[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Dogmeat]

Nope. It doesn't. And I have stats for that.

According to The Lancet, in the 2015-2019 figures, where they are broadly legal (excluding China and India) and completely prohibited the figures are identical: 40 abortions per 1000 women.

In fact, between their last figures, the rate of abortions fell where broadly legal by 43% and rose where prohibited by 11%.

None of this indicates a U.S. prohibition would be ineffective. Only that foreign prohibitions are ineffective.

There is no reason to believe that it would be more effective in the US. And very good reasons to think that it would not. This is no better than when communists insist, "no really guys... this time it'll work. Trust me!"

[The New California Republic]

Nope. It doesn't. And I have stats for that.

According to The Lancet, in the 2015-2019 figures, where they are broadly legal (excluding China and India) and completely prohibited the figures are identical: 40 abortions per 1000 women.

In fact, between their last figures, the rate of abortions fell where broadly legal by 43% and rose where prohibited by 11%.

None of this indicates a U.S. prohibition would be ineffective. Only that foreign prohibitions are ineffective.

It's a well accepted technique, looking at data from other countries to get an idea of how well or how badly a similar policy would pan out if implemented, so your rejection of it is totally invalid and devoid of merit.

[The Blaatschapen]

None of this indicates a U.S. prohibition would be ineffective. Only that foreign prohibitions are ineffective.

It's a well accepted technique, looking at data from other countries to get an idea of how well or how badly a similar policy would pan out if implemented, so your rejection of it is totally invalid and devoid of merit.

Indeed, unless there are specific reasons why America is different in this regard from other countries, we can assume that similar policies will have similar effects.

And last I checked, American women are not different from women in the rest of the world.

But I am welcome to do more research on that topic.

[Imperial Old Mexico]

It's a well accepted technique, looking at data from other countries to get an idea of how well or how badly a similar policy would pan out if implemented, so your rejection of it is totally invalid and devoid of merit.

Indeed, unless there are specific reasons why America is different in this regard from other countries, we can assume that similar policies will have similar effects.

And last I checked, American women are not different from women in the rest of the world.

But I am welcome to do more research on that topic.

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

[San Lumen]

Indeed, unless there are specific reasons why America is different in this regard from other countries, we can assume that similar policies will have similar effects.

And last I checked, American women are not different from women in the rest of the world.

But I am welcome to do more research on that topic.

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

There is nothing that can stop them. Its fair to say a number of them will.

[Ifreann]

Indeed, unless there are specific reasons why America is different in this regard from other countries, we can assume that similar policies will have similar effects.

And last I checked, American women are not different from women in the rest of the world.

But I am welcome to do more research on that topic.

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

What stops people from travelling long distances for medical procedures? Uh, lack of time, lack of money, lack of support, lack of transportation. A person cannot simply will themselves to another state.

[Spirit of Hope]

Indeed, unless there are specific reasons why America is different in this regard from other countries, we can assume that similar policies will have similar effects.

And last I checked, American women are not different from women in the rest of the world.

But I am welcome to do more research on that topic.

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

Right, cause its so easy to travel out of say, Texas, to another state that does allow abortions, spend the couple of days required, and then travel back. Don't forget this entire time your missing work so you aren't getting paid and your job may just decode to fire you since you aren't around.

I mean sure the rich and middle class can do that, but not anyone in the lower income. Which also happens to be the group that is least able to afford hospital care for a birth. So its again punishing the poor for being poor.

Plus of course that an abortion ban is easy to get around isn't a good argument to alow one in the first place.

[The Blaatschapen]

Indeed, unless there are specific reasons why America is different in this regard from other countries, we can assume that similar policies will have similar effects.

And last I checked, American women are not different from women in the rest of the world.

But I am welcome to do more research on that topic.

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

My ban?

[Imperial Old Mexico]

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

My ban?

A figure of speech. Not yours in a literal sense.

[Imperial Old Mexico]

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

Right, cause its so easy to travel out of say, Texas, to another state that does allow abortions, spend the couple of days required, and then travel back. Don't forget this entire time your missing work so you aren't getting paid and your job may just decode to fire you since you aren't around.

