Should abortion be completely banned in America?

[Melanie31]

I think it should definitely be banned. It's a lot of sin in terms of religion.

[KostasKouvalis]

It should be permitted if the woman's life is at risk, but not because she was a slut and got knocked up by her boss's son

[Iron_Man]

Ban it for good

[DrPepper12]

No. 🛑

[Dongie]

@DrPepper12, how about if a person goes out and shoots people? Same difference.

[Iron_Man]

@Dongie thanks for the award Melanie 31

[Iron_Man]

Oops It brought your name up for a mention all of a sudden automatically Don

[Dongie]

It's cool Iron.

[Iron_Man]

@Dongie Thanks

[DrPepper12]

@Dongie No again

[Lliam]

Absofuckinglutely NOT! Fuck religious fanatics with their sexual hang ups, misogynistic attitudes toward women, and love of authoritarianism.
Women are not chattel.

I can't imagine what is the problem with chemical abortion up to 10 weeks after a woman's last period, or an early-term abortion within the first trimester when the fetus is smaller than a plum, hasn't formed, has no brain or nervous system. It has no consciousness and can't feel a thing.

For most women, abortion is an agonizing decision. But sometimes it is the only right decision.

Accidents can happen.

- a naive young teen has first time sex with her boyfriend because she thinks she is in love. He either promises to pull out or she doesn't think she can get pregnant on her first time.
She is too young to marry and her boyfriend is too young to support a family.
It would destroy her future if she had a baby at that age.
So she gets an early-term abortion, learns her lesson, and gets on birth control to prevent another accident.

- contraception can fail on rare occasions.

- sexual assault by a family member or relative. Or rape. Those things can be hard to prove.

Yet the woman always gets the blame. And if she has the baby and is incapable of giving it a good life, she also gets blamed. Christians will come back with the reply that women shouldn't have sex unless they are married. To me, that's insane.

[BikerCD]

Those religious fanatics also want incest lol

[monorprise]

You're very hung up on the idea of the people who disagree with your position only doing so unthinkingly as a matter of faith.

But i guess since you @Lliam can't imagine what is wrong with poisoning someone less than 10 weeks old you also can't imagine anther motivation which you respect.

But i guess that logic that a person whom you judge as currently unable to 'feel' or 'think' as you can being unworthy of equal protection of the right to their Human life.

Might be disposable whenever you make a mistake, so that you may escape the consequences of said mistake.
If this is how people like you raise their children its no wonder we have soo many people unable to take responsibility for their actions today.

FYI we don't force anyone to raise a baby. They are free to give it up for adoption.
We just ask that you don't take from that baby their own choice to live. That you at least be minimally responsible for your own actions to that point.

If you can't do even that why should we believe you would do any more in respecting our right to life when it comes into conflict with your freedom to avoid the consequence of your own actions?

[Lliam]

@monorprise. You're equating a bundle of undeveloped cells with a living, breathing person and disregarding the consequences to lives of women in a misogynist fashion.
Nobody should be required to adhere to your personal beliefs.

[monorprise]

@Lliam

I am concerned about the consequences of the lives of both women and men equally,. including the one who couldn't keep her legs closed. You don't get to kill an innocent person no matter how little you think of them simply to avoid liability to the same.

[Lliam]

@monorprise. Sooooo compassionate! Golly, even for those filthy sluts who can't keep their legs closed until they are joined with a "high value" man in holy matrimony.
Your saintliness is making me barf.

[monorprise]

Nobody is asking her to be joined with a "high value" man @Lliam most any man is better than no man, and growing up without parents at all is better than not growing up at all.

Its not for anyone to tell someone else that their life is not worth living and forcefully end it. Only a psychopath would end someone else's life for that reason, in reality for the 90% of women who kill their children it is for their own personal convinces alone.

[Lliam]

@monorprise. Easy for you to say. You'll never be in the position of being "inconvenienced".

And you keep talking about "someones" life. When exactly does that start? How special of you to feel such empathy for a fertilized egg.

[monorprise]

Human life @Lliam starts the same time all other life on earth starts the moment the DNA is successfully combined, also known as conception.
You don't get to pick one standard for one species and not all others. Nor do Meta concepts like 'consciousness' or 'feelings' really matter given how obstruct and unknowable they are.

A single cell knows doesn't need a complex electric or chemical nervous system to avoid injury or know that it was injured. These qualities which we define as a desire to retain one's life are not unique to a particular way of defending it.

[Lliam]

@monorprise. LOL
Do you also believe that every person has a right to free comfortable housing, good food, and top notch medical care? Or does your compassion end after someone is born?
And what about war?

[monorprise]

@Lliam
You have a right to life, not the service of other beyond those who have by their own actions made themselfs liable to the same.

[Lliam]

@monorprise. Typical right to lifer. You bawl over a fertilized egg but don't give a fuck about human beings.

[monorprise]

@Lliam
The fact that there are 2 human-beings involved not just 1 is the very problem. You don't get to simply declare 1 party to be non-human when you want to kill them for your personal conveniences.

