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

[Josie]

See? You lied about supporting easy access to birth control.

You do realize that PP isn't the only place to get birth control, right? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who don't live close to a PP who get birth control just fine.

 

[minnie616]

They should be shut down if they perform abortions. They shouldn't be targeted with violence.

Why should they be shut down when they are providing a legal service ?

There were Planned Parents for decades before Roe was decided and abortion were legal in all states .


In 1916, the idea of Planned Parenthood began at the first birth control clinic, in Brownsville, Brooklyn.

 

[Josie]

Why should they be shut down when they are providing a legal service ?

There were Planned Parents for decades before Roe was decided and abortion were legal in all states .

Obviously because I think elective abortions shouldn't be legal.

 

[Lursa]

Obviously because I think elective abortions shouldn't be legal.

But you still havent explained what authority supports the govt having the right to deny abortions and violate women's Const rights?

We know your 'opinion,' but for it to be illegal...your desire to force your beliefs on others needs to be based on some authority. We know it's not science, which is objective and applies no value and only categorizes species, it doesnt recognize that humans are of more value than dogs, tigers, giraffes, etc.

You see, the Const protects all our rights...so what authority supports that your beliefs be imposed on women that dont believe the same?

I normally dont challenge just your 'opinion,' (1A, free country, etc) but it's clear from your post that you believe that there should be laws that impose your opinion on others.

 

[minnie616]

Obviously because I think elective abortions shouldn't be legal.

Before Roe thousands of desperate woman died from their illegal abortions because the alternative of remaining pregnant was too dire for them. They did NOT see another way out of their situation.

From the following:

Opinion: In The Septic Abortion Ward, I Saw The Horrors Of The Pre-Roe Era. Let's Never Go Back.

I worked in a 40-bed hospital ward dedicated to women whose unsafe abortions went wrong. Deaths were a common occurrence.

www.buzzfeednews.com

In 1972 I was a third-year medical student doing my first clinical experience in obstetrics and gynecology at Cook County Hospital, a large facility in inner-city Chicago.

Abortion was still illegal, and women who were pregnant and desperate would seek ways to end their pregnancies. Those with resources could find ways to safely terminate a pregnancy, but others — including those in the mostly poor, minority communities served by our hospital — did not have that option.
They turned to methods including self-medicating with a number of toxic chemicals, attempting to introduce something into the uterus, and seeking someone willing to perform an illegal procedure.

These methods often had disastrous consequences for the women involved — consequences that we saw firsthand when they were brought into the hospital.
<SNIP>

At that time, Cook County had a 40-bed Septic Abortion Ward. It was a large room with the beds separated by curtains. The role of the medical student — my role for the week I was there — was to push a large cart of antibiotic solutions around the room, hang the antibiotics and connect them to the IV line, and take the patients' vital signs. When one of the patients died, I was to call the diener — the morgue attendant who collected the bodies. A death in this ward was a common occurrence.

One year later, Roe v. Wade was decided and abortion was made legal. It took a while for everyone in the community to learn that they could now safely and legally terminate their pregnancies.

But within a year or so, the Septic Abortion Ward at Cook County Hospital closed — it was no longer needed.

 

[minnie616]

Obviously because I think elective abortions shouldn't be legal.

Women were having abortions for hundreds of years.

Roe did not encourage women to seek abortions.

What Roe did was allow a pregnant woman to seek help from her doctor when she was desperate for an abortion .

And it allowed her doctor to legally perform an abortion in a safe , sterile environment and to treat his/her
Patient with compassion..

 

[Lursa]

Before Roe thousands of desperate woman died from their illegal abortions because the alternative of remaining pregnant was too dire for them. They did NOT see another way out of their situation.

She's made it clear that she values unborn lives more than women's. The proof is that she would deny women the right to consent to their own wellbeing, and allow strangers to decide women's fates. She disrespects women's ability to determine their own needs and circumstances, judging all those things, except the woman's life, as inconsequential to the unborn. If she respected and valued women, she'd support our making the best choice.

