Abortion discussions - latest court cases

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
9,656
Meanwhile in Canada, funding announced today to assist with improving access to abortion.

It was earlier this week we were saying here that JT needed to show some leadership on ensuring access.

Nice to see a start today.

 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,395
I would assert that someone who does not want children should not have sex.
The majority of American women who have abortions already have at least one child. It's not that they all want to be childless or that they don't ever want more children. In fact, some of them would very much like to be in a position where they could have another child, but they are not. It's much more complicated than what you imply. And you may be clueless about a lot of things, but I think you are aware of this.
Every pregnancy starts with a penis. Let's regulate those

AA, even you know that abstinence has never worked.
Yes, even she knows that.

Imagine if a man was punished any time he had sex even though he did not want any children. Even all the men who claim that sex should only be for procreative purposes would be upset. Imagine if, in order to get a prescription for Viagra or similar medication, you had to be interrogated to determine whether you were going to use it only with the understanding that a child would result. They might think that was a violation of their religious freedom and privacy.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
25,588
The majority of American women who have abortions already have at least one child. It's not that they all want to be childless or that they don't ever want more children. In fact, some of them would very much like to be in a position where they could have another child, but they are not. It's much more complicated than what you imply. And you may be clueless about a lot of things, but I think you are aware of this.



Yes, even she knows that.

Imagine if a man was punished any time he had sex even though he did not want any children. Even all the men who claim that sex should only be for procreative purposes would be upset. Imagine if, in order to get a prescription for Viagra or similar medication, you had to be interrogated to determine whether you were going to use it only with the understanding that a child would result. They might think that was a violation of their religious freedom and privacy.
Oh in Australia viagra got approval pretty quickly whilst it took 10 years for the morning after pill to get approved. All because of one conservative politician who did a deal with our government of the privatisation of our telecommunications network.
 
Last edited:

Lemonade20

If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
Messages
2,326
AxelAnnie by her own postings, helped women in her own family obtain abortions at least 2 times, maybe 3 times or more. In those cases, I believe she said it was BEST choice as the family members were not in a situation or stage in life that they would be able to care for a child. I call bullsh$t on her anti-abortion stance. It's only anti-abortion when it's convenient for her. Or those cases were like @Yazmeen stated special circumstances.

She has been provided numerous examples of laws that would not allow abortions even in life threatening events, like ectopic pregnancies. The lawmaker who believes that the zygote can be harvested and implanted into the uterus.

She has been presented with the proposed laws that would prosecute women who had miscarriages and/or stillbirths because they caused the fetus to die.

She has been presented with speeches where the lawmakers have stated a pregnancy cannot occur if the rape had been legitimate-ie a woman cannot become pregnant unless she had enjoyed the experience.

She must have read about the woman who was arrested and jailed in Texas for having a miscarriage.

In other words she has been given data that contradicts her own beliefs and still cannot comprehend that women will be forced, will be prosecuted for anything, will be sentenced to death if their life is in danger with these proposed laws.

Annie is exactly the type of person Atilo is looking for. She believes it will just involve abortion, and not all the other stuff his justification of that guy in the 1700's.

Yep, troll.
Perfectly said, thank you!!
 

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,225
Women vs. Sea Turtles and Bald Eagles
“If you were to take or destroy the eggs of a sea turtle, now I said the eggs. Not the hatchlings, that’s also a [unintelligible], the criminal penalties are severe. Up to $100,000 fine and a year in prison. Now why?” Daines said. “Why do we have laws in place that protect the eggs of a sea turtle or the eggs of eagles? Because when you destroy an egg, you’re killing a preborn baby sea turtle or a preborn baby eagle.”

Response to this Idiocy
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
32,845
Meanwhile in Canada, funding announced today to assist with improving access to abortion.

It was earlier this week we were saying here that JT needed to show some leadership on ensuring access.

Nice to see a start today.


I'm going to respectfully disagree that this announcement shows leadership on this issue.

Many women know where to go for these services. The issue is that there aren't enough services and those that do exist are underfunded, and that women can't afford to travel to the services that do exist. Or that they can't travel very far at all - bus/train service sucks or is non-existent in much of rural Canada, which means that if women don't have access to a car, they have to find someone to give them a ride there and back.

When you factor in the cost of gas, childcare (if needed), time off work (if needed), etc etc etc, the funding in this announcement isn't going to be able to help that many women. Not to mention that the woman also has to put in the time/effort to get those resources together, and if they're in a small gossipy community, they might have to figure out how to do that without word getting out.

I'm glad to see at least an affirmation that abortion is legal in Canada, but IMO most of this is performative funding that isn't going to where it's most needed.
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
9,656
I'm going to respectfully disagree that this announcement shows leadership on this issue.

Many women know where to go for these services. The issue is that there aren't enough services and those that do exist are underfunded, and that women can't afford to travel to the services that do exist. Or that they can't travel very far at all - bus/train service sucks or is non-existent in much of rural Canada, which means that if women don't have access to a car, they have to find someone to give them a ride there and back.

