Say Anything: Abortions Pose Risk To Future Babies
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Every woman considering having an abortion should be given this information and given 24 hours to contemplate how the decision to go forward with this procedure could effect the rest of her life…
I figure that the crowd who endorses a "cooling off period" for gun purchasers should have no problem with this.
Joe Brooks
· 4 years ago
Is this the liberal dream?
LoadTheMule
· 4 years ago
Liberal logic would tell you they'd jump at this, just as they did the cooling off period for firearms. But they don't have much logic so we know they're not gonna leap on this bandwagon.
OTOH, be careful what you wish for, guys. I know how passionately you feel about this issue. But if you start placing these kinds of restrictions on abortion you're not any different than those on the other side who want to limit our other rights.
It's one thing to demand parental notification or to ban partial-birth procedures. But a waiting period because 'you' want to be sure the woman has sufficiently 'thought about it?
And if you're going to make it mandatory that women be told about this study, what are you willing to accept before exercising other rights? Having to read the writings of Sarah Brady before buying firearm? Listening to Barry Lynn speeches before going to church? Visiting the ACLU website prior to voicing your opinion?
Regards...
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
OTOH, be careful what you wish for, guys. I know how passionately you feel about this issue. But if you start placing these kinds of restrictions on abortion you're not any different than those on the other side who want to limit our other rights.
That's a good point. And it's the reason that I haven't come out in support of this measure.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
Walter, where did you get that second quote? link, reference. I'm curious
Aaron
· 4 years ago
Sensible regulation is one thing
And if you're going to make it mandatory that women be told about this study, what are you willing to accept before exercising other rights? Having to read the writings of Sarah Brady before buying firearm? Listening to Barry Lynn speeches before going to church? Visiting the ACLU website prior to voicing your opinion?
All that is obviously something different.
A reasonable waiting period before buying a firearm does not infringe on my right to bear arms. Neither does a reasonable waiting period before performing an abortion. And you should ALWAYS be informed of the risks you take before you agree to a medical procedure of any kind.
Btw, the Constitution treats religion differently saying " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" so they can't regulate religion in the way they can regulate firearms.
Walter
· 4 years ago
Can we all agree now that some regulation on abortion is a good thing? ____________ Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt
Two conflicting quotes pulled from one website. Regulation is often a bad thing, even if done with good intentions. Your use of the second quote leads me to think you understand that, but you will make exceptions for your pet causes. As previous commenters have noted, that's what the other side does.
Well, just to clarify... Rob is the owner of this site, I just guest post. So I have nothing to do with the quotes that are in the header...
Having said that. I honestly am not quite sure where I stand on regulation of rights. I mean, my knee-jerk reaction is to be against ANY regulation of ANY right... but then some regulations are common sense and as long as the reg. doens't INFRINGE upon that right, it's ok... See, I'm not quite sure where I draw the line. Discussions like this one and the the one I linked to in the post are helping me to define that line.
One distintion I made earlier is that this is a significant difference between rights that are handed down by a court and "rights" that are handed down by the courts and rights that are dictated in the Constitution. I believe that those rights given in the Constitution (free speech, bear arms, etc) should be held in a higher regard and thus less regulated, if at all, than those rights that are given out by judges.
2Hotel9
· 4 years ago
Got to disagree on a point here, Aaron. Judges are not allowed to"hand down" rights. They can only hand down decisions on cases they sit in judgement on. Having any judge hand down or rescind rights is exactly how we have gotten to the place we are now in America. Rescinding the rights of an individual as a result of their conviction for violation of a duly voted upon law is a different matter entirely.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
Having any judge hand down or rescind rights is exactly how we have gotten to the place we are now in America.
Oh, I agree completely. But it's a fact of life here in America that judges HAVE "handed down" rights... so how do we deal with them.. I think we are in agreement here, I think that these "rights" are not to weighed with the same weight as the rights that are in our Constiution.
But I agree that this practice needs to stop entirely. We either need to codify the rights pronounced by the courts or overrule them.
Rob
· 4 years ago
After the earlier discussion we had on this site concerning the abortion waiting period I'm having second thoughts about it. I beginning to think that LTM may be right in that placing limitations on these sort of rights, even though they're the type of rights we don't agree with, is not a road we want to go down.
