his wife won't find he he cheated on her, or he's afraid he'll be discovered as a pro-life phony; or an executive secretary who has an abortion after her married boss tells her if she wants a promotion she needs to take care of "the problem"; a singer/songwriter who has an abortion because a baby would interfere with her creativity time; and so forth.

Reasons are irrelevant. Either abortion should remain legal or it should be banned. Most rational people want it to remain legal.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That depends, doesn't it? If she's in the third trimester she can't get an abortion to avoid stretch marks, correct?

If she's in the third trimester, she already has stretch marks.

A whim, probably not, but then I've seen some pretty dumb reasons for getting one.

"Dumb", according to you - but not to her.

 

[Lursa]

If she's in the third trimester, she already has stretch marks.


"Dumb", according to you - but not to her.

As I've written, some posters get more and more 'fact-free' as they get frustrated. Why not just admit they learned something along the way...even if they dont like it and dont agree, rather than scraping deeper and deeper into the crap?

 

[weaver2]

I can think of quite a few silly scenarios, all plausible. Besides the Hollywood starlet pressured by a studio exec, how about a lonely but horny housewife who has an abortion so her husband won't find out she slept with a Zoosk hookup; or a congressman who pays for an abortion for his mistress so his wife won't find he he cheated on her, or he's afraid he'll be discovered as a pro-life phony; or an executive secretary who has an abortion after her married boss tells her if she wants a promotion she needs to take care of "the problem"; a singer/songwriter who has an abortion because a baby would interfere with her creativity time; and so forth.

In a discussion of real life situations it is helpful if you give actual examples with links instead of your "quite a few silly scenarios". Are there any statistics on this topic that would help support your abortion claims?

 

[Ahlevah]

You have yet to prove any significant number of women abort for that reason and more tellingly, have yet to acknowledge the valid reasons that affect our lives, health, and the lives of others we have responsibilities and obligations too.

Why? I don't think numbers are relevant. Apparently you do, so it's up to you to prove why and that the number of women who abort for trivial reasons isn't significant. I don't see anything in Roe that mentions numbers. The decision was straight forward: If this then that. It didn't say it only applied to the handful of women who didn't want stretch marks.

I see that your failure to uphold arguments that support your views has triggered some nastiness and is further exposing your disrespect for women and our lives.

Sorry, but any woman who thinks her sovereignty extends to aborting a full-term fetus unconditionally can, well, stick it up her ass. If she wants respect then she should earn it. Killers don't get much respect from me.

Yeah, he was a hypocritical asshole and she refused. LOL another fail for you.

You asked for proof. I gave it to you. If you want more you're on your own.

No, you've failed all along to support this crap. It's a desperate move and we all know it's not any significant cause of abortions.

Well, thanks to the law and the courts, we know there are zero in the third trimester. Bu if one-third of the country has gone bonkers and thinks abortion should be legal in all cases that would include the trivial, right?

Now...quote what I made up? Or stop lying...your failure here is past the point of lying helping you.

Okay:

You seemed to assume they didnt provide that. Of course they do. Again you dismiss women being capable of considering the factors in a difficult decision.

You made all of that up. I never made any such assumption. But I do assume a woman with an ounce of a brain would carefully consider whatever information her doctor(s) gave her.

 

[Ahlevah]

So what are you doing in a discussion forum, and constantly complaining when I call out your opinions as based on disrespect and ignorance rather than facts and reality? When you cant refute my responses, that's what you resort to...complaining as a diversion.

Actually, I think I've been pretty patient with you. Usually by the time I've repeated something more than a handful of times I'm at the point of saying "**** it" and begin receiving infractions.

I've written several times that you are welcome to your opinions, just not imposing them on women that dont agree with you. And yet you complain over and over as if you havent seen me do so...that's dishonest.

Here's the thing: they're not just my opinions. I've quoted simply language from Roe that I agree with, such as balancing the woman's rights against state interests, including preserving prenatal life, the life and health of the mother, and regulatory issues.

In a debate, people support their opinions with those things (facts, reality, substance). Or, people that dont do so come across as blindly biased, dogmatic, and bitter with no credibility.

How many links to Roe do you want?

 

[Scrabaholic]

As I've written, some posters get more and more 'fact-free' as they get frustrated. Why not just admit they learned something along the way...even if they dont like it and dont agree, rather than scraping deeper and deeper into the crap?

For some, it's hard to admit they are fallible.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Sorry, but any woman who thinks her sovereignty extends to aborting a full-term fetus unconditionally can, well, stick it up her ass. If she wants respect then she should earn it. Killers don't get much respect from me.

Give ONE example of a woman actually aborting at 40 weeks gestation w/o medical/fetal deformity reasons. Just one.

 

[Ahlevah]

Reasons are irrelevant. Either abortion should remain legal or it should be banned. Most rational people want it to remain legal.

Fortunately, the courts don't agree with the loon fringe in this country.

 

[Ahlevah]

"Dumb", according to you - but not to her.

Or the husband:

Time and time again, women have abortions that they don’t want because the men they are with insist upon it. Under these circumstances abortion is a self-betrayal, even a kind of self-rape. It can poison the relationship unless the issues are dealt with openly and honestly. The first step is for a woman to be totally honest with herself about how she really feels.

Or maybe she just needs an abortion as her form of birth control:

In the mid-1980s, I stopped doing abortions. I was tired of mucking around in women’s ambivalence about their fertility, and I was tired of performing repeated abortions on women who came back every year for the procedure. I needed to take a break from this arena and preferred to work on other aspects of the problem—like helping women understand their sexuality and their need for self-respect and self-esteem, regardless of whether they had a relationship with a man.

Womens Bodies, Womens Wisdom (Revised Edition): Creating Physical and Emotional Health and Healing PDF Book by Christiane Northrup Read Online Free - Page 25

booksvooks.com

 

[Ahlevah]

Give ONE example of a woman actually aborting at 40 weeks gestation w/o medical/fetal deformity reasons. Just one.

That's illegal, but if we take people at their word it isn't for a lack of trying. I mean, you wrote yourself that abortion should either be completely outlawed or unrestricted. If it's unrestricted, that would include "dumb" reasons, would it not?

 

[Ahlevah]

For some, it's hard to admit they are fallible.

Didn't I admit to you--twice--that I was fallible?