A human embryo is a living person, that you have arbitrary cherry picked a few characteristic, few life on earth has, none at this stage of development, as quality for "humanity" does not entitled you to impose that definition at the cost of other people's lives on them.

Humanity must be defined by genetics just as every other life form on earth is, and that definition is NOT up to you to unilaterally decide. Were it so, nobody would have any rights at all.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Banning abortion is something I would not support.

First of all, who needs abortions? I believe about 1% fall into the rape/incest/medical issues category and the rest are usually women that sleep around with men they probably shouldn't be sleeping with because vagina power. You'd be forcing them to have unwanted kids, in unwanted household... which equals horrible childhoods... which equals a bunch of problems.

Legalizing abortion brought down crime rates for instance. Forcing 'fun time' girls to have babies will result in more welfare queens that will have boys and girls that belong to the streets.

I praise abort.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QWE_M0CX9So

[kmg9150]

No what it would be doing is making women have first and second thought of who they choose to jump in bed with. Its currently a fail safe if it happens.

[monorprise]

What are you talking about crime went way up not down after abortion was legalized...

Granted this has little to do with abortion and everything to do with the emptying of the insane asylums and weak criminal justice systems the same leftist also instituted.

As for killing people who's lives YOU have deemed unworthy or undesirable. That is horrible worse than NAZI eugenics. At least the NAZI's had an unavoidable genetic basis for their judgement, your killing people simply because you don't think their parents are worthy. Something that is not only not agreed upon, but less likely, already addressed by adoption and social services...

What a sick person...

[kmg9150]

You do realize that a lot of kids that have been born werent planned? You do realize that even kids with parents that did want kids still can experience negative childhoods? Do you actually know the abortions statistics, a majority of them have at least 1 college degree…welfare queen. Wow. What are we traveling back in time…. Dont believe all the propaganda. It comes from both sides…. Also, if they are getting on welfare, wouldn't that be lacking also on the fathers responsibility. Wake up.

[ohsheeT]

Okay so this is just a scenario it's not directed towards you

But let's see your brother or your father rape you get you pregnant

Would you want to have that baby

Let's say somebody like your next door neighbor rape you get you pregnant would you want to have that baby

Let's say you get pregnant and the odds of you living through that pregnancy or maybe three or four percent would you have your baby.

Let's say you're pregnant and you go to the doctors and he finds out you have a disease of some sort and having that baby would end your life would you have that baby.

[ohsheeT]

So these are just questions that some women have to go through I personally and for me only I am pro-life but

There are circumstances where only the woman that is pregnant has the right to make that decision nobody else

[msc545]

@ohsheeT So some woman's feelings are more important than a child's life according to you?

[ohsheeT]

Well I guess if that's the way you want to understand it that's the way you want to understand it

For me I'm 100% pro-life or me and only me because that's who I am

I'm not going to get in full detail but 4 years ago a friend of mine in the Philippines needed money
I could tell you the story about her but I'm not going t could go into detail about her life and who she is with no parents nothing not even a place to live sometimes.
Anyway she's a good girl all she cared about is graduating School to be better than her parents that had left her at a very early age she has struggled she was raped she was pregnant and she did not want to have the baby she asked me for the money I talked to her for like 3 or 4 days and I had to hurry up and make a decision because she took so long to get a hold of me I gave her that money so you can look at it as if I killed the kids without the money the kids would still be alive maybe she had an abortion she gave it to herself she just about died I said more money because the pills that she took made her bleed and she lost lots of blood all her red blood count it was touch and go there for a while because of course no money no doctor is Black market pills I had to make a choice that I didn't like I
I didn't like myself even because I did this but I would do it again in a heartbeat see what I did is my business and nobody else's there's only one judge it's going to judge me it's not going to be you or anybody else I mean it's a waste of time if you do you can do anything you want this waste of your time and mine
And there's many women in this world it has to go through the same thing I did but it's even deeper because it's their body it's their child I just gave up the cash that's all but I'm as guilty as they are but it's not my business it's not your business you can say whatever you want if it makes you feel better say it like I said I would do it all over again if she went through the same circumstances

[msc545]

TL;DR

[ohsheeT]

That's what I thought

[molonski2]

Not sure about a total ban , but its a procedure that certainly should not be just accepted , the female aborting her baby ( and its usually the female , as in total input to the decision ) will never recover , she thinks she will , I can assure you , she will not.

It should start from a point of No , assistance offered , and then from there various options could be considered , with in ultimate and rare cases it was allowed.

But , this is not something to be taken lightly , and certainly not as " Ho Hum " as it is accepted now , its not something to be taken lightly , and 3/4 of this practice could be cut out immediately.

[slatyb]

She will recover. Many have.

[RainbowMarinade]

@molonski2
“… the female aborting her baby ( and its usually the female , as in total input to the decision ) will never recover , she thinks she will , I can assure you , she will not.”
You can make the assurance, can you?
Is that the result of your own experience from your own abortion? Or are you just another man telling women what they really feel?
Please, explain how you can make that assurance?

