Apologies for the new post, this was going to be a response to Tyrone's, but since Baron has him on ignore and I would like his response if he feels inclined, I wanted to give him the option.
I get the pro-life crowd saying every life is precious. I would agree with that, but in reality what someone decides with their doctor a thousand miles away from you means nothing to you. As I understand it, there is no law to force someone to fight cancer if they decide not to, are we going to implement a law for that simply because life is precious?
I would never choose an abortion, I would do what I need to do in order to take care of my child (I don't suppose as a man I'm allowed the choice per the pro-choice crowd). But I am not everyone else, I don't know the minds of those people making that choice, and I'm not the person who has to live with it.
I am against any laws or mandates that tell me what I have to do because someone else thinks it is best based on their beliefs. You are free to have your beliefs, and I'm free to have mine.
Since I'm asking about laws for medical procedures, does anyone know how many laws we actually have that are based on medical procedures? This is where I'd like the lawyers and doctors to chime in because I really don't know and a quick google search seemed to indicate that the right to refuse medical treatment is guaranteed.
Republican scum don't want other people to be free because Republicans are too stupid to make responsible decisions for themselves.
(no message)
I think that you also can think of a lot of other laws that do that.
The real issue here is that you are not assigning the value of human life to the unborn life in your query. You are also exempting a hostile, life taking act against another from the usual legal protections because it technically falls under the rubrick of a medical procedure.
Any act that deprives the life of another human being is subject to the law. One of the country's primary responsibilities is to protect the life of it's individuals, and just because that action is a "medical procedure" does not exempt it.
Furhter, abortion is unique from other medical procedures in that it involves a 3rd human being in the normally 2 party equation of a doctor and patient. And on top of that, the abortion procedure planned between two members of this 3 party interaction conspire to end the life of that 3rd member who has no ability to protect himself/herself.
Normally, medical procedures involve FOSTERING life. Abortion TAKES AWAY life...that is why so few doctors will do it - even when there are big bucks in it if you do. In fact, when I took my hippocratic oath, it specifically said that "I will not perform abortions". I took that oath, and I honor it.
The political types pushed med schools to change that when peoples actions no longer were fitting their oath. While an abortion certainly qualifies as a medical procedure in it's mechanics, it violates the very foundation of medicine which is to foster life.
(Aside - there can be exceptions such as If a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then an abortion would be life fostering to the mother when the alternative is that both the mother and baby die. In that very rare case, then the INTENT of the procedure is life affirming). Unfortunately, the pro abortion people realized a while ago that if they switched the words "life of the mother" with the words "health of the mother", they could use the loophole created to abort a pregnancy for any reason they wanted to list (tears shed can be called mental health, back aches can be called extreme discomfort, etc.). That is why you are seeing the specificity of "life of the mother" being included in states serious about shutting down abortion while "health of the mother" is strongly pushed by those wanting to widen abortion availability.
vast majority of people (80 - 90% in the U.S.) believe that abortions...as tragic as they are...need to be legal in at least some cases...'why'?...
Because..
>They appreciate the unacceptable burdens Un-wanted pregnancies place on women, especially in cases of rape, and incest...including the woman's health, .and sometimes life...
>They appreciate the additional burdens that an un-wanted pregnancy can have on not just the woman, but her entire family...especially to low-income women (see link)
>Some of them are not Catholic and don't share the same theology...even a majority of Catholics supported Roe v. Wade's approach to this issue.
This perspective is totally lacking from your post...Roe v. Wade recognized the 'Dual Interest" in the abortion debate and struck a balance...now there is no "balance" that can be assured...we already see draconian restrictions that are tantamount to bans on abortion.
I'll say it again..."Women are not insentient 'Baby Making Machines' that must carry pregnancies to term no matter how they become pregnant"...they have a vested interest in the outcome...yet you fail to even speak of it...that is wrong.
Link: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/06/24/ana-navarro-alice-stewart-scotus-abortion-reaction-nr-vpx.cnn
Cancer involves that one person. Abortion involves the life of a little innocent and that little innocent could and will affect this nation, the world in some way, one day. Maybe that little one would find the cure for cancer. Not sure if all these corporations are paying for their employees to travel to far distances for cancer treatments.
If she doesn't choose conventional treatment for cancer (Granola type) are we going to force her to chemo because she's pregnant? The OP has a point but you guys will bend it to make your point.
The premise of the pro-life is basically once a woman is pregnant that is a human child who is capable of breathing, feeling, etc.
ce and not support prostitution? Can you be pro choice and not be pro drug use? My experience tells me +90% of the pro choice crowd is against both.
For most, the debate is really about the child. That's why, contrary to Ty's stats, the majority feel abortion is acceptable up to a specific amount of weeks. He continues to leave out the weeks part in the data he cites. Also, as ELP points out, tax money going to abortions complicates matters. Should public money support parents who cannot get pregnant?
For the extremes, there is no middle ground. The far left is pushing abortion right up to and in some cases beyond birth. The far right wants to abolish abortion even in the case of a mother's expected death or it being conceived in the most horrid of ways. I'm in between those extremes. I don't think public money should go to abortions, but I also can accept abortions early in a pregnancy.