New Abortion Restrictions Driving Sterilizations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padres1969
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Padres1969 said:
Irony being they’re almost all in California where abortion will likely remain legal indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s because there’s a lot of mis-information going around.

Lots of people mistakenly think that overturning Roe v. Wade will automatically make abortion illegal according to Federal law.

It won’t. It would simply move to states.

I personally don’t even think the Congress has the power/authority to make abortion illegal without a constitutional amendment (unless they win a Supreme Court argument that links it an existing amendment), but the states do have the power to make it illegal.

But regardless, (in my opinion) there are not enough votes in congress or in the states to make abortion illegal on the federal level. But there are plenty of states where it can be outlawed.

God Bless
 
No argument here. But to me it also belies the seriousness with which they feel their current and future rights are being threatened. They see this as a full on attack against women.
 
All are in their late 30’s with no stated desire for kids to date (the most vocal being anti child and already having a step grandchild at 40). So not really applicable.
 
Padres1969 said:
Ever bought meds at full price? And what business is it of the government as it pertains to private health coverage?
Click to expand...
Sildinafil, generic Viagra, is about a dollar a pill, or so I’m told on numerous emails a day, ads and radio commercials that I hear daily. Viagra I think was uncovered at somewhere near 100 a pill. So much so that a black market existed for Viagra that rivaled Extacy. Now, that is gone and it is cheap. Also a generic version of a popular blood thinner Warfarin is extremely cheap, maybe 8 dollars a month where the newer different drugs like xaralto or lovenox or eloquis run my wife around 1100 a month…

The point is that the market will dictate availability. Offering a drug off insurance is about the fastest way to get prices down…
 
Two things. One, 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime. It is not a “rare occurance”. Two, keep in mind those passing these anti abortion laws in at least one state appear poised to come for the most common and effective forms of birth control next as they see them as abortiofacient.
 
Actually if it’s legal at the federal level it can’t be illegal at the state level which is why these new laws will likely all be overturned.
 
SeraficLeo said:
You can be an adult but not mature. A doctor should at least be professional and take their profession seriously, which in part is to do no harm.
Click to expand...
First of all, planning one’s future and taking into consideration troubles that may lie ahead is mature. You wouldn’t call someone getting fire insurance immature, even if only a fraction of homes are lost due to fire.

These doctors who are performing these sterilizations are taking their profession seriously. They know that there are people who do not wish to have children. Full stop. They know that unwanted children may be aborted, or left in a system already overcrowded with such children, or possibly live in a home where they know they’re not truly wanted. Yes, sometimes an unplanned pregnancy can lead to great love, but you certainly can’t ignore the many children who aren’t as lucky.

As far as harm, we simply have different ideas as to what that means. There are women right now getting gene tested for certain types of cancers. In some cases, those women who are positive for certain genes that could lead to breast cancer are having their breasts removed. Would you consider that harm as well?
A young woman wanting to be sterillized ‘just in case’ she happens to be raped and conceive is clearly thinking irrationally. Notice that it’s not because she doesn’t want to have children at all, full stop (but even then who’s to say she might not change her mind?) but out of fear of a fairly rare occurrence.
Click to expand...
Again, just because it is a rare occurrence doesn’t mean it won’t happen. We only live once and if someone wants to take extra precautions then I can’t fault them on it.
Now if she’s willing to be sterillized, it’s hard to imagine why she would be against taking contraceptives to avoid the risk of pregnancy (neither of which are always 100% guarantees, as an earlier poster pointed out), which would remove the fear but at least leave her the possibility of having children, should she so choose. Sterillization is supposed to make that virtually impossible.
Click to expand...
You said it yourself. Neither is 100% effective. Combining both brings a person that much closer to 100%.

A person living in a gated community still locks his doors.
 
So there is for a woman a 20% chance she might be raped at some point in her life (and I take your word for it though I imagine there are plenty of mitigating factors in there that might increase or decrease the probability); next, calculate in the odds of conceiving. I think it will still come across as irrational. Sterilization is frankly a stupid idea here. The only times I can think of when it’s not outright stupid is when, e.g., someone is already under financial duress or at risk of permanent bankruptcy or insolvency on account of already having a lot of children; or else perhaps there is some peculiar medical situation, including a high risk that pregnancy will cause death. I am granting even that these people do not have any hope in God or His goodness even, which would of course involve many more reasons against it.
 