[slatyb]

@RainbowMarinade it's not your job to protect adult women from their decisions. Moreover it's no one's right to make decisions for them.

[molonski2]

@RainbowMarinade
No , its a long term result of 3 abortions that I was close to , 2 of the women are now deceased , and the other woman has cynical depression. Its a FACT that you never recover...
Also my own sister ( elder ) had 2 x abortions , the first with her then husband , and she certainly suffered greatly for the rest of her life..
There is no easy way of addressing this issue , its reality.
By the way of the other 2 deceased , one commited suicide , due to aborting twins , some 20 years later.
There is my explanation.

[molonski2]

@slatyb
None of them really do , they have destroyed ( killed ) their own would be child , this is not something that you just miraclely recover from , thats impossible.

[slatyb]

And yet almost all women do recover just fine and go on to have families when they are ready.

[molonski2]

@slatyb
No they never emotionally recover , thats simply the front they present for constant despair , and intrenched depression , they have ruined their lives.

[RainbowMarinade]

@molonski2
In a world with billions of women in it, you feel you can expertly speak for all of them based on the experience of 3?
Yeah…. no.
No you can’t

[molonski2]

@RainbowMarinade
The sample size via noted comparisons , show vastly worse data than I have presented.
Dont kid yourself ! JUST NEVER EVER EVER put yourself in that situation.

[RainbowMarinade]

@molonski2
There are many choices in this life that we are allowed to make that can lead to our personal downfall. Should the government actively work to protect us all from those possible downfalls?
I don’t deny that some women never recover from the regret of their abortions. But that is not EVERY woman. Some women regret having children. Should we protect them from that regret? If not, why not?
Best we can do is allow women to make their own choices, and we allow them to live with the consequences.
Just like all the choices we make in this life.

“JUST NEVER EVER EVER put yourself in that situation.”
Thanks Dad! 🙄

[molonski2]

Yes
Where possible the government should " actively work " to assist you avoid a life destroying moment , as the existence of government is to protect it's people , both born and unborn..

Thanks " daughter " , now live your life with clarity and success.

[PBandJ_Nerd]

No. The problem that some pro-lifers don't understand is this: If you ban abortion, it's not going to go away, it just means we go back to the unsafe abortion practices (which might not be done by a medical professional). People who have stillborns, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, etc. will not be able to get the medical help they need because that's still considered abortion. Another thing is that nobody should be forced to carry a baby and give birth when they don't want to. We shouldn't have had our rights to decide for our bodies & reproductive rights be thrown away. People need to learn history before they decide to do something like that.

[AviatorTom]

No, for a few reasons:

1. In some situations, abortion is a perfectly valid medical procedure. Even hardcore right-to-life people will agree with that, for example, when the woman's life is in danger.

2. The federal government doesn't have the power to ban abortion. That power belongs to the states, as SCOTUS ruled when it overturned Roe v Wade, and there's no way all 50 states will agree to a total ban.

[NaultD]

So the futus is more then likely to die then live to birth. So abortion is needed for that alone. Don't want a rotting corpse inside the body. Sepsis is abad way to go.

At will abortions at a certain point is accepted. 10 or so Is when people discover the pregnancy is common. So realistically only leaves late term and that is a fetus not compatible with life outside the womb. So the question is mercy.

[monorprise]

As with any form of murder Abortion is acceptable for self-defense reasons @naultd. That said what your suggesting is extremely unusual and would be well known by a doctor

[NaultD]

@monorprise miscarriage isn't muder or even manslaughter by negligence. It just kinda happens. Even sids just happens. So that's easily within 10 week universally accepted.

I'd like to consult a doctor when it gets creepy to randomly get a abortion so late. I'm sure it happened at least once but we shouldn't make laws on at least once batshitcrazy nonsense. Back on topic.

euthanasia is also debated. I'd say it's not muder if a love one is in So much agony that a doctor can't maintain eye contact " For the love of God, put an end to the misery. there is nothing on God's green earth anyone can do to make this end." That is every late stage abortion is. They could be born with no brain. So painful they will never experience falling asleep before dying.

So euthanasia is in order. Therefore not muder by motherly mercy

[monorprise]

@naultd
No one implied the accident of a miscarriage was murder...

If someone intentionally did something to cause a miscarriage that is regarded as murder the same as critically injuring someone to the point where they later die is still regarded as murder.

But if people die of their own cause or of mere illness even if accidentally given by anther person it is not treated as murder. In cases where it is no obvious, an investigation is conducted to see if there is evidence of intentional killing. All subject to the laws of the state.

Euthanasia is murder if your doing it without the consent of the party murdered, and yes we do presume there is no consent when the party is unable to give it. Otherwise killing you in your sleep would be legal.

