What does it mean to “ban” abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roe isn't going anywhere. The sky is not falling.

Conservatives are pragmatists. They don't like abortion, so they tend not to have them. They also recognize the tremendous value in keeping the numbers of liberals in check that abortion provides. Margaret Sanger knew what she was doing when she founded PP.

True, they just pay off their mistresses and girlfriends to have them.

Most of my conservative friends top desire is to make abortion illegal. What they do t realize it is the law will eventually affect their daughters who are dealing with difficult pregnancies or miscarriages, but won't affect rich Republicans who will fly their mistresses and daughters to places with abortion.

They also live in areas with lots of poor people who will no longer be able to have abortions if their state goes in that direction. Resulting in lots more welfare it lots more crime. Guess they will get their wish!

I am sure your friends motives have nothing to do with not wanting a baby ripped apart and pulled out of the womb. Glad you laid out the reality driving their position.

Yeah, but then you and your kind can't give a damn when kids outside of the womb get ripped out of the mother's arm and held in captivity. Abortion opponents are the ultimate hypocrites.

And your kind is fine with the baby being ripped to shreds and sucked out of the womb, but outraged when an alien criminal's kid is not housed in jail next to them. Goes both ways, huh?

Read a Biology book and go see what a fetus actually looks like, sweetie. In no way is a fetus equivalent to a child. And way to show how much you really care for kids outside the womb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

my guess it would be unconstitutional - you can't prosecute women for her own body mutilation. What's next then - illegal piercing?
Do you really want to go that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Roe gets overturned, it goes back to the states. So, we will have the elites able to get abortions and those living in bad states not able to do so.

So further brain drain and more haves v have nots.

Yes, it's inevitable.

PS I don't believe Roe vs Wade would be overturned.

Why would it not? No shortage of people want it gone. It’s a good bet that 4 on the court right now want it gone. I read once that the decision is taught in law school as bad law; there is no such constitutional right.

Agreed. You would not know it from this leftist board, but the majority of American's are pro life. Highly likely it will gain momentum after the far right appointment that is soon to be.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/gallups-newest-poll-shows-americans-consider-pro-life/

YOU ARE FULL OF SH1T. Hot, stinking pile of feces.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

One big problem is the inability to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. If they decide to go after women for having abortions, it is certain that there will be a number of women who are punished for having a miscarriage. That is a horrible and frightening thought to many people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

This is incorrect. Some abortions are already illegal and women have already been charged.

Of course women would be charged for illegal abortions.

[Anonymous]

In many states, women won't be able to get IUDs, birth control pills, or abortions. This will drastically increase the child poverty and child abuse rates, as well as maternal mortality. Also lots of poor women in jail for DIY abortions, or dead. It's not gonna be nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In many states, women won't be able to get IUDs, birth control pills, or abortions. This will drastically increase the child poverty and child abuse rates, as well as maternal mortality. Also lots of poor women in jail for DIY abortions, or dead. It's not gonna be nice.

more suicides by pregnant teens as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many states, women won't be able to get IUDs, birth control pills, or abortions. This will drastically increase the child poverty and child abuse rates, as well as maternal mortality. Also lots of poor women in jail for DIY abortions, or dead. It's not gonna be nice.

more suicides by pregnant teens as well.

And crime rates will go up as well
Unwanted children raised without love are more likely to commit crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many states, women won't be able to get IUDs, birth control pills, or abortions. This will drastically increase the child poverty and child abuse rates, as well as maternal mortality. Also lots of poor women in jail for DIY abortions, or dead. It's not gonna be nice.

more suicides by pregnant teens as well.

And crime rates will go up as well
Unwanted children raised without love are more likely to commit crime

MAGA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Roe gets overturned, it goes back to the states. So, we will have the elites able to get abortions and those living in bad states not able to do so.

So further brain drain and more haves v have nots.

Yes, it's inevitable.

PS I don't believe Roe vs Wade would be overturned.

Why would it not? No shortage of people want it gone. It’s a good bet that 4 on the court right now want it gone. I read once that the decision is taught in law school as bad law; there is no such constitutional right.

You need to read better sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

It’s much more cynical. States can impose so many regulatory restrictions on abortion providers that effectively put them out of business and make the procedure too costly and burdensomeFor example, requiring second trimester procedures be performed in hospitals. Waiting periods. Ultrasounds. Parental notice for minors. This has been the game plan for several years. See Whole Woman’s Health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

This is incorrect. Some abortions are already illegal and women have already been charged.

Of course women would be charged for illegal abortions.

But what about rape victims who have been impregnated by their rapists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

If your logic is that women who get abortions are murderers, then you are setting up a situation where every miscarriage (which is very common) would be investigated and women would face life in prison for a miscarriage that couldn't be proven. You'd be setting up a situation where women are scared to get prenatal care because what if they have a missed miscarriage and their doctor investigates?

Because most women who seek abortions are already moms, you'd have lots of motherless children, lots of women in prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

One big problem is the inability to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. If they decide to go after women for having abortions, it is certain that there will be a number of women who are punished for having a miscarriage. That is a horrible and frightening thought to many people.

Good God. Meanwhile, the boyfriend/husband gets to sit back and relax, legally free and clear, while his girlfriend/wife gets chewed up by the legal system.