What happens if Roe v. Wade is reversed?

[RandomIdoit 655]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Ignoring for a moment that no form of birth control other than abstinence is 100% effective, I'm curious how many other medical procedures that help people avoid the consequences for poor choices you think should be illegal?

Use all the contraceptives available to you. Use Plan B. If you still end up pregnant, then you have to deal with the consequences.

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Do you think that chemotherapy to treat lung cancer in lifelong smokers should be illegal? Do you think that it should be illegal for someone severely injured while street racing to receive medical care? There are of course a near infinite number of analogies.

I'm going to assume that the answer to these questions is no. Mostly because if it's not then you're just a silly person and there's no point discussing it with you.

Chemotherapy does not kill a child. Surgery for street racing does not kill a child. Equating those to purposely having sex and creating a child, then wanting to kill it because you don't want to take care of it, is ridiculous.

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The likeliest reason that the answer to those questions is no but the answer in the case of abortion is yes is because you feel that another human life is negatively affected by an abortion. So assuming that's the case I circle back to the question of why a child conceived via rape is not as important to you as a child conceived otherwise. Why does a child conceived by rape have less value as a life than others?

You keep asking me this question, but do not accept my opinion as my own. It's different because the pregnancy was not the mother did not have any control over getting pregnant. She should take Plan B and hope that she doesn't end up pregnant. If she does want to abort the baby, it should be done as soon as possible.

Do you feel women should be forced to have a child that was the result of rape?

[Guest]

Never is a long ass time,

 

I do think Roe v. Wade will never be reversed.

[Huckleberry 32703]

You keep asking me this question, but do not accept my opinion as my own. It's different because the pregnancy was not the mother did not have any control over getting pregnant. She should take Plan B and hope that she doesn't end up pregnant. If she does want to abort the baby, it should be done as soon as possible.
Do you feel women should be forced to have a child that was the result of rape?

I accept your opinion as your own, it's just that your opinion is absurd. You argue above that abortion is different because a human life is killed. Yet you are okay with a human life being killed if its father was a criminal. That is a morally reprehensible position.

My personal position is outlined above in that I believe women should be able to have the fetus removed at any point. If it is able to live with medical assistance then that assistance should be provided at society's expense if necessary. When life truly begins seems impossible to answer to me.

But your position is based purely on emotion. "Take responsibility, you can't kill a human life because you made a poor choice! Human life is valuable! Unless its dad is a rapist then kill away!" The position doesn't merely lack moral consistency, it is completely devoid of any moral, philosophical, or legal logic whatsoever. And that is a terrible way for a government to decide when it's appropriate to interfere in its citizen's decisions.

[RayDog 682]

Based on examples like Brazil and the Philippines I think access to abortions might be improved in states that have outright bans when compared to under current restrictive laws.

States cannot stop pills being sent by mail from other states in unmarked packages. The absence of regulation will allow doctor's who perform abortions to have a lot more flexibility, while only slightly increasing the real risks to the woman.

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by RayDog
Typo

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

5 hours ago, NWBuck said:

If RvW is overturned, I'm sure all of the evangelical Christians will work diligently to ensure that their churches and mega churches have affordable child care, parenting classes, and food/medical support for kids, while also pushing for economic reforms that allow one parent to stay at home to disciple raise God's little miracles.

Because that's what most evangelicals do.

We've learned recently that they don't care about kids (shocker, I know) so that tells us that abortion really isn't about kids at all but rather about controlling people's sex lives.

[RandomIdoit 655]

36 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

 

I accept your opinion as your own, it's just that your opinion is absurd. You argue above that abortion is different because a human life is killed. Yet you are okay with a human life being killed if its father was a criminal. That is a morally reprehensible position.

My personal position is outlined above in that I believe women should be able to have the fetus removed at any point. If it is able to live with medical assistance then that assistance should be provided at society's expense if necessary. When life truly begins seems impossible to answer to me.

But your position is based purely on emotion. "Take responsibility, you can't kill a human life because you made a poor choice! Human life is valuable! Unless its dad is a rapist then kill away!" The position doesn't merely lack moral consistency, it is completely devoid of any moral, philosophical, or legal logic whatsoever. And that is a terrible way for a government to decide when it's appropriate to interfere in its citizen's decisions.

