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

a reply to: Xtrozero

I 100% agree, all sides need to work together to find a workable solution.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Gotta define what an individual is first.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Xtrozero

Gotta define what an individual is first.

No one really wants to touch that... Today they suggest a baby can live outside the womb at 24 weeks.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

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

Absolutely none.


But what about the body of an unborn person?

You know what though? It's still none of anybody else's business. Not only that, if one were as...imaginative with hypotheticals as I, this could breed (no pun intended) a commodity culture selling babies off to the highest bidder as rights restriction retribution.

For example, deny my right to an abortion if I so please, and sure, I'll carry it to term. IF someone is willing to cough up $500 grand first. I really don't care if the people who only make $45 grand a year can't conceive their own, you're gonna pay out the nose to make me carry something I don't want.

It has the potential to spiral out of control, and have a very lucrative black market for babies. Don't put it past women to get a case of the ass on this one, we'd do it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I lean towards the argument that once the unborn is able to live on it's own, outside of the womb, with minimal medical intervention, then it can be considered an individual. Until then, it isn't an individual because it isn't a distinctive, separate person from it's mother.

Then again, that's just my opinion, and I'm not judge and jury. Although, also my opinion, judge and jury have no business dictating the reproductive health of women. Or men, for that matter.

People will just drink hibiscus tea and miscarry, like the old days.

How many hot button topics and race wars does it take to not notice we are being ripped off on taxes?

Guess we will find out.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
People will just drink hibiscus tea and miscarry, like the old days.

How many hot button topics and race wars does it take to not notice we are being ripped off on taxes?

Guess we will find out.

Or deliberately fall down stairs/provoke fights/eat unripe Papaya, etc. You can't stop people from doing it. The tricks have been known forever.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

There are only 2 things I would like to see.

Under 18 parents should have a right to know, but not a right to chose. This is a choice that goes far beyond the limits of parenting.

Late term / viability where the fetus has a high probability of survival should be banned, which it already is in most states amd upheld by the Supreme Court, exept in rare medical cases where the womans life would be at risk. Or the fetus has some developmental abnormality that reduces the chance of infant survial.

I personally would like to see the states come to an agreement on these issues so we can inact federal laws.

A fetus has a better than 50% chance of survival after the 23rd week. With the survial rate being 50% I believe the unborn fetus should have a right to life. If a pregnancy is unwated after the 23rd week I suggest the woman be allowed a C-Section in the 27th week or later where the child's chance of survival improves to 90%, and that child be given up for adoption. Or the mother should carry until full term and make her decision at that time.

I am not for forcing a woman to do something she does not want to do. But the survial rate goes from 50-90% in just 3 weeks. If there is no threat to the mother or infant I believe it is fair to legally protect the child for the additional 3 weeks.

I am pro life, but as a law I chose pro choice. Because I am no ones God.

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: DBCowboy

I lean towards the argument that once the unborn is able to live on it's own, outside of the womb, with minimal medical intervention, then it can be considered an individual. Until then, it isn't an individual because it isn't a distinctive, separate person from it's mother.

Then again, that's just my opinion, and I'm not judge and jury. Although, also my opinion, judge and jury have no business dictating the reproductive health of women. Or men, for that matter.

The irony though, is that a bunch of men on a Supreme Court did decide.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What makes an individual separate from others?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Xtrozero

What makes an individual separate from others?

Is a rock an individual? Is a sperm or egg, is it one second after a sperm enters the egg, or when the first cell multiplies.. etc etc Define individual...

I sound like doctor Seuss here.

a reply to: testingtesting

How about personal responsibility? For example do not have sex if one does not want a child, take responsibility if they have one? I mean you HAVE to have sex in order to have a child. So just where does personal accountability play in to this? There are only three reasons for an abortion, rape, incest, and the health of the mother. This excuse of someone should not be punished for having sex, well pregnancy is a plausible outcome, and if someone does not want to have a child than do not have sex. It's the only way to avoid it. All other arguments are selfish decisions based on the mother nothing more.


Though I do find it kinda funny, the OPs statement was in sarcasm, referencing the 2A and the we just want "common sense" kinda puts the shoe on the other foot.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I asked that already. Some people here think literal sperm cells are individuals.

originally posted by: strongfp

I asked that already. Some people here think literal sperm cells are individuals.

To be honest, I'm fine with the 20 or 23 weeks rule. If a woman can't figure it out by then, then maybe the state should make the choice for life.

One issue I have is when abortions become a money making industry and so some places push it as a first choice. I do not like the idea of making life in general cheap. I think over time it degrades society norms, but I do think science will solve all this and at some point things could become very strange as people's reproductive systems get turned off and you will need to submit for a child as it becomes more of a privilege than some right as world population grows.

I don't see the SC touching this anytime soon as abortions in general may in the not too distant future become obsolete.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You make some valid points. And I agree if a woman can't make up her mind by a certain threshold then yes, some guidance and intervention needs to be made, even court.

There have been instances where abortion was out right banned. And it lead to more poverty and more crime. It's not something to just glance over.

And it's funny you mention child birth will be more of a priviledge.
The last two births I have been to were not technically natural, they were caesarean, and according to the doctor majority are like that ow days. Seems evolution is catching up on us.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: DBCowboy

Thats between the woman and her god.
But you can answer me how are you going to force women to carry a child they do not want?.
The only way you can solve this is educate people on safe sex so the need for abortions go down you aint gonna stop it.

What if I did not want my wife ? Or my neighbor ?
Should I be forced to "carry" them ?

Maybe if we outlaw sex for people under lets say 59, that should cure the problem!! I mean really nobody would break the law, that's why we make them.

originally posted by: avgguy
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

You forgot that they need to pass a credit check.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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 all either just accept it or set this bitch to burn and rebuild an actual free country.

Bravo !!!!

The elected government body should fear the population.

Agree 100%

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Here's a common sense restriction I can get behind. Have all the abortions you want as long as no tax payer funds are used to pay for them. Pay for them out of your own pocket, which is what I've been doing for my healthcare for most of my life. No one else's lack of planning or responsibility for their actions entitles them to one thin dime of my hard-earned money! Knock yourself out ladies! Get one a month if you want, as long as you or your impregnator pay the bill!