The Impact of Abortion Bans

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (135 posts)
  1. profile image59
    Shouseedeeposted 2 years ago

    Three Texas women shared heart-wrenching testimonies about being denied abortions. Their stories shed light on the complexities of abortion decisions and the impact of restrictive laws. It's essential to listen to these personal experiences to understand the real-life implications of such legislation. These women's circumstances challenge stereotypes, showing that abortion access is a critical issue affecting diverse individuals, not just reckless teens.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      While the testimonies of these three Texas women are undoubtedly heart-wrenching and certainly deserve empathy, it's important to acknowledge that using personal stories to shape public policy can be problematic.
      Relying solely on a few individual stories can lead to biased conclusions and misrepresentation of the overall issue or situation.  While these shared stories highlight specific cases, they might not be representative of the broader population's experiences with abortion laws and restrictions.
      In my view, It's crucial to consider the broader context of abortion access, including statistical data and research findings. While personal testimonies can evoke emotions, they might not necessarily reflect the prevailing trends or the majority of cases.

      Presenting only heart-wrenching stories can work to create an emotional bias, which may hinder objective and nuanced discussions on the topic. Perhaps, It's essential to include diverse perspectives, including those who support abortion restrictions, to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.

      Abortion is a complex and divisive topic that involves moral, ethical, religious, and legal considerations. While personal stories can shed light on individual experiences, it is crucial to address the issue holistically, considering the rights and perspectives of all involved parties.

      Crafting effective public policy requires a comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors, not solely relying on emotional appeals. Decision-makers should consider evidence-based research, legal principles, and societal implications when shaping legislation.

      So yes, Personal stories can be powerful tools for advocacy, but they can also be selectively used to push a particular agenda or narrative. This may lead to an unbalanced representation of the issue, potentially undermining the credibility of the information presented.

    2. DrMark1961 profile image100
      DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I wonder how many children of poor women in New York that were aborted and tossed in the biolgoical dumpster were able to tell their heart-wrenching stories?

      "I wanted to grow up and be a child but my biological mother decided I was a burden and, since the legislators in New York promote abortion for all, I ended up dead."
      No, you never hear these stories. Dead babies do not have a voice.

      1. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        "I wonder how many children of poor women in New York that were aborted and tossed in the biolgoical dumpster were able to tell their heart-wrenching stories?"

        I similarly wonder what stories will be told by those born by way of State sponsored forced birth?  Are we ready for what's to come? Of course many will fair just fine and some may even thrive. But how many will be born unwanted, resented, neglected, abused, abandoned and dumped back onto the state?  The drop boxes outside of fire stations may not be enough to handle what may come. The state can force a woman to give birth but they'll never be able to force that woman to bond with an unwanted child. Who will be the voice of these children?
        The Republican mantra seems to be "get'em born"  but where the programs to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with? Will they similarly enlarge the social safety net to deal with the aftermath of forced birth? Will we go back to orphanages? Of course we could rename them something more acceptable, maybe Sunshine homes would work.  This is a complex issue that has long-term ramifications, as far as I can see none are being addressed. Why? The mantra after you are born..."bootstraps baby!"

        1. DrMark1961 profile image100
          DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          We have no way of knowing how they will do, however we do know that if we kill them when still unborn that they are not growing to grow up and thrive.

          The Democratic mantra seems to be "kill them before they are born". Dead babies do not vote, so killing them to be a way to get more votes.

        2. wilderness profile image76
          wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          "The Republican mantra seems to be "get'em born"

          While I do not agree with it, as you and I both know the mantra is actually "You will not kill children".  Why is it that liberals always ignore that simple fact?

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            "Why is it that liberals always ignore that simple fact?"

            Probably because a fetus isn't a child. If a woman enters an emergency room miscarrying a 15 week fetus, the doctor does not use extraordinary means on that fetus.  That fetus would be made comfortable to pass naturally as it is not viable outside the womb.  Not a child.

            1. wilderness profile image76
              wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              You claim that, I claim that, but the conservatives saying that children are being murdered do not agree.  Until we can all agree on what is a person the debate and division will never end.

              Would it not be wise to acknowledge the difference in opinion (opinion, for there is no actual definition) and go from there rather than simply continue to disagree on that primary disagreement and settle it?