 

Where is the emotion? If you make a bad choice, live with the consequences. If you were raped, you should not be forced to have the baby of your rapist. Unless she chose to be raped, in which case it would not be rape. I think murder is wrong, but of someone is going to kill my family and I end up killing them, I will not think twice about it. Some people are all or nothing, but I take all the variables into consideration.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

For those who want to outlaw abortion, the solution I've always proposed is that a woman should be allowed to have a fetus removed from her body, but not killed, at any time. If medical technology can save the life of the fetus then the government can foot the bill.

For some reason saving the life of the fetus gets less important when I propose that.

Suppose a woman is at a certain period in her pregnancy that the baby if removed would be at a much greater risk of developing physical & neurological disorders that last into adulthood,  mental health problems, and the more immediately noticeable problems such as chronic lung disease.  It is also known that if she waited just a few more weeks to remove the baby that these risk factors would decrease significantly.  Do you think only allowing to remove the baby after a certain term when the risks are reduced and as a consequence having the woman potentially put up with a few weeks of inconvenience is not justified by drastically reducing the risks of a lifetime worth of serious health problems?  Or do you think it would be better to accommodate this woman's busy schedule and force the baby out whenever she damn well pleases and have the baby struggle for survival in incubators and if lucky go on to live a life of generally fucked up health?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

23 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

We've learned recently that they don't care about kids (shocker, I know) so that tells us that abortion really isn't about kids at all but rather about controlling people's sex lives.

Who do you think adopts more unwanted kids?  Suburban evangelicals or liberal urbanites?

I know plenty of both. And every adopting family I know is religious right types.  Libs adopt a lot more dogs.  

[scottsins 1953]

53 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Where is the emotion? If you make a bad choice, live with the consequences. If you were raped, you should not be forced to have the baby of your rapist. Unless she chose to be raped, in which case it would not be rape. I think murder is wrong, but of someone is going to kill my family and I end up killing them, I will not think twice about it. Some people are all or nothing, but I take all the variables into consideration.

So you DON’T think that abortion is actually murdering an innocent baby then?

[RandomIdoit 655]

7 minutes ago, scottsins said:

So you DON’T think that abortion is actually murdering an innocent baby then?

Did I say that? I said that I believe a baby is a person when I saw the heartbeat. IMO if someone was raped, and they choose not to have the baby, they should be aborting the baby before the heart forms. They should immediately take the Plan B pill and take any other measures possible to make sure it's aborted as early as possible. 

[Huckleberry 32703]

Suppose a woman is at a certain period in her pregnancy that the baby if removed would be at a much greater risk of developing physical & neurological disorders that last into adulthood,  mental health problems, and the more immediately noticeable problems such as chronic lung disease.  It is also known that if she waited just a few more weeks to remove the baby that these risk factors would decrease significantly.  Do you think only allowing to remove the baby after a certain term when the risks are reduced and as a consequence having the woman potentially put up with a few weeks of inconvenience is not justified by drastically reducing the risks of a lifetime worth of serious health problems?  Or do you think it would be better to accommodate this woman's busy schedule and force the baby out whenever she damn well pleases and have the baby struggle for survival in incubators and if lucky go on to live a life of generally fucked up health?

Yes, the woman would be able to have it removed when she wanted.

So funny watching you get all emotional when you try to act like you operate only on logic at all times. You can't even stick to your shtick anymore.

[Jack Burton 35]

The only thing I know is Dum Dum Donny has definitely paid for 5+ abortions. But he's starting down the last ten years of his life, so fuck it 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, the woman would be able to have it removed when she wanted.

So funny watching you get all emotional when you try to act like you operate only on logic at all times. You can't even stick to your shtick anymore.

I'm assuming you believe that you have some ethical justification for believing that the woman should be able to remove the baby whenever she likes, unless you also take positions "devoid of any moral or philosophical logic," as you said to another poster in this thread.  So I would be interested in seeing your ethical reasoning assuming whatever branch or basis of normative ethics that you like.   

[dirtonia 269]

Didn't read thread, it's not going to be overturned.

[berlinerbaer 670]

9 hours ago, SDG said:

Honestly, it won’t have an effect on many peoples lives. Realistically speaking, what % of the population thinks about or has an abortion?  That being said, it isn’t getting overturned and nor should it.   It’s just another piece of news to gather clicks or sell ad space.  

One in four women has gotten or will get an abortion during their lifetime. I would guess that number grows if you include the women who will think or have thought about it.