[NaultD]

We are ultimately defining the probability of a fetus survival crossing over 51% or by “preponderance of the evidence”

With the understanding of sids just bad things happen. Abortion need to be avaliable. Just being born is half the battle. Crossing 50% but not that last 1%.

I still believe euthanasia is accepted even without direct consent under the same “preponderance of the evidence” of death more likely prolonged and painful. It could be so painful that consent can not be communicated.

So here's doctor understanding of avaliable options with “preponderance of the evidence” of life or death.

[RavVid]

Late term abortions are repugnant from more than religious grounds. Given a fetus is viable outside of the mother from maybe 24 weeks it starts looking like murder and I think difficult not take it as such.

If a pregnant woman does not wish to be a mother - which is what it is all about I spose - she could hand it over for adoption. Perhaps that should be forced.

[molonski2]

Good analysis.

[RavVid]

@molonski2 Thanks

[molonski2]

Why can't we have a proper adoption process? It used to work , and people are screaming for it , yet you can't adopt a child.

[RavVid]

@molonski2 Likewise that was my underlying thought. We would rather terminate than give up for adoption? If girls wanted they could do caesars.

[andreasderjuengere]

''Banning'' seems to be a favourite to Americanesians.

In conjunction with the claim to be ''the land of the free'' I pretty much object to such culture, and luckily,

I live approximately opposite of this dreadful place.

As for abortion... I believe that an embryo deserves a general chance to become a human one day. But I fully understand that in specific cases this can not be achieved.

[bolverk]

No it should not be band, it should be kept for those cases where the the woman's life is in jeopardy, and the pregnancy is the result of rape.

Women have 30+ methods of contraception available to them, not including Abortion, that should never be the first option, but only as a last resort.

[Anonymous]

yes I would absolutely ban abortion for the same reasons slavery was banned

but... but... but "rights" none of which matter when none of you are alive to begin with

using the exceptions is a justification for the 99% of elective abortions which could be used to justify all other forms of atrocities

[Anonymous]

Abortion being just anther form of murder, and on that moral and equal application of the law grounds it should be just as illegal.

The policy of permitting abortion in a country that isn't even having enough kids to sustain itself is even more insane.

This policy, and the selfish ideology behind it is driving your population to extinction! Sooner or later your culture will be unable to continue doing anything at all if you don't stop doing this!

[slatyb]

Murder? Of a barely visible 12-week embryo? Is is murder to end life support after brain death? Are you a vegetarian? We kill millions of food animals that are far more conscious than a 12-week embryo.

[Opinion Owner]

@slatyb Yes it is murder, the fact that you can't yet see a person does not mean you kill them.
If that were so it would be ok for me to dump poison into your water supply for i cannot see you.

The subject of an ill-recoverable injury is not the same as the subject of a human in development, even if we ignore the medical dispute over recoverablity of the injured.

It is true we do kill not millions but billions of non-human life forms on a regular basis, Animals are not humans. The protected and agreed upon right to life is a right to human life not the life of any other species.

[slatyb]

Seeing them has nothing to do with it. It's the biological fact that a 12-week-old embryo doesn't have anything close to a conscious brain. Neither does a 24-week fetus, not that it matters because no one does elective abortions that late.

So tell me why you think a microscopic embryo has rights over an adult woman?

[Opinion Owner]

@slatyb Again bullshit people do carry out late term abortions selectively. If you really believed that nobody did it left wring states would have no problem outlawing it.

As for the question of the right to life I have already gone over that what about what I have already said do you not agree with?

[slatyb]

They do not. There is no evidence of elective abortions in the third trimester. No doctor in the US will abort a healthy fetus that late. Yes, there are late term abortions, but only in extremis. Either the fetus is not viable, or the mother's life is in danger.

What have you said? Your assumption that an embryo is a person -- it is not. It may become a person, but it certainly is not in the first two trimesters.

[Opinion Owner]

Exactly what is the point of saying something does not happen when it can happen? @slatyb

Why is that assertion even relevant to the subject of whether or not something should be allowed? If it doesn't happen then there is nothing to enforce so there is no objection to banning the murder that you claim would never happen anyway.

If your going to kill someone for a ligitiamte reason the very least you could do is have someone else ideally a court verify you do in fact have a legitimate reason to do it such is the point of the law to define such reasoning. It is not as if a woman would ever be in a position where she could identify the reason herself regardless.

I have provided you with justification that an healthy human embryo is as much a person as you once where on the same grounds on which we define every other life form on earth.

What grounds do you have to claim they are not a person?

[Surely]

I don’t believe in an absolute ban on abortions. But I do find it ironic that people want to be able to abort perfectly healthy babies in the third trimester. Just because? With no defects or complications to the mother. But there are hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to save premature babies that were born in the third trimester.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Women should be slaves to their reproduction, even if it kills them. Even if it means leaving other small children will be left to grow up without a mother.
Anything to ensure women cannot access abortion.
No price is too big to pay, as long as abortion is banned.

