Overturning it isn’t going to stop abortions numbnut, just look at abortions before roe. It just leads to higher complications and mortality rates in women getting abortions anyways. The literature is pretty clear on that.
Calling non-late-term abortions unborn children doesn't really make sense. I was giving the benefit of the doubt.
HAHAHA You get it? Liberal women are WHORES? Right. You did a funny. I get it now. So very clever! I like how you tied FAT into the equation too! Stupid fat liberal whores!!! HAHA
Strawman. Nobody is saying women can't have their tubes tied who's effect has the same purpose as a man having a vasectomy. Actually, its a shame so many women are willing to have abortions but refuse to have tubal ligation (and for that matter men don't get vasectomies). That would be actual responsible behavior and people taking advantage of their real "choices".
Strawman. Pregnancy to delivery doesn't necessarily require parenthood as children can be placed for adoption. The vast majority will be cared for by one of the biological parents or be adopted. For those few children that for whatever reason can't be placed I have zero problems with current law where the child must be supported by child support by both parents until or unless the child is adopted. Being male doesn't give you a pass on taking care of the child your irresponsible behavior caused.
While I agree with the general sentiment, it would be exceedingly tough on a man that has two kids, much less three. When I was younger, I was 100 percent pro-choice. As I have gotten older, I think that abortions are sad and are likely very traumatic for some of the women (whether at the time or later) and certainly some of the men who may want to keep their child, but I still believe a woman should have the right to choose. I don't believe in late term abortions unless the woman's health is at risk or a previously undetected severe medical issue with the child is uncovered. I do sometimes wonder whether carrying a baby for 9 months (and the long-term changes to the body that may accompany it) is really that much more burdensome than forcing a male who isn't ready to be a father to hopefully take on that role or requiring that male who may not have a relationship with the child to work for 18 years for a choice he may not agree with. Or that much more traumatic than forcing a man to lose what he may already view to be his child so that the woman can avoid carrying the child to term. None of that will appeal to pro-lifers. And I certainly understand that a woman's body should be her own. But at the same time, I do sometimes wonder about the men who may want to keep the child and are deprived of any choice and those who don't want to be a father but are then required to economically support the child for 18 years. I still come down pro-choice and support Roe, but I must say that the whole thing is complicated, painful and only focuses on the woman's interests and ignores any interest that the man may have.
Our taxes are going way up because of this. Our deficits and debt are going way up because of this. Our insurance premiums are going way up because of this. Our schools are going to be **** because of this. Our neighborhoods will become **** because of this. If Roe is overturned, that is. Every year, there will be 100,000's of more women giving birth to (unwanted) children with no familial father, only a biological father. These kids will be welfare cases for 18 years, at which point they'll become police cases for the next 50.
This isn't a strawman. This is heavy handed government in action and you aren't willing to deal with real consequences. There is not enough adoption for every unwanted pregnancy. If you are willing to support heavy handed government action, go all the way. State willing to force women to give birth should fully pay for the birth and support all the way up to adult. They should adopt the child at birth and take over the child care until non-state adoption care is secured, or pay for direct care of the child. That would be the responsible thing to do.
I was really making the point that if you give 50% of your income for one kid, you top out at 100% for two.
The makers of this law didn't want exception for rape and incest because they want Roe to be overturned based on the "fetus is a person" argument. You can't have exception for rape or incest if the fetus is a person and doing so would weaken their case. If indeed Roe is overturned based on that, then how is it legal for any State to allow abortion? Except for rare exceptions (such as stand your ground), killing a person is simply not legal.
Criminal laws such as laws against murder are state laws. There is no federal requirement that mandates state laws against murder. In some states that have no objection to the evil of their citizens murdering their unborn children, it seems likely that those states will have laws permitting and probably even promoting and subsidizing this kind of evil.
