It’s such an emotive subject and it probably is a rollercoaster of emotions for every woman who has to undertake the procedure.Really don't know Alan, and I never asked. I think I have .ade my views on the subject pretty clear.
Oh really Dax? It’s called pro-choice because it’s about having the right to choose an abortion?!
I'm happy we are on the same page.. For a second there it sounded like you were saying something else.Oh thank you so fucking much, none of us could Have worked that out without you.
But it isn’t. You’re taking away a right that a woman should have.That's just you trying to hold a moral high ground. In a sense you are using the very same tactics the religious types use. There are no moral high grounds. As all sides believe they Stand on the very same moral high ground.
One espousing the right of a woman to abort a growing Pregnancy. The other on the right of life to continue, even if true that it begun and still is in a dependent state
The legal process on the other hand IS a legitimate point of contention. Unfortunately, it's one in which those who agree with you stand on shakier grounds.
Tyranny in the name of good
This would be true if there were groups of people protesting for the right to be able to kill children in school.They wanna protect the child in the uterus but not in the schools ..... ban guns as children have a right to go to school and not have to think is our school next.
I have. I'm sure you understand how concurring opinions work.Uh, maybe you should actually READ Thomas’s concurrence.
Oh. So then you know you’re quite wrong about what “no one is saying”.I have. I'm sure you understand how concurring opinions work.
It’s not an outside Roe v Wade issue. But if you only use USA you get a false picture.
It is like using only strict v Lax gun states to discuss correlation between guns and violence, when using countries with no guns makes the point more clearly.
Republicans cut funding for contraceptive treatment in a country with expensive private medicine and abortions go up.
Abortion should be on demand rather than having to jump through unnecessary hoops (e. g. Listening to heartbeat) to satisfy the religious right.
Ok. Neither of us is doing anything. But I get your point. You think I agree with those who think abortions should be illegal.But it isn’t. You’re taking away a right that a woman should have.
I’m not the one trying to restrict a woman’s right.
Do you think 1st world nations should launch a military attack on third world nations who restrict women's right to abortions? If not. Why not?All you are doing is sending abortions underground and putting women’s lives at risk unnecessarily.
Yeah, another reason those who are anti-abortion believe they own the moral high-ground. As a lot of this is simply about money for some.Oh and missing out on the cagillion dollars you could charge for the procedure.
@FogBlueInSanFran will have you know that it is NOT a law change. I'm inclined to agree with him. He is the smartest. :)I’ll repeat that no other civilised country would or could entertain this law change.
Yet, you’re happy to go along with it.
No, you’re focussing on the legalities, rather than the infringement on womens’ rights.Ok. Neither of us is doing anything. But I get your point. You think I agree with those who think abortions should be illegal.
Do you think 1st world nations should launch a military attack on third world nations who restrict women's right to abortions? If not. Why not?
Yeah, another reason those who are anti-abortion believe they own the moral high-ground. As a lot of this is simply about money for some.
@FogBlueInSanFran will have you know that it is NOT a law change. I'm inclined to agree with him. He is the smartest. :)
Sorry to disagree with you, but I have known a few friends who have had repeated abortions. Have also nursed people who were admitted to have their 3rd or 4th abortion. Trust me it happens.