[kellytheman]

In my opinion no I think any woman should have the choice to have abortion. I do feel if they don’t have the means or to going to support a child, incest or take they should have that right. I do feel after the first trimester and go though the pregnancy should have the kid and maybe put it up for adoption.

[Anonymous]

No. Abortion should be available in cases of rape, incest and threats to the mother's life or health. It should NOT be available as a form of after-the-fact birth control, which is how it has been used in 95% of abortions over the last half century.

[CarolinaGirl5]

I think trump has already addressed the medically NEEDED abortions are okay. Medically needed abortions are ectopic pregnancy, mom in distress (life/death ) during pregnancy, or incest/rape. Other than that I don't believe in abortions

[CuriousMoonFox]

At the risk of being attacked, that's a lot of cleavage you're showing for a 16 year old muslim girl with a headscarf advocating for a ban of abortion on religious grounds.

Not criticizing, just being curious.

[Anonymous]

So the reason you think it should be banned is because you see it as a religious “sin”?

Interesting. Have you ever heard of rational thought? It’s when you try to rationalise something without allowing mysticism or fantasy to influence your thinking.

[slatyb]

In the US we don't make laws based on your religion. In a lot of faiths it's not a sin but enslaving pregnant women is.

[slayxme]

Woman has a right to her body like anyone has a right to their body. Banning it will also cause more risks and women dying in bad circumstances sadly.

[Anonymous]

With the exception of "abortion to save the life of the mother", YES. Abortion however would still be performed secretly/privately, and those women and doctors will receive "personal Judgment" for their actions. "National Judgment" however would be on a BETTER note due to the "official" ban on abortion

[exitseven]

No but there needs to be a consensus about exactly when a fetus becomes a baby.

[DrPepper12]

Nope.

[msc545]

An unborn child is ALWAYS a human baby from the moment of conception onward, and harming it is always murder in that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception.

[Dongie]

Upon conception is when.

[msc545]

@Dongie Conception occurs when the sperm enters the egg.

[Dongie]

Yes, it is.

[msc545]

Yes, completely banned, , except if the mother's physical medical condition requires an abortion to avoid death or severe impairment.

We need to STOP the murder of unborn children for the convenience of women.

[David5668]

A woman should decide what she does with her own body; not some fictitious non-entity who, through its various guises, has inflicted more misery on mankind than peace, goodwill et al it purports to promote.

[onedarkcloud]

Absolutely NO! Would you let a woman die because of some unforeseen major problem that would kill the mother and fetus if the fetus is not removed? Rape your child rapped and made pregnant or incest or a fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb. You would sentence that woman to death or for that matter you became pregnant and if you did not abort the fetus you would die. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE LIVE OR DIE WHICH WOULD YOU PICK?

[Jennz6]

Read the Bible

[Gold618]

Well, "sin" actually isn't a valid concept. And most of us now, in the West at least, aren't religious. My answer is no, it shouldn't.

[Jooooooeee3]

Pro lifers and religious groups are against abortions but they're unwilling to put their money where their mouth is and be taxed at a rate to support the non-abortions for the rest of their lives on welfare and those in favor of abortion should only be taxed at a rate to pay for the abortions that would solve the problem

[kmg9150]

We already are… Planned Parenthood gets millions from the government, same with adoption agencies. No they shouldn't get to be on welfare for the rest of their lives either.

Besides that, just because they are pro life doesn't mean they should have to pay for other peoples choice on gambling with the chance of becoming pregnant, although we already are. We shouldn't have to pay for pension funds to a country on the other side if the ocean, but we have. The government pisses away so much money on things that they very well shouldn't be. I get taxed on my income, then I get taxed on puchases by state, county and city, if i purchase a home, im taxed on that every year, then all the vehicle related taxes, by the end of it, how much of it really is mine? Sorry no problem solved, More tax? They even tax inheritances… on money that was already taxes yet therez supposed to be no double taxing..

[BikerCD]

Lol most Americans want abortions to stay legal. Abortions were on the ballot in 10 states this past election and 7/10 were passed. Can't see abortions be completely banned in America

[Anonymous]

A religious woman would not have her breasts hanging out in her photograph. If that even is you.

[Smashingdoozy]

That would be unconstitutional. The bans are already infringing on the right to privacy.

[Still-alive]

This plus the blue states are committed to challenging it in court if they try this.

And by the way this would completely shatter their 'but states rights bruh' stance and would only serve to hurt them tremendously in the midterms or the 2028 election.

[msc545]

You do not have a privacy right that includes committing or suborning murder in private.

[Smashingdoozy]

@msc545 I have a right to access healthcare without the government knowing the details of said healthcare. If the government find out about an abortion taking place in a clinic then someone in the clinic has also violated HIPAA.

[msc545]

Abortion is not healthcare unless it is done to avoid something much worse and childbirth is not something worse.

[Smashingdoozy]

@msc545 abortion is healthcare. No ifs or buts about it. Banning abortions and putting restrictions on it means Drs can't perform lifesaving abortions because people who are not doctors made the legislation. This isn't a what if, this is happening right now. Open your God damn eyes. Why do you want the government to have control over reproduction?

