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

[Josie]

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.

My opinion is based on biological facts. He/She is a human life at every stage of development. That's how life cycles work.

 

[Lursa]

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

But of course, there's no foundation for your opinion being something the rest of us need to respect. YOU can respect it all you want, no one will force you to have an abortion.

OTOH, you need more than your opinion to see your desire for legal ban on elective abortion and as explained, 'science' isnt it.

So it's still up to you to explain why you believe it would be ok for the govt, thru laws, to force your opinion on women that dont believe the same? Well, it's up to you if you want your opinion to make sense and be a real argument...of course you dont have to do anything.

 

[calamity]

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

Would GOP bill expand women's health care access?

Moments after the House passed a bill to significantly overhaul the nation’s health care system, Rep. Barry Loudermilk,

www.politifact.com

 

[Lursa]

My opinion is based on biological facts. He/She is a human life at every stage of development. That's how life cycles work.

Biology doesnt matter, science doesnt recognize any value, any rights, any importance at all for Homo sapiens. No more or less than any other animal. So using 'science' as an argument, either all animals should have the same rights as humans...or none.

So you can see it's not about science...that's just the only thing you have left when you know that you dont have any other 'authority' to rely on to base your 'opinion.'

 

[Mata Hari]

But of course, there's no foundation for your opinion being something the rest of us need to respect. YOU can respect it all you want, no one will force you to have an abortion.

OTOH, you need more than your opinion to see your desire for legal ban on elective abortion and as explained, 'science' isnt it.

So it's still up to you to explain why you believe it would be ok for the govt, thru laws, to force your opinion on women that dont believe the same? Well, it's up to you if you want your opinion to make sense and be a real argument...of course you dont have to do anything.

Your rationale is off-base again, if the concern and arguments are based on definitions of "life".

There have been people who believed that Africans did not count as a "human life", and likewise would have objected to people "forcing that opinion on them".

But again, all law is the imposition of moral "opinions" on others - and arguing against "forcing opinions on others" is oxymoronic, since that means you believe "forcing others to accept the opinion that forcing opinions on others is wrong".

So it's really just a matter of people with the superior opinions hopefully forcing those on people with inferior ones.

Biology doesnt matter, science doesnt recognize any value, any rights, any importance at all for Homo sapiens.

Correct, it doesn't recognize that women have any right to an abortion or "their own bodies", so people can outlaw abortion just because they want.

So using 'science' as an argument, either all animals should have the same rights as humans...or none.

Then sinse animals don't have a right to be raped (and "sexual aggression" in animals such as chimpanzees is well-documented), you're coming out as pro-rape. Based on your unscientific view that all "animals" deserve equal treatment (despite science not recognizing any notion of "equality" to begin with, meaning it's likewise totally fine to treat animals unequally).

So you can see it's not about science...that's just the only thing you have left when you know that you dont have any other 'authority' to rely on to base your 'opinion.'

They don't need any "authority", since science makes no moral judgment of authority, nor "equal" treatment to begin with. They can do it simply because they want to, for any reason.

 

[Josie]

Would GOP bill expand women's health care access?

Moments after the House passed a bill to significantly overhaul the nation’s health care system, Rep. Barry Loudermilk,

www.politifact.com

I have no idea why this is your reply to me.

 

[calamity]

I have no idea why this is your reply to me.

Points out mostly false the supposition that other sources are replacing PP in B/C services.

 

[Lursa]

Your rationale is off-base again, if the concern and arguments are based on definitions of "life".

It's not. Our laws are based on rights. Our Const defines those rights and the courts examine laws to ensure they dont violate that Const.

Our Const clearly defines when we recognize rights for people (14th Amendment) and SCOTUS has also clearly stated the unborn have no rights.

There have been people who believed that Africans did not count as a "human life", and likewise would have objected to people "forcing that opinion on them".

But again, all law is the imposition of moral "opinions" on others - and arguing against "forcing opinions on others" is oxymoronic, since that means you believe "forcing others to accept the opinion that forcing opinions on others is wrong".