I mean sure the rich and middle class can do that, but not anyone in the lower income. Which also happens to be the group that is least able to afford hospital care for a birth. So its again punishing the poor for being poor.

Plus of course that an abortion ban is easy to get around isn't a good argument to alow one in the first place.

Obviously it will stop the poor. My point is that it won’t stop everyone. Not even the lower middle class if they’re a short drive away. My point is that it doesn’t do what its proponents claim, namely save every unborn child.

[Ifreann]

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

There is nothing that can stop them. Its fair to say a number of them will.

There's nothing that can stop them if all you're thinking about is whether there'll be armed guards at the state border. There are lots of things that can stop them if you actually think practically about what's involved in travelling to another state for a medical procedure.

[San Lumen]

There is nothing that can stop them. Its fair to say a number of them will.

There's nothing that can stop them if all you're thinking about is whether there'll be armed guards at the state border. There are lots of things that can stop them if you actually think practically about what's involved in travelling to another state for a medical procedure.

Im not saying it wouldn't be difficult for many but there is nothing a state can legally do to prevent a woman from crossing borders to get an abortion.

[The Blaatschapen]

My ban?

A figure of speech. Not yours in a literal sense.

Good.

Because I am not in favour of any kind of abortion ban

[Alvecia]

How many states will ban abortion? It’s unlikely to be a federal ban, so what is to stop West Virginia women from crossing into Virginia or Maryland to get abortions. Wham, suddenly your ban is ineffective for the same reason as state bans on assault weapons.

What stops people from travelling long distances for medical procedures? Uh, lack of time, lack of money, lack of support, lack of transportation. A person cannot simply will themselves to another state.

I always think of that annecdote from an abortion clinic nurse on a report John Oliver did.
She claims she had a call from a woman who wanted an abortion but was unable to make it to the clinic for many of the above reasons so she asked of the nurse
"How about I tell you what I have in my kitchen and you tell me what I can use"

[Libertarians]

Does anyone else read articles like this from yesterday and wonder why these people seem to avoid very easy solutions to the problem in front of them?

The left has been in an absolute panic for three years now since Kavanaugh was appointed that Roe would be overturned as the constitution does not really address everything that went into the Roe decision, so the decision has been at risk of being overturned from the outset due to it being somewhat of a stretch to start with. What if that panic and effort had been funneled into an abortion amendment effort to just permit the right to an abortion and say life begins at birth in a new amendment to the Constitution? That solves the problem and provides a solid foundation for Roe. State by state polling showed in the past slightly more than 12 states likely have voters that favor abortion, but it is very close. Why not try?

There's a real dishonesty to the Democrat position in that it has been foreseeable honestly since the 2016 election, but certainly since 2018 that we were headed in a direction that was not good for Roe's chances to stand, and exactly zero effort was put in to reversing that or providing support for a right to the abortion in the text of the constitution. At least, IMO. I think if the party were being honest, it strongly hopes Roe is overturned because power is far more important to the Democrats than whatever they've said they believe in. The two party system, man.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You need 2/3rds of the states and the congress to pass an amendment. Which is physically impossible in the current political atmosphere.

[Vassenor]

Does anyone else read articles like this from yesterday and wonder why these people seem to avoid very easy solutions to the problem in front of them?

The left has been in an absolute panic for three years now since Kavanaugh was appointed that Roe would be overturned as the constitution does not really address everything that went into the Roe decision, so the decision has been at risk of being overturned from the outset due to it being somewhat of a stretch to start with. What if that panic and effort had been funneled into an abortion amendment effort to just permit the right to an abortion and say life begins at birth in a new amendment to the Constitution? That solves the problem and provides a solid foundation for Roe. State by state polling showed in the past slightly more than 12 states likely have voters that favor abortion, but it is very close. Why not try?