And since every single pregnancy risks a woman's life and death cannot always be predicted, she's perfectly comfortable with a law that takes away the right to choose her life... @Josie supports the govt protecting the life of the unborn over that of women.

 

[calamity]

You do realize that PP isn't the only place to get birth control, right? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who don't live close to a PP who get birth control just fine.

It is the only place where the service is virtually free and does not require parental consent.

Of course, you don’t like that part. Amirite?

 

[Josie]

It is the only place where the service is virtually free and does not require parental consent.

Of course, you don’t like that part. Amirite?

No, it isn't the only place where the service is virtually free. There are thousands of clinics and non-profit organizations that offer free or almost free birth control regardless of insurance. Like I said, there are hundreds of thousands of people --- low income and otherwise --- who don't live close to a Planned Parenthood who have easy access to birth control. How do you think those people get it?

The only reason you'd need your parents' permission to get birth control anywhere, for the most part, is if you need to use their insurance.

 

[calamity]

No, it isn't the only place where the service is virtually free. There are thousands of clinics and non-profit organizations that offer free or almost free birth control regardless of insurance. Like I said, there are hundreds of thousands of people --- low income and otherwise --- who don't live close to a Planned Parenthood who have easy access to birth control. How do you think those people get it?

The only reason you'd need your parents' permission to get birth control anywhere, for the most part, is if you need to use their insurance.

I doubt that.

 

[Josie]

I doubt that.

You can doubt it all you want. What you think and feel doesn't necessarily equal reality.

Can I get birth control without anyone finding out?​

• Yes. You do not need permission from a parent or guardian to get birth control. In fact, it is unethical and illegal for clinic workers or health care providers to tell your parents/guardians you were even at the clinic. The agreement to keep your visit private is called a confidentiality agreement.

Accessing Birth Control on Your Own Terms

Answers to your questions about how and where to get birth control in Toronto (and beyond!).

teenhealthsource.com

 

[Scrabaholic]

They should be shut down if they perform abortions. They shouldn't be targeted with violence.

There is no reason to shut them down for performing abortions. None.what.so.ever.

 

[Mata Hari]

The "rights" in question here are ultimately going to be defined by our courts (which currently look to be conservative-leaning, as far as the US Supreme Court goes), and when the decisions are made, people are going to comply whether they like it or not, regardless of what they childishly imagine or wish to be "rights".

 

[Mata Hari]

But you still havent explained what authority supports the govt having the right to deny abortions and violate women's Const rights?

The Constitution can be changed to what people want it to be.

We know your 'opinion,' but for it to be illegal...your desire to force your beliefs on others needs to be based on some authority.

The only "authority" they need is to get the courts to decide to do that. And when they do, what are you going to do about it? Break the law or something?

We know it's not science, which is objective and applies no value and only categorizes species, it doesnt recognize that humans are of more value than dogs, tigers, giraffes, etc.

Yes it does, by virtue of complexity humans are self-evidently recognized as superior - as much as a supercomputer is superior to a calculator or abacus. Arguing that they are interchangeable just because they are devices which "perform calculations" is laughable and absurd.

Likewise, you're already contradicting yourself and admitting you believe humans to be special in these regards - by virtue of your opinion that Constitutional rights should apply to humans, but not "equally" to animals, and notions of rights or Constitutions are not "scientific" or "objective" in the erroneous way you're describing either.

You see, the Const protects all our rights...so what authority supports that your beliefs be imposed on women that dont believe the same?

It only "protects" them as long as an amendment exists which defines it as a Constitutional right, and people can easily change the Constitution so that it is no longer defined as a right.

And then when it's not a right, you are no longer legally allowed to do it under our law, and if you or others are caught doing it illegally, you go to prison - pretty simple.

You seem to be a bit confused on the basic processes of changing the Constitution. It's not that complicated, really.

I normally dont challenge just your 'opinion,' (1A, free country, etc) but it's clear from your post that you believe that there should be laws that impose your opinion on others.

All laws are the "imposition of someone's opinion" on others. And that's a good thing.