[msc545]

I think we need to have exceptions when pregnancy threatens maternal life or health. We also need exceptions when the mother threatens the life or health of the unborn child for her own convenience.

I do not curse at you, so please do me the same courtesy.

[Smashingdoozy]

@msc545 there is exceptions. They don't work because "life threatening" isn't black and white.

What do you expect to happen with all the unwanted born babies?

[msc545]

Like anything else, life-threatening is almost always a term of probability just as you and I living to wake up each morning is. You calculate the probabilities.

Many people want babies and pay a lot now to adopt them. Free babies are not a problem presently.,

[Smashingdoozy]

@msc545 the government doesn't seem to care about probabilities as women have died because Drs have to talk to lawyers before they're able to treat women. Also you think the babies should be given up for adoption for free? 🤨

[Still-alive]

And this dude further demonstrates why I blocked him long ago. He comes across as some leftist but has this huge chip on his shoulder towards women. Make no mistake he doesn’t care about babies this is more him wanting to control women like a lot of them want to.

[msc545]

The law has scared the hell out of doctors for now. That will change. I don't see the advantage of charging people to adopt babies.

[Smashingdoozy]

@msc545 so is the government (i. e tax payers) going to absorb the cost of caring for the pregnancy, birth, and baby when it's born? Absorb the cost of the vetting process? All the people who work on case files to make sure the baby is going to a safe family?

[msc545]

Maybe. I am unconcerned with the cost to the government.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy @msc545 Here's the solution:

I'm morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term, third trimester abortions. I advocate for "My body, my choice, my wallet; Your body, your choice, your wallet." Whatever an adult individual does medically with their own body is legally none of any other individual's business and/or the government's business. However, it's also the epitome of hypocrisy for an adult individual making their private medical decision to expect those other individuals and the government to PAY for those private medical decisions via other individual's taxpayer dollars. Since it's none of my business legally, then it's also none of my business financially. As I'm sure you can imagine, I piss off pro-lifers and pro-abortionists with this position, but if everyone is equally pissed off, then it's fair for everyone.

"My body, my choice, my wallet; Your body, your choice, your wallet."

[msc545]

@NYCQuestions1976 So just make women pay for their own abortionists / hitmen?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@msc545 Hitmen? That's extremely emotionally over dramatic, and far more likely to happen with a national ban.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 well good the Hyde amendment means abortions cannot be funded by the government (since 1977). Typically they're paid for with insurance, out of pocket or donations.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy Planned Parenthood is both funded by donations, and federal and state tax dollars. Take out all of the tax dollars, and then it's both legally and financially none of my business. I don't expect other people to pay for my medical decisions with their tax dollars that are none of their business, so I shouldn't be expected to pay for other people's medical decisions that are none of my business with my tax dollars.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 planned Parenthood does many many other things besides from abortions, that is what the government funding goes towards. A planned Parenthood abortion is between $500 and $800,

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy I understand that. That's why I've been stating "medical decisions", and not just "abortions". No one's medical decisions are my legal business, and they shouldn't be my financial business either.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 but shouldn't birth control be more accessible?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy They are accessible. Various versions of pre- and post-intercourse birth control pills are literally everywhere, not just at Planned Parenthood. Any medical doctor or nurse practitioner can write a prescription for them, they're available online in many places, they're covered by just about all health insurances, and in the rare cases that they're not covered or the person doesn't have insurance, they're not that expensive. Also, ever since I reentered the dating world, I frequently buy condoms, which require no prescription and no one else's tax dollars.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 75% of the funding planned Parenthood gets goes towards Medicaid health care program, and Title X a federal family planning program. Both are for lower income households. You saying it's not that expensive shows you have the privilege of thinking so. Birth control pills without insurance can cost upto $150 a month, longer lasting birth control like the IUD can cost upto $1500.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy Planned Parenthood gets hundreds of millions of dollars in voluntary donations every year. They can use that money any way they deem necessary and appropriate. It's legally and financially none of my business. They don't need my tax dollars to pay for things that aren't any of my business. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim private medical decisions, HIPAA, and it's none of your business (all of which I agree with) to other people and also expect those same other people to pay for those private medical decisions via their tax dollars. It's hypocrisy.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 I absolutely can. I think the USA should have subsidized health care.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy Well then you're never going to be satisfied and always be in turmoil over this, because the United States isn't a socialist country, and thankfully, it will never be a socialist country. All personal choices come with personal consequences, good and bad. That's life. It's completely unacceptable to expect people to pay a 40% to 45% tax rate so that other people they don't know, as an example, can eat themselves into diabetic comas without consequences and then receive treatment with other people's hard-earned money. My moral, legal, and financial obligations as a responsible adult are to my family, and then to myself. My Father had numerous health issues before he died over 5 years ago. It wasn't the moral, legal, or financial obligation of other taxpayers to be responsible for my Father's health issues, and rightfully so. It was the moral, legal, and financial obligation of my Father, his insurance, my Mother, myself, and my brother. Anything that's none of my legal and/or medical business is also not my financial responsibility.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 tell me you don't know anything about subsidized health care without telling me.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy Subsidized health care = government money for health care = my tax dollars being spent on medical decisions that aren't any of my business. Unacceptable. I go to various doctors a few times a year. It'd be absurd of me to want other taxpayers to fund my personal private medical appointments/decisions.