So, a lot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/19/u-s-abortion-rate-fell-25-percent-from-2008-to-2014-one-in-four-women-have-an-abortion/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c4a1e62b9b7b

Edited June 29, 2018 by berlinerbaer

[used2b 249]

8 hours ago, RandomIdoit said:

Use all the contraceptives available to you. Use Plan B. If you still end up pregnant, then you have to deal with the consequences.

 

Avatar definitely doesn't check out.

[Ragnarok 103]

13 hours ago, Zombie said:

What happens if Roe v. Wade is reversed?

 

More democrats.

[relapse98 634]

Yall straight up being trolled. Ignore function here works great.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Who do you think adopts more unwanted kids?  Suburban evangelicals or liberal urbanites?
I know plenty of both. And every adopting family I know is religious right types.  Libs adopt a lot more dogs.  

Well if the same people who are pro-life would be okay with the gays adopting then there would be a big shift in the demographics of adoptive families.

But yet again, it’s not about doing what’s best for these kids in most cases for these pro-life screamers.

It’s about everyone bending to their morality. The good of those babies aren’t a priority no matter how much they like to cloak their arguments in “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???” diatribes.

PS - thanks for this thread. Dudes arguing about women’s health is always one of my favorites.

[CooterBrown 17913]

Who do you think adopts more unwanted kids?  Suburban evangelicals or liberal urbanites?
I know plenty of both. And every adopting family I know is religious right types.  Libs adopt a lot more dogs.  

I am friends two adopting families in my hood. One is a liberal lesbian couple and the other are liberal tech professionals. As far as I know neither couple is remotely religious. Anecdotal data is anecdotal data.

[Js1 85112]

45 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

 

Well if the same people who are pro-life would be okay with the gays adopting then there would be a big shift in the demographics of adoptive families.

But yet again, it’s not about doing what’s best for these kids in most cases for these pro-life screamers.

It’s about everyone bending to their morality. The good of those babies aren’t a priority no matter how much they like to cloak their arguments in “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???” diatribes.

PS - thanks for this thread. Dudes arguing about women’s health is always one of my favorites.

 

Difficult for all these liberal atheists to adopt when state keeps passing laws that allow for discrimination by adoption agencies based on sexual orientation and religion.

But by all means, Johnny Shitsack probably has no liberal atheist same-sex friends.  Certainly not at the Country Club.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

But yet again, it’s not about doing what’s best for these kids in most cases for these pro-life screamers.

It’s about everyone bending to their morality.

THEIR morality. That's the rub. You and I both know these kinds of people. They come from decent homes. Fucked up their lives via drugs/alcohol/bad decisions and now they've found Jeeeeesuuuus and want us all to be on board. 

No fucking thanks.

[Foosters 17734]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

 

I am friends two adopting families in my hood. One is a liberal lesbian couple and the other are liberal tech professionals. As far as I know neither couple is remotely religious. Anecdotal data is anecdotal data.

 

What's really gonna blow Johnny's mind is when he learns there are liberals who are christian.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

18 hours ago, RandomIdoit said:

Where is the emotion? If you make a bad choice, live with the consequences. If you were raped, you should not be forced to have the baby of your rapist. Unless she chose to be raped, in which case it would not be rape. I think murder is wrong, but of someone is going to kill my family and I end up killing them, I will not think twice about it. Some people are all or nothing, but I take all the variables into consideration.

 

That is because you actually think about things. However,  if life begins at conception, and if you are against murder, that woman should be forced to bear the child of her rapist. 
 

[Jhawk 1075]

What is the procedure here? The SC won't just revote on it.  Someone will have to prove that they are harmed by the law currently in place for it to even get to SCOTUS right?

My understanding is that Roe v. Wade was a 14th amendment issue.  The court hasn't changed anything with abortion since 1992 (PP v. Casey) and that case didn't change how the court viewed abortions and actually overruled previous precedents.  From a judicial standpoint, I just don't see the court becoming more progressive or more conservative on this issue.  They've ruled on it multiple times and probably would see it as a waste of time to rule on it again unless an activist judge below them outlawed abortion.

From a poltiical standpoint, no legislative body at the national level would ever want to mess with this.  It is a loser for everyone to discuss.

Roe v. Wade being overturned is just the newest scare tactic to get people up to vote in november.

[RandomIdoit 655]

6 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

That is because you actually think about things. However,  if life begins at conception, and if you are against murder, that woman should be forced to bear the child of her rapist. 
 