          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Are we back on the viability of zygotes again, Wilderness?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being."
              https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti … n%20being.

              Just calling a human a zygote does not work to say it is not a human being.

              Why not at best admit abortion is killing a human no matter what terminology one uses?

              When a woman aborts the human being in her womb is ultimately dead. Whether it be a spontaneously aborted zygote or a full-term baby, it's dead.

              When one chooses to abort no matter how far along, she has made the choice to kill that human being.  Is that not factual?  If one kills a human organism, they killed a human growing in their womb.

              1. wilderness profile image76
                wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Unfortunately your link did not "demonstrate" anything at all: it simply made a statement that a zygote is a human being.  That is NOT "demonstrating" the truth of the statement.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  "The sperm and egg unite in one of your fallopian tubes to form a one-celled entity called a zygote. If more than one egg is released and fertilized or if the fertilized egg splits into two, you might have multiple zygotes.

                  The zygote typically has 46 chromosomes — 23 from the biological mother and 23 from the biological father. These chromosomes help determine your baby's sex and physical traits."

                  This stage is short but is recognized as the result of the fertilization of a human being, with the genetic makeup of a human being.
                  https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life … t-20045302

                  The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.   https://acpeds.org/position-statements/ … ife-begins
                  https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto … Id=4857703

                  "2) Fertilization

                  Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O�Rahilly defines fertilization as:

                  "... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

                  The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

                  "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

                  This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

                  "... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

                  In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis�each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts�each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

                  After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn�t become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14

                  B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

                  MYTH  2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

                  FACT  2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

                  "... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
                  https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

                  1. wilderness profile image76
                    wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, but all of those "proofs" include "blobs" which are NOT human beings and do not deserve the label "person". it takes far more than a group of genes/chromosomes to make a person; witness the enormous percentage of miscarriages because those particular gene groupings are NOT viable and will never develop.

                    In any case, in my mind it is not "human" that matters; it is whether that blob is a "person", something far different.

            2. wilderness profile image76
              wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              Nope.  As always, we're on the question of when does a zygote become a person, with the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that the rest of us enjoy.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Understood, Wilderness, that has to be decided, but personhood at the very point of conception will certainly not be the answer.

                The Republican Party digs it own grave as ballot issues in several states, red included, has shot down this idea of total bans and unreasonable periods after conception to prohibit the abortion procedures. That frustration may well find itself taking a center stage among voters that might otherwise vote for them. Will they get the message? I doubt it.

                How is it for me to steer them from a disastrous course?

                1. wilderness profile image76
                  wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Why do you not mention those states that make the murder of children legal, depending on the whim of the mother (without ever considering the father, whose child it is just as much as the mothers)?

                  I, too, would hate to see the legal definition be conception, for that is very obviously wrong to me.  However, I do acknowledge that it is an opinion, not fact, and not all agree.  Unfortunately neither side even seems to recognize that those opinions are NOT fact, and simply ignore any they don't like.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, Wilderness, it is the mother that has to endure the pregnancy and physical risk and inconvenience to term while the father is an interested bystander.

                    Roe vs Wade was a reasonable accommodation to both sides, why does the Right have to insist on having everything interpreted its way?

                    The concept of "conception" is unreasonable and unenforceable.

          3. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Some in our society choose to ignore the fact that when a child is conceived it is the beginning of a human being.  This is a scientific fact. Yes, in the first weeks, one would not recognize this being as a baby, a human --- but it is a human being. Many that believe otherwise need to be educated in the conception, and development of a human being.

            If one chooses an abortion they are factually killing a living organism. Period.

            It is very apparent many women are on board with abortion. They have accepted the right they feel they have to abort a pregnancy. This is where we have arrived, is it not?  It is clear to me, that those that feel they have this right are willing to kill. That is where our society is --- again, is it not?

            I don't think they are ignoring "You will not kill children"  In my view, they have come to believe they have that right if they feel they don't want to carry a pregnancy to term. In my view, the killing part is pushed deep into their subconscious.

