What should be the next state to make abortion illegalq?

[Juan4574]

A Kentucky judge granted a Republican prosecutor's request that sought to ban abortion in that state.

So far there are nine states that have outlawed abortion, nine states that have laws awaiting activation to restrict abortion, four states that have restricted abortion to the sixth week, and two states with legal abortion that have closed all of their abortion clinics. .

Feminine irresponsibility should not be tolerated.

California

Florida

New York

Pennsylvania

Updates

+1 y

Which state should be the next to follow the good example of South Dakota, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tejas?

[FunkyMonkee]

I don't think ANY should have it! How is it a good example that it causes a girl that wants or needs one to take matters into her own hand and use a coat hanger to attempt doing it herself and risk killing herself in the process or at least screw up her chances of ever having a kid in the future. How is it a good thing that someone like my ex-fiance could've lost HER life because of pregnancy because she's not allowed to get an abortion?

[Juan4574]

Very good.

[Juan4574]

** very good example of South Dakota misuri etc etc.

[monorprise]

Or she can just give the baby up for adoption..

[FunkyMonkee]

@monorprise Yeah, I can always get a new girlfriend to replace her! She served her purpose on this Earth and there's LOTS of other girls out there that could die because they got pregnant. What's one more girl?

[monorprise]

@FunkyMonkee I dont know of any state that doesn't allow for abortion if the mothers life is at stake, and if you do find one its YOUR choice to live there under such laws.

Frankly if your not disturbed by the State's liberal murder & crime laws then abortion laws should be the least of your concerns.

[FunkyMonkee]

@monorprise Where I am abortion is allowed.
What's crime and murder got to do with abortion?

[888theGreat]

Indiana is going to , and Kentucky will.

[Iokhm]

Indiana likely won't ban abortion because of the Ohio story, and Indiana is kind of a moderate state for the US in contrast to a state like Tennessee.

[888theGreat]

@Iokhm Indiana is more conservative then Tenn. Tenn might be more conservative with economy over Indiana.

[Iokhm]

@888thegreat no nope it is not, Indiana does not have the same history with Jim Crow, or the confederacy. Tennessee was not the main part of the slave trade and has a big college aged community so it is not as conservative as Alabama or Miss.

[Iokhm]

I do think the younger Southern population is more progressive than Midwestern youth nowadays but that is due to a push-back Southern youth have been betrayed by their elders on a larger basis than typical and have a negative view towards religion.

[monorprise]

@888thegreat It should be done bit by bit to save as many lives as possible. But more than that the logical and philosophical fact that a line must be drawn to define and protect life from the conveniences of murder must be laid out.

People cannot allow themselfs to simply dehumanize others to allow themselfs to justify killing them for mere convenience. What makes an unborn child any less a person than a born one? Do they not both require food and shelter provided by their parents?

Is not a mother and father responsible for their babies? Do not ignore the very important and fundamental questions of our humanity.

[dustybiker]

Have you ever read up on abortion yourself? Or is your hate purely based on what you’ve heard from other haters?

Comments like this aren’t made by the educated.

Do yourself and all woman a favor. Do your homework.

[monorprise]

I have read on abortion, they are murderous and sick procedures. When done for the mere convenes of a woman who was suppose to be that child's own mother! It inspires just rage in a decent person.

[dustybiker]

@monorprise Then you clearly haven’t looked up anything. You can’t only come to a conclusion based on what you want to know about an issue. That kills people too.

[monorprise]

@dustybiker We are all ignorant at all times, what little we do know is all we have to work with.

If you know something I do not know about this issue feel free to share it.
For me there are 2 questions:
1: is the child entitled to the right to life.
2: Is the child entitled to the protection and provision of its mother?

To answer these questions We must define what is protected and what is entitled, theses issues have been defined by State legislators since before there ever was a Federal Government. Those definitions have been as followed.

1: Human life is protected. The child has human DNA and is living by the scientific definition of life, needing only food and shelter to survive like every other human life. Therefore it must be entitled to protection.

2: Children are entitled to the protection and provision of their parents or guardians until 18.
The State can define when this responsibility begins and many have long done so since it was known to exist.

