New Court will not take away abortions, they will just imply common sense restrictions

What new court?

From both a medical and ethical viewpoint its obvious that there should be term limits but this about someone having to be 21 before being to capable of deciding for themselves if they want an abortion or not?

Surely if someone is deemed able to make their own mind up on whether to have sex or not they should automatically be able to decide if they want to have a baby or not- one begets the other.

I know the rights and wrongs of abortion is a far bigger issue in the US than it is here in the UK but the ethics are the same.

IMO abortion is far better than unwanted babies neglected or abandoned....neither are particularly desirable.

I have no idea how to reduce both, but we as a society should be looking at ways to do so.

a reply to: introvert

I think it's amazing that no one has noticed the OP is illogical and uses loaded questions/statements.

a winnar is you!
well done!

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I notice from the thread both left and right viewpoints. Some are extreme, some silly and some common sense. I understand the issue and the concern over the possibility of changing laws. What I don't understand is the insanity of bitching and moaning about something that hasn't happened yet. Of course, this is typical of liberals, progressives and feminists, to work based off the supposition of change, precrime if you like. Maybe if they looked more at themselves and curbed their own crimes, through precrime interventions I might have some faith in the progressive viewpoint. But it hasn't happened yet lol.

My opinion on abortion.... It is a last ditch option. It is not contraception for the irresponsible and flippantly arrogant masses. Abortion should be used when the mother's health is at risk, or because of rape or some other form of sexual assault. I can't agree on abortion as contraception as my wife and I spent over $100k on two continents so we could have a child conceived by us and carried by her, naturally.

My opinion on jumping the gun in this thread.... Go soak your heads and give them a good shake. The sky isn't falling, the world still keeps turning and the laws are unlikely to change. This is just another demon the progressives want to carry on about with no foundation in reality.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Maybe you should wait until he gets approved before telling us what's going to change.

a reply to: Freeborn

is it obvious! If the argument is my body my choice? The term limit is the boundary that the argument centers on. 'its still attached to my body by the cord, I still can decide.' There will never be an agreement as to when the life began and where the woman's right to choose ends. If I am going to be wrong on this issue, I will choice to be on the side of protecting life I guess. (Yes in rare cases .001 abortion may be the only solution.)

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

What right does a court have over a womens body?.

Talk to us when illicit narcotic use, prostitution, and suicide are decriminalized in the US... until then, the "it's her body" argument is a convenient statement which relies on very selective criteria in a room of smoke and mirrors. The US government claims EVERY right over a citizen's body in every other aspect of the law, so why in the hell should abortions be any different?

All we want is common sense abortion control. No one is trying to take away your abortions.

6 week education and training class on safe sex
21 day waiting period after that
Need to register the unborn child with the state
21 yrs or older
Capped at three per household
Must undergo a mental health evaluation

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

People can enlist in the military and die in a war at 18, but can't be trusted to make their own reproductive decisions?

They apparently also can't be trusted to buy booze, a handgun, any firearm from Dick's, be responsible for their own insurance and healthcare, or buy cigarettes in many states... the law is dichotomous, freedom is an illusion... the faster we acknowledge that as the real problem, the faster we can all either just accept it or set this bitch to burn and rebuild an actual free country.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Still none. Hypothetical people don't vote or pay taxes.


Honestly, expecting "common sense" laws from our congress is fantasy roleplaying for people who suck at both. There is no evidence that any group of elected congress people can find common sense with both hands. They are the same people who think "a woman's body will spontaneously abort in the event of rape" and "a woman knows she is pregnant at the moment of conception."

Half the country thinks congress is old and stupid, the other half think they are trolling us. I'm in the middle saying it's clearly both.

a reply to: crsb123

As I said, I don't profess to have all the answers.

The points I was trying to make are;
If someone is deemed mature enough to have sex they should in turn be deemed mature enough to decide if they should have an abortion in accordance with the laws of that country. Surely that's obvious?

Is it preferable to have unwanted, neglected and abandoned babies or to have more abortions?

That's not an easy question to answer and very sad that in this day and age that we have to ask ourselves.

My natural default is pro-choice.....but it's not one I'm very comfortable with.

Considering some people deal with a lot of emotions after having an abortion perhaps the CDC could maintain a database to check against when a woman is considering an abortion and give approval unless there is a frequency issue or history of mental anguish.

And even though very few people would have an abortion to impress Jodie Foster maybe a 5 day waiting period would be alright for a couple of decades. Just to be sure that the person wants to have an abortion for the right reasons and not just an impulse decision.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Well if under 21's can't be trusted to decide on an abortion, I assume their parents should decide for them then? Seems more reasonable than the government?

a reply to: JinMI

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I get it, OP and I absolutely agree with the point you're making. Maybe some people will start to realize how condescending and insulting it is to frame a debate that way now that its applied against a right they care about. Somehow, I doubt it.

a reply to: JinMI

Are saying some sort of pregnancy suppressor? That would require scheduling an appointment with someone and a prescription. That would be about $200 bucks right there counting the time off work and everything.

So long as I don’t have to pay for it.

amusing how the people that yell about "Small Government" are the ones that always want the government to enforce things that they want

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
amusing how the people that yell about "Small Government" are the ones that always want the government to enforce things that they want

Isn't it though?

GOP claims small government, they are anything but.

Lots of Dominionists pushing for a Theocracy.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I get what you're doing with your OP but it kind of falls flat.

There are states that require certain kinds of medical evaluations, including mental health, before receiving an abortion.

There are states that require prospective abortion patients to be educated and told the consequences of the procedure.

There are states that place an age limit on who can receive them.

Considering that all medical records are more digitized, there is essentially a database of people that have received abortions.

I get that you're trying to point out the ridiculousness/hypocrisy of suggesting similar restrictions on gun ownership. But at the same time, aren't you kind of being hypocritical by not opposing those same restrictions being placed on abortions?

No one is talking about taking ALL your abortions away. We just need some “common sense” restrictions to address the murder problem.

Think of the children?

"Common sense"....interesting choice of words.

i see what the op did ,using arguments that are normally used for gun control and applying them to abortion . pretty sure at least a few members saw past initial outrage to pick up on this.

the candidate for SCOTUS kavanaugh apparently treats roe vs wade as a settled matter and one new judge is unlikely to change that .id say with the new justices the 2nd amendment is now much more safe then it has been in the past few years and much more likely to hear new cases with likely positive outcomes for those that support the 2nd.