When you factor in the cost of gas, childcare (if needed), time off work (if needed), etc etc etc, the funding in this announcement isn't going to be able to help that many women. Not to mention that the woman also has to put in the time/effort to get those resources together, and if they're in a small gossipy community, they might have to figure out how to do that without word getting out.

I'm glad to see at least an affirmation that abortion is legal in Canada, but IMO most of this is performative funding that isn't going to where it's most needed.
One of the organizations mentioned funds women in need who need to travel to get abortions.

It’s not enough for sure but a good step in the right direction.
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
32,845
One of the organizations mentioned funds women in need who need to travel to get abortions.

It’s not enough for sure but a good step in the right direction.

I understand that, but I don't think the money is going to be enough to make a significant difference. It also doesn't address the issue of providing a sufficient level of service so that women don't have to travel.

I also wonder how the funding is going to be provided. If it's reimbursement, that means the women have to come up with the money to pay their expenses up front, which could be a huge barrier. If it's giving women the money first, so they can pay the expenses, that money will have to be provided really quickly. Even asking women to submit a budget or requisition to get the money could be a significant delay.
 

Pink Cats

Active Member
Messages
62
I'm going to respectfully disagree that this announcement shows leadership on this issue.

Many women know where to go for these services. The issue is that there aren't enough services and those that do exist are underfunded, and that women can't afford to travel to the services that do exist. Or that they can't travel very far at all - bus/train service sucks or is non-existent in much of rural Canada, which means that if women don't have access to a car, they have to find someone to give them a ride there and back.

When you factor in the cost of gas, childcare (if needed), time off work (if needed), etc etc etc, the funding in this announcement isn't going to be able to help that many women. Not to mention that the woman also has to put in the time/effort to get those resources together, and if they're in a small gossipy community, they might have to figure out how to do that without word getting out.

I'm glad to see at least an affirmation that abortion is legal in Canada, but IMO most of this is performative funding that isn't going to where it's most needed.

I think much of what you have written is a function of delivering health care to a relatively small population across the second largest country in the World. Most other specialized medical fields have the same issues. I think the provincial governments need to get better at covering the cost of health related travel for low income individuals. Also tele-health and the prescribing of the abortion pills to be taken at home will also help with this issue. But I don't think you will ever total solve the issue of delivering health care to remote or semi-remote populations.
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
32,845
I think much of what you have written is a function of delivering health care to a relatively small population across the second largest country in the World. Most other specialized medical fields have the same issues. I think the provincial governments need to get better at covering the cost of health related travel for low income individuals. Also tele-health and the prescribing of the abortion pills to be taken at home will also help with this issue. But I don't think you will ever total solve the issue of delivering health care to remote or semi-remote populations.

Agreed, there is no way to have a full range of health care services readily available for every small community in the country. But given the time considerations around getting a safe abortion, that may be one of the more critical services that needs support for access.
 

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
14,433
AA, even you know that abstinence has never worked.
Of course, it works. How could it not? That is just silly. The problem is that people want what they want when they want it, and think there should be no consequences attached to their decision.

Actions / choices have consequences. Why in the world would people think that their decision to have sex should not have a consequence?

Could someone please explain to me why sex that leads to pregnancy should get a pass? Biology just doesn't work that way.
 

jenny12

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,790
The only consequence sex should have, as long as it’s done between two consenting adults, is an orgasm.

The idea that women having sex should be punished with a baby is not only some Dark Ages shit, but basically says that children are punishment. I don’t think that’s the point you would want to be making.
 
Last edited:

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,857
Of course, it works. How could it not? That is just silly. The problem is that people want what they want when they want it, and think there should be no consequences attached to their decision.

Actions / choices have consequences. Why in the world would people think that their decision to have sex should not have a consequence?

Could someone please explain to me why sex that leads to pregnancy should get a pass? Biology just doesn't work that way.
I think you are missing the fact that it has no consequences for the man.

 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,395
Actions / choices have consequences. Why in the world would people think that their decision to have sex should not have a consequence?

Could someone please explain to me why sex that leads to pregnancy should get a pass? Biology just doesn't work that way.
Oh, please. You know what the point of that argument was. You're not that dumb. You apparently have multiple children who did not abstain from sex. Expecting everyone to abstain from sex unless they wish to have a baby is totally unrealistic and absurd and you know it. How many people are going to abstain when they don't want any more children or don't want any children. A couple has two kids and that's all they want, so they should abstain?

I don't think "consequences" is really the term for what you're seeking. You mean "punishment." Pregnancy is the consequence of sex sometimes. What you're seeking is judgmental punishment. Make a woman (and not a man) have a baby because she dared to have sex when she did not want a baby. That's just what we need. More kids who are unwanted.

There are all sorts of risks and consequences in life. And we have the ability to choose how to address those consequences.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information