I know more than enough:

www.businessinsider.com/24-year-old-thought-had-pimple-it-was-breast-cancer-2022-6

"Clinicians in the UK's public health system, NHS, referred her for further testing, but the wait list was NINE MONTHS LONG. So Harrison paid £200, or about $250, for an ultrasound at a private hospital. The results indicated the lump could be cancer, so Harrison was bumped up the NHS waitlist for a biopsy, which she underwent in June 2021."

Nine months? That's insane. If she had never decided to go to a private hospital and just continued to use her "subsidized health care" and waited the nine months, she'd probably be dead. No one in the United States ever has to wait nine months to see a medical specialist. The system here may not be perfect, but it's far better than anything that any government can provide/regulate.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 what do you think health insurance is? 🙃

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 also that's an absolute lie. Many people have to wait over a month to see just their general practitioner. Heck when I needed to see a specialist I waited 6 months.

[Smashingdoozy]

Plus to add the issue isn't subsidized health care it's a world wide shortage of drs

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy It's not government funded via others' tax dollars. I pay into my own health insurance, which in my specific situation, covers myself and my Mini-Me.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 no it doesn't... People pay way more into their health insurance than what is typically used by the average person. The excess funds pay for other people who need more to get the treatment that they need.

Government funded subsidized healthcare is actually cheaper per person than relying on health insurance.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy A month wait to see a regular doctor for a routine appointment isn't a nine month wait to see a specialist that could save your life. It's happening in Canada also:

www.fraserinstitute.org/.../waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2023

Where in the United States did you wait six months to see a specialist? You had to be somewhere in the middle of nowhere, and/or it must've happened during the pandemic, because that's an extreme exception here.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 it's very common actually. That was in California.

Like I said the issue is due to a shortage of drs. It's only going to get worse too.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy There's nothing "cheaper" that any government ever does. Ever. People are always paying with their tax dollars somewhere. The government always promises the masses that they're going to be faster, better, and cheaper with everything they do. Instead, without fail, they're always slower, worse, and expensive. I have no interest in going to a government funded doctor's office that would most likely resemble a DMV building.

[NYCQuestions1976]

California? That explains that. California is its own special brand of dumpster fire.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 it's well known that subsidized healthcare is cheaper overall. Plus you have the choice to go private if you want

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy Cheaper isn't better (I showed two prime examples, and there are more), cheaper isn't really cheaper (taxes go way up for everyone), and raising taxes to a ridiculous 45% across the board is a non-starter. I already pay around 36% annually. That's more than enough for anyone to pay to the government.

I know that government here and governments around the world are always issuing all sorts of studies and graphs and charts and diagrams and stories that show how the "wonderful smart efficient government" can fix everything and save the "dumb general population" from themselves because they don't know any better. They always need "just a little bit more money" from taxpayers to make it happen. The government is doing the equivalent of trying to get you to buy into a timeshare. "It's all-inclusive!" No. It's a grift.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 you seem to completely ignore every time I say what the actual issue is so I'll say it again. There is a world wide Dr shortage which is why wait times are so long. Also countries with subsidized healthcares tax brackets don't go over 45% and I'm pretty sure you're not earning that much money. The amount you lose from tax is nothing compared to what you pay in insurance.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy For the last 21 years, I've been a union electrician in New York City. A 45% tax bracket would be ludicrous for everyone, not just me.

I know. There's always going to be an excuse as to why subsidized health care isn't functioning to its true potential. Today it's a lack of doctors. Tomorrow it'll be something else, because the government uses tax dollars to ruin everything it touches, and then demands more tax dollars to fix what it ruined. It's a never-ending spiral. The more tiny and miniscule the government is, the better it is for everyone.

A few years ago, Mini-Me had an emergency appendectomy, and was in a phenomenal children's hospital for a few days. There was no waiting on a list for a specialist. The bill was around $102,000. I paid $600. So I'll take annoying co-pays if it means quality and no waiting.

We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this, and I've always found you to be an entertaining user on this site, so I'll just agree to disagree. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 emergency care has no wait times... My goddaughter had to have emergency surgery while visiting NZ it cost $6 for hospital parking and $5 for the prescription medication. 🙃

[Still-alive]

You know there's a solution to this guys main issue (i got him blocked so he can’t see me) and that is to stop voting in the guy and the party that keeps raising his taxes while they cut the ultra wealthy’s taxes. Maybe instead vote for someone who will tax them more… but I doubt he wants to do that. Why would he actually want to truly fix his problem?