Once again, I am not an "all or nothing" person. I think it would be acceptable to take any measures to ensure you were not pregnant with your rapist's baby within 6 weeks. If you choose not to have an abortion by then, then you have decided to have the baby as far as I am concerned.

People who say that no one should ever have an abortion no matter what are just as extreme as people who say the baby can be aborted anytime before actually being born. Both are ridiculous.

[seven 1366]

7 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Once again, I am not an "all or nothing" person. I think it would be acceptable to take any measures to ensure you were not pregnant with your rapist's baby within 6 weeks. If you choose not to have an abortion by then, then you have decided to have the baby as far as I am concerned.

People who say that no one should ever have an abortion no matter what are just as extreme as people who say the baby can be aborted anytime before actually being born. Both are ridiculous.

Most women don't even know they are pregnant until 6 weeks at the earliest. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

6 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

What is the procedure here? The SC won't just revote on it.  Someone will have to prove that they are harmed by the law currently in place for it to even get to SCOTUS right?

My understanding is that Roe v. Wade was a 14th amendment issue.  The court hasn't changed anything with abortion since 1992 (PP v. Casey) and that case didn't change how the court viewed abortions and actually overruled previous precedents.  From a judicial standpoint, I just don't see the court becoming more progressive or more conservative on this issue.  They've ruled on it multiple times and probably would see it as a waste of time to rule on it again unless an activist judge below them outlawed abortion.

From a poltiical standpoint, no legislative body at the national level would ever want to mess with this.  It is a loser for everyone to discuss.

Roe v. Wade being overturned is just the newest scare tactic to get people up to vote in november.

You are correct that I think it will take a rather peculiarly postured case to squarely present the issue in such a way that it is overruled.  I think I agree that it wouldn't be overruled, but it might be narrowed in favor of all kinds of state regulations coming just short of outlawing abortion.  I suspect that the "first trimester" test would be shortened considerably.

 

It's a thorny problem.  I think it's a shame that so much intellectual and electoral effort is expended on an issue that doesn't directly affect the survival of the nation, when there are so many issues that do.

[scottsins 1953]

Did I say that? I said that I believe a baby is a person when I saw the heartbeat. IMO if someone was raped, and they choose not to have the baby, they should be aborting the baby before the heart forms. They should immediately take the Plan B pill and take any other measures possible to make sure it's aborted as early as possible. 

Yep. Rape victims need to get some personal responsibility and make sound rational decisions. Overcome that so-called “trauma”.

[RandomIdoit 655]

5 minutes ago, seven said:

Most women don't even know they are pregnant until 6 weeks at the earliest. 

I think most women who were raped might start taking measures before they missed their period, don't you?

[seven 1366]

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I think most women who were raped might start taking measures before they missed their period, don't you?

I have no idea, I'm not a woman that has been raped, are you? 

[Jhawk 1075]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are correct that I think it will take a rather peculiarly postured case to squarely present the issue in such a way that it is overruled.  I think I agree that it wouldn't be overruled, but it might be narrowed in favor of all kinds of state regulations coming just short of outlawing abortion.  I suspect that the "first trimester" test would be shortened considerably.

 

It's a thorny problem.  I think it's a shame that so much intellectual and electoral effort is expended on an issue that doesn't directly affect the survival of the nation, when there are so many issues that do.

Thanks for the insight.  The biggest hiccup I can see is one where you have 20 states all tighten down on abortion for some reason (thinking they can get it overturned at SCOTUS eventually) and the states try and flood SCOTUS.  But even in that situation, they would probably rule on timing issues but defer to the general decisions already made.  Then when OK brings a suit after the KS suit the court would likely tell them to kick rocks and read their ruling from the previous case.

This just isn't going to go anywhere.  Just like when we were going to take away the rights of the LGBTQ community.  So much outrage for something that isn't going to be touched in a way that is meaningful, if at all.

[RandomIdoit 655]

8 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

Yep. Rape victims need to get some personal responsibility and make sound rational decisions. Overcome that so-called “trauma”.

 

We should make it easier and less embarrassing for victims to seek help. That is a huge issue. Any competent doctor or hospital should have the resources to help rape victims make rational decisions, or at least refer them to someone who can.  

[atomheartbevo 89449]

25 minutes ago, Foosters said:

What's really gonna blow Johnny's mind is when he learns there are liberals who are christian.