[dustybiker]

@monorprise You make it sound like every abortion procedure is the same. It’s not.

Some pregnancies are not viable. They attach outside of the uterus, but without this medical procedure can kill the non-pregnant woman.

Banning something as a whole blocks people from medical assistance who need it for completely different reasons other than ending a life. It is saving a life.

That you would have learned with a little light research.

[monorprise]

@dustybiker Just because abortion is in very unusually circumstances necessary to safe the life of the mother does not make it any less a murder, it merely makes it morally acceptable as most all murders by laws of the State are legal to save the life of anther.

The circumstances by which this judgement is made however must however be monitored and investigated to prevent abuse of said excuse.

[dustybiker]

@monorprise And you miss the big glaring point.

[monorprise]

@dustybiker May I inquire what point you think I did not address?

[dustybiker]

@monorprise You don’t block an entire procedure for a few select cases.

[monorprise]

@dustybiker Forgive me but I think you got that backwards. There are exceptions to protect life to abortion as there are for any other kind of murder.

We don't allow any kind of murder just because there are a few circumstances in which it would be legitimately necessary to save life.

[dustybiker]

@monorprise No. I don’t have it backward.

Protecting a mother’s life is not murder. Refusing to do so due solely to political and personal opinions, is, however.

[monorprise]

@dustybiker If protecting the mothers life requires killing someone else that is murder.
The only question is whether or not the debated and voted upon laws of the State agree the murder was justified by the circumstances.

You as an individual do not get to decide if your actions harming anther are justified.
We have elected State legislators to make these laws for all parties and appointed or elected judges to decide if your circumstances are prohibited under them.

This is how the law has protected people's rights since its inception.

[dustybiker]

@monorprise Politically blocking a medical procedure that forces a non-pregnant woman to die could also be considered murder.

When you knock up a girlfriend and have to drive her to the ER because she is bent over in pain and bleeding out, then refused treatment to save her life, as it’s banned. Then maybe the penny will drop and you’ll understand. Until then you have a lot to learn.

[monorprise]

@dustybiker Once again your bring up a examples of life threatening reasons allowed under nearly all state laws for almost any kind of murder including abortion.

What are you debating with such examples, it is not the laws of my nor any state I know of?

Murder is allowed to save life, the caveat is the State must investigate such circumstances to verify it was in fact necessary and you were not just lying.

[duttyjamagyal]

Every state

[MzAsh]

Why are kids on here trying to dictate women lives? Sit down child.

[monorprise]

Why are Women entitled to dictate the whether or not other people even get to live at all, after they have been irresponsible.

[MzAsh]

Because it’s in their body.

[monorprise]

@MzAsh Well they choose to assume responsibility when they chose to have sex. Just like the man assumed financial responsibility for the rest of the babies childhood.

[MzAsh]

Maybe, maybe not

[IAteTwoFullHams]

Abortion should not be illegal. Anywhere. It's a policy with objectively negative outcomes.

[monorprise]

So do all other laws against murder, lots of people die trying to get away with killing other people. Still many more people live having not been killed by the lawful.

If your going to unilaterally dehumanize anther person who's life has become a temporary inconveniences to you, should not everyone have such equal rights?

If so how long do you think you will be regarded human enough to remain on this earth?

[IAteTwoFullHams]

The other laws against murder have positive outcomes: most notably, fewer human persons being murdered.

[UCrayCray]

@monorprise
“… should not everyone have such equal rights?”
You do. You have the right to remove consent at any time should a person be using your body to sustain their life, even if removing consent means the other person will die.

[monorprise]

@UCrayCray Except you don't have such a right, If you cause someone to become depended upon you either by injury or putting them in such a legally binding position you are responsible for that person.

The limits of that responsibility are the matter that the State legislator of the State you CHOOSE to live has the right to decide.

There is a saying no ones life Liberty, or property is safe while the Legislator is in session, this is why.

