Abortion Moves To Center Stage

The Supreme Court decision today which will reopen many abortion clinics in Texas and protect others across the United States certainly put abortion back at the center of politics. Even before that decision, other forces were at work making it all but inevitable abortion rights will expand across the world. The disease Zika has changed abortion in countries where it is a threat. The Zika virus causes deformed babies.

Opponents of women’s right to abortion can shout and wave their baby pictures but when the prospect of deformed babies is in the face of pregnant women, those women will not hear protestors. The demand for abortion pills has risen rapidly in South America.

Abortion foes in the U. S. have given up trying to use the argument in court that a fertilized egg is a human being. Instead, they have come up with phony reasons why women should be forced to pay more for their abortions. In the Texas case just decided by the Supreme Court the majority wrote is was ridiculous to say Texas wanted to ensure mothers’ safety. The only purpose for more requirements on abortion clinics was to limit abortions.

Anti abortion groups are trying to use phantom reasons to oppose abortions while women who need abortions have real arguments. The real arguments are women’s economic needs and the prospects of deformed babies.

While phony reasons to limit abortions have been successful for several years, the clock has run out.

20 Responses

  1. Big Sur

    Well, women are regaining rights to their own bodies, and their own health care .. without weird white guys being involved … how about that?!

  2. Henry

    What I have found is abort clinics receive special treatment. The North Dakota State Health Department has published lists of clinics they inspect. The abort clinic is not on that list. Similarly, the admitting privileges requirement does not apply to the abort clinic thanks to SCOTUS. If Those considering using an abort clinic should consider these loopholes. The abort clinics appear beyond the law and untouchable. If something were to go wrong at that clinic, it would follow that any compensation for the damages would be untouchable as well. In the eyes of bench law, they are a sacred cow and can do no wrong. Buyer beware.

    1. Henry 6:44 The North Dakota State Health Department has published lists of clinics they inspect. The abort clinic is not on that list.

      I’ll bet there are other clinics the State Health Department does not inspect. Certain classifications of clinics are inspected, other classifications are not.

      1. Henry

        Jon:“Certain classifications of clinics are inspected, other classifications are not.”
        Is that a fact or also a bet? From the lists I have seen, if you have a hang nail clinic, they give you an inspection. However, if you take a life, they don’t in the case of abortion.

        1. Henry 8:51 Is that a fact or also a bet? From the lists I have seen, if you have a hang nail clinic, they give you an inspection.

          If I were as interested in this question as you are, I would take about two minutes and write the State of ND a letter or send an email asking why the clinic is not on the list.

          1. Henry

            That is actually good advice, however it will not change the fact the abort clinics are sacred cows. Buyer beware.

  3. Juan Ruiz

    How many who claim they’re pro-life are actually pro-birth? Once you have the baby out of the womb, their interest disappears. Social services become anathema.

    1. Henry

      JR: “Once you have the baby out of the womb, their interest disappears. Social services become anathema.”

      You have parroted an old saw oft repeated not supported by facts. Got any facts to share?

      1. Juan Ruiz

        It was a question, not a statement. Let’s start fact-finding with you. How much do you give to unwed mother birthing centers?

        1. Henry

          First sentence was a rhetorical question. Second sentence was a statement founded on an affirmative answer to the rhetorical question. I have actually donated directly to the local center that proborts on this blogsite previously said doesn’t exist. If I hadn’t donated to the center (your second goalpost location in 10:31), I would still be contributing through taxation to social services (your original goalpost location in 9:37). If these two methods wouldn’t be adequate to survive the scrutiny and satisfaction of the critical proborter, my church donates items as well. With all these levels of support, the old saw is a fallacy used to advance killing babies.

          1. Henry

            Please use “fetus”, “baby”, or whatever term suits you.

            However, “baby” is a more natural term outside of scientific discussion. i.e. “Is your baby kicking yet?” A proborter would be obligated to ask, “Is that fetus kicking yet?” The latter just feels a little klunky and awkward.

          2. Juan Ruiz

            In abortion debate, “baby” is loaded language, employed to garner an emotional response. For those wishing to use it in reference to their own fetus, fine. It’s those who want to foist the assertion on others in the hope of legal prohibition that I object to.

          3. Henry

            “It’s those who want to foist the assertion on others in the hope of legal prohibition that I object to.”

            If your objection is to foisting assertions, then look no further than the proborter foisting “fetus” onto the prolifer. You should be equally outraged with case as well if foisting assertions truly is your real issue.

          4. Juan Ruiz

            Fetus is what lives in the womb. Why be outraged at that? Anymore than the use of blastocyst or zygote. As I said, “baby” is an attempt to manipulate emotions. Luckily, the courts haven’t fallen for it.

          5. Henry

            As I said, use whatever term you want. However, some are sensitive to the term “fetus”. You are free not to honor those sensitivities.

            JR:“As I said, “baby” is an attempt to manipulate emotions.”

            Emotion is often a factor in the argument to give an abortion. Now, we are supposed to ignore emotion? Even pp gives consideration to emotion. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8413/9611/5708/Abortion_Emotional_Effects.pdf Now we have to dismiss emotion because it is not convenient to your argument.

            As I said, use whatever term you want.

      2. Juan Ruiz

        Yes, in the same way they should be eliminated when talking about any topic which wants to lead to government action: abortion, climate change, sexual harassment, gay marriage.

        1. Henry

          Got any facts? I obliged by directly answering your question. You aren’t playing fair. A number of fallacies within your conversation have been identified. You need to buck up and trying to avoid the intellectual dishonesty instead of playing dirty. Leave that to the atheists to roll in the slime and sling it against the wall.

          1. Juan Ruiz

            “Roll in the slime?” Oh, please. As for facts, simply study the strategies employed by those who discuss the topics I mentioned above, and then count the fallacies:

            Abortion

            “Baby killers.” Murder.

            Global Warming

            A plethora of “facts” from both sides.

            Sexual Harassment

            “I feel uncomfortable. “All men are potential rapists.”

            Gay Marriage

            “The Bible says” It cheapens my marriage.”

            Same old, same old.

Comments are closed.