Abortion laws in the US

YouTube

John Oliver. Informative. If you don't want to be informed, don't watch it. If you don't want to be informed by John Oliver because you don't like him, gather the information yourself.

The tl;dr version: ludicrous regulations and their horrible consequences.

for those that find john oliver unbearable, google how many abortion clinics there are in Mississipi, Missouri and either Dakota.

google what is required of a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
for those that find john oliver unbearable, google how many abortion clinics there are in Mississipi, Missouri and either Dakota.

google what is required of a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion.

In a day and age where there are almost fool proof birth control methods, one has to wonder why abortion remains such a hotly debated issue.

Since abortion is primarily a moral or religious issue, I see no reason for government to be involved. The alleged victim of the crime can't speak out in protest, and so is represented by hostile and virulent religious folks who wish to impose their standards on others. This prompts those on the other side to respond as vitriolically as they have been attacked. Hardy seems any probability of a solution nationally.

A good example of why the founders wanted the States to be free to enact their own laws, often differing, so people could vote with their feet. It was never intended that the Federal government should be an overarching power, especially SCOTUS rejecting State laws to make all law the same nationally.

Originally posted by normbenign
In a day and age where there are almost fool proof birth control methods, one has to wonder why abortion remains such a hotly debated issue.

Since abortion is primarily a moral or religious issue, I see no reason for government to be involved. The alleged victim of the crime can't speak out in protest, and so is represented by hostile and virulent r ...[text shortened]... n overarching power, especially SCOTUS rejecting State laws to make all law the same nationally.

"In a day and age where there are almost fool proof birth control methods, one has to wonder why abortion remains such a hotly debated issue. "
in a day and age where there are almost fool proof dental hygiene guidelines, one has to wonder why dentists are needed.
in a day and age where there are almost fool proof safety driving guidelines, one has to wonder why accidents are such a hotly debated issue.

i could go on.


"Since abortion is primarily a moral or religious issue, I see no reason for government to be involved"
exactly. that makes the case for pro-choice, not anti-abortionists.

"A good example of why the founders wanted the States to be free to enact their own laws, often differing, so people could vote with their feet."
if you are part of a nation you obey the nation's laws. but let's go with your statement for a second. why stop at states? why not have counties enact their own laws? scratch that, we should have each neighborhood elect a local king and make their own constitution. that's what the founding fathers really wanted.

"especially SCOTUS rejecting State laws to make all law the same nationally."
yes, we wouldn't want that. the same law for every american, that's preposterous.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y

John Oliver. Informative. If you don't want to be informed, don't watch it. If you don't want to be informed by John Oliver because you don't like him, gather the information yourself.

The tl;dr version: ludicrous regulations and their horrible consequences.

That is what tends to happen when you force abortion rules on populations who are unwilling. Abortion is an extremely complex issue with strong interests on both sides. It's not as simple as standard anti-discrimination law (though even those are not always accepted). When you try to answer a moral question for people against the will of the majority, they're going to push back in whatever ways they can.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/29/widening-regional-divide-over-abortion-laws/

Originally posted by normbenign
In a day and age where there are almost fool proof birth control methods, one has to wonder why abortion remains such a hotly debated issue.

Since abortion is primarily a moral or religious issue, I see no reason for government to be involved. The alleged victim of the crime can't speak out in protest, and so is represented by hostile and virulent r ...[text shortened]... n overarching power, especially SCOTUS rejecting State laws to make all law the same nationally.

You say ".... I see no reason for government to be involved..."

Then you say "...A good example of why the founders wanted the States to be free to enact their own laws..."

Apparently you don't count the States to be government.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"In a day and age where there are almost fool proof birth control methods, one has to wonder why abortion remains such a hotly debated issue. "
in a day and age where there are almost fool proof dental hygiene guidelines, one has to wonder why dentists are needed.
in a day and age where there are almost fool proof safety driving guidelines, one has to ...[text shortened]... nationally."
yes, we wouldn't want that. the same law for every american, that's preposterous.

Your two examples fail. Tooth decay and auto accidents are destructive accidents, which happen despite care to avoid them. Child bearing is a natural, and sought after part of life. Now it is true that in the modern world we have greater control and choice of when children are conceived, but a child is never "tooth decay" or an "injury" caused by an accident. It is the natural consequence of sexual activity, and modern contraception methods ought to all but eliminate the need for abortions.

On your second point, I was not making a case for anything but personal choice, along with its colleague personal responsibility.