[UCrayCray]

@monorprise
Are you saying that a state could force you to donate, say, part of you liver because you caused a car accident and one of the victims now needs some of your liver?
Yeah! Let me know when that starts happening, then we can talk about how you are legally responsible for creating that need. Because as of right now, I don’t know any law in the US that forces you to give up parts of your body for another to use.

[IAteTwoFullHams]

I never find these analogies very helpful. Our society generally doesn't consider a first-trimester fetus a person, since it has no self-awareness, awareness of its environment, or capacity for sensation or thought.

And so the harm it does to force women to carry the pregnancy to term is thought to outweigh the harm of terminating an early pregnancy.

It's the law for most Americans and it should remain the law.

[monorprise]

@UCrayCray Yes a State could indeed do just that, although currently most only require you to pay for said replacement liver not caring where it comes from.

Its worth noting that some of the first laws ever known to exist such as Mesopotamia's Ur-Nammu’s codes (c. 2100–2050 BCE). Do in fact mimic such to the extent the possible with the eye for an eye concept.

[UCrayCray]

@monorprise
**sigh**
Like I said, you let me know when it starts happening, then maybe your claims of unequal rights will ring true.

[monorprise]

@UCrayCray There is nothing unequal about such law which applies to all people. You were suggesting a persons body is somehow inviolable and that they may not be required to lose part in trade for what they did.

When in fact this is one of the original basis of human law going back 4000+ years.

you claimed the harm to forcing a woman to go thou a 9 month pregnancy is doing far more harm than killing the baby, when in fact it has always been accepted that killing is the most harm anyone can do. Whereas a woman's body is designed to go thou pregnancy,.

That her act of sex had in fact agreed to that possibility only serves removes any possibility of an undeserved burden upon her.

[UCrayCray]

@monorprise
“There is nothing unequal about such law which applies to all people.” Yeah? When will you be expected to allow another to physically live off your body?
What I’m suggesting is that I should be allowed to determine what is and is not acceptable for my own body. I understand that you believe that a woman’s whole life and being should be about making babies. Unfortunately, more and more women are renouncing that expectation, as they should have the right to. Does that mean they should abstain from a very important part of bonding and loving a partner? That’s not even a realistic suggestion.
We don’t force people to give up parts of their body as punishment. I don’t know why you think it matters that at one point in our history we did. Here in the west, we don’t. You will never be forced to give me your liver. Or blood. Or nutrients and vitamins. Not going to happen.
Just because a woman’s body can carry a pregnancy, doesn’t mean she should be a slave to it. I mean, can you come up with a better example of “forced labor” then that?
Consent to sex is not consent to incubate your sperm. I’m sure some women have saved the world a lot of woes when they had their abortions. Some people are simply not meant to procreate. If someone believes that they are one of those people, I’m going to trust their judgement, thanks.

[monorprise]

@UCrayCray "Yeah? When will you be expected to allow another to physically live off your body? "

Women have been doing it for hundreds of millions of years when choosing to have sex, its part of the essential to life biological process of motherhood.

"What I’m suggesting is that I should be allowed to determine what is and is not acceptable for my own body. "

No one really has that right in practice or we would not get sick from the invasion of organism.
In principal however we should have the right to choose what is put into us by other people, and to that end women do have the right to refuse to have sex, to the extent this right can be protected.

Not however at the expense of the most important right of them all, the right to life.

"We don’t force people to give up parts of their body as punishment."
We force people to give up their entire bodies with their lives, so that is not true. As for lesser offense its true we don't currently care where compensation comes from, but this was not always true, and we have no reason to assume it would remain true. You should not just assume otherwise.

There is after all significant merit in the deterrence practice of cutting off people's hands for certain offenses, in areas where economic and cultural conditions do not sufficiently value monetary or confinement punishment. That laws have long practiced such really does illustrate just how common such conditions have been thou out history.

"Consent to sex is not consent to incubate your sperm."

If by sperm you mean embryo, that is exactly what consent to Sex has always been, for sex has no other natural propose.

You don't get to redefine 500+ million years of biological history just because you want to abuse a natural process for some other propose and ignore its natural functions

[exitseven]

New York. It would be funny to watch their little heads explode.