            1. Willowarbor profile image61
              Willowarborposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              The question for me: Where are we as a society that many have come to accept and even welcome State sanctioned forced birth?
              For me and many others, this comes  down to rights.  Abortion was a constitutional right, removed by an overreaching court.  To all those who believe it's murder, you're in luck because  your right is protected in terms of not being forced to have one.  My concerns also continue to be with the women who are being unintentionally harmed, physically and emotionally by being caught up in these bans.  We have doctors out here now that are letting women reach the brink of death because they are too afraid to act out of fear they will be prosecuted or lose their license to practice.  I hope everyone remembers that abortion procedures aren't just used for reckless teenagers. Horrifying stories from the states that have banned abortion demonstrate the medical crisis that now grips nearly half the country. A woman in Wisconsin experiencing a miscarriage was turned away from the hospital and sent home to bleed without medical supervision. In Arizona, a 14-year-old, caught in the crosshairs of abortion restrictions, was denied medically indicated medication she had taken for years. A woman in Texas had to drive 18 hours to receive care for an ectopic pregnancy. I could go on but I won't.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image100
                DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                The question for me: Where are we as a society when we decide that it was okay to murder children just because they were unfortunate enough to not yet be born?

              2. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I understand your concern in regard to some of the horrendous stories that have been reported as of late, and your concerns that Doctors have been put in the middle of this controversy, and now feel fearful of performing an abortion. Even when the state, such as in the Mississippi case you shared. This issue is very contractual and has been for decades.

                In the end, the sentiment you've presented here touches on complex issues of individual rights, personal social values, ethics, and the role of a given state. The debate around state-sanctioned forced birth is likely to continue, with various perspectives and considerations playing a role in shaping the discourse.

                Consider,  opponents might argue that the state's interest in protecting the potential life of the unborn child should take precedence over an individual's autonomy, and could also assert that unborn fetuses have a right to life that should be upheld by the state.  ( my own view is that states need to vote on the issue, and the majority should rule, due to our society does seem to feel abortion is a right.)

                Those against your sentiment might contend that there are ethical and moral considerations surrounding the termination of pregnancies. They might argue that there should be limits to when and under what circumstances abortion can take place.

                Some individuals might believe that a society's values and cultural norms should play a role in shaping laws and regulations, including those related to abortion. Hence, some state citizens may value stricter laws when it comes to abortions.  They could argue that state intervention is warranted when the majority of society holds certain beliefs about the sanctity of life and the family unit. In my states that are pro-life also have rights. The majority should rule.

                I think states that have these stricter laws should put more emphasis on providing support and resources to individuals facing unplanned pregnancies, such as access to healthcare, education, and social services.

                1. Willowarbor profile image61
                  Willowarborposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I appreciate this well thought out post. It immediately brings my mind to the issue of personhood. 
                  I've read quite a bit from scientists, physicians and scholars of various religious faith postulating on the beginning of personhood. For me I've settled on the theory that states that personhood begins when the fetus acquires the human specific electroencephalogram pattern. Morowitz and Trefil, two Yale biologists physicians said, "In our usage, we say that our species acquired humanness when the enlarged cortex develops, and the individual fetus acquires humanness when the cortex begins to function." So when does it begin to function? Data suggests that, "We are able to identify specific patterns and track changes in the fetal brain activity starting at 28 weeks of gestation." Even then, those are sleep EEGs. There's no indication of fetal awareness. So if loss of EEG pattern is considered human death, even though the heart is beating, cells are aspiring, et cetera, then acquisition of the EEG could be considered human life, when you receive a personhood.
                  Just my take and I am not saying that based on this specific data that 28 weeks should be an upper limit of abortion. But 20 weeks seems a very logical compromise.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                    Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Everything you've presented is scientifically valid in relation to the point at which the human species attained attributes of humanness, personhood, and the essential qualities associated with being human.

                    However, some individuals believe that at the moment of fertilization and formation of a zygote a human being has been created, and if all goes well in nine months a baby will be the result of that zygote that possessed

                    The typically 46 chromosomes — 23 from the biological mother and 23 from the biological father. The very chromosomes that will determine the baby's sex and physical traits are shared by the mom and dad.  This stage is short but is the result of the fertilization of a human being, with the genetic makeup of a human being.

                    This is where views totally go in different directions. This is where mindsets clash,  due to an individual's established set of attitudes, cultural beliefs, values, and religious beliefs.