Better we should focus our efforts on doing away with the holocaust that is legal abortions than to fool around with a bunch of silly limitations on them. That sort of all or nothing attitude can be daunting, but I'm not sure that those of us who are four-square against other types of regulation for freedoms can support them and not be hypocritical.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
Better we should focus our efforts on doing away with the holocaust that is legal abortions than to fool around with a bunch of silly limitations on them.
If the latter interfered with the former, I'd be right there with you. But I think putting limitations at least slows the holocaust. I don't think it in any way inhibits the end goal of winning over the American public in this debate.
I think that they are two battles in the same war and both can be fought simultaneously and successfully...
Walter
· 4 years ago
...rights that are handed down by a court and ""rights" that are handed down by the courts and rights that are dictated in the Constitution. I believe that those rights given in the Constitution (free speech, bear arms, etc) should be held in a higher regard and thus less regulated, if at all, than those rights that are given out by judges.
Rights are neither dictated by the constitution nor handed down by courts. Humans are endowed with rights that exist regardless of what governments decide. Governments can recognize rights, but just because they deny rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist. (That's what that whole 'We hold these truths to be self evident' thing was about.)
We tend to recognize this truth when looking at other countries, say North Korea. We know NK regularly denies human rights, but the NK government doesn't recognize the same human rights we do. From our vantage point it's easy to see that just because they deny the existence of certain rights doesn't make it so.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Aaron said, A reasonable waiting period before buying a firearm does not infringe on my right to bear arms.
As I said elsewhere, the nexus of this problem is the Supreme Court having 'found' a right to abortion in the constitution. Roe v Wade oght to be overturned and the right to decide the abortion issue returned to the States where it belongs. If that were done then the 'people' could really be heard on the issue. Some states would legalize abortion (in various manners and forms) and some would not. And that's the way it ought to be.
The 'federalization' of these issues is what's driving all of us bonkers, not to mention dividing us so deeply.
My only point is and has been that you gotta be careful to not impose restrictions on rights that 'you' feel are lesser (by whatever definition). Remember, the other side sees rights you consider sacrosanct as being lesser too.
The only real difference between perception and reality is whichever side of the fence YOU happen to be standing on.
Regards...
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Walter had said, Rights are neither dictated by the constitution nor handed down by courts. Humans are endowed with rights that exist regardless of what governments decide. Governments can recognize rights, but just because they deny rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist.
This is an excellent point that I had previously made here about another topic.
LoadTheMule
· 4 years ago
Governments can recognize rights, but just because they deny rights doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist.
Absolutely true in the abstract. But in the practical sense that's a distinction without a difference. 'If' the government doesn't recognize the right then it cannot be freely exercised (as the Creator intended) without some degree of peril. And that ain't right.
The reason we have to be ever vigilant is so the freaking government doesn't trample our rights anymore than it already has. *sigh*
Regards...
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
I think women should be allowed to have abortions because what is a 13 year old get pregant
Great logic there...
2Hotel9
· 4 years ago
13 year old should not have screwed anything that moves, then it would not be pregers.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
I think women should be allowed to have abortions because what is a 13 year old get pregant
I think we have another case of drunk-commenting again....
Sexylillady
· 4 years ago
I think women should be allowed to have abortions because what is a 13 year old get pregant
kms
· 4 years ago
13 year old should not have screwed anything that moves, then it would not be pregers.
1 - 13 year old pregnant is a "she", not an "it"
2 - in your world, I guess rape never happens
Why don't you offer something intelligent about how to handle 13 year old pregnant girls instead of this?
2Hotel9
· 4 years ago
In what anylitical data Planned Parenthood does release, rape is a negligible cause of pregnancy. Teach little Suzy and little Johnny self-restraint and just a touch of responsibilty for their own actions and IT won't be pregers! Simple, easy to follow chain of events, kms
All Comments
I figure that the crowd who endorses a "cooling off period" for gun purchasers should have no problem with this.
OTOH, be careful what you wish for, guys. I know how passionately you feel about this issue. But if you start placing these kinds of restrictions on abortion you're not any different than those on the other side who want to limit our other rights.
It's one thing to demand parental notification or to ban partial-birth procedures. But a waiting period because 'you' want to be sure the woman has sufficiently 'thought about it?