So it's really just a matter of people with the superior opinions hopefully forcing those on people with inferior ones.

Nope. Free blacks always had rights...the decision re: slaves was based on their status. Not only that, even slaves were already exercising many of their rights and were fully capable of exercising all of them once freed.

The changes to the Const righted that wrong. There is no 'wrong' protecting the rights of women over the unborn which cannot reach the status of equal even if they did have rights...they are wholly intertwined physiologically with the woman. Completely dependent. And they are not capable of exercising a single right. Their status is not equal, obviously and the courts recognize this.

Correct, it doesn't recognize that women have any right to an abortion or "their own bodies", so people can outlaw abortion just because they want.

They can...if they can do so without violating women's Const rights. They cannot pass laws that violate women's rights to due process, medical and reproductive privacy, and security of the person (bodily autonomy).

How do you think they'll do that? Please provide some legal foundations that would justify that and influence the court's decisions?

Then sinse animals don't have a right to be raped (and "sexual aggression" in animals such as chimpanzees is well-documented), you're coming out as pro-rape. Based on your unscientific view that all "animals" deserve equal treatment (despite science not recognizing any notion of "equality" to begin with, meaning it's likewise totally fine to treat animals unequally).

Animals rape other animals all the time without any governing consequences. It's not my view that all animals deserve equal treatment. Please read my prior statement again. I wrote that science applies no value to ANY animals, superior or otherwise...they discover and categorize facts...that's it. To science, humans are of no more importance than mice or chickens. They are a set of attributes to understand and categorize and understand how they relate to each other in the natural world.

They don't need any "authority", since science makes no moral judgment of authority, nor "equal" treatment to begin with. They can do it simply because they want to, for any reason.

Exactly.

 

[Josie]

Points out mostly false the supposition that other sources are replacing PP in B/C services.

I didn't say they were "replacing" PP. I said there are hundreds of thousands of women who don't live close to a PP who can easily get birth control. PP isn't the be all, end all of women's health.

 

[minnie616]

I didn't say they were "replacing" PP. I said there are hundreds of thousands of women who don't live close to a PP who can easily get birth control. PP isn't the be all, end all of women's health.

Actually, Planned Parenthood serves 40 percent of Title X patients and provides birth control information and services to over 2 million people each year. They are committed to offering information and education on the full range of birth control options to help patients make informed decisions .


We need both FQHCs and Planned Parenthoods.

Here is a snip from the science and health section of 538:

How Defunding Planned Parenthood Could Affect Health Care
…………….


But even if the same amount of money is being spent on family planning, some women, when faced with a loss of coverage at Planned Parenthood, may not continue receiving services at other local clinics — either because of a lack of capacity or a lack of knowledge about where to go.
<snip>
Then there’s the fact that even if they are accepting new patients, community health centers are likely to have longer wait times for an appointment and might not carry a woman’s preferred brand or type of contraception at all.


“Other clinics don’t necessarily have night or weekend hours,” said Kami Geoffray, CEO of Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, a network of family planning providers. At Planned Parenthood, “you can pick up your birth control pills at the counter and get a same-day IUD insertion.” Guttmacher data shows that Planned Parenthood sites are more likely than community health centers to offer a wide range of contraceptive services and to have a pharmacy on site. Planned Parenthood clinics are also likelier than other health care providers to offer same-day appointments.

How Defunding Planned Parenthood Could Affect Health Care | FiveThirtyEight

 

[calamity]

I didn't say they were "replacing" PP. I said there are hundreds of thousands of women who don't live close to a PP who can easily get birth control. PP isn't the be all, end all of women's health.

No. You parroted debunked Right Wing talking points. And, I caught you doing it.

 

[minnie616]

Your rationale is off-base again, if the concern and arguments are based on definitions of "life".

There have been people who believed that Africans did not count as a "human life", and likewise would have objected to people "forcing that opinion on them".

