Trump Introduces Anti-Abortion Policy

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why are we so casual in accepting abortions?

I'm not casual about it; I'm adamant.

This logic you are using is the same as saying men should have unfettered access to all women so that they will never find themselves needing to rape anyone.

No, it isn't.

It's ridiculous - what happened to personal responsibility and respect for human life?

This is a question you should be asking yourself about your own position.

 

[Shad]

If that were even feasible we would no need for any laws at all. Also this could be applied to any human indulgence that may lead to a medical intervention by the government: alcoholism, obesity, substance abuse, for instance. I guess it's okay to pick and choose which hills to die on.

Your reply is pure nonsense as you dodge the point with red herrings such as other laws that have nothing to do with abortion, personal responsibility or sex. Pregnancy is not a mental disease like alcoholism. Obesity is far to vague. One can be obese without the cause being some mental or physical problem. I think more often than not it is due to poor life-style choices such as eating habits and lack of exercise. Substance abuse is also a mental illness. So unless you can establish a specific person is a sex addict your points are moot. So far I have not seen any abortion requirements that have any medical standards like the topics you attempted to deflect with.

Yes we should pick and choose in what matters government should be involved with. Cultural problems like how people raise their children, or the lack of it, shouldn't be an issue of government. Poor choices and the results of should not be rescued by government. If I make a poor choices that is my problem not the taxpayer nor government.

 

[Quetzal]

@Quetzal. He has since backtracked on his claim.

Don't put words in my mouth, I simply found having any conversation with you to be a waste of time and energy.

 

[Altfish]

You are not answering the question. This has nothing to do with a country's laws - these organisations would not be advising on or carrying out abortions in countries where it is illegal. These organisation are there providing abortion services - so if a woman needs abortion they can obtain it from these organisations. So why does the HP journo assume women will no longer be able to go to these same abortion organisations when they have been defunded from providing non-abortion services?

No, PP is there to provide reproductive health care and advice.
Abortion is a relatively small part of that.
Contraception is the main objective.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm saying your continued infantilization of women is the reason millions of them marched on Saturday.

If you don't understand fundamental facts about pregnancy, stop acting as if women know even less than you.

Well lets face it, it seems many don't know anything at all, not all women think as you do, do you realize that ?.

 

[SomeRandom]

The question is why would it lead to "unsafe" abortions. Why wouldn't those organisations just provide the abortions for the women who need them as they had been doing before they got defunded?

Maybe they rely heavily on the money to you know, keep facilities maintained, pay the staff, keep medical equipment up to scratch, keep their procedures up to date, pay rent if they are renting the space. Maybe they're a podunk little tent operation, literally living paycheck to paycheck. I don't know.

I don't know how this would affect something like PP, because I don't understand how their funds work really.

 

[Thanda]

No, PP is there to provide reproductive health care and advice.
Abortion is a relatively small part of that.
Contraception is the main objective.

I'm not talking about PP.

 

[Thanda]

Maybe they rely heavily on the money to you know, keep facilities maintained, pay the staff, keep medical equipment up to scratch, keep their procedures up to date, pay rent if they are renting the space. Maybe they're a podunk little tent operation, literally living paycheck to paycheck. I don't know.

I don't know how this would affect something like PP, because I don't understand how their funds work really.

Well that is precisely the point isn't it? America as a country has a long standing policy of not using tax money to fund or subsidize abortions. But it appears Obama had been side stepping this principle when it comes to international organisations. That fact that, without US money they would be unable to continue to provide abortions tells us clearly that the money from the US was being used to fund or subsidize abortions.

 

[Altfish]

I'm not talking about PP.

I was and am.

Anyway, almost all clinics that carry out abortion also do the whole range of reproductive stuff

 

[SomeRandom]

Well that is precisely the point isn't it? America as a country has a long standing policy of not using tax money to fund or subsidize abortions. But it appears Obama had been side stepping this principle when it comes to international organisations. That fact that, without US money they would be unable to continue to provide abortions tells us clearly that the money from the US was being used to fund or subsidize abortions.

Insofar as they might provide money to facilities that happen to also do abortion, as well as about a hundred other procedures I suppose. I don't know how it works exactly. Not American. But if PP had its funding gutted, I guess it would make abortion hard to do safely as they are a clinic that offers such a service. In addition to pre/post natal care and well another hundred other family health services.

 

[beenie]

No one should regulate what happens in a uterus unless they own one. Even then, mind your own uterus. Period.

 

[beenie]

No one seems to be addressing the elephant in the room, so I will. We live in a world that assigns responsibility of birth control and dealing with an unwanted pregnancy to the women. Yet men are, for the most part, legislating.

Men need to be held accountable for the unborn child, and for the child until maturity. Plain and simple. The vast majority of abortions we are discussing here are those of young women who are left pregnant, with few choices. We're not even including those girls and women who were assaulted and victims of incest. We let men off the hook, and then let them decide what we have the right to do? Even more unbelievable, we judge women no matter what decision they make. Why? The stupidity is beyond comprehension.

Hold men accountable, and perhaps they keep it in their pants more often.

 

[esmith]

No one seems to be addressing the elephant in the room, so I will. We live in a world that assigns responsibility of birth control and dealing with an unwanted pregnancy to the women. Yet men are, for the most part, legislating.

