America’s Abortion Rate Has Dropped to Its Lowest Ever

[NikLR 13,220]

27 minutes ago, luckytxn said:

This is what I am saying. If the government can legislate and tell me what I can do or can't with my body then they certainly can tell a woman the same thing. Many woman feel like it is their body and their say so only if they want to have an abortion or not but many want to have laws saying what others can do with their bodies in the privacy of their own home.  Since the Feds constantly make new laws regulating what I can do or not then they are the owners of my body.  If woman have that right then I want the same right. So don't be surprised if the supreme court changes and starts allowing a restriction on abortions and what woman can do with their bodies. It is a new time  in history and control of the populace is here to stay.

Okay so I am agreeing that the government should not regulate us beyond making the choice legal. 

The choice is legal, and should stay that way. 

I agree with Yuna.

Currently the government cannot force you to donate.  They never should be able to.  They do not tell force you to donate organs, blood, sperm, etc.  They should never force a woman to carry a child which means they are taking domination over her uterus. 

No one has told you that you CANNOT ingest drugs or whatever else you want to put in your body.  They can make it illegal to traffic, manufacture, or possess drugs though but the actual use isn't.  One could argue how can you use without possession and you can't, but the use isn't the illegal aspect provided it's with yourself not with someone else. They cannot and do not have domination over your body.  You have self will. You can choose.  You can choose legal or illegal activities. That choice has not been taken. Very few things in this world come without choice. I am a FIRM believer in choice. 

 

If you do not understand the science aspect then you misunderstood steel earlier in the thread, purposefully or not. 

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,316]

4 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Okay so I am agreeing that the government should not regulate us beyond making the choice legal. 

The choice is legal, and should stay that way. 

I agree with Yuna.

Currently the government cannot force you to donate.  They never should be able to.  They do not tell force you to donate organs, blood, sperm, etc.  They should never force a woman to carry a child which means they are taking domination over her uterus. 

No one has told you that you CANNOT ingest drugs or whatever else you want to put in your body.  They can make it illegal to traffic, manufacture, or possess drugs though but the actual use isn't.  One could argue how can you use without possession and you can't, but the use isn't the illegal aspect provided it's with yourself not with someone else. They cannot and do not have domination over your body.  You have self will. You can choose.  You can choose legal or illegal activities. That choice has not been taken. Very few things in this world come without choice. I am a FIRM believer in choice. 

 

If you do not understand the science aspect then you misunderstood steel earlier in the thread, purposefully or not. 

 

Not true. they force me to donate my hard earned money to other peoples irresponsible choices every day 

[NikLR 13,220]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Not true. they force me to donate my hard earned money to other peoples irresponsible choices every day 

Ah well etc could be interpreted that way.... I mean bodily functions and organs. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,316]

You all could have all saved yourself a lot of time and research by releazing that 

 

A. I am usually always right

B. I have lighting fast keen intellect that allows me to spot trends and make correct analysis faster than many supra computers 

[Shiran 1,134]

33 minutes ago, NikLR said:

No one has told you that you CANNOT ingest drugs or whatever else you want to put in your body. 

It is fairly naive view. All government have control, direct or otherwise over the bodies of their subjects, and US is not an exception. Greater good and common good are common justification for the government types that require to justify, or at least pay lip service justification. You have things like iodine salt, fluoride water, vaccination (this is not a discussion on the merits of vaccination, so please do not take it into this direction!), seat belt laws, helmet laws, housing regulations, building hoses that apply to personal houses on "private" property, eminent domain laws, conscription laws etc etc, all of which adds up to yes government does have control, it just sometimes like to observe decorum and pretend they don't. 

[luckytxn 2,263]

34 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Okay so I am agreeing that the government should not regulate us beyond making the choice legal. 

The choice is legal, and should stay that way. 

I agree with Yuna.

Currently the government cannot force you to donate.  They never should be able to.  They do not tell force you to donate organs, blood, sperm, etc.  They should never force a woman to carry a child which means they are taking domination over her uterus. 

No one has told you that you CANNOT ingest drugs or whatever else you want to put in your body.  They can make it illegal to traffic, manufacture, or possess drugs though but the actual use isn't.  One could argue how can you use without possession and you can't, but the use isn't the illegal aspect provided it's with yourself not with someone else. They cannot and do not have domination over your body.  You have self will. You can choose.  You can choose legal or illegal activities. That choice has not been taken. Very few things in this world come without choice. I am a FIRM believer in choice. 

 

If you do not understand the science aspect then you misunderstood steel earlier in the thread, purposefully or not. 

 

You are totally not understanding the argument being put forth and I request you reread Yuna's posting. There is no science involved in this discussion in the least. I am not going to go back and forth with someone that can't grasp these basic concepts that I have explained and Yuna has put forth. There is no science and it is not explained by  being allowed to do things that are illegal. It is about the government controlling us and what we are allowed to do by law and/or not allowed to do by law. To say that woman are allowed to do one thing because it is their body then I want the same right. For the government to say what I can do or not do with my body under penalty of law then is declaring that my body is not mine but the states and I can't do what I want to do with my body unless the state allows it. Yes I can go ahead and choose o ignore the government and go ahead and break the law but so can woman if abortion is illegal or restricted.

