complete and utter Bull Crap .. A woman can become pregnant on any day of any month, the chances of pregnancy occurring rise from below 1% on day one of her cycle to around 9% on day thirteen and then decline again. So while the most likely time for a woman to become pregnant is during a six day mid-cycle it does not exclude pregnancy at other times.
Actually, I thought I made an observation. I didn't claim it was 'factual' to a specific amount. All I said was, unlike a car crash which is unpredictable. A pregnancy can be roughly estimated. Again, if we didn't think highly of the chances(or if we thought they were non-existent) then there would be no need for birth control, whoever invented abortion wouldn't have found the need(or if he did, he wouldn't have found the consumers). But let's flip this around, shall we? Let's take your 9% number, we know biologically that most sperm die in their journey to the womb http://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com/sperm.html (Relatively, only a few swimmers survive this grueling task). If the chances of pregnancy are relatively low, and if a male's autonomy is just as short as a woman's cycle. Then is there really a point to Birth Control? You can't have it both ways, you can't say "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy" and then at the same time, have "reproductive" rights for a 9% probability. There's also something morally offensive about the term "reproductive rights"(IE: Rights to Reproduction). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+reproduction Call it "Birth Control" Rights, but if we're talking about real reproductive rights, we exercise those by choosing who we love, marry and end up wanting children with. I'm sure Fugazi you'd probably want me to list a bunch of articles and stuff. But I've found it to be the most mundane thing possible. I'll end up posting "pro-life" positions, and you'll argue that it's bias'd. You'll post pro-choice articles, and it'll be the same deal. In Chess, it's called a threefold repetition.
Exactly and this is because any kind of chemicals we consume whether it's medication or something that we get from our food can change our hormones and release an egg from one or both of the ovaries at any time during the month. There is even a chance that women may become pregnant during her period if the conditions are right.
Your arguments/responses are very weak. There is no child until it is born. At that point, it then has rights.
Apologies then for stating it was an opinion. I'm surprised you think that way though, if someone offered you a way to reduce a risk by 5-7% so that it went from 9% to 2-3% wouldn't you use it, and since when has abortion been birth control .. of course you will say that anything that stops a pregnancy is birth control, though that would be a little disingenuous of you. Yep, because it further reduces the risk of pregnancy from around 9% to around 2% (allowing for contraceptive failure) Why not .. the two are separate items, becoming pregnant is not conclusive to having sex, if it was then every act of unprotected sexual intercourse would result in a pregnancy and we know that doesn't happen. You seem to be confusing consent and reproductive rights .. consent is the permission for something to happen or an agreement to do something, the other concerns legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health. The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows: "Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence." I would have thought (wrongly it seems) that any measures to reduce abortion would be something pro-lifers would flock to support. and you are perfectly entitled to your moral viewpoint, thankfully your moral viewpoint doesn't encompass everyone else. Nope, reproductive rights is a perfect name for it, after all it is the right to stop "The sexual or asexual process by which organisms generate new individuals of the same kind" or are you suggesting that a married woman doesn't have the right to stop having children? Funny that, as the majority of links I post are unbiased research, and I have to wonder why you find establishing evidence to support you arguments as "mundane". Oh I'm more than willing to make progress, perhaps when pro-lifers stop with the hyperbole statements about "murder of babies" and actually look at the research done on comprehensive sex education and contraception that reduces unintended pregnancies and therefore abortion (as well as STD's) then we can move on, until then the pro-life stance will have little credence IMO.
We've been trying to explain that for momths, still doesn't stop the same old crap on almost every topic.
Women who whine and complain about how abortion is a "right", don't realize that they should just accept the responsibilities of their actions. Regardless of whatever lame excuses you say to justify that "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy", the truth is that if women with unwanted pregnancies never had sex, they never would be pregnant in the first place.
and others who complain and whine should realize that they don't control other people as much as they would like to, and if my evidence (something you know nothing about) is so lame then why don't you actually address it instead of spewing the same BS.