Wife.of.Gabriel said:
Let’s look back at history to recall who first started promoting human sterilizations in the United States & her purpose of it… Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics
Click to expand...
You can look at it if you want. It’s not in any way, shape, or form relevant to the topic at hand. There were people then and people today who simply don’t wish to have children. There are ways to achieve that, yet some would wish to prevent others from having that option. If we want to look at the past, let’s look at who supported Comstock laws to find busybodies who simply couldn’t keep their noses out of other people’s bedrooms.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
First of all, planning one’s future and taking into consideration troubles that may lie ahead is mature. You wouldn’t call someone getting fire insurance immature, even if only a fraction of homes are lost due to fire.
Click to expand...
These are not relevantly analagous: no one actually ever wants to have their house burned down in a fire. Women do usually and quite naturally desire to become pregnant someday. Sterillization removes that possibility. Even if fire insurance and sterillization were analagous, notice that fire insurance doesn’t actually prevent you from ever burning down your house, should you actually want to.
 
Last edited:
I mean that… or if they just don’t want kids. A not uncommon position among my generation. A bit over a third of my friends have absolutely no interest in children, with most of those outright hating kids and actively avoiding them when even forced into the same room. And again these aren’t young twenty somethings, but folks in their late 30’s and early 40’s.
 
Padres1969 said:
Two things. One, 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime. It is not a “rare occurance”. Two, keep in mind those passing these anti abortion laws in at least one state appear poised to come for the most common and effective forms of birth control next as they see them as abortiofacient.
Click to expand...
some false or misleading items:

Ohio is not moving to ban contraception.
Contraceptives are not expensive by any definition

And on the subject of your rape percentages

time.com

The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading

Men reported being “made to penetrate” at virtually the same rates as women reported rape
time.com time.com
 
I think you just highlighted the disconnect. Many women do not have any desire to be pregnant. Heck for a fair number I know the idea of being a rotund baby factory is downright repugnant.
 
Padres1969 said:
I mean that… or if they just don’t want kids. A not uncommon position among my generation. A bit over a third of my friends have absolutely no interest in children, with most of those outright hating kids and actively avoiding them when even forced into the same room. And again these aren’t young twenty somethings, but folks in their late 30’s and early 40’s.
Click to expand...
Not having children is a choice.
Abortion is not a choice to avoid having children, it’s a choice to kill another human being.
Those are different moral choices.

I can choose not to cook steak tonight.
That’s a different choice than taking the steak on my plate and tossing it in the garbage.
They are distinct choices.
 
Considering that is an opinion piece by a fringe contributor I’ll consider it an unreliable refutation of the CDC report.
 
Padres1969 said:
or if they just don’t want kids
Click to expand...
Even still, if I were a doctor, I would have reservations. I imagine especially for women the sterillziation process, even if it were reversed and maybe almost necessarily, diminishes her likelihood of having children. Again the problem presents itself, especially if a woman is already becoming more advanced in years: what if she changes her mind? Should you perform the surgery, and she change her mind, you compound problems in potentially becoming pregnant, including the time required to schedule in another surgery - and time is rather of the essence. I can see some doctors doing this, of course, but at that point I would wonder just how much of the reason is money rather than the welfare or well-being of the patient.
 
Padres1969 said:
Actually if it’s legal at the federal level it can’t be illegal at the state level which is why these new laws will likely all be overturned.
Click to expand...
No, you have it backwards. The constitution grants very specific powers to the congress and leaves others to the states.

If Roe v Wade was overturned, then prolife states would be able to win a “states rights” case against the federal govt to keep the state pro-life. And the pro-abortion states might be able to do the same thing (which is why states like NY are passing these laws now).

Before, Roe v Wade, the federal govt never made a law making abortion legal. It was always handled at the state level. That’s the main reason why the pro-abortion people had to take it to the Supreme Court and argue that the constitution gave a woman the right to have her unborn child murdered.

Finally, I don’t think either party would have enough votes in congress to pass a final resolution regarding abortion on the federal level. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the next step on the federal level will most likely be going to for a constitutional amendment; which is a long way off.

Anyway, that’s my guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top