I don’t think he would like that Jesus dude.

[RandomIdoit 655]

9 minutes ago, seven said:

I have no idea, I'm not a woman that has been raped, are you? 

No. But if I was raped, I would want to be treated for STDs as soon as possible. I wouldn't wait to find out I contracted something before seeking treatment, would you?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

32 minutes ago, Foosters said:

What's really gonna blow Johnny's mind is when he learns there are liberals who are christian.

I never said there weren't.  There are plenty at my church.  I am responding to the stupid fucking liberal meme that right wing types don't care about kids once they are born.  It is complete bullshit.  Children's hospitals, orphanages, charities, foster homes are all chock full of donors from the Christian right.  Christians on the right adopt kids.  A lot more than liberals in my experience.

I actually have a pretty large circle of both types as friends.  The people I grew up with and am still close to are largely Christians on the right.  The friends I have made in law school and as a lawyer are largely liberals.  Most are not religious.  The first set of people tend to adopt children if they cannot have them.  And they tend to have a lot more kids than the second group.  The second group tends to have one, maybe two kids, if any.  And are a lot more likely to adopt a rescue pet than a child.

And I certainly have zero issue with gays adopting kids.  And I would be against any organization that receives public funding from discriminating against gay couples adopting.  I also supported gay marriage long before Hillary and Obama did.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[seven 1366]

Two things:

1) I won't comment on what people "should" do or how they "should" behave after a traumatic event. 

2) a large number of rapes aren't reported or even talked about with other people

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

12 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Thanks for the insight.  The biggest hiccup I can see is one where you have 20 states all tighten down on abortion for some reason (thinking they can get it overturned at SCOTUS eventually) and the states try and flood SCOTUS.  But even in that situation, they would probably rule on timing issues but defer to the general decisions already made.  Then when OK brings a suit after the KS suit the court would likely tell them to kick rocks and read their ruling from the previous case.

This just isn't going to go anywhere.  Just like when we were going to take away the rights of the LGBTQ community.  So much outrage for something that isn't going to be touched in a way that is meaningful, if at all.

I could see the Alabama or Texas legislature passing a restrictive abortion law (for the sake of argument, let's say "no abortions after 8 weeks") and someone suing them who would have standing with the Court. The difficulty for the court would be 

a) they could rule that the State is within it's right to pass legislation

b) they could also rule that since it doesn't completely restrict abortion, Roe v. Wade isn't "harmed"

Or maybe I'm just tired and need a weekend off. 

[relapse98 634]

15 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Just like when we were going to take away the rights of the LGBTQ community.  So much outrage for something that isn't going to be touched in a way that is meaningful, if at all.

To be fair, the state of Texas did take away rights from the LGBTQ community. 

Texas Supreme Court rules gay couples not guaranteed spousal benefits

 

So its not an entirely unfounded premise. Not to mention Texas Penal Code 21.06 is still on the books, in case that case ever gets overturned, because Texas.

[Pods 7530]

If you've never experienced a major traumatic event, you shouldn't be judging what people do in the immediate aftermath of their own.

If you think you have experienced a major traumatic event and you think six weeks is plenty of time to get over it and take steps to fix it, you have not really experienced a major traumatic event. 

[RandomIdoit 655]

9 minutes ago, Pods said:

If you've never experienced a major traumatic event, you shouldn't be judging what people do in the immediate aftermath of their own.

If you think you have experienced a major traumatic event and you think six weeks is plenty of time to get over it and take steps to fix it, you have not really experienced a major traumatic event. 

I can agree with mostly everything you said except "taking the steps to fix it".  I'm not saying the rape victim should unrape herself or wipe her memory clean. Just take the steps to ensure she is not pregnant with her rapist's baby IF she does not want to have it.

[relapse98 634]

7 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I can agree with mostly everything you said except "taking the steps to fix it".  I'm not saying the rape victim should unrape herself or wipe her memory clean. Just take the steps to ensure she is not pregnant with her rapist's baby IF she does not want to have it.

She may not be ready to process that yet.

[Michael Knight 12898]

On 6/28/2018 at 12:08 PM, SDG said:

Honestly, it won’t have an effect on many peoples lives. Realistically speaking, what % of the population thinks about or has an abortion?  That being said, it isn’t getting overturned and nor should it.   It’s just another piece of news to gather clicks or sell ad space.  

Spoken like a man

[RandomIdoit 655]

6 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

She may not be ready to process that yet.

That's why I suggested that there should be more support and it should be made easier and less embarrassing for them to seek help to explain their options. 

[Pods 7530]

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I can agree with mostly everything you said except "taking the steps to fix it".  I'm not saying the rape victim should unrape herself or wipe her memory clean. Just take the steps to ensure she is not pregnant with her rapist's baby IF she does not want to have it.

You've never experienced major trauma. A significant portion of people that experience major trauma crumble internally for a long time, as should be their right. A rape victim is going to be massively vulnerable and you want her to go have an abortion while she still smells her rapist every night in her dreams.

You are also assuming the victim has money, time and knowledge of where to get plan B or an abortion. What happens if she has personal objections to abortion that conflict her decision? 

You need distance to make decisions after major trauma. It's completely life changing in a way you can't possibly understand. 

[used2b 249]

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

 

• Nearly half (45%) of all pregnancies among U.S. women in 2011 were unintended, and about four in 10 of these were terminated by abortion.¹
• Nineteen percent of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) in 2014 ended in abortion.¹
• Approximately 926,200 abortions were performed in 2014, down 12% from 1.06 million in 2011. In 2014, some 1.5% of women aged 15–44 had an abortion.² Just under half of these women (45%) reported having a previous abortion.³
• The abortion rate in 2014 was 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 14% from 16.9 per 1,000 in 2011.² This is the lowest rate ever observed in the United States; in 1973, the year abortion became legal, the rate was 16.3.⁴
• At 2014 abortion rates, one in 20 women (5%) will have an abortion by age 20, about one in five (19%) by age 30 and about one in four (24%) by age 45.⁵
• More than half of all U.S. abortion patients in 2014 were in their 20s: Patients aged 20–24 obtained 34% of all abortions, and patients aged 25–29 obtained 27%.⁶
• Twelve percent of abortion patients in 2014 were adolescents: Those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3% and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.⁶
• White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, blacks for 28%, Hispanics for 25% and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%.⁶
• Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Catholic; 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other affiliation.⁶
• The vast majority (94%) of abortion patients in 2014 identified as heterosexual or straight. Four percent of patients said they were bisexual, while 0.3% identified as homosexual, gay or lesbian and 1% identified as “something else.”⁶
• In 2014, some 46% of all abortion patients had never married and were not cohabiting. However, nearly half were living with a male partner in the month they became pregnant, including 14% who were married and 31% who were cohabiting.⁶
• Fifty-nine percent of abortions in 2014 were obtained by patients who had had at least one birth.⁶
• Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor or low-income. Twenty-six percent of patients had incomes of 100–199% of the federal poverty level, and 49% had incomes of less than 100% of the federal poverty level ($15,730 for a family of two).*⁶
• The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner.⁷
• Fifty-one percent of abortion patients in 2014 were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (24%) or a hormonal method (13%).⁸

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

6 minutes ago, used2b said:

Fifty-one percent of abortion patients in 2014 were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (24%) or a hormonal method (13%)

This is the one that sticks out. More than half were not "bad decisions". 

If we overturn Roe, our budget for welfare/WIC/etc will be quadrupled. 

[David Dennison 18661]

7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is the one that sticks out. More than half were not "bad decisions". 

If we overturn Roe, our budget for welfare/WIC/etc will be quadrupled. 

And it will be going to the red states that already receive more from the federal government than they put in. 

 

 

[RandomIdoit 655]

6 minutes ago, Pods said:

You've never experienced major trauma. A significant portion of people that experience major trauma crumble internally for a long time, as should be their right. A rape victim is going to be massively vulnerable and you want her to go have an abortion while she still smells her rapist every night in her dreams.

You are also assuming the victim has money, time and knowledge of where to get plan B or an abortion. What happens if she has personal objections to abortion that conflict her decision? 

You need distance to make decisions after major trauma. It's completely life changing in a way you can't possibly understand. 

I can't and don't understand. I'll admit that. And I wouldn't judge someone that cannot come to a decision within 6 weeks. I wouldn't think they are a bad person. I am saying that after 6 weeks, I would oppose anyone having an abortion for any reasons other than the health of the mother is at risk or the baby has some condition that would cause it to live a horrible life. 

[DiceHands 349]

The GOP will continue to act like they care about unborn babies but as soon as they pop out the womb they wont give a fuck about them or their well being.