Kansas governor signs abortion law

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So Kansas is leading the way in new and interesting ways to restrict abortion rights.

There is no "right" to having an abortion.

Approximately 11% of induced abortions are performed in the second trimester. In 2002, there were an estimated 142,000 second-trimester abortions in the United States

In 2002, that means that there was approximately 1,290,909 abortions (assuming there were no third-trimester abortions)?!?!

That's a disgusting number.

Only by itself and out of context.
U.S. Abortion Statistics By Year (1973-Current)

2002: 1,260,000
2011: 1,058,490

Looks like total abortion numbers have been going down. Though if you click on that link (which is a Christian site btw) it also shows a downward trend in the number of abortions since a peak in 1990.

And I'm okay with that...I'm not a fan of laws that protect the harming of other people.

Which is what you are advocating by banning abortion.

a reply to: Seamrog

"People" is the plural of the the word "person". By definition, and according to the US Constitution, to be a person, one MUST BE BORN.

a reply to: windword

*Snip*

Personhood is not defined by, or dependent on the Constitution - but you know that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Which is what you are advocating by banning abortion.

You make an assumption about me. I'm okay with abortion in cases of incest or life of the mother (the latter of which was part of the law). But that's about it. Other than that, there are other means of humanely absolving yourself of the "burden" of raising a child (or for not getting pregnant altogether).

Plus, I have a big issue with there being no legal input by the fathers, but that's another discussion altogether.

a reply to: PageLC14

I think the woman should only have to keep the baby if the man who fathered is found to share the consequences, it's amazing how men get away with not taking responsibility and it's always the womans fault.

Why dont they pump more money into male contraception, rather than constantly attacking abortion rights and women.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There is no "right" to having an abortion.

Incorrect.

I'm not an idiot--I know it's legal (to an extent), but just because the SCOTUS deems it so does not mean that it's a legislated or constitutional right. The SCOTUS does not write rights into law, they just give opinions.

And on that note, whatever happened the the inaliable right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Abortion refuses all three to (what is until its mother has it killed) a living human being.

Embryos and fetuses aren't people.

I'm just going to have to call out your idiocy on this one. You do realize that even the zygote has its own, unique, human DNA, right? Just because it's not out of the womb, yet, doesn't mean that fetuses and embryos aren't people. Birth does not magically create a person...conception does. A full-term baby is simply a fully-developed infant person, but embryos and fetuses are just as much a person as is the baby.

Be careful, your opinionated ignorance is showing.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Which is what you are advocating by banning abortion.

You make an assumption about me. I'm okay with abortion in cases of incest or life of the mother (the latter of which was part of the law). But that's about it. Other than that, there are other means of humanely absolving yourself of the "burden" of raising a child (or for not getting pregnant altogether).

Which says you are still against a woman making the choice when in non-threatening positions. This is STILL a threat to the woman, because she may go to a back alley abortion place and get it anyways. Besides it is a law that restricts a woman's free choice.

Plus, I have a big issue with there being no legal input by the fathers, but that's another discussion altogether.

I agree. I think the father should be legally allowed to give input in regards to an abortion. I couldn't argue for a 50/50 split on the decision though since it is still after all on the woman to carry the child to term and then deliver it. So while I agree that a man should have some legal right to decide on what happens to the child, the ultimate authority should rest with the woman.

There should be an option to let a woman carry the child to term and cede the child over to the father for full time parental rights.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Be careful, your opinionated ignorance is showing.

Be careful, yourself. Your opinionated ignorance is showing.

I'm not an idiot--I know it's legal (to an extent), but just because the SCOTUS deems it so does not mean that it's a legislated or constitutional right. The SCOTUS does not write rights into law, they just give opinions.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of the land, it was opined, and thus enacted as the law of the land, that abortion is a fundamental right that is constitutionally protected.

Not only that, but abortion has been practiced since the dawn of humanity. The right to autonomy of ones own body is an inalienable right. But, you are right, our inalienable rights are not issued through legislation or given to us by governments. They are protected by governments.

And on that note, whatever happened the the inaliable right to life[/], liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Abortion refuses all three to (what is until its mother has it killed) a living human being

Embryos and fetuses don't have rights. Rights are bestowed on individuals who are born. An embryo or a fetus has no concept of, or right to, the pursue happiness or liberty, and it's life is totally dependent on every heartbeat and breath of the its host, an autonomous, breathing, thinking person with inalienable rights.

You do realize that even the zygote has its own, unique, human DNA, right? Just because it's not out of the womb, yet, doesn't mean that fetuses and embryos aren't people.

Actually, it does. People are autonomous. Also, DNA is a molecule, not a person. Human DNA is blue print, or a recipe, for a person.

An acorn is not an oak tree.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Man has right to use a condom. Its precalculated risk not to use.

a reply to: windword

Gays didn't/don't have the same rights, yet you advocate for them.

Blacks/minorities didn't have the same rights, yet you advocated for them.

The unborn children, however? They shouldn't have the same rights as a child that has been "born"?

Your argument against the rights of the unborn children echo's similar arguments against affording equal rights to gays, blacks, minorities, etc.

There was a time when the Supreme Court upheld inequality against gays and minorities. They changed.

Just curious as to your position on this aspect.

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Man has right to use a condom. Its precalculated risk not to use.

The female can also use a femdom, coil, chastity belt, and pills.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey






An embryo or a fetus has no concept of, or right to, pursue happiness or liberty, and it's life is totally dependent on every heartbeat and breath of the its host, an autonomous, breathing, thinking person with inalienable rights.

This argument can be considered for a baby.
A baby cannot survive on it's own and has exactly the same thinking ability as a 39 week feotus.

a reply to: bullcat

All goes back to birth control measures, taken or not. Responsibility in own actions should be placed.

a reply to: dollukka

What's that supposed to mean? Condoms DO have a failure rate you know?

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: bullcat

All goes back to birth control measures, taken or not. Responsibility in own actions should be placed.

Always goes back to responsibility of course, nobody can deny that when getting to the root of the issue, but sometimes, bad things happen (rape) etc.

a reply to: beezzer

The unborn children, however? They shouldn't have the same rights as a child that has been "born"?

Of course not!

Your argument against the rights of the unborn children echo's similar arguments against affording equal rights to gays, blacks, minorities, etc.

When a fetus walks into a bakery and requests a cake, or wants to order lunch at a lunch counter, I'll consider their rights.

a reply to: windword

Thank you for providing your honest opinion on the subject.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: windword


When a fetus walks into a bakery and requests a cake, or wants to order lunch at a lunch counter, I'll consider their rights.

If so , you would think killing babies who can´t order their lunch is ok too.

I am very uncomfortable with abortion. But i am also very uncomfortable with this continued idea that a woman should be the one the carry brunt of unwanted pregnancies.
that children should face futures where they are unwanted and a lot of the time bought up in bad economic situations.
We need more continued research in contraceptives, so we can find ones that dont impact so negatively on women, and men cant winge about how they're being feminised through female hormones.
Lets have more money pushed into Male contraceptives, with all single people all some form , the number of unwanted pregnancies should -plummet. and the weird thing sme people have with the pill, eing an abotificant can be laid to rest as a male contraceptive should prevent conception from ever occurring.

a reply to: dollukka

Abortion and infanticide are two different topics. Please learn the distinction.