                    Certainly, your convictions are completely rational from your perspective, and it's evident that you've invested considerable effort into shaping your stance through thorough contemplation and research. The emotions surrounding the abortion debate are intense among both pro-life and pro-choice advocates. The issue persists without definitive resolutions that could genuinely appease both sides.

                    I held the hope that individual states would bring this matter to a vote. I believe that, at the very least, this approach could lead to some form of advancement on the issue.

                  2. wilderness profile image76
                    wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    "For me I've settled on the theory that states that personhood begins when the fetus acquires the human specific electroencephalogram pattern."
                    "So if loss of EEG pattern is considered human death, even though the heart is beating, cells are aspiring, et cetera, then acquisition of the EEG could be considered human life, when you receive a personhood."

                    This is a most interesting concept, and worth while (IMO) to develop further.  I could also err on the side of caution, going for 3 months rather than 6 or 7.

              3. wilderness profile image76
                wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                "Abortion was a constitutional right"

                You will have to quote that document for me, because it is not and never was.

                1. Willowarbor profile image61
                  Willowarborposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) holding that women in the United States had a fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without excessive government restriction and striking down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional.
                  The Court introduced the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" that it said had been intimated in earlier decisions such as Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which involved parental control over childrearing, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which involved the use of contraception. The Court ruled that regardless of exactly which provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that protected a pregnant woman's decision whether to abort a pregnancy.
                  You need only to read that courts ruling and opinions. I also have to note that this was a conservative majority Court.
                  They stated:
                  "A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception."
                  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

                  1. wilderness profile image76
                    wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, the RvsW was based on privacy, which the court determined included the right of an abortion.

                    A court machination which resulted in what was (IMO) an acceptable compromise, but one based on current political ideals rather than fact or science.  It didn't even address "personhood" which (again, IMO) is the crux of the matter.  RvsW was a great solution to a modern problem, but only by twisting the Constitution into saying what it did not.

            2. wilderness profile image76
              wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "This is a scientific fact."

              Then you will have to show me all where "science" declares that zygote to be a person in it's own right.  You and I have disagreed here before, and your basic answer was "It's a person because I think it looks like one" - an answer that is completely without merit IMO.

              "If one chooses an abortion they are factually killing a living organism."

              Same thing applies to a cancerous growth, a tapeworm, or a cow.  All are acceptable to kill...because none is a "person".

              "It is clear to me, that those that feel they have this right are willing to kill."

              Just so.  You define the killing of a single cell organism as "murder of a human being, a person"...while ignoring that not everyone shares your opinion.

  2. profile image59
    Todd231posted 2 years ago

    Hello,

    It is crucial to listen to and empathize with the personal experiences of individuals when discussing issues like abortion. Each person's situation is unique, and hearing their stories can help us better understand the real-life implications of restrictive abortion laws.

    Abortion decisions are complex and deeply personal, often involving various factors such as health concerns, financial stability, family situations, and emotional well-being. By sharing heart-wrenching testimonies, PayMyDoctor  these women shed light on the challenges they faced and the impact that restrictive laws had on their lives. Their stories can challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about who seeks abortions, illustrating that abortion access is an essential issue for diverse individuals from various backgrounds and circumstances.

    Listening to these personal experiences can lead to more empathetic and informed discussions about abortion, fostering a better understanding of the realities faced by people seeking access to safe and legal reproductive healthcare. It can also highlight the need for policies that prioritize the autonomy and well-being of individuals, ensuring they have the freedom to make decisions about their bodies and lives.

    As we engage in conversations about abortion laws and access, it's essential to approach the topic with compassion and respect for the lived experiences of those directly impacted. By doing so, we can work towards creating a society that respects individual choices and provides comprehensive reproductive healthcare for all.

  3. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 23 months ago

    A 13-year-old Mississippi girl, a victim of rape, was just forced to give birth by the state of Mississippi. In a few weeks she will begin 7th grade.
    Is this not child abuse perpetrated by the state of Mississippi? Forced birth. This makes absolutely no sense. Any type of critical thinking has been thrown out the window in favor of "ideology"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 … ged-13-12/

    1. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch on Monday certified the state’s 2007 trigger law banning abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or rape has been reported to law enforcement.

      I noted the police were notified by the hospital.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I think I read a bit back one can get an abortion in Mississippi for rape or if the mom's life is in danger.   Was this a case where a Doc would not do the abortion out of fear of legal problems?