On your apparent argument for all government to be centralized, you already concede that there are different levels of government, from villages and counties, to cities and States. If centralization was so good, then a lot of money could be saved by eliminating all local elections, and local governments. IMHO, that is the road to tyranny. Even despotic monarchs saw the benefits of having local officials deciding local issues.

The Constitution of the United States set limits on the national government, which have largely been violated and ignored. Counties do in fact enact their own laws already. In parts of Texas you can buy liquor, but you can't drink it. In others you can only buy it or drink it in a restaurant or tavern.

As late as the 90s in parts of Massachusetts you could drink beer or wine in restaurants, but had to go to the bar to drink liquor. Some of these rules may seem silly, but if they work for the people living there, who am I to demand they be repealed.

Originally posted by normbenign
Your two examples fail. Tooth decay and auto accidents are destructive accidents, which happen despite care to avoid them. Child bearing is a natural, and sought after part of life. Now it is true that in the modern world we have greater control and choice of when children are conceived, but a child is never "tooth decay" or an "injury" caused by an ac ...[text shortened]... y seem silly, but if they work for the people living there, who am I to demand they be repealed.

"Tooth decay and auto accidents are destructive accidents, which happen despite care to avoid them"
some pregnancies are also accidents which happen despite care to avoid them (condoms not working or when asking a rapist not to rape her fails to convince him)

"Child bearing is a natural, and sought after part of life. "
except the cases where it is not sought after

"but a child is never "tooth decay" or an "injury" caused by an accident."
except, again, in the case of rape. or the trivial cases of not wanting to get pregnant.

"It is the natural consequence of sexual activity"
humans have sexual activity for entertainment. it is quite legal, people are allowed to do that. when protection is used, pregnancy is not a natural consequence of sexual activity. it is an unwanted side effect. that's why protection was used.

"It is the natural consequence of sexual activity, and modern contraception methods ought to all but eliminate the need for abortions. "
yet they don't


"On your second point, I was not making a case for anything but personal choice, along with its colleague personal responsibility."
it is a personal choice to have an abortion. therefore it shouldn't be restricted for random reasons.


" Even despotic monarchs saw the benefits of having local officials deciding local issues."
abortion is not a local issue. how the hollywood sign should be iluminated is a local hollywood issue. the proper way to wax surfboards is a local hawaii issue.


"Counties do in fact enact their own laws already"
as long as they are not changing federal laws.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y

John Oliver. Informative. If you don't want to be informed, don't watch it. If you don't want to be informed by John Oliver because you don't like him, gather the information yourself.

The tl;dr version: ludicrous regulations and their horrible consequences.

What's your point?
We all know the US is full of retards. They're like the Polish, only richer.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is the natural consequence of sexual activity, and modern contraception methods ought to all but eliminate the need for abortions.

If human beings were so rational and reasonable, there wouldn't be a need for police, military or government with checks and balances, now would there?

What you say makes sense, but the human experience isn't that simple. We as a society strive to get to a place where logic eliminates human error, but we're not there yet.

Keeping this in mind, human sexual activity is affected by multiple things, including culture and finances. If one lives in a poor area where contraceptives aren't easily obtained (or even a priority, due to more pressing matters like crime, poverty, etc.), it will be very easy for unintended pregnancies to happen.

Furthermore, most sexual encounters aren't business-like transactions.

1) First of all, single people may not know when their next sexual encounter will be. Modern dating is a matter of both pursuit and opportunity. Being on birth control pills (or Depo) just in case you have sex isn't always the most practical (or healthiest) option. Many forms of birth control taken by women have potentially harmful side-effects if taken over a period time.

2) Two single people can meet and get lost in the need for affection or release. A multitude of factors can exist behind such a sexual encounter, including loneliness, hurt from a previous relationship, nervousness due to inexperience and so on. This is why introducing condoms into a sexual encounter can be more difficult and awkward than you may think, if you're a single person.

3) Contraceptives can fail.

And this list really could go on for a very long time, but I hope you get the point: that human societies are far from perfect, and we need to take measures to account for this.

Originally posted by shavixmir
What's your point?
We all know the US is full of retards. They're like the Polish, only richer.

cool, you managed to insult two nations in one post.

ignoring that for a moment, the point is enlightenment comes through information then discussing on that information.

americans that don't care about strongly about abortion need to see the horrible consequences of current abortion laws. they need to realize these laws are hurtful and must be changed.

americans that are anti-abortion need to see the same thing and decide if their own morality that they wish to impose on others is important enough to force a 13 year old girl to have the child of her rapist.