What?
With those exceptions in place, will you support the outlawing of all other abortions?
Health, rape/incest, kids
I would say a lot. How long has religion been telling people it’s a sin to use condoms? How long has religion been telling people not to use other forms? How long has it lead to the mindset which gives us failed abstinence only education? I’ve lived in very conservative parts of Kansas my whole life and a lot of the girls who are raised in the most proper houses are the ones who get pregnant at 15-19. And yes some of these women are getting abortions even if they make sure no one knows it.
You do realize the places with the most religion lead in teen pregnancy right?
I haven’t done this at all. I’ve said let’s REDUCE the amount of unwanted pregnancies with the things we have at our disposal which we know work. It’s like prepping for a Mr. Olympia contest. You can do it with just exercise but you’ll have far better results with exercise, diet, and supplements.
Why not preach “abstinence will keep you from being pregnant and getting an STD.” If you decide to have sex these are the ways to help prevent pregnancy and STD’s."
Doesn’t seem that bad to me.
I was laughing at your use of the word compromise as if letting a woman who was pregnant stay alive was a huge concession.
If a government man checked to make sure every one of those kids not only had condoms, but would use them during sex, would you then support the outlawing of abortion?
Humor me.
There is no nationwide ban on abortion. I don’t understand why this is being pushed as the thotpocalypse.
From what I understand, now it is just more inconvenient for you to get an abortion. You have to travel. Is this correct?
If the majority of your state voted against having abortions in the state, what argument do these people have? Go get an abortion somewhere else.
Is this similar to the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding? You can still get your cake, just go somewhere else.
What’s the big deal? Can someone “readers digest” this issue for me? (meaning: the opposing sides argument)
1 Like
I simply recognize one human life is still lost. So yes, a weighty compromise.
I will, as long as the woman has the final say in the health decision. That would pretty make all abortions legal, as long as the woman is concerned with her health being impacted.
So individual women diagnose medical conditions?
I would venture to bet that in the vast majority of these cases that the kid is not going to survive either or will have a lowered chance to survive/major potential complications.
Sure, I believe that we should be responsible for any procedure or treatment we undergo. We should be able to consent to it or decline it. The doctor can give an opinion, that is it.
So, exceptions for health of mother, rape/incest, and sexually-active, pro-choice, anti-condom for religious reasons kids. Deal?
Ok thanks, but I’m content with a medical Dr. being able to make a legal medical diagnosis.
How about forcing treatments on you? Or lack of treatments?
I mean for the longest time on here I’ve advocated hard that both sides work together to reduce the times that abortion would be an option. It’s not that pro-choice people want more abortions they just think women should have the option.
Leaving that alone we KNOW the types of steps we can take to limit women being in situations where they would consider terminating a pregnancy. Even more than that we KNOW the types of steps we can take to limit women becoming pregnant before they are ready. Do we do these as full heartedly as we could? Not even close.
I really wasn’t picking on religion as much as some of the ideas that run counter to what would help prevent the things we have discussed. We know that abstinence only education is ineffective. We know the most religious conservative states have the highest teen pregnancy problems.
I guess I view it as we have multiple tools in the toolkit we can use and some people only focus on one. And in my view that is not the view that is most pro-life. The most pro-life view is to do everything possible to limit women being in scenarios where they would want to abort. And this includes illegal abortion which we know will happen.
If you’ve prevented an unwanted pregnancy you’ve prevented a potential abortion. And you may have saved the mothers life.
Edit: Had to add a word that would change the meaning of a sentence.
Reproduction is a defining feature of living organisms…Defining.
Treatment?
Can I assume that despite these exceptions you would still support the legality of all other abortions?
It would prevent us from investing more time in a fruitless debate.
It was mentioned up thread before the nonsense that is every abortion debate happened, but the situation you describe would be true if you have the ability (money) to travel. Therefore, this impacts poor people at a significantly higher rate than wealthy.
Think of a poor young girl who is pregnant. She would have very limited options if she didn’t find out she was pregnant and schedule an abortion REALLY quickly.
That’s not really at the heart of the matter. My understanding is the laws are in unison and intentionally restrictive with the goal of getting a higher court challenge.
1 Like
Like all unlawful killings. Sure, they still happen. Not an argument to legalize them.
Gosh, poor people might get an inherent benefit. They’ll be allowed to live.
How does war fit into this pro life view?
So is killing since everything lives because of death.