But again, all law is the imposition of moral "opinions" on others - and arguing against "forcing opinions on others" is oxymoronic, since that means you believe "forcing others to accept the opinion that forcing opinions on others is wrong".

So it's really just a matter of people with the superior opinions hopefully forcing those on people with inferior ones.

False.

The definition of “ life” played a very small part in the Roe vs Wade decision.

The right to privacy between a doctor and his/her patient regarding a reproductive medical procedure was the crux of the decision.

The Roe vs Wade decision has been revised by several different Supreme Courts and the right to privacy decision has held up almost 50 years.

……….

Roe v Wade has been reviewed and reaffirmed by several different Supreme Courts since 1973.

Let’s review when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned , it was not overturned. In fact the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was the made up undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to bite Texas conservatives who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.


Look at :Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
The most important details about the biggest abortion case in decades.
www.plannedparenthoodaction.org www.plannedparenthoodaction.org

From the following:

………


Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether.

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

(However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not always relied upon. From time to time, the Court overrules earlier precedent that the Justices believe had been wrongly decided.) O’Connor argued that a generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, certain restrictions were upheld.

As a result of the case, a woman continues to have a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb). The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. However, the states can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” on the access to abortion. After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions.

From:

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?

https://www.landmarkcases.org/assets/site_18/files/roe_v_wade/teacher/word/activity_casey_case_roe_teacher.docx

 

[minnie616]

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

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?
………
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.
….

Actually, you seem confused.

To change a Constitutional Amendment a new Amendment would need to be passed and it’s not easy to pass a new amendment.

People cannot not just decide to change the United States Construction.

The right to privacy is based on several amendments including our first amendment which is a right to religious beliefs including the predominantly Jewish faiths and a large portion of Protestant religions who are pro choice.


From:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy has been narrowly defined by case law and various statutes.

www.livescience.com

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers

The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches

The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information

The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

 

[Josie]

No. You parroted debunked Right Wing talking points. And, I caught you doing it.

I said nothing that was "debunked". There ARE hundreds of thousands of women who don't live close to PPs who somehow can get birth control very easily.

 

[Josie]

Actually, Planned Parenthood serves 40 percent of Title X patients and provides birth control information and services to over 2 million people each year. They are committed to offering information and education on the full range of birth control options to help patients make informed decisions .


We need both FQHCs and Planned Parenthoods.

Here is a snip from the science and health section of 538:

How Defunding Planned Parenthood Could Affect Health Care
…………….


But even if the same amount of money is being spent on family planning, some women, when faced with a loss of coverage at Planned Parenthood, may not continue receiving services at other local clinics — either because of a lack of capacity or a lack of knowledge about where to go.
<snip>
Then there’s the fact that even if they are accepting new patients, community health centers are likely to have longer wait times for an appointment and might not carry a woman’s preferred brand or type of contraception at all.


“Other clinics don’t necessarily have night or weekend hours,” said Kami Geoffray, CEO of Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, a network of family planning providers. At Planned Parenthood, “you can pick up your birth control pills at the counter and get a same-day IUD insertion.” Guttmacher data shows that Planned Parenthood sites are more likely than community health centers to offer a wide range of contraceptive services and to have a pharmacy on site. Planned Parenthood clinics are also likelier than other health care providers to offer same-day appointments.

How Defunding Planned Parenthood Could Affect Health Care | FiveThirtyEight

None of this negates what I said.

 

[calamity]

I said nothing that was "debunked". There ARE hundreds of thousands of women who don't live close to PPs who somehow can get birth control very easily.

BS in bold.

 

[Josie]

BS in bold.

Except it’s not.

 

[calamity]

Except it’s not.

Lies will never win out, just say'n

 

[Mata Hari]

BS in bold.

Sigh...

Amazon Best Sellers: Best Female Birth Control Products

Discover the best Female Birth Control Products in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Health & Household Best Sellers.

www.amazon.com

In this day and age, people can order birth control online and have it shipped to their home. You must be really old and out of the loop. Do you still use dial-up internet?