Laws against rape, murder, child molestation are the imposition of someone's "opinion" that those things are morally repugnant on people whose "opinion" is that they aren't.

And "science", as in raw information doesn't say anything about rape, murder, child molestation being "morally wrong" - the moral arguments are philosophical or extrapolations based upon information or data, not simply the "raw data" in itself. Rape or "sexual aggression" also exists in animals - so unless you're coming out as "pro-rape", you're again admitting you believe humans should have superior rights than animals do:

Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People

Male chimpanzees who are more violent toward females tend to sire more offspring, which may provide insights into human sexual aggression.

www.livescience.com

Many people do not share your opinion that "enforcing their opinion on others is morally wrong" - but you ironically admit you think that the opinion that "forcing an opinion" is wrong should be forced on people whether they agree with your opinion or not.

So hopefully it will be the people with the superior opinions (e.x. murder and rape are wrong) imposing theirs on those with inferior ones.

 

[Mata Hari]

Obviously because I think elective abortions shouldn't be legal.

I'm curious why you refer to "elective abortion" as a whole, and aren't bothering to reference the different stages of the pregnancy's development.

 

[Josie]

I'm curious why you refer to "elective abortion" as a whole, and aren't bothering to reference the different stages of the pregnancy's development.

Why do I need to reference those?

 

[Mata Hari]

Why do I need to reference those?

IT would be highly relevant to the basis of your positions on the issue and the rationale behind it.

 

[Josie]

IT would be highly relevant to the basis of your positions on the issue and the rationale behind it.

The basis of my position is the same no matter what stage of human development the unborn is in.

 

[minnie616]

The basis of my position is the same no matter what stage of human development the unborn is in.

It is the only place where the service is virtually free and does not require parental consent.

Of course, you don’t like that part. Amirite?

Actually, while abortions usually reduced and cost less that a Planned Parenthood, they are not free.

There is an abortion fund that accepts donations and will partially help women fund a needed abortion.


Actually , having no compassion for parents who are making a hard decision to care for the child/children who are already born should Not be considered as pro- life.


In the following <SNIP> a women with 5 children tells of her struggles to try to raise money for an abortion when her husband was laid off his job during the last recession and she found out she was expecting again.

Because they love their children very much they decided she needed an abortion. She sold her wedding ring and other items but still did not have enough to pay the abortion so she aked for help funding the abortion:

Here is a <SNIP> from her story.
Sonia has 5 kids and her husband was just laid off.

From :
Fund Abortion.now :

…………..

I love my big family...and I love my children too much to have another baby right now.
My husband and I have five children. We love kids and we love having a big family. But when my husband got laid off from his contractor job, having a big family got really hard.

When I found out I was pregnant again, it was terrifying. We love the idea of another child -- but we love the children we have too much to add that kind of stress to our family right now.

I'm only working part-time and I couldn't get maternity leave, so I might not be able to keep my job with another little one. I hated that we had to make this decision, but it turned out that making the decision was the easiest part. Because then we had to find the money to pay for an abortion.

We started taking stuff to the pawn shop: our vacuum cleaner, my wedding ring, our family television, the old desktop computer. When that wasn't enough, we took my husband's tools and his drills.

That was the hardest trip. My husband's been trying to pick up construction work. Without his tools or his drills, there's hardly anyone who'll hire him.

And after all that, we were short on what we needed. But the woman at the clinic gave us the name of an abortion fund.

An abortion fund. Who knew, right?

They gave us what we needed.

And when I broke down on the phone and admitted that we didn't even have gas money to get to the clinic, they helped us with that, too.

So now I pay the pawn shop every month to keep our things -- my wedding ring and my husband's tools are the only ones we can afford to pay on. And if you miss a month, the payment is doubled from then on. So we're stuck in this cycle. We'll be paying for this abortion for a long time.

But the panic is gone. The rest of it, well...we'll figure it out. We'll do whatever we have to do to take care of our family.


-Sonia has 5 kids and her husband was just laid off. | Fund Abortion Now.org-

 

[Mata Hari]

The basis of my position is the same no matter what stage of human development the unborn is in.