And if you're going to make it mandatory that women be told about this study, what are you willing to accept before exercising other rights? Having to read the writings of Sarah Brady before buying firearm? Listening to Barry Lynn speeches before going to church? Visiting the ACLU website prior to voicing your opinion?
Regards...
That's a good point. And it's the reason that I haven't come out in support of this measure.
All that is obviously something different.
A reasonable waiting period before buying a firearm does not infringe on my right to bear arms. Neither does a reasonable waiting period before performing an abortion. And you should ALWAYS be informed of the risks you take before you agree to a medical procedure of any kind.
Btw, the Constitution treats religion differently saying " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" so they can't regulate religion in the way they can regulate firearms.
____________
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt
Two conflicting quotes pulled from one website. Regulation is often a bad thing, even if done with good intentions. Your use of the second quote leads me to think you understand that, but you will make exceptions for your pet causes. As previous commenters have noted, that's what the other side does.
Google found this
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/necessity_is_the_plea_for_every_infringement_of/226531.html
and lots of other references.
Well, just to clarify... Rob is the owner of this site, I just guest post. So I have nothing to do with the quotes that are in the header...
Having said that. I honestly am not quite sure where I stand on regulation of rights. I mean, my knee-jerk reaction is to be against ANY regulation of ANY right... but then some regulations are common sense and as long as the reg. doens't INFRINGE upon that right, it's ok... See, I'm not quite sure where I draw the line. Discussions like this one and the the one I linked to in the post are helping me to define that line.
One distintion I made earlier is that this is a significant difference between rights that are handed down by a court and "rights" that are handed down by the courts and rights that are dictated in the Constitution. I believe that those rights given in the Constitution (free speech, bear arms, etc) should be held in a higher regard and thus less regulated, if at all, than those rights that are given out by judges.
Oh, I agree completely. But it's a fact of life here in America that judges HAVE "handed down" rights... so how do we deal with them.. I think we are in agreement here, I think that these "rights" are not to weighed with the same weight as the rights that are in our Constiution.
But I agree that this practice needs to stop entirely. We either need to codify the rights pronounced by the courts or overrule them.
Better we should focus our efforts on doing away with the holocaust that is legal abortions than to fool around with a bunch of silly limitations on them. That sort of all or nothing attitude can be daunting, but I'm not sure that those of us who are four-square against other types of regulation for freedoms can support them and not be hypocritical.
If the latter interfered with the former, I'd be right there with you. But I think putting limitations at least slows the holocaust. I don't think it in any way inhibits the end goal of winning over the American public in this debate.
I think that they are two battles in the same war and both can be fought simultaneously and successfully...
Rights are neither dictated by the constitution nor handed down by courts. Humans are endowed with rights that exist regardless of what governments decide. Governments can recognize rights, but just because they deny rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist. (That's what that whole 'We hold these truths to be self evident' thing was about.)
We tend to recognize this truth when looking at other countries, say North Korea. We know NK regularly denies human rights, but the NK government doesn't recognize the same human rights we do. From our vantage point it's easy to see that just because they deny the existence of certain rights doesn't make it so.
Yes it does. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language. Telling someone that they can't own a gun because they are in the "waiting period" is a pretty definite infringement by definition alone.
The 'federalization' of these issues is what's driving all of us bonkers, not to mention dividing us so deeply.
My only point is and has been that you gotta be careful to not impose restrictions on rights that 'you' feel are lesser (by whatever definition). Remember, the other side sees rights you consider sacrosanct as being lesser too.
The only real difference between perception and reality is whichever side of the fence YOU happen to be standing on.
Regards...
This is an excellent point that I had previously made here about another topic.
Absolutely true in the abstract. But in the practical sense that's a distinction without a difference. 'If' the government doesn't recognize the right then it cannot be freely exercised (as the Creator intended) without some degree of peril. And that ain't right.
The reason we have to be ever vigilant is so the freaking government doesn't trample our rights anymore than it already has. *sigh*
Regards...
Great logic there...
I think we have another case of drunk-commenting again....
1 - 13 year old pregnant is a "she", not an "it"
2 - in your world, I guess rape never happens
Why don't you offer something intelligent about how to handle 13 year old pregnant girls instead of this?