Mother gets 12-18 months prison for getting teenage daughter abortion pill

[Halyon]

There's an... abortion pill??

Yes...? It's what they use in early abortion rather than making a procedure of it...

[Deleted]

Coat hanger seems much more reliable /sarcasm off.

Good thing Texas abortion law failed the other week or more people would be going though a similar situation right now, they were to bring in a new law that would have forced the state to close 9/10 clinics and made most people travel 250 miles to reach their nearest one. Seems so stupid the way the southern states deny basic human rights to women at times.

Pretty sure abortion pills aren't a basic human right...

[Halyon]

Pretty sure abortion pills aren't a basic human right...

Not directly, no, but bodily autonomy is.

[Deleted]

she certainly shouldn't be in jail for it. but now i hope her stupid daughter realizes that her inability to keep her stupid legs closed caused her mother to go to jail. what a piece of trash she is.

If anything, posts like this make you seem like a piece of trash.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to disagree actually, and let me explain why. We only view murder on terms of those we consider human. Generally only those we consider in our group, tribe, culture ext. can be consider murder. However killing those outside of the group we're able to dehumanize therefore we don't consider it human. This is actually how war works. By dehumanizing those outside the group we dissolve ourselves of any guilt.

A perfect example of this is how we refereed to Native Americans as savages which therefore lowered them to below the status of what we considered human. It's also how the Germans were able to kill the all those people.

It's absolve, not dissolve. I also don't why everyone keeps referring to ze germans. As far as genocide there are many more recent and equally horrendous events that one could reference, or hell, you could go with Stalin's Soviet Union if you want something around the time of Nazi Germany.

- - - Updated - - -

Not directly, no, but bodily autonomy is.

Absolutely, but your right to your bodily autonomy doesn't give rights to making anyone else provide anything to assist in that. Negative vs positive rights etc. You have the right to have an abortion if you wish but there's no part of your right forcing other people to provide it.

[Khadgar]

If the mother hadn't gotten that pill, what then? Pregnancy in itself is very expensive in medical bills, what is the alternative?

Adoption is the alternative, there's plenty of loving homes that would've provided this child with a good life.

[Elegiac]

Adoption is the alternative, there's plenty of loving homes that would've provided this child with a good life.

Yeah, no. There aren't.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely, but your right to your bodily autonomy doesn't give rights to making anyone else provide anything to assist in that. Negative vs positive rights etc. You have the right to have an abortion if you wish but there's no part of your right forcing other people to provide it.

Really? So the government isn't obligated to provide you with a lawyer, I suppose?

[MerinPally]

There's an... abortion pill??

Stopping foetal development can be remarkably easy. You can inject the amniotic sac surrounding the baby with a Potassium salt solution and baby-b-gone. A tablet rich in certain chemicals would have no difficulty either.

[Elegiac]

Stopping foetal development can be remarkably easy. You can inject the amniotic sac surrounded the baby with a Potassium salt solution and baby-b-gone. A tablet rich in certain chemicals would have no difficulty either.

Eating too much pomegranate during early pregnancy can also induce a miscarriage.

[Khadgar]

Yeah, no. There aren't.

Newborn infants are in very high demand. The waiting list for a healthy white infant is pretty long.

[ladylin]

Newborn infants are in very high demand. The waiting list for a healthy white infant is pretty long.

And there is the problem. No one wants the 7 year old african-american child.

Have you ever looked into adoption? The cost alone is more than most can afford. If there are so many homes wanting children, why are there so few adoptions? Reasons? See above.

[Puremallace]

I keep telling Republicans constantly REMOVING SUPPLY DOES NOT REDUCE DEMAND. This is not clothes hanger, but google.com and takes no time flat to order these pills to your front door.

[Khadgar]

And there is the problem. No one wants the 7 year old african-american child.

Have you ever looked into adoption? The cost alone is more than most can afford. If there are so many homes wanting children, why are there so few adoptions? Reasons? See above.

There's still over 100,000 adoption's that take place in the US every year.

Not to mention the gap between births and deaths in the U.S. is the smallest it’s been in nearly four decades

[ladylin]

100,000 out of the 500,000 that are in the system. If people wanted a child so badly, why hold out for a baby? There are still plenty of children waiting. Oh that's right, they aren't white and a baby.

[AndaliteBandit]

Newborn infants are in very high demand. The waiting list for a healthy white infant is pretty long.

If these homes are so loving, why would they only consider a white baby? What's wrong with all of the other unwanted children waiting in the system, apparently even unwanted by these so-called loving homes.

[Halyon]

There's still over 100,000 adoption's that take place in the US every year.

Not to mention the gap between births and deaths in the U.S. is the smallest it’s been in nearly four decades

And how many are permanent? How many are the kids who actually need homes, not little infants? Special needs kids? Colored kids? Both of the latter? There's in inacceptable imbalance in who is getting adopted.

