- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,792
- Reaction score
- 5,123
- Location
- Pindostan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
Last edited: