DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**huedaanydrax** · 04-24-2009, 03:44 AM

We don't really know because statistics regarding abortion complications are not officially kept by an independent body, especially not long-term abortion complications.

No, it's not. Abortion clinics will not release their records to other physicians under any circumstances. Privacy perhaps for the clinic, but not of any sort that would benefit the woman.

That definitely needs to change. As far as protecting women in the event of abortion being recriminalized in the future, first of all, they can't be prosecuted under an ex post facto law, and secondly, when SCOTUS went with stare decisis they made it pretty clear that abortion isn't going anywhere.
Again, privacy explicitly does not protect illegal actions. You cannot kill people in private, and expect that the crime will be treated differently. If abortion is determined to be illegal, then the privacy argument fades with the wash. This is why one cannot argue that privacy is the reason to make abortion legal, when the question is, "should abortion be legal or not". Privacy is irrelevant to this question.

If you are saying that a woman has a right to an abortion, then that has a corresponding burden on the doctor to provide an abortion, or to refer to someone who will provide the abortion. It is a restriction on his conscience rights to decline to refer for an abortion. This is why if abortion is truly an elective procedure that is medically unnecessary, why it is wrong to force doctors to refer for abortion, and it is a limitation on his freedoms. Conscience rights are bullshit don't go there. People that become doctors by choice (all doctors) know what they're getting in to. Nobody joins the military and then says "oh hey I don't believe in fighting stop trampling my rights!"
That's not the way it works up here, and there are people working to change that in the US too, who argue that women have a right to an abortion, and shouldn't have to pay, using Roe's arguments. If it is a constitutional right, then it makes sense to me. I can't really believe that is happening unless under the general umbrella of socialized healthcare. If it's under those terms, I can understand, but otherwise that argument is just retarded. Women have the right to own Jaguars too but they can't demand them to be free.
There is a difference between FAS and abortion. Why did you bring it up?
Doesn't matter. Rights exist regardless of whether SCOTUS declares on them or not. Slavery was wrong even when it was constitutionally legal. Things can be wrong but still legal. What I'm saying is I don't see how abortion can be made illegal without a constitutional amendment.

04-24-2009, 03:44 AM	#12
huedaanydrax Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 394 Senior Member	We don't really know because statistics regarding abortion complications are not officially kept by an independent body, especially not long-term abortion complications. No, it's not. Abortion clinics will not release their records to other physicians under any circumstances. Privacy perhaps for the clinic, but not of any sort that would benefit the woman. That definitely needs to change. As far as protecting women in the event of abortion being recriminalized in the future, first of all, they can't be prosecuted under an ex post facto law, and secondly, when SCOTUS went with stare decisis they made it pretty clear that abortion isn't going anywhere. Again, privacy explicitly does not protect illegal actions. You cannot kill people in private, and expect that the crime will be treated differently. If abortion is determined to be illegal, then the privacy argument fades with the wash. This is why one cannot argue that privacy is the reason to make abortion legal, when the question is, "should abortion be legal or not". Privacy is irrelevant to this question. If you are saying that a woman has a right to an abortion, then that has a corresponding burden on the doctor to provide an abortion, or to refer to someone who will provide the abortion. It is a restriction on his conscience rights to decline to refer for an abortion. This is why if abortion is truly an elective procedure that is medically unnecessary, why it is wrong to force doctors to refer for abortion, and it is a limitation on his freedoms. Conscience rights are bullshit don't go there. People that become doctors by choice (all doctors) know what they're getting in to. Nobody joins the military and then says "oh hey I don't believe in fighting stop trampling my rights!" That's not the way it works up here, and there are people working to change that in the US too, who argue that women have a right to an abortion, and shouldn't have to pay, using Roe's arguments. If it is a constitutional right, then it makes sense to me. I can't really believe that is happening unless under the general umbrella of socialized healthcare. If it's under those terms, I can understand, but otherwise that argument is just retarded. Women have the right to own Jaguars too but they can't demand them to be free. There is a difference between FAS and abortion. Why did you bring it up? Doesn't matter. Rights exist regardless of whether SCOTUS declares on them or not. Slavery was wrong even when it was constitutionally legal. Things can be wrong but still legal. What I'm saying is I don't see how abortion can be made illegal without a constitutional amendment.
	Quote