And men get no responsibility at any time Why is it that there is no campaign to make men more responsible to prevent pregnancy in the first place - surely if you eliminated unwanted pregnancies then you eliminate abortion
The left needs to get back some of its activist zeal. Civil disobedience is the literal definition of obedience. If abortion becomes legal simply ignore the state's totalitarian rules and establish a voluntary black market around providing safe abortions. This doesn't need to be a coathanger in an alleyway, teach people to perform abortions safely. Establish services based on reputation rather than qualification. Exactly this is currently happening in the voluntary euthanasia black market. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, that's ridiculous. Everyone knows this. The right to privacy argument is a cop out. If you constantly rely on the state's approval for every voluntary action you perform, you're going to be living your life in a bubble. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion should be legal, but let's not pretend that it's some inviolable right that stands above other government interference in our private lives. Lobby for its legality, but fall back on disobedience as an alternative if things don't work out.
Problem is the way the constitution is written it is wide open to interpretation, which has been happening since the start. Personally I think the only reason the privacy argument was used was to stop the right-wing taking control over what is a personal medical decision involving no one else but the woman and her doctor. If anything it is the right-wing who want greater government control here, despite their usual mantra of smaller government and greater personal control .. what it boils down to for me is that they are scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less that women will no longer bow to their every word and be the proper little house wife popping out kids while hubby struts his manhood.
Really? Thought it was legal before 20 weeks on request, legal after 20 weeks for medical reasons. I take a very practical approach to illiberal state policy - I'm not really concerned with what's on the books - I'm concerned with results. If having an abortion is technically illegal, but that's not enforced, that seems to be more or less the same as it being legal. I'm more so concerned with whether or not they'll throw you in prison/steal your property as punishment. In the case that they are, we should simply not conform with the law. In today's society we're capable of discretely carrying out out voluntary interactions despite government disapproval. Of course, this is not ideal - we should aim for both: grassroots disobedience and working within the system to reform it.
I don't see it as being open to wide interpretation. They're pretty specific most of the time. Congress shall have the power to declare war. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. These statements are straightforward. The interpretation problem is applicable to all language, the US constitution (and most constitutions) suffer less from this problem than almost all other communication. [hr][/hr] But yeah, I agree with you that the right wanted abortion illegal (obviously), but that doesn't excuse the interpretation SCOTUS used to make abortion a constitutional right. It's still flawed. Congress clearly doesn't have the power to stop states from legalizing abortion either, nor to make it a Federal crime, so all you'd be left with would be some states having abortion legal, some having it illegal, based on the preferences of those states. That's not any different from majority Federal rule, except it's more representative: government is closer to the people. I don't agree that they're scared women will no longer bow to their only word. People radically overestimate the amount of people who are actually evil. The vast majority feel the same way toward their beliefs as we do toward ours. It's mostly a religious thing, although some have (imo flawed) philosophical arguments.
TBH it has gone beyond a constitutional argument, there are other factors to look at as well .. self-defence laws for one, and the inconsistency in the application of proposed personhood laws, add to that-that there is no consensus as to when human life becomes a human life any law enforced would have to have a religious source and that would certainly violate the constitution. If pro-lifers were consistent with the laws they want to introduce then that would be a start and if they are so concerned about the unborn then they would support measures that have been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions, and yet they are the same people who are against comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception .. it simple doesn't add up or make any sense.
West Aus is much like the rest of Australia, except Victoria - it is illegal on paper only and the law is almost unenforceable. Tasmania is about to rescind it's abortion laws
I disagree with your statement "There is no child until it is born." I understand that SCOTUS has determined there are no legal rights before it is born, but that is different than this blanket statement. People talk to that child in the womb. People rub the belly of the pregnant woman. They sing and read to the child in the womb. They start having hopes and dreams of what that child will become. They make financial and occupational plans to care for it. They respond with shock if the woman carrying it suffers injury. If it is not a child, then people's actions toward it could have fooled me... Or do you propose that humans should suppress these emotions, withhold these actions, and forgo these plans, until the moment of birth, and then switch them all on like a faucet? Pregnancies don't work like that.
and again you miss the elephant in the room, all of the above things are presented when a woman CHOOSES to be pregnant ie it is a wanted pregnancy not one forced on her by law.