Men need to be held accountable for the unborn child, and for the child until maturity. Plain and simple. The vast majority of abortions we are discussing here are those of young women who are left pregnant, with few choices. We're not even including those girls and women who were assaulted and victims of incest. We let men off the hook, and then let them decide what we have the right to do? Even more unbelievable, we judge women no matter what decision they make. Why? The stupidity is beyond comprehension.

Hold men accountable, and perhaps they keep it in their pants more often.

Ok, the last time I checked it took one male and one female to reproduce. Now outside of non-consensual sex, both sides had to agree. So in those cases is it the males or females fault for an unwanted pregnancy, or is it both parties responsibility? You say men should be held accountable for the unborn child. I say if the mating is consensual then both parties should be held responsible, birth control pills are 99.9% effective and condoms are 98% effective. However, in the case of the female single parent household it is not only the males responsibility to insure that his child is supported but it is the responsibility of the courts to enforce that responsibility, which it seems that they are not doing. One other issue I have with a comment of yours "keep it in their pants more often". If the sex wasn't offered then maybe they wouldn't take it out, and if it wasn't offered then it is rape and that is where the courts adjudicate the matter.

 

[beenie]

Yes it takes a male and female, and of course in a healthy, normal relationship, both parties would reach a decision together. However, women are abandoned all too often, and left with the consequences. All things are NOT created equal, and in the case of a woman, without a loving, supportive partner, has more rights than the "man" who checked out upon seeing the infamous pink line.

The courts should never gave the right to tell a pregnant, raped woman what to do with her unborn baby.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Abortions are responsible. And you almost never know you're pregnant until past five weeks. You generally have to miss a period. Pregnancy is counted from the beginning of the previous cycle. Women's cycles average 28 days but this is far from universal. Finding out by five weeks that you're pregnant is not the norm. That's not "being unaware of their bodies" or "not knowing that sex causes babies."

Pregnancy isn't like a switch where once it happens women just KNOW. And so many end in miscarriages it's traditional not to tell anyone for far longer than five weeks.

So you are saying these women don't realize sperm and egg=baby ?.

... how the blue **** did you get to that conclusion from what Drole said, psycho? Are you that ignorant of female physiology?

 

[Drolefille]

Well lets face it, it seems many don't know anything at all, not all women think as you do, do you realize that ?.

No, you've decided that they don't know anything, against despite the fact that they've had one or more children before. It seems ridiculous that you're telling me that I'm the one making assumptions about the intelligence of women.

 

[esmith]

Yes it takes a male and female, and of course in a healthy, normal relationship, both parties would reach a decision together. However, women are abandoned all too often, and left with the consequences. All things are NOT created equal, and in the case of a woman, without a loving, supportive partner, has more rights than the "man" who checked out upon seeing the infamous pink line.

The courts should never gave the right to tell a pregnant, raped woman what to do with her unborn baby.

If you reread what I said I never mentioned anything about rape and abortions.
I also suggest that you and others that are on the abortion agenda take up the cause of males leaving a woman that had their child without providing any support. Maybe if everyone, pro-choice and pro-life, got behind this issue maybe something could be done.
Do you think this is more an issue than the pro-life/pro-choice issue?
Try the following source

Children in single-parent families by race | KIDS COUNT Data Center

To get down in the weeds, look at the figures broken down by state

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

It's cheaper than the government (i.e., taxpayers) paying to raise a kid for 18+ years. Also, this bill is directed at US dollars paying for abortions in other countries. I am strictly pro-choice, but I find myself agreeing with this action.

That is a bit simplistic.
There are so many contingencies, and variables involved.

Abortion cheapens life, thereby promoting an unfeeling society.
If some young people have to suffer and labor to pay for a child that was a potential abortion,
this likely will encourage other young people to think before the submit to base passions.

A society that feels and suffers honestly will be better off than one that commits knee-jerk
crass actions like abortion. The biggest cause of suffering in the world is the mindset
that expects instant gratification.

 

[Drolefille]

That is a bit simplistic.
There are so many contingencies, and variables involved.

Abortion cheapens life, thereby promoting an unfeeling society.
If some young people have to suffer and labor to pay for a child that was a potential abortion,
this likely will encourage other young people to think before the submit to base passions.

A society that feels and suffers honestly will be better off than one that commits knee-jerk
crass actions like abortion. The biggest cause of suffering in the world is the mindset
that expects instant gratification.

Statistically abortions have dropped when sex education and contraceptives were available. Maternal deaths rise when abortion is banned or inaccessible though, so you tell me which cheapens life. Texas is performing it's own assessment right now.

People have always had sex, throughout millennia of recorded history and contraceptives and abortion have existed the entire time. And why do the people who feel it cheapens life not seem to show the same amount of care when the the black man gets shot and killed by police, in his car?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Statistically abortions have dropped when sex education and contraceptives were available. Maternal deaths rise when abortion is banned or inaccessible though, so you tell me which cheapens life. Texas is performing it's own assessment right now.

People have always had sex, throughout millennia of recorded history and contraceptives and abortion have existed the entire time. And why do the people who feel it cheapens life not seem to show the same amount of care when the the black man gets shot and killed by police, in his car?

You contradict yourself:
You claim that abortions dropped when contraceptives were available, but you also say that contraceptives have always been available.