Women's rights vs child's rights

[Bier Meister]

7 hours ago, stevegrab said:

I think a simple limit on time is all that is needed. Then maybe some exceptions if the mother's health is at risk after that limit. Many who want more restrictions want some group (appointed bythose currently in power in their conservative state) to decide if you meet their criteria for allowing abortion. That won't include "because you want one" it will only include things they perceive to allow the abortion according to their morality. In some cases that may not even include horrible situations like rape or incest. 

Some would want none allowed ever, under any circumstances. And some states in this country are already there or heading that way. Very few want abortion allowed up until tbirth, or even beyond the first trimester. 

It would be nice to have this as a federal law, but not sure that can happen with the nation so divided. 

👍

[rajncajn]

7 hours ago, stevegrab said:

I think a simple limit on time is all that is needed. Then maybe some exceptions if the mother's health is at risk after that limit. Many who want more restrictions want some group (appointed bythose currently in power in their conservative state) to decide if you meet their criteria for allowing abortion. That won't include "because you want one" it will only include things they perceive to allow the abortion according to their morality. In some cases that may not even include horrible situations like rape or incest. 

Some would want none allowed ever, under any circumstances. And some states in this country are already there or heading that way. Very few want abortion allowed up until tbirth, or even beyond the first trimester. 

It would be nice to have this as a federal law, but not sure that can happen with the nation so divided. 

Just to be clear, since you posted again, are you good with me responding now?

[stevegrab]

28 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

Just to be clear, since you posted again, are you good with me responding now?

Respond if you like. I don't control the forum, just got tired of you quoting me and twisting my words around, as you say others do to you. 

I am still not sure if you would allow abortion by CHOICE of the person. Or if it would only be allowed under some list of restrictions (as you posted before, rape/incest, health of mother). You later commented about the pill, and still said it should require a prescription. Based on what you have posted I see no option for a personal choice that isn't still controlled by some government employee. If you support that, I'd like to see clear words to that affect. 

[rajncajn]

On 9/1/2023 at 4:04 PM, stevegrab said:

Respond if you like. I don't control the forum, just got tired of you quoting me and twisting my words around, as you say others do to you. 

I wasn't twisting your words. I made one assumption about something you posted and made it very clear that I wasn't sure that was what you meant.

On 8/28/2023 at 12:58 PM, rajncajn said:

You mentioned in an earlier post that you think it should be allowed up to the 1st trimester. So then you agree that there should be limits? Or do you? It was unclear.

I'm not sure what else you may have thought I twisted, but I'd be more than happy to try to clear that up.

On 9/1/2023 at 4:04 PM, stevegrab said:

I am still not sure if you would allow abortion by CHOICE of the person. Or if it would only be allowed under some list of restrictions (as you posted before, rape/incest, health of mother). You later commented about the pill, and still said it should require a prescription. Based on what you have posted I see no option for a personal choice that isn't still controlled by some government employee. If you support that, I'd like to see clear words to that affect. 

I thought I answered that question when BC asked me to clarify. I said the restrictions wouldn't have anything to do with having the abortion in the 1st trimester, but rather beyond that. So, no, there wouldn't be restrictions on early term abortion.  But, as I stated in the very beginning, I wasn't planning on getting into the exact cutoff because I'd rather that be determined by someone much more qualified than myself. If once beyond that point, then yes,  only in cases of rape, incest, health etc.

On the abortion pill, that is a hard line for me. I don't think that something that can easily take the life of a fetus and/or can have serious health risks of it's own should be given without a prescription. I can think of so many scenarios where that could go horribly wrong.  But since a doctor isn't typically govt employee, I don't understand how a govt employee is controlling their decision. I don't see the connection there. 

Fwiw, I agree with a lot of what you put in your last post,  which is why I wanted to respond to it.  I've actually never heard of anyone wanting a govt controlled board to decide on abortions,  but I also completely agree that would be an absolutely horrible idea. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by rajncajn

[Bobby Brown]

9 hours ago, rajncajn said:

Just to be clear, since you posted again, are you good with me responding now?

Lol.  Sweet oblivion.

[rajncajn]

8 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

Lol.  Sweet oblivion.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?