I don't think that's true. I think there's a plausible case to be made for a philosophical personhooh argument for fetusses. I don't agree with it, but I accept it as an alternative perspective that should be considered. I one thought abortion should be illegal on philosophical grounds - I was an Atheist then, I'm an Atheist now. Religion doesn't have to come into it. Furthermore, the Federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate abortion anyway. I mean, I'm sure they'll come up with some obvious fabrication of the commerce clause, etc - as they always do (remember SCOTUS' ruling that medical cannabis dispensaries can be raided because someone growing and smoking for personal use could conceivably affect the interstate cannabis market if it was used differently?) - however, there's no actual argument for the Federal ability to regulate abortion. Anyone who reads their justifications for expansion of Federal power can see that the SCOTUS is basically a kangaroo court when it comes to expanding Federal power. What does this mean? Well, there's no need to explicitly protect abortion. Congress can't touch it. Efforts should be directed at having a constitutionally sound Supreme Court that doesn't make stuff up to fit its preconceived conclusions. Let the states compete for the best abortion provisions. Citizens can move freely around your country, so that solves the problem instantly. A bus ticket from Mississippi to New York is $160 return. That's nothing - anyone who feels like making the decision to have an abortion should be able to afford $160. If you can't save $160 in 4 months, then pregnancy is the least of your issues. If you feel that this isn't enough, and you'd like to make abortion constitutionally protected throughout the country, then pass an amendment saying so. Same goes if you think abortion should be illegal throughout the country. It's pretty simple really. I don't support contraception being paid for through taxation, but I don't support any healthcare being paid for through taxation. Consumers should be pressuring clinics and hospitals to offer free condoms. All the health clinics I've been to offer free condoms, simply because they're so incredibly cheap, and bring young people to their practice. In the case that such services aren't available, condoms are cheap as chips. Condoms cost 18 cents each. Again, if you can't afford 18 cents, pregnancy is the least of your problems. People need to take some personal responsibility and stop applying the state as the quick fix to every issue. As far as abortion pills go, all Federal regulations should be instantly eliminated. Allow people to buy them in bulk, without prescription, over the internet. These too are relatively cheap. As far as sex education goes, it should be the parent's choice. If you feel strongly enough about educating young people, crowd fund a campaign to raise awareness among early teens. Besides, if you make it to 13 these days without hearing about condoms, you must be in one heck of a bubble. [hr][/hr] Abortion is a freedom, not a right. The solution on abortion is less government, not more.
I'd be interested to see the philosophical personhood argument, as during my number of years debating this subject I've never seen one that even comes close to being particularly relevant. The whole pro-life movement has its roots firmly embedded in religion, those who claim to be not religious and are still anti-abortion really need to look a little closer at where their core beliefs originate. I actually like a lot of what you say here, apart from the education bit, the government regardless of it's size has a duty of care to it's population and as far as I can see sex education comes under that duty of care .. remember it is not just pregnancies that a good, sound knowledge of sex education prevents, there is also STD's. No matter what is put forward we are never going to stop teens from having sex, never have and never will and it makes me cringe that around 1/3 of US teenage girls don't even realise they can get pregnant the first time they have sex, and that a number don't bother using contraception because they have been told it doesn't work .. that really is a sad state of affairs, and a situation that can be laid firmly at the feet of pro-life propaganda. Personal I don't believe there is such thing as a "right", everything is just a freedom. Not even the right to life is really a unalienable right.
I don't think that people consider the fetus a baby is related to religion. I just simply have to watch human interactions with the womb. It is clear to me, that most consider it a baby. They don't withhold emotions or actions indicating that it is a baby, until the moment they see it birthed. The emotions, actions, and planning is there before birth...
and again you are attributing emotions to people who WANT to be pregnant and give birth failing to even look at those who do not want to be pregnant and give birth. Just because 'most' consider it a baby doesn't make it a fact. In fact your comment is nothing more than an appeal to popularity