      At any rate, this is a very sad situation this young child should not have had to endure. Hard to beleive she received no help.

      1. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Apparently doctors wouldn't touch her for fear of repercussions and the mother was unable to reach a clinic at 600 miles away.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          It would almost seem at one point Doctors will be sued for refusing to help in rape cases. The law is on the books.  But then again, I don't think one can force a doctor to do a procedure.  This is a very sad issue. Hopefully, some doctors will step up to help, especially in the case of rape of a child.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Doc,

          You've aptly pinpointed the issue at hand. At what point did we transform into a society that could casually accept the idea of ending life? Actually, ending the lives of our own flesh and blood.  Doesn't this signify a regression for our species? It would seem to be a true deterioration of morals and empathy, not to mention conscience.

          Shar

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            This instance was a 14-year-old rape victim. A mere child herself just entering the 7th grade. The state of Mississippi forcing her to give birth is the epitome of a lack of empathy, reason, ethics and morality.  It's unconscionable. The poor girl's mother stated that the child really didn't even fully understand where babies even came from.

            In terms of other women choosing to terminate a pregnancy within their state guidelines, I don't find it my right or the states duty to regulate morality on this or any other issue. The government does not have the mandate to do so.  I can find 10 things straight off the top of my head that others do or partake in that directly conflicts with my personal sense of morality. I don't feel  that gives me the right to want these people reigned in by the government.
            A regression? I don't feel so,  there's historical evidence for abortion back through biblical days.  Infanticide was common in ancient Greece and Rome. Female infanticide in parts of the world still happens today. If anything, we've progressed from such a horrific past.
            The annual number of U.S. abortions rose for years after Roe legalized the procedure in 1973, reaching its highest levels around the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. Since then, abortions have generally decreased.

            I feel pretty certain that the reasons for seeking an abortion very from person to person.  I'm not ready to label every woman who seeks an abortion as cold, reckless and immoral. No doubt that some could be considered people who lack empathy but how does a forced birth change that?  Now we have a woman who lacks empathy and we somehow think she's going to make a good mother?  Or maybe she lacks consciousness and empathy so much that she abandons the baby, or abuses it, neglects it. Maybe she hands the baby back to the state.  This is where I really struggle with this push for forced birth. There's no plan or seemingly any care for what comes afterward. Because then, you really do have a fully aware, fully functioning child.  The same women who are vilified and have their character assassinated for choosing abortion somehow seamlessly transform into a caring parent?  I don't know, I'd have to ask how happy were you with the last choice that was forced upon you?  And I say that as a general thought. 
            When conservatives talk of morality and care and concern for the life of a child as a reason to force birth, it rings hollow for me because I see so very little in the way of concern after that child enters the world. What would I say to conservative politicians? Put your money where your mouth is. We all know full well that anything that requires  funding is an uphill climb.  Abortion bans are free.

  4. Miebakagh57 profile image85
    Miebakagh57posted 23 months ago

    Nowaays, abortion is a very complex question in every country of the world.                                To prevent abortion, men and women need to comply with modern family planning methods to prevent pregnancy.                                    Critically, with the exception of a rape, or a dead fetus, I don't see the need.

  5. Miebakagh57 profile image85
    Miebakagh57posted 23 months ago

    There's a crucial glitch at hubpages that I'm not seeing some posts being made to add my comments.

  6. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 23 months ago

    Abortion is virtually entirely illegal in Alabama.

    Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R obviously) argued in a court filing Wednesday that he can file criminal charges against people who assist those getting abortion care outside the state. Really??
    Marshall argued that people who organize travel for those leaving Alabama to receive an abortion, for example, will be participating in a “criminal conspiracy,” because abortion is illegal in the state.
    Let's remember that abortion is illegal in Alabama in nearly all circumstances, including those of rape or incest. State legislators are considering, but have not passed, a law that would allow those who have abortions to be prosecuted with murder.  Last month the attorney general, explicitly threatened to investigate providers on felony charges if they aid a person in receiving abortion care. What do you think? Good stuff or a no-go?  What's next for women, a tattooed Scarlet letter?  Does this have fascist overtones?

    https://www.apr.org/news/2023-08-08/ala … rtion-care

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)