Edited September 2, 2023 by rajncajn

[Bobby Brown]

On 9/2/2023 at 4:21 AM, rajncajn said:

Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?

Likely not.  If people get highly upset at constructive discussion on cocaine in the white house and inciting riots; discussion on abortion is likely going to end up with more hurt feelings.   

[1fastdoc]

On 9/2/2023 at 6:21 AM, rajncajn said:

Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?

While not directed to me, I'll say I don't think anybody will add anything constructive.

The example I gave was very specific, it is also absolutely not uncommon.  The point was to approach abortion not from a moral standpoint, but from a view of what's best for socieity.  There is an inverse relationship between birth rate and education/weatlh.  This isn't just in the US, it's world wide.  There was a funny movie a while back called idiocracy.  It's not so funny anymore.  

Again, I'm just adding food for thought.  

[rajncajn]

15 hours ago, 1fastdoc said:

While not directed to me, I'll say I don't think anybody will add anything constructive.

I disagree. I think every person who's posted has had some constructive input aside from the troll who would rather this thread go to crap than actually try to participate in it. Steve and I have had some back and forth, but honestly, I agree with most of what he's posted. I took some exception to your reply, but not really, I understood where you were coming from and I totally respect the post.

15 hours ago, 1fastdoc said:

The example I gave was very specific, it is also absolutely not uncommon.  The point was to approach abortion not from a moral standpoint, but from a view of what's best for socieity.  There is an inverse relationship between birth rate and education/weatlh.  This isn't just in the US, it's world wide.  There was a funny movie a while back called idiocracy.  It's not so funny anymore.  

Again, I'm just adding food for thought.  

This is a very valid take. It's the elephant in the room that absolutely nobody really wants to address openly. I do agree that birth rate overall is unsustainable. I'm just not sure I'm on board with abortion being the main solution. Do you know if there have been some alternative solutions to reducing the birth rates? I know there are a few countries that either limit the number of children allowed and/or limit social benefits to just 2 or 3 children. I'm not sure if we could ever implement something like that in the US, but I think it's worth discussing.

Edited September 5, 2023 by rajncajn

[1fastdoc]

13 hours ago, rajncajn said:

This is a very valid take. It's the elephant in the room that absolutely nobody really wants to address openly. I do agree that birth rate overall is unsustainable. I'm just not sure I'm on board with abortion being the main solution. Do you know if there have been some alternative solutions to reducing the birth rates? I know there are a few countries that either limit the number of children allowed and/or limit social benefits to just 2 or 3 children. I'm not sure if we could ever implement something like that in the US, but I think it's worth discussing.

China limited birth rate.  It's why female babies were abandoned.  It also led to people hiding extra children and when caught parents wound up in jail.  

The solution is education.  Don't have more kids than you can afford.  The reality is in impoverished communities there is very little if any parental involvement, which strongly correlates to academic success.  The lack of education then correlates with higher birth rates.  And that strains the economy.  The reality is that with limits on abortion, one effect will be a greater divide between the upper and lower class and further erosion of the middle class.  

[rajncajn]

15 minutes ago, 1fastdoc said:

China limited birth rate.  It's why female babies were abandoned.  It also led to people hiding extra children and when caught parents wound up in jail.  

The solution is education.  Don't have more kids than you can afford.  The reality is in impoverished communities there is very little if any parental involvement, which strongly correlates to academic success.  The lack of education then correlates with higher birth rates.  And that strains the economy.  The reality is that with limits on abortion, one effect will be a greater divide between the upper and lower class and further erosion of the middle class.  

I'm going off the rails a bit, but bringing up the education point (I agree btw) also makes me think of the lack of financial management education we have as well. It seems like a required high school class in family and financial planning would make some sense. Just teaching the basics in family costs, costs and responsibilities of raising a child, how those costs multiply per child, rates of single parenthood, how to handle mortgages, acquiring and controlling debt, insurance, federal, state and local taxes, etc. All the things that most of us have had to learn just by lived experience. Doesn't necessarily have to be one class for both.

Edited September 5, 2023 by rajncajn

[stevegrab]

On 9/1/2023 at 11:09 PM, rajncajn said:

I wasn't twisting your words. I made one assumption about something you posted and made it very clear that I wasn't sure that was what you meant.