[luckytxn 2,263]

3 minutes ago, Shiran said:

It is fairly naive view. All government have control, direct or otherwise over the bodies of their subjects, and US is not an exception. Greater good and common good are common justification for the government types that require to justify, or at least pay lip service justification. You have things like iodine salt, fluoride water, vaccination (this is not a discussion on the merits of vaccination, so please do not take it into this direction!), seat belt laws, helmet laws, housing regulations, building hoses that apply to personal houses on "private" property, eminent domain laws, conscription laws etc etc, all of which adds up to yes government does have control, it just sometimes like to observe decorum and pretend they don't. 

Yes but being out and among the populace then ones rights have a need to conform to certain laws. The control of the government should  cease when I am in my own home and not bothering anyone out and about in the public. The government though says that even there my body is still under their jurisdiction though and controls my body.

[NikLR 13,220]

 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:41 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

  If you are unclear on the differences between an embryo, a fetus, and a baby, I suggest you take it upon yourself to further your understanding. It would only enhance your ability to participate in the actual discussion. 

This is the science I speak of. You have decided that an embryo and a fetus = a baby and I am saying science disagrees with you. 

 

You can't even keep up with that you've already talked about in this thread? wow

[NikLR 13,220]

4 hours ago, Shiran said:

It is fairly naive view. All government have control, direct or otherwise over the bodies of their subjects, and US is not an exception. Greater good and common good are common justification for the government types that require to justify, or at least pay lip service justification. You have things like iodine salt, fluoride water, vaccination (this is not a discussion on the merits of vaccination, so please do not take it into this direction!), seat belt laws, helmet laws, housing regulations, building hoses that apply to personal houses on "private" property, eminent domain laws, conscription laws etc etc, all of which adds up to yes government does have control, it just sometimes like to observe decorum and pretend they don't. 

You may think so but again, laws can be broken and people can make a choice to do so.  Should the laws support the greater good? Yes.  Do they always? No.  Do I think people should run around and break laws? No. But they have that choice to do so or not.  Some people chose to do it, time and time again. Some people choose to hurt others and choose to make choices that hurt others.  It's taking the taking the understanding to a very primal level but I very much acknowledge that that level may feel like to some that they don't have a choice.  Which is fine. 

Should abortion ever become illegal again, women will still have abortions, but in again less safe environments.   

 

Very few times on this world does someone not have a choice.

5 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You all could have all saved yourself a lot of time and research by releazing that 

 

A. I am usually always right

B. I have lighting fast keen intellect that allows me to spot trends and make correct analysis faster than many supra computers 

I have researched nothing nor spent much time thinking about this subject and even less about you. But this is interesting information I will not retain. Perhaps it's useful to someone else.

Edited September 22, 2019 by NikLR

[laylalex 7,249]

Just now, NikLR said:

You may think so but again, laws can be broken and people can make a choice to do so.  Should the laws support the greater good? Yes.  Do they always? No.  Do I think people should run around and break laws? No. But they have that choice to do so or not.  Some people chose to do it, time and time again. Some people choose to hurt others and choose to make choices that hurt others.  It's taking the taking the understanding to a very primal level but I very much acknowledge that that level may feel like to some that they don't have a choice.  Which is fine. 

Should abortion ever become illegal again, women will still have abortions, but in again less safe environments.   

 

Very few times on this world does someone not have a choice.

This is absolutely the truth. Women have been having abortions, whether legal or not, for centuries, if not longer. There are reports of Roman women using herbs to end pregnancies. Abortion in this country is SAFE and has a lower mortality rate than actual childbirth. That's not to say that I think everyone should abort because it's safer than having kids (obviously) but it is a very safe procedure as currently practiced in clinics and hospitals. I had a termination myself almost 10 years ago, as I mentioned before, and it was very early on so I was able to have a non-surgical procedure. While it wasn't the most comfortable thing in the world, it was not terrible. It wasn't traumatizing. But it was safe and done under medical supervision.

 

Banning abortion will not make this country great again. It will force women to make decisions that are not only difficult, but may be dangerous, even fatal.

[Shiran 1,134]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

There are reports of Roman women using herbs to end pregnancies.

It is believed laserwort was made extinct by the Roman Empire thanks to its efficiency as abortifacient. Reducing, and with likely goal of elimination all non medically necessary abortions lies via slow societal change, not a misguided attempt to reverse and attempt to reverse a law. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,316]

45 minutes ago, NikLR said:

 

I have researched nothing nor spent much time thinking about this subject and even less about you. But this is interesting information I will not retain. Perhaps it's useful to someone else.

I always get a kick out of posters spend the energy to reply to my brilliance of analysis to tell me they dont care about what I said. Its kind of tingly like flirting 

[laylalex 7,249]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

 Its kind of tingly like flirting 

Must be that pink cape thingy you're wearing, it's rather cute.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Shiran said:

It is believed laserwort was made extinct by the Roman Empire thanks to its efficiency as abortifacient. Reducing, and with likely goal of elimination all non medically necessary abortions lies via slow societal change, not a misguided attempt to reverse and attempt to reverse a law. 

Lasers weren't even invented when the Roman empire was around. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

 

Banning abortion will not make this country great again. It will force women to make decisions that are not only difficult, but may be dangerous, even fatal.

Relax, nobody wants to take your abortions away from you.