I didn't realize that. I incorrectly assumed if the dad was a minor as well it wouldn't constitute rape. So any girl under 16 years old would be an exception to this law. That makes it a lot less offensive, IMO. Six weeks is still not enough time but its not as bad as I thought.
Perhaps you guys are unaware that JMDZ proved my point in his link lol. Its much less than 33% which is all I said.
Posted this in the other thread, should have posted it here. Although the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Texas survived it's a virtual certainty that sooner or later a woman denied a medically necessary abortion may not be so lucky. Women sue Texas over abortion ban, say it risked their lives
I don't know myself. I don't know when the "cutoff" should be. But if you think 6 weeks is too short of time, when do you think is acceptable?
I would say the same to you. You think that having a child that you don't want is an appropriate punishment for behavior that you don't approve of.
I think you missed something. Normal menstrual cycles can vary from 21-35 days (two week spread) and then there is a 14-25% variance on top of that.
First trimester absent compelling medical issues. Basically half the time period Roe allowed for. No anti-choicer will be forced to have an abortion at any stage. I believe that to be a reasonable compromise.
Viability makes the most sense to me. 24 weeks. If the child/fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it is far enough along that it could survive outside the womb then it feels too late in the game to me. I would, however, settle for a compromise between 6 weeks and 24 weeks. If 1 in 3 women don't know they are pregnant at 6 weeks that is CLEARLY too early.
I don't consider a child punishment. Every child is a gift. Don't put your low value of human life on me.
It's reasonable but it would still be unacceptable to those who believe that human life begins at conception and that any termination of a pregnancy unless the life of the mother is at risk and even then only if it is near certainty that she would not survive should pregnancy continue is the equivalent of murder. Unfortunately those who hold that belief even if they represent a minority of the electorate have virtual control of one of the two major political parties and even the said party represents of a minority of the electorate as a whole they control a number of state legislatures and feel that their concept of morality allows them to impose their values on everyone else.
Let me add that adoption would be much more frequent if the government took the red tape down for both sides.... ...AND... ...If they funneled money from places like PP and put it towards fixing the adoption problem. Millions and millions going to an organization that spends an almost imposible to find trace on adoption assistance. Make adoption affordable and easy.
Thats a start. You do realize the people losing their minds over Roe being overturned would find your position unacceptable right?
Oh, I know it will be unacceptable to that very vocal minority that has temporarily gained control over the issue. The word "compromise" does not appear in their vocabulary on this. Somebody asked, I answered.
Right... But woman generally know THEIR spread. The ones who have irregular timetables that they really cant accurately predict are in the 14%-25%. Pretty sure I cited that in the earlier links. We may be saying the same thing but reading it different. If I am wrong, I am open to being shown that I misread the data.