I'm not sure what else you may have thought I twisted, but I'd be more than happy to try to clear that up.

I thought I answered that question when BC asked me to clarify. I said the restrictions wouldn't have anything to do with having the abortion in the 1st trimester, but rather beyond that. So, no, there wouldn't be restrictions on early term abortion.  But, as I stated in the very beginning, I wasn't planning on getting into the exact cutoff because I'd rather that be determined by someone much more qualified than myself. If once beyond that point, then yes,  only in cases of rape, incest, health etc.

On the abortion pill, that is a hard line for me. I don't think that something that can easily take the life of a fetus and/or can have serious health risks of it's own should be given without a prescription. I can think of so many scenarios where that could go horribly wrong.  But since a doctor isn't typically govt employee, I don't understand how a govt employee is controlling their decision. I don't see the connection there. 

Fwiw, I agree with a lot of what you put in your last post,  which is why I wanted to respond to it.  I've actually never heard of anyone wanting a govt controlled board to decide on abortions,  but I also completely agree that would be an absolutely horrible idea. 

I must have missed that, I recall you saying something about the pill but not specifically that your list of restrictions only applied to after some time period, like the first trimester. Considering the positions of others people who are against abortion, and based on laws that were passed it was not unreasonable to think that you were not allowing a "because I want to have one" kind of option at any time period. 

When I talked about a government board to decide when abortion is allowed, I was referring to states that basically ban abortion outside a set of restrictions that include stuff like rape/incest or mothers health. In order to get an abortion those strict guidelines will need to be met, and if not both the patient and the doctor could be in trouble with the authorities in that state. That will make getting an abortion very difficult. Maybe you didn't get that, since you said you are not familiar with anybody wanting that. But you should be aware there are about 15 states in the country that currently don't allow an abortion just becaue the parents want one, even within a shorter time frame than first trimester.  There is one state (Oregon) that I see which does not have a restriction on time for abortions, something that Pro Life people often mention as "what the pro abortion side wants". 

https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/louisiana/abortion-policies

PS  I know you may not want to discuss details, or stick to certain parts of the general debate. But the details do matter. And I think you will find that most agree with your basics, but sadly we have 30% of our states saying "NOPE only allowed with these restrictions, somebody will have to give their OK". 

[rajncajn]

1 hour ago, stevegrab said:

PS  I know you may not want to discuss details, or stick to certain parts of the general debate. But the details do matter. And I think you will find that most agree with your basics, but sadly we have 30% of our states saying "NOPE only allowed with these restrictions, somebody will have to give their OK". 

It's not really that I don't want to discuss details. I just don't want to get pinned down to opinions on hard deadlines. If I say "1st trimester," I'm simply saying early term without saying 14 weeks is an absolute. I'm not hard-fast about a number because I know I'm not knowledgeable enough to say "this should be the date" and there are a lot of other factors that may come in to play, such as heartbeat, brain function etc.

[FinishTheDrill]

On 8/28/2023 at 1:17 PM, stevegrab said:

 who see it as a choice for the people involved.

 

Well, not all of them, really.  Right?

[FinishTheDrill]

On 9/4/2023 at 3:27 PM, Bobby Brown said:

 inciting riots; 

 

We're not back on Maxine & the 2020 summer of love again, are we?

[Bobby Brown]

3 hours ago, FinishTheDrill said:

 

We're not back on Maxine & the 2020 summer of love again, are we?

Maxine Waters deserves all due criticism. 

But no, I was clearly talking about Papa Jim Jones and his comments shortly before his followers stormed a bedrock of our Constitution.

They are both at fault in different degrees.  The former was rallying against a now convicted govt agent illegally killing a citizen.  The latter is a soon to be convict who was rallying conspiracy goons to initiate violence in protesting the verified result of a certfied Democratic election.

Pretty much the same thing in the land of bassackwards world, I'm sure.

[Brentastic]

The child absolutely has rights.  There are very few scenarios where I would condone abortion, rape being probably the only one without thinking too much.  I think abortion is disgusting and murder.  All that said, I don't think the government should have ANY say in this matter.  It's between a woman, her family, her doctor and God.  We need way less government micro managing every aspect of our lives.  God will be the final judgement on us and our lives here in this realm.