- - - Updated - - -

If these homes are so loving, why would they only consider a white baby? What's wrong with all of the other unwanted children waiting in the system, apparently even unwanted by these so-called loving homes.

They forgot the 'pretentious' part.

[Wells]

So pro-life (which obviously means anti-choice somehow) must be 100% pro pregnancy and reproduction for 100% of sexual practices? Perhaps those couples have had a vasectomy or hysterectomy performed and they'd rather those reproductive cells be used to help couples that aren't able to conceive? Why is it only a one way street? Is asking people to make better choices really a bad thing? I personally am for non-emergency abortions prior to the 12th or 15th week (even then is fairly late) but I do wish there were laws that required people to explore all options before making that choice.

There are many many many couples that can love an care for an unwanted baby.

In Vitro fertilization results in the destruction of many fertilized eggs. If the "pro life" crowd was both honest and informed they'd be just as opposed to it assuming their goal is to stop the destruction of human cells after conception.

[Cthulhu 2020]

In Vitro fertilization results in the destruction of many fertilized eggs. If the "pro life" crowd was both honest and informed they'd be just as opposed to it assuming their goal is to stop the destruction of human cells after conception.

You're asking far too much from them, especially that second part.

[Adam Jensen]

If a person can't provide for a child then they shouldn't have sex.

Yes! Lets legislate laws that go contrary to human nature and biological urges! Because that works out so well!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22022362

- - - Updated - - -

First this fossil issue. You need to just admit you're wrong because you are 100% I'm not even going to go any further with that. Less then 1% of the living organisms are estimated to be fossilized. Less then 1% what in the world do you consider rare?

We have thousands of fossils, all of which paint a progression of speciation, we have plenty to see even human evolution from earlier hominid forms.

Second you don't even understand the theory of evolution. Which is a theory.

Gravity is also "a theory." Germs cause disease? That's also "a theory." A theory is a scientific explanation, supported by empirical evidence, for a natural phenomenon. Theories that are accepted are run through a rigorous gauntlet of peer-review and evolution has survived that gauntlet for ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS. Scientists don't dispute evolution because there is SO much evidence for it.

A theory, in science, is NOT an "educated guess."

We have never directly observed the transition from natural selection to evolution. This concept hings on the theory that transitional creatures exist

Speciation has been observed. Multiple times. Transitional creatures have been found, in fact, every single species ever found can be considered "transitional" because every single species that ever existed is evolving or has evolved! If you're looking for a crocoduck, then you completely misunderstand the theory. However, if you want something obviously transitional, we've got these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils and perhaps the most famous of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik. Behold, the fish that crawled out of the water!

There are two view points either this happens slowly of thousands of years or that it happens very rapidly over the course of a few generation. We still don't know it's all just guess work.

Our understanding of evolution is not "guesswork." Evolution a gradual accumulation of genetic changes that occurs over generations. Can it happen rapidly? Sure, for creatures with short generational periods, like bacteria or fruitflies. In fact, we've seen bacteria evolve into new species over time (already linked above.) Scientists know how evolution works. Speciation is like a gradiant, the direct offspring is always the same species as his direct parent, but go back or ahead enough generations and you'll find a different species, just like if you have a gradiant from red to blue, and pick out a pixel in the middle, the pixel next to that is still almost the same exact color, to the point where you would still say "it's the same color," despite that the two end points are red or blue.

I never said their wasn't empirical evidence for evolution HOWEVER if it the entire scientific community thought it was 100% true then it would be made into a scientific law. This is a heavily debated subject in the scientific community because everyone doesn't agree.

That is NOT how laws come into being in science. Theories NEVER become laws, laws and theories are two different things. There is almost NO debate among scientists over whether evolution happens. The debate is among scientists and people who don't understand (or refuse to understand) science. Among the scientists themselves however, it is not debated.

A theory is never "proven" 100%.

There is a reason why we have scientific laws vs scientific theories.

Again, theories never become laws. Laws are not born from theories.

[AndaliteBandit]

In Vitro fertilization results in the destruction of many fertilized eggs. If the "pro life" crowd was both honest and informed they'd be just as opposed to it assuming their goal is to stop the destruction of human cells after conception.

But when they can't shame a woman for having sex when she isn't ready for a child, all of a sudden they lose interest in pursuing the sanctity of life. It's almost as if the purported loss of life isn't actually what got them riled up in the first place.

They're standing in line to tell a woman walking into an abortion clinic that she can put the child up for adoption, but how many of them are standing in line in front of the fertility clinic to inform couples they have the option to adopt?

With the amount of effort put into writing down license plate numbers and writing letters to family members informing them their wife/sister/daughter's car was seen driving to an abortion clinic, you would think that effort would be better spent offering to introduce hopeful couples to desperate women. Nah, why do that when we can bring our kids as props and have them lie down in front of women's cars?