abortion rights

Now for a genuine political issue.


The new anti abortion laws in Texas are causing companies to stop doing business there. One comment so far is "women are not easy bake ovens beholden to forced birth fantasies."


Democrats have been the party known to stand for civil liberties. Republicans known for attempting to champion personal freedoms and rights. Abortion rights could be a platform for both parties if the Republicans were not tied up with religious factions.


The issue has come down to a woman's right to choose vs. rights of the unborn. Rights of the unborn are vague and generalized as discussions continue on when life begins.


Is it possible for a society dominated by males to force a woman to give birth ? Perhaps only women should be allowed to make laws about this.

I think the Texas law goes too far. Banning abortions after just 6 weeks, not making exceptions for rape and incest, and having vigilantes enforce the law through lawsuits -- this all just doesn't make sense. And it will hurt Republicans in general elections.

I think the Texas law goes too far. Banning abortions after just 6 weeks, not making exceptions for rape and incest, and having vigilantes enforce the law through lawsuits -- this all just doesn't make sense. And it will hurt Republicans in general elections. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yea the economy...nothing to see here, but abortion is going to decide 2022!!You're a real jokester!!
Maybe you should stick to what you know...abortions have been the deciding factor in MANY elections.

Yea the economy...nothing to see here, but abortion is going to decide 2022!!You're a real jokester!!
Maybe you should stick to what you know...abortions have been the deciding factor in MANY elections. Originally Posted by bb1961

I’ve got no idea what you’re trying to say.

Women should be encouraged to have a complete hysterectomy at a young age free of charge. There would be lines out the door. This would eliminate the abortion debate all together.

Women should be encouraged to have a complete hysterectomy at a young age free of charge. There would be lines out the door. This would eliminate the abortion debate all together. Originally Posted by Levianon17

It would greatly reduce incidence of cervical cancer too

Who speack for the baby?

It has been argued that a person gains access to their civil rights ("Life, Liberty etc) when they are born . . . and not before. That has been "settled law" for fifty years or so.

But a few years ago, the State of New York made it legal for a mother and her doctor to agree to kill her breathing, viable newborn baby.

No one seems to be too unhappy with that.

"My body, my choice" has been a liberal-left rally cry for years.

Now they won't let us choose to remain un-vaccinated!

If no heartbeat means dead, considering a heartbeat alive makes perfect sense to me.

Last I checked, number one reason for abortion was inability to support the future child, for a variety of reasons but mainly financially. So force the female to beat an 18 year burden....many will end up on public assistance of some sort (child and/or mothers) that lasts for years. Check the numbers (close to 900,000 abortions/yr) and apply some math on assistance/yr times years over 18 years. Factor in what lives the subsequent kids would live and potential outcomes, then decide.
My view, is let the pro-lifers pay ALL the downstream costs and exempt the pro-choicers from any financial responsibility/tax. A pro- lifer can adopt and therefore be exempt, seems fair to me also.

I'd rather pay for the abortion in the first place, or better yet, free birth control without prescription.

It has been argued that a person gains access to their civil rights ("Life, Liberty etc) when they are born . . . and not before. That has been "settled law" for fifty years or so.

But a few years ago, the State of New York made it legal for a mother and her doctor to agree to kill her breathing, viable newborn baby.

No one seems to be too unhappy with that. Originally Posted by ICU 812

About the New York law, is that only if the mother's life is endangered or her health would be severely affected?

If you believe Roe vs. Wade should be abandoned and the states, or better yet the counties and municipalities should be able to make their own abortion laws, you've got to be prepared to accept the consequences. That means if you live in, say, the Texas Panhandle the people could outlaw abortion entirely, including Plan B. But if New Yorkers want abortion up to the moments before birth then it's in their power to have that available.

While I don't like either of those abortion options, both of which are extreme, I believe that's the way it should be. Government should be closest to the people. Follow that principle, in general and not just with respect to abortion, and it would eliminate a lot of strife and division in the country. And personally, given that my local and state governments do a good job of governing and given they provide services efficiently, I'd be better off, even though I might disagree with the abortion laws.

Is it ok to kill college age kids? Those university bills would choke a hippo.

Not everyone has to go to college, and many like myself paid their own way. But before college someone has to pay for diapers, milk, pablum, pre-school, kindergarten, elementary school, high school, not to mention food and housing. And how about nurturing and socialization?

Sorry, don't want it on my tab. Let pro-lifers walk the talk.

Coat hangers and then rose bush fertilizer......