Most national chain stores and supermarkets also sell birth control over-the-counter:

What Birth Control Can I Buy Over-The-Counter?

Wondering about over-the-counter birth control? Here's contraception you can buy OTC plus some handy tips on buying birth control over the counter.

www.verywellhealth.com

 

[Mata Hari]

Are you going to lie about it now? Of course you are. It's been the pattern.

Nonsense. The Right Wing war on planned parenthood (which you support) has restricted access to B/C for youth and the poor. Ergo, you just told another lie.

If you weren't financially illiterate, you wouldn't be postulating this nonsense.

For that matter, it's apparent from your posts that you only "support" abortion for your own selfish interests, and would just as soon start rallying against it the second you believed you could benefit from it in some way, such as financially, so I'm honestly not sure if your crap is worth serious consideration to begin with...

 

[Lursa]

If you weren't financially illiterate, you wouldn't be postulating this nonsense.

For that matter, it's apparent from your posts that you only "support" abortion for your own selfish interests, and would just as soon start rallying against it the second you believed you could benefit from it in some way, such as financially, so I'm honestly not sure if your crap is worth serious consideration to begin with...

How is he selfish for wanting women to have access to free or subsidized birth control?

We all benefit from families that can support themselves, that can regulate their child rearing according to their financial means, that dont need public assistance, if we dont add more unwanted and poorly raised children from mothers/parents unprepared for kids, etc.

If women have 'choice' they can choose to have a kid or not. Obviously, that would be best for society.

 

[weaver2]

Sigh...

Amazon Best Sellers: Best Female Birth Control Products

Discover the best Female Birth Control Products in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Health & Household Best Sellers.

www.amazon.com

In this day and age, people can order birth control online and have it shipped to their home. You must be really old and out of the loop. Do you still use dial-up internet?

Most national chain stores and supermarkets also sell birth control over-the-counter:

What Birth Control Can I Buy Over-The-Counter?

Wondering about over-the-counter birth control? Here's contraception you can buy OTC plus some handy tips on buying birth control over the counter.

www.verywellhealth.com

For sale on Amazon
5 Emergency Contraceptives
1 OTC vaginal gel contraceptive
1 condoms
2 OTC vaginal contraceptive film for women
1 calendar for natural cycle BC
4 books on BC
3 post coital cleansers
1 vaginal pH balancer
3 vitamines for women
2 BC pill zippered cases
1 Midol
1 Genetic Ethnicity test kit
1 baby carrier
Emergency Contraceptives (EC) are not appropriate or affordable birth control. They cost about $50.00 for one emergency treatment after a BC failure.
The three most effective women's birth control the IUD, hormone implant or injection and BC pills were not offered for sale. They require a doctor appointment and prescription. Two are very expensive and have been dubbed an abortifacient in some states and cannot be offered by Medicaid. Businesses and religious orders have been allowed to refuse insurance coverage of them because the they call them abortifacients.

Over the counter BC has a failure rate about the same as condoms: 22%risk of failure. They are not very reliable BC

Many states did not expand Medicaid to include low wage workers and effective birth control is an out of pocket expense for them.
People have a mistaken idea that effective BC is cheap readily available and unused because women are lazy, dumb, promiscuous, careless, use abortion in place of birth control, don't care, are immoral. (pick one)
75% of the women seeking abortions for unplanned pregnancies are working women living at or below the poverty line. They have no insurance and they cannot afford the effective BC products.

 

[minnie616]

Sigh...

Amazon Best Sellers: Best Female Birth Control Products

Discover the best Female Birth Control Products in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Health & Household Best Sellers.

www.amazon.com

In this day and age, people can order birth control online and have it shipped to their home. You must be really old and out of the loop. Do you still use dial-up internet?

Most national chain stores and supermarkets also sell birth control over-the-counter:

What Birth Control Can I Buy Over-The-Counter?