There's a real dishonesty to the Democrat position in that it has been foreseeable honestly since the 2016 election, but certainly since 2018 that we were headed in a direction that was not good for Roe's chances to stand, and exactly zero effort was put in to reversing that or providing support for a right to the abortion in the text of the constitution. At least, IMO. I think if the party were being honest, it strongly hopes Roe is overturned because power is far more important to the Democrats than whatever they've said they believe in. The two party system, man.

And how do you get a constutional amentment through when the GOP is doing everything it can to get Abortion banned regardless of what voters want?

[San Lumen]

Does anyone else read articles like this from yesterday and wonder why these people seem to avoid very easy solutions to the problem in front of them?

The left has been in an absolute panic for three years now since Kavanaugh was appointed that Roe would be overturned as the constitution does not really address everything that went into the Roe decision, so the decision has been at risk of being overturned from the outset due to it being somewhat of a stretch to start with. What if that panic and effort had been funneled into an abortion amendment effort to just permit the right to an abortion and say life begins at birth in a new amendment to the Constitution? That solves the problem and provides a solid foundation for Roe. State by state polling showed in the past slightly more than 12 states likely have voters that favor abortion, but it is very close. Why not try?

There's a real dishonesty to the Democrat position in that it has been foreseeable honestly since the 2016 election, but certainly since 2018 that we were headed in a direction that was not good for Roe's chances to stand, and exactly zero effort was put in to reversing that or providing support for a right to the abortion in the text of the constitution. At least, IMO. I think if the party were being honest, it strongly hopes Roe is overturned because power is far more important to the Democrats than whatever they've said they believe in. The two party system, man.

And how do you get a constutional amentment through when the GOP is doing everything it can to get Abortion banned regardless of what voters want?

You would never get the required two thirds majority.

[Spirit of Hope]

Does anyone else read articles like this from yesterday and wonder why these people seem to avoid very easy solutions to the problem in front of them?

The left has been in an absolute panic for three years now since Kavanaugh was appointed that Roe would be overturned as the constitution does not really address everything that went into the Roe decision, so the decision has been at risk of being overturned from the outset due to it being somewhat of a stretch to start with. What if that panic and effort had been funneled into an abortion amendment effort to just permit the right to an abortion and say life begins at birth in a new amendment to the Constitution? That solves the problem and provides a solid foundation for Roe. State by state polling showed in the past slightly more than 12 states likely have voters that favor abortion, but it is very close. Why not try?

There's a real dishonesty to the Democrat position in that it has been foreseeable honestly since the 2016 election, but certainly since 2018 that we were headed in a direction that was not good for Roe's chances to stand, and exactly zero effort was put in to reversing that or providing support for a right to the abortion in the text of the constitution. At least, IMO. I think if the party were being honest, it strongly hopes Roe is overturned because power is far more important to the Democrats than whatever they've said they believe in. The two party system, man.

Have fun getting an abortion ammendment passed. You would need a 2/3rds vote in the senate or a by a call of 2/3rds of the state legislators. Pro abortion has never had 2/3rds of the senate or 2/3rds of the state legislators.

[Ifreann]

Does anyone else read articles like this from yesterday and wonder why these people seem to avoid very easy solutions to the problem in front of them?

The left has been in an absolute panic for three years now since Kavanaugh was appointed that Roe would be overturned as the constitution does not really address everything that went into the Roe decision, so the decision has been at risk of being overturned from the outset due to it being somewhat of a stretch to start with. What if that panic and effort had been funneled into an abortion amendment effort to just permit the right to an abortion and say life begins at birth in a new amendment to the Constitution? That solves the problem and provides a solid foundation for Roe. State by state polling showed in the past slightly more than 12 states likely have voters that favor abortion, but it is very close. Why not try?

There's a real dishonesty to the Democrat position in that it has been foreseeable honestly since the 2016 election, but certainly since 2018 that we were headed in a direction that was not good for Roe's chances to stand, and exactly zero effort was put in to reversing that or providing support for a right to the abortion in the text of the constitution. At least, IMO. I think if the party were being honest, it strongly hopes Roe is overturned because power is far more important to the Democrats than whatever they've said they believe in. The two party system, man.