[Still-alive]

Oh and make no mistake this guy definitely voted for Trump. He likess to pretend he's one of them ‘enlightened centrist’ types

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Smashingdoozy We didn't realize the severity of the situation until we saw the specialist, and we saw the specialist immediately. There was no waiting prior to it being diagnosed as an emergency. I apologize for not being clear about that part.

[Smashingdoozy]

@NYCQuestions1976 and if it was an emergency it would be treated the same way anywhere else 🙄 public healthcare works on a priority basis the same as emergency care.

[Dongie]

YES!! Unless they want to legalize all murder.

[Levin]

Posts like this don't make people sympathetic towards your cause.

Religious people cannot speak of sins. You are the most violent and bloodthirsty people on the planet.

[Jerre]

No, I think it should be limited to rape, incest or dangerous to a woman’s health.

[Jerre]

@Melanie31 Thank you for the Like

[Ms_KnowItAll]

Not everyone shares religious beliefs. I think it's best for each state to decide based on their individual constituents.

[zagor]

So you think laws should be passed based on religion?

[goaded]

Only hers.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

No. Why should everyone else be forced to do something just because your personal religion says YOU have to?

[Anonymous]

No. Leaving it up to the states is a reasonable compromise since the current political climate doesn’t support a Roe framework. Banning it is a terrible idea and probably unconstitutional.

[romain1985]

If religion is all you have to go by, then abortion shouldn't be banned. Religion is a cancer to society.

[Anonymous]

Unless the birth would kill the mother, yes.

[Agape93]

And if it's a child after having been assaulted?

[Opinion Owner]

@Agape93 If they can’t take care of it they can put it up for adoption.

[Agape93]

So you're good with forcing child rape victims to carry and birth their rapists child. Fuck the lifetime trauma and damage, I guess. Tell me why are you against abortion?

[Opinion Owner]

@Agape93 Because abortion is murder.

[Anonymous]

Fuck no! We don't wanna have babies with these chicks either!

[Astarlessnightsky]

No, should be legal everywhere.

[Anonymous]

outside of life of the mother it should be banned

[DrPepper12]

Should tiresome inane questions be repeated?

[Dargil]

Nope. Only the States should decide.

[Anonymous]

I think religion should be banned, killed far more than cigarettes

[CB-Raido-Time]

It should be banned yes in deed.

[Anonymous]

Of course you do fakest profile on this site

[Adel50]

Almost completely.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes except for medical emergency.

[travelguy01]

I think this is a troll post

[dudeinohio]

No. Freedom of choice.

[impalabill77]

No it should nit. Freedom of choice.

[NYCQuestions1976]

No. Each state decides.

[msc545]

Right now that doesn't work. We need a national ban.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@msc545 Whatever I believe morally, legally your position won't work. I'm morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term, third trimester abortions. I advocate for "My body, my choice, my wallet; Your body, your choice, your wallet." Whatever an adult individual does medically with their own body is legally none of any other individual's business and/or the government's business. However, it's also the epitome of hypocrisy for an adult individual making their private medical decision to expect those other individuals and the government to PAY for those private medical decisions via other individual's taxpayer dollars. Since it's none of my business legally, then it's also none of my business financially. As I'm sure you can imagine, I piss off pro-lifers and pro-abortionists with this position, but if everyone is equally pissed off, then it's fair for everyone.

"My body, my choice, my wallet; Your body, your choice, your wallet."

[msc545]

Typical conservative. More concerned with the money than with murders.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@msc545 I'm not conservative (especially when it comes to this specific topic), and it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. Regardless of what I believe morally about this, legally and politically it's an unwinnable argument.

www.forbes.com/.../

Also, I don't expect other people to pay for my medical decisions with their tax dollars that are none of their business, so why should I be expected to pay for other people's medical decisions that are none of my business with my tax dollars?

Sometimes the best you can do is stay out of it as much as possible, just argue against the hypocrisy, and hope for the best possible outcome.

[Anonymous]

No , it’s needed sometimes

[FunkyMonkee]

Absolutely not! Fuck religion!

[Twalli]

At what point do you believe it's a person.

[Twalli]

Because it if it is before birth, then any harm befalling the mother due to her pregnancy can be legally attributed to the fetus. At which point a newborn can be put in juvie for killing an adult if the mother dies in childbirth, because by law it is a person.

[msc545]

At the moment of conception. Your point is absurd in that you cannot prove mens rea which is an essential element of the crime.

[msc545]

At the moment of conception.

[Twalli]

@msc545 so why can you kill unintentionally and still be charged and convicted

[msc545]

Involuntary Manslaughter is still a crime, but not nearly to the extent that murder is.

[Twalli]

@msc545 you still go to jail.

[Twalli]

I never said it was murder, just killing.

[msc545]

ok - I say its murder.

[zombiewoof]

Should be the womans choice

[BarryLiverstone]

Nope