That all sounds good on paper, and I don't knock the sentiment, but humans are hard to control, and even harder to understand some of them. Especially the crazier ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Women shouldn't use Abortion as BIRTH CONTROL, I don't think.....and men should be ready to become FATHERS if they choose to have recreational sex....I have no tolerance for ANY MALE WHO HAS THE TEMERITY TO ASK A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION BECAUSE HE "JUST COULDN'T CONTROL HIMSELF!" That is not a man, that is a bastard, no other way to describe him. A man has NO RIGHT to pressure a woman he has had sex with to have an ABORTION, and I mean NONE!

---

Can we also say a woman has no right to add another irresponsible act to her first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Can we also say a woman has no right to add another irresponsible act to her first

---

It takes two to tango.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Women shouldn't use Abortion as BIRTH CONTROL

---

Albert Ellis, a famous psychologist and father of CBT, said, "Don't should on yourself." Should keeps us stuck, is how we judge ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Can we also say a woman has no right to add another irresponsible act to her first

---

Why is the first one irresponsible?

Whatever your moral and ethical beliefs, sex is not illegal, nor are abortions within the first trimester, so neither is considered irresponsible. What if the BC methods fail? I know women who have used TWO or THREE forms and gotten pregnant. Now what?

Quote:

---

Whatever your moral and ethical beliefs, sex is not illegal, nor are abortions within the first trimester, so neither is considered irresponsible.

---

There are many things that are not illegal and yet are irresponsible. Overeating and getting fat, for instance, or over-borrowing, or cheating on your wife, or dropping out of school, or drinking too much, or laziness, or not taking your blood pressure meds. The list can go on and on, and certainly should include sex that puts a single woman at risk of becoming pregnant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There are many things that are not illegal and yet are irresponsible. Overeating and getting fat, for instance, or over-borrowing, or cheating on your wife, or dropping out of school, or drinking too much, or laziness, or not taking your blood pressure meds. The list can go on and on, and certainly should include sex that puts a single woman at risk of becoming pregnant.

---

So no sex unless there's an iron-clad guarantee she won't get pregnant? Vasectomy, anyone?

Quote:

---

So no sex unless there's an iron-clad guarantee she won't get pregnant?

---

Pretty good idea for single women and single men alike. Out of wedlock births are typically an unnecessary hardship on everyone involved. Certainly on the mother, and in particular on the child.

Nonetheless, the point is that a great many legal acts can certainly be irresponsible. The two are frequently not connected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Pretty good idea for single women and single men alike.

---

I didn't. Hope you didn't. :)

Quote:

---

I didn't. Hope you didn't. :)

---

That would be correct.

I did, but yes humans can be very irresponsible, and even when they aren't stuff can happen. It's not always a bad thing just depends on how that irresponsibility is dealt with.

Something about the whole Abortion thing still has me puzzled: How is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with TWO murders and not one IF, in fact, the unborn baby is not considered a person at that point? It seems that this is a an unreconcilable question and it is one that throws water on the very fundamental foundation of the Abortion argument. Has anyone ever heard how this question has been resolved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Something about the whole Abortion thing still has me puzzled: How is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with TWO murders and not one IF, in fact, the unborn baby is not considered a person at that point? It seems that this is a an unreconcilable question and it is one that throws water on the very fundamental foundation of the Abortion argument. Has anyone ever heard how this question has been resolved?

---

On Quora:
There are 30 states that have fetal homicide laws where the killing of a pregnant woman is considered double homicide regardless of the age of the fetus. Why isn't an abortion considered a homicide?

William Moore, former Instructor at Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (2015-2017)
Updated May 28

Because the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Roe v. Wade that Abortion is legal up to a decided time period (before 3rd Trimester).
Any other law that disagrees with this ruling is unconstitutional (by the definition of the word, not the “I don’t like it so it’s unconstitutional” definition that a good number of my fellow Republicans have).

**********
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

On Quora:
There are 30 states that have fetal homicide laws where the killing of a pregnant woman is considered double homicide regardless of the age of the fetus. Why isn't an abortion considered a homicide?

---

You make a good point but women's rights are apparently sacrosanct

W.G.: That still doesn't really reconcile the basic question: If Abortions are legal up to the 3rd Trimester, then why is it that a person can be charged with murder of an unborn child if that child is killed before the 3rd Trimester IN THOSE 29 STATES WHERE KILLING AN FETUS AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT IS MURDER? You see, when you really get into the weeds with this and try to look at it succinctly, no amount of parsing or words can differentiate the NON-MURDER from the MURDER: There could be made and argument that the charging of a person for murder of an unborn child is, in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Something is very perverse about the whole ambiguity.

Quote:

---

W.G.: That still doesn't really reconcile the basic question: If Abortions are legal up to the 3rd Trimester, then why is it that a person can be charged with murder of an unborn child if that child is killed before the 3rd Trimester IN THOSE 29 STATES WHERE KILLING AN FETUS AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT IS MURDER? You see, when you really get into the weeds with this and try to look at it succinctly, no amount of parsing or words can differentiate the NON-MURDER from the MURDER: There could be made and argument that the charging of a person for murder of an unborn child is, in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Something is very perverse about the whole ambiguity.

---

That's because the Roe decision has no real Constitutional foundation. The appeal was to a supposed "right to privacy" found in the 14th Amendment, which is never spelled out as such in the amendment but rather comes, as I understand it, from the "liberty" reference. The seven justice majority apparently saw no conflict with the right to life which is clearly spelled out in that amendment. As you point out, there is no consistency at all in the law.

There is a process to overturn or clarify Roe, and until that process is gone through, then the law stands as ruled. Not the first time that has happened, nor I doubt the last, in fact such a case is being brought through the court system as we speak, as it should be under our court system.

Seems like a fair observation to me.

I think the rule of law, that applies to all, or should, seeks a balance to what we as people want, and what we actually can get. Is it fair to say the law must take into account that people can and have changed? I think it's very difficult to change back to what once was though, if not nearly impossible. Anything can happen with humans though, we seem to screw things up even as we resolve some issues, albeit temporary as we find new challenges to what we want.

Wonder if God laughs at those attempts sometimes. Or just shakes his heads at our futility.

I can only suggest that people do some research on how abortions are performed. Be prepared to be shocked if you do, and be prepared to consider how we can refer to these unborn children as somehow less than persons.

My experience is that the average person couldn't care less. They just don't want to be bothered, or perhaps they don't want to have to feel some responsibility upon discovering the truth.