And how do you get a constutional amentment through when the GOP is doing everything it can to get Abortion banned regardless of what voters want?

Distract them by hanging up a big "Happy Holidays" sign somewhere?

[Antipatros]

You need 2/3rds of the states and the congress to pass an amendment. Which is physically impossible in the current political atmosphere.

Especially for an issue that's divisive, like abortion.

I don't even think you could get a constitutional amendment passed for something that is broadly agreed upon. The political culture is too dysfunctional and polarized to even do that.

[Elwher]

You need 2/3rds of the states and the congress to pass an amendment. Which is physically impossible in the current political atmosphere.

Especially for an issue that's divisive, like abortion.

I don't even think you could get a constitutional amendment passed for something that is broadly agreed upon. The political culture is too dysfunctional and polarized to even do that.

The last one certainly took a goodly amount of time to pass, over 200 years.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

Especially for an issue that's divisive, like abortion.

I don't even think you could get a constitutional amendment passed for something that is broadly agreed upon. The political culture is too dysfunctional and polarized to even do that.

The last one certainly took a goodly amount of time to pass, over 200 years.

Congressional pay raise restrictions, iirc.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

And how do you get a constutional amentment through when the GOP is doing everything it can to get Abortion banned regardless of what voters want?

Distract them by hanging up a big "Happy Holidays" sign somewhere?

The White House. Go big or go home.

[Sundiata]

Does anyone else read articles like this from yesterday and wonder why these people seem to avoid very easy solutions to the problem in front of them?

The left has been in an absolute panic for three years now since Kavanaugh was appointed that Roe would be overturned as the constitution does not really address everything that went into the Roe decision, so the decision has been at risk of being overturned from the outset due to it being somewhat of a stretch to start with. What if that panic and effort had been funneled into an abortion amendment effort to just permit the right to an abortion and say life begins at birth in a new amendment to the Constitution? That solves the problem and provides a solid foundation for Roe. State by state polling showed in the past slightly more than 12 states likely have voters that favor abortion, but it is very close. Why not try?

There's a real dishonesty to the Democrat position in that it has been foreseeable honestly since the 2016 election, but certainly since 2018 that we were headed in a direction that was not good for Roe's chances to stand, and exactly zero effort was put in to reversing that or providing support for a right to the abortion in the text of the constitution. At least, IMO. I think if the party were being honest, it strongly hopes Roe is overturned because power is far more important to the Democrats than whatever they've said they believe in. The two party system, man.

And how do you get a constutional amentment through when the GOP is doing everything it can to get Abortion banned regardless of what voters want?

You need 2/3rds of the states and the congress to pass an amendment. Which is physically impossible in the current political atmosphere.

Does anyone else read articles like this from yesterday and wonder why these people seem to avoid very easy solutions to the problem in front of them?

The left has been in an absolute panic for three years now since Kavanaugh was appointed that Roe would be overturned as the constitution does not really address everything that went into the Roe decision, so the decision has been at risk of being overturned from the outset due to it being somewhat of a stretch to start with. What if that panic and effort had been funneled into an abortion amendment effort to just permit the right to an abortion and say life begins at birth in a new amendment to the Constitution? That solves the problem and provides a solid foundation for Roe. State by state polling showed in the past slightly more than 12 states likely have voters that favor abortion, but it is very close. Why not try?

There's a real dishonesty to the Democrat position in that it has been foreseeable honestly since the 2016 election, but certainly since 2018 that we were headed in a direction that was not good for Roe's chances to stand, and exactly zero effort was put in to reversing that or providing support for a right to the abortion in the text of the constitution. At least, IMO. I think if the party were being honest, it strongly hopes Roe is overturned because power is far more important to the Democrats than whatever they've said they believe in. The two party system, man.

Have fun getting an abortion ammendment passed. You would need a 2/3rds vote in the senate or a by a call of 2/3rds of the state legislators. Pro abortion has never had 2/3rds of the senate or 2/3rds of the state legislators.

It looks like the work of the pro-life movement is done: curtain call.