So then, your position isn't based on the "life" in question, but simply what you perceived to be negative social effects which result from allowing elective abortion then?

 

[Josie]

So then, your position isn't based on the "life" in question, but simply what you perceived to be negative social effects which result from allowing elective abortion then?

My position has nothing to do with "perceived negative social effects" and everything to do with the life (no quotes needed) involved.

 

[Mata Hari]

My position has nothing to do with "perceived negative social effects" and everything to do with the life (no quotes needed) involved.

Arguments based on the notion of life are taking development into account, such as the emergence of a heartbeat. So why aren't you?

I think it would be difficult for you to argue that an abortion 1 day after conception is "the same" as an abortion near the end of the pregnancy.

 

[Josie]

Arguments based on the notion of life are taking development into account, such as the emergence of a heartbeat. So why aren't you?

Because I don't. She/He is a human life in every stage of human development.

 

[Mata Hari]

Because I don't. She/He is a human life in every stage of human development.

They are not "the same" during the different stages of development.

So you would need to substantiate what that assertion is based on. If it's based on notions such as "potential life", then that's a different vein of logic entirely.

 

[Lursa]

The Constitution can be changed to what people want it to be.

That's facile & overly simplistic. But please explain what you think it could be changed to with regards to abortion? Please.

The only "authority" they need is for courts to decide to do that. When they do, what are you going to do about it? Break the law?

Not really, the courts need to keep all our Const rights in mind while making their decisions, they cant just throw it out.

Yes it does, by virtue of complexity humans are self-evidently recognized as superior as much as a supercomputer is superior to a calculator or abacus. Arguing they're interchangeable just because they're devices that "perform calculations" is laughable & absurd.

No, science doesnt do that. That's your description of how science has categorized and described Homo sapiens. The scientific attributes are all unbiased facts. You are the only one applying 'superior' value, not science.

It only "protects" them as long as amendment exists which defines it as a Constitutional right, and people can easily change the Const so it is no longer defined as a right.

Also wrong. We have many 'rights that arent specified by individual amendments & also rights that arent named in the Const.

Such as the right for adults to have consensual sex. The right to move to another state. The right to have offspring. Just a few examples. None of those is named in the Const.

When was your last civics class?

Then when it's not a right, you are no longer legally allowed to do it & if you or others are caught doing it illegally, you go to prison-pretty simple.

We can do lots of things that arent 'rights.' There's no right to drive a car, to go to school, to become a dentist, etc. Good lord!

You seem to be confused on the basic processes of changing the Const. It's not that complicated, really.

It is not simple, at all.

All laws are the "imposition of someone's opinion" on others. And that's a good thing.

Yes I wrote as much above.

Laws against rape, murder, child molestation are imposition of someone's "opinion" that those things are morally repugnant on people whose "opinion" is that they aren't.

Those are laws based on the violation of other people's recognized rights, dont you understand the distinction? Those things violate people's right to life, security of the person, etc.

"science" as in raw info doesn't say anything about rape, murder, child molestation being "morally wrong" the moral arguments are philosophical not the "raw data" in itself. Rape also exists in animals so unless you're "pro-rape" you're again admitting you believe humans should have superior rights than animals do

Correct about science, which I wrote above. You just contradicted your words above with something correct, good. Why are you introducing other crimes here?

Animals have no rights in US. Has nada to do with human 'superiority' being 'endowed' with rights since animals cant conceptualize rights. Humans can tho, & we decided we dont recognize any animal rights.

Many do not share your opinion that "forcing their opinion on others is morally wrong" but you ironically admit you think the opinion that "forcing an opinion" is wrong should be forced on people whether they agree with your opinion or not.

Depends on what the opinion is regarding. Most agree that murder & rape=immoral. Those are clear violations of Const rights too. Please stick to abortion.

Hopefully it will be people with superior opinions (e.x. murder & rape are wrong) imposing theirs on those with inferior ones.

So far it is. Hopefully the SC wont support any arguments that allow the govt a right to force women to remain pregnant against their will. That is immoral.