Wondering about over-the-counter birth control? Here's contraception you can buy OTC plus some handy tips on buying birth control over the counter.

www.verywellhealth.com

Unless covered by insurance with no co pay Birth control medication there is a fee.

The most reliable methods of birth control are. An IUD an implant which a doctor to insert the IUD or Implant.

Why Some Women Still Can't Get Birth Control, in 6 Charts

Millions of women are still uninsured and live in counties with few family-planning clinics.

www.theatlantic.com

An IUD if not covered by insurance costs between $800 and $1,000 out of pocket.

An IUD fails less than 0.1 percent of the time.

With perfect use all of the time male condoms have a 3 percent failure rate but is usually even if used consistently will fail 12 percent percent or more of time.

Most birth control pills also have a fail rate over 5 percent.

That means out one thousand couples who use an IUD over a years time less than 1 woman will become pregnant.

Out of 100 couples who use a male condom consistently or birth control 5 to over 12 of women will have an unexpected pregnancy within a years time .

 

[weaver2]

If you weren't financially illiterate, you wouldn't be postulating this nonsense.

For that matter, it's apparent from your posts that you only "support" abortion for your own selfish interests, and would just as soon start rallying against it the second you believed you could benefit from it in some way, such as financially, so I'm honestly not sure if your crap is worth serious consideration to begin with...

Just out of curiosity how does someone profit or benefit individually from supporting a pro-choice agenda?

 

[Mata Hari]

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

Anything, provided the right legal argument is made.

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

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?

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!

If you're referring to things which "aren't legally prohibited", but aren't an issue of Constitutional rights, then that's apples and oranges

It is not simple, at all.

Yes I wrote as much above.

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.

Those are just broad platitudes, not constitutional Amendments.

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.

Yes, that has to do with humans superior status, such as at conceptualizing rights - and that's why rights are specifically decided for humans but not for animals, it isn't decided simply "for no reason".

Not to mention that that argument is silly - a person with clinical mental retardation can't "conceptualize rights", nor can an infant - but they still have them due to their status as a human.

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.

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.

No, those are state and federal laws, not Constitutional amendments. Plus, as with any law, they could all theoretically be changed so that whatever you are calling "rights" are no longer rights.

You are the only one applying 'superior' value, not science.

No, you're claiming that dealing in "unbiased facts" is a superior value than whatever the alternative might be.

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.

"Science" doesn't do anything - it's not some kind of "sky daddy" with magical prowess as you superstitiously imagine it to be.

First off, you're simply referring to outdated definitions and methods of science as defined by the Baconian methodologies - which are a holdover from the 17th century, and more or less soon to be rendered obsolete in the 21th century and beyond, in favor of new sciences such as computational and informational sciences.

Second, you're a bit confused as to what arbitrary scientific "definitions" even mean to begin with - terms such as "animal" or "homo sapien" are just arbitrary ways of classifying things on the basis of some similar trait or another, and only a very limited set of traits to begin with.

Much as how "homo sapien" isn't the same concept as "human" to begin with, since it's merely a simplistic classification on the basis of a few physical traits, but don't include myriads of other human traits and qualities, such as rational thought, emotion, culture, history, mythologies, ethics, intution, and so on.

You also seem to be under the naive delusion that simply arbitrarily classifying a human and another creature as "animal" implies some type of "equality" or interchangeablity, but in reality - as per your own admission itself, it does not imply any notion of "equality" between humans and animals, and more than allows for humans' status as superior to be acknowledged whether you like it or not.

Just as you already privilege "living things", such as humans and animals over "inanimate objects" such as rocks - despite both rocks and animals being made from collections of atoms and molecules - you already hold living collections of molecules like animals, to be superior to "non-living" collections of molecules like rocks, despite "science" by your own idiosyncratic admissions not in any way "preferring" animals or living things over non-living things in terms of status, thereby contradicting the ignorance and misinformation of your own faulty premise.