This business about "Abortion"

[Maxmars]

You cant ban abortions, you can only ban safe and legal abortions. The pro-life folk dont realize those newborns found in dumpsters are the result of a ban on abortions.

It reassures me that you are approaching the issue, rather than flittering around the theater and scenery.

I think you cannot "ban" abortions, any more than you can ban sex.  Of course, abortion is no more worthy of being a "right" than eating tacos or having sex in the first place.

People have been aborting pregnancies since they realized it could be done.  This isn't a modern phenomenon (such as social activism and media saturation) ... this is an individual practice that different societies have experienced for centuries at least, millennia more likely.  Was it ever 'safe?'  Probably not for the child bearer (and by definition, certainly not for the nascent human.)

"Legal" abortion seems really difficult to embrace as a concept.  Probably because the idea invokes the opposite idea of "illegal" which implies crime. 

First of all, once it's legal, it begins to take on the air of a "right" ... as if people have been 'oppressed' forever because they couldn't spontaneously abort their pregnancies.  Secondly, abortions have been a reality since before there were ever overlords who deigned to "opine" and "rule" on the practice.  Hell, most men of antiquity probably never even heard of such a thing and would never even consider it in terms of 'social order."

For some in government the idea of a "ban" on abortions has to do with pandering to constituents who like so many of us, find it easy to judge others, never having walked a mile in their shoes.  No politician reminds their adoring crowds that human life can be harsh and complicated enough, and we should not indulge our egos to add 'unforgiving' into the mix.  Others in government are in fact "ideologically biased" (gasp!) which is, in and of itself, not a crime nor a detriment.  Others might be among the sex-crazed wanting nothing more than to cater to the sex-focused (thank you media conditioning.)

We also must embrace another painfully obvious reality.  People start as fetuses.  There's no point in litigating some arbitrary "starting point" measured in microns, minutes, or grams.  I started as one, you started as one, everyone did.  We must stop giving credence to the activist zealots whose success solely depends on "redefining" reality.  When that redefinition falters in its ability to persuade, they break out the "Big Book of Exceptions."  Because if they can't have capitulation in their favor, they will overwhelm the narrative with those aforementioned harsh and complicated realities to anyone remaining in the argument.

In someone's idea of a perfect world, I suppose, a person could just 'decide' that they were not pregnant.  No action needed.  Perhaps a Utopian reality where a person can choose whether or not to conceive at all.  In such a world a person might be able to eat whatever they want, and not get sick, or fat.  A person might be able to cut off their nose to spite their face, and yet it would grow back if it turns out it was a mistake.  This is not such a world, it has never been, nor will it ever be.  Actions have consequences... always.

As BeTheGoddess has so wisely illuminated ... this whole political side show is not really about 'abortion'... it is about 'abortion services.'  There is a discussion to be entertained regarding abortion in principle, but it's the 'services' that provides the dissention, which activists, politicians, and media exploit so well.  This public tug of war is a game/entertainment production, presented by people for whom theater is everything.  Where "Appearances" are more important than reality...

No law will ever stop that people can be in such a state as to not want to be pregnant (then there are the exceptions to 'wanting'.)  Hence, abortions will always exist.

My prognosis: On the heels of the theoretical 'right' to abortion succeeding, you will find a massive 1000% increase 'built-in' to the profit of providing the service... because that's how modern doctors and their insurance masters (banks) "do."  (Of course, the cost will be to the taxpayer, not the patient ... that would be 'wrong.')  If it is outright "banned" we must face the reality that we are proving to people in our society that the resolution of your plight is in someone else's hands... not your own.  That you are not "free" in that way.

The truth is, if this were the democracy that we keep being told it is, LEGISLATORS would take this up, and create a representation of public consensus by virtue of their constituencies.  But they haven't, and it appears that they may never.  Thier 'decision' in the past to relegate this to a high court shows just how cowardly they have been with this subject.  Their job is explicitly to represent us... but they are afraid to... because 'careers.'

Have I tired you out yet?  I have questions and comments on this... but truthfully, because of my nature and inclination, I have avoided encounters on this topic... too much "noise" ... too much "activist poison" in the mix.   But I figure, here in DI, there's a much better chance that we can actually discuss it.  The way politicians and media talking heads never do.

Thanks for participating in this thread... I am grateful.