Would this be an additonal choice, along with abortion, or a forced "choice"?
Things I Learned from the GOP Debates...
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Would this be an additonal choice, along with abortion, or a forced "choice"?
It seems that you believe an overturn of Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal. This is not the case. But I may have to look for a new party sooner than that regardless. If I feel there is no way to bring the party back to personal responsibility and freedom rather than the expression of religion, I will leave.The day the GOP overturns the right to personal privacy expressed in Roe v. Wade, Damo, is the day you're going to have to start looking for a new party.
Because, that's the day the republican party becomes an instant, permanent minority in the country. Count on it.
I believe it would make abortion far more rare to have such a choice. I do not believe that making abortion illegal would.
I also believe that over time consensus would change to refer to this choice before the choice of killing.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
And who will have to pay for the procedure and incubating the fetus?
And who is going to adopt the fetus? Wouldn't this just turn into another situation like we have now with children in foster homes? Everyone wants the white healthy baby, but if they're not so white, or not so healthy, the line is real short. No waiting.
You know what I think would make abortion more rare? Easy access to free birth control pills. If you have no health insurance, it costs you hundreds of dollars just to get in to see your doctor, and then you have to fill an expensive prescription every month.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would remove a constitutinally guaranteed right.
Some states, most certainly would outlaw abortion, and require women to bear fetuses from rapists.
I know republicans think no one in a blue state will care if women in red states are treated like this. But, your thinking like a republican: i.e., "if it doesn't affect me personally, why should I care?". that's where you missing the point Damo. Women (and men) all over the country, will be pissed if that RIGHT to individual control of one's own body, is removed.
It depends also on the ease of adoption. Many go outside the nation to adopt because of the restrictive rules here.
I see that you assume eventual success if given such a choice. Not every fetus incubated ex-utero would even need adoption, that is a false assumption, another is that we couldn't find a better solution than we currently have for the care for the new children.
I also believe that over time success in creating true birth control will simply make either scenario "barbaric" in the eyes of those looking to the past.
The vast majority who wish to could get in a car or plane and still receive the abortion if they chose. Those who wished to give the option to those in the "red states" that would choose an abortion but couldn't themselves pay for transport, could provide for transportation to those states that allowed for it.
It may create a logistic question, but I don't think it would deny many abortions at all. It's not like there would be a sudden magic wall around those other states.
Oh, and I agree that many would be "pissed" if such a decision of the SCOTUS were reached.
Once again, those who wish to provide abortions for those who could not afford such could arrange for transport. Again, people reading only a portion of a post....
No, no no. It would instantly create two classes of women. One class that can afford to excerise their right to an abortion, and one class that could not.
It has already done this in some places. MIssissippi has exactly one abortion provider in the entire state for example. Many women who live in rural areas, and tend to be poor, already cannot afford to get to an abortion provider.
This would be elitism at its worst. It's exactly what facists do. One set of rules for the elite, one for the rest of us. A woman could be flown out of Facist Germany and to Switzerland for an abortion at any time. Many were. But only if they could afford it, and were politically connected, which usually meant, it was a politico who knocked you up.
No different rules for women depending on class here. That is out of the question.
Uh, noooo. Women do not have to depend on the kindness of some charitable stranger in order to terminate her pregnancy.
I agree. I said it would be problematic, but it wouldn't instantly make abortion illegal as so many think it would.
Those women that can't afford even a bus ticket could never afford the abortion in the first place. They rely on the charity of strangers for their abortions to begin with.
This is a logical fallacy.
uscitizen
Villified User
Depending on the statement one part can spoil the entire statement.
for example any statement that starts out "torture is good" ...Well you get the idea I think.
You don't get it Damo. Telling americans not to worry about overturning Roe, because they can simply get in a car and drive to a more enlightened state, is not going to cut it.
the point is, a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT would be removed. No matter where you lived, you would live under the constant possiblity that white men in a state legislature could codify their opinion about a woman's uterus into law.