The Red Scare continues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I for one think that the U.S. has far more important things to decide in it's elections than whether abortion should be legal.

---

I absolutely disagree - I think we need to bury this thing once and for all. Let the conservatives have their vote for abortion - see what happens. I think in the end the only people who are going to suffer are those in the deepest red states, which really sucks but at least we can redirect the national conversation away from abortion and back to important issues like gay marriage:rolleyes: , just kidding, like a never ending war on shadows, our national torture program, and the fact that our kids are so fat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Such a simplistic and selfish view :nonono2:

For every pro-lifer video that you care to mention can we get to remind you of the the incest or rape victim having to carry their child to full term? Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child.

Your highly dubious moral judgement restricts the rights of others and as has been mentioned already you're not in the majority.

I for one think that the U.S. has far more important things to decide in it's elections than whether abortion should be legal.

---

First of all, thank you for the cordial response. You don't appear to be emotionally involved or anything.

Second, : "you care to mention can we get to remind you of the the incest or rape victim having to carry their child to full term? Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child"

I'm not sure how you find that relevant to whether or not a person believes a fetus is a "life"... my original premise about the constitution. Life is not fair. It's really, really, really, not fair at times. But I don't believe you let the definition of a "life" be effected by trying to create a balance sheet for an unfair situation.

If a baby is a baby in one situation... it's still a baby in the next. Just because you are homely and I'm gorgeous doesn't mean you're not a male too.:wink:

So there's this video (I'll see if I can dig it up...) where there's a debate over abortion in a church somehwere in the south. The priest spends 5 to 10 minutes raging about murder, fetus rights, etc... all the usual bullshite.

Then it comes to the supporters turn:

supporter: So your contention for rape victims and children of people who cannot financially or emotionally support a child is adoption?

priest: Of course.

supporter: I have a list here of 200 children waiting for adoption in this county. If adoption is the answer, then clearly your congregation will gladly start by taking some of these kids in.

<dead silence>

Classic. I love how it cuts right to the center of the fundamental hypocracy of the anti-abortion camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

You are absolutely right they will. Just look at what has happened to the Democratic Party the last 6yrs, allowing the far left to define their party ruined them. Its all about the middle.

---

The far left? If you mean Howard Dean, you've got to be kidding me. Politically, he's about as middle of the road, on average, as they come. His personality might be extreme, but his politics typically aren't.

I, by contrast, am part of the far left of the Democratic Party, particularly on this issue. I was a cofounder of multiple pro-choice organizations, and a full-time employee of one, where my responsibilities included tracking the connections between violent anti-abortion organizations and the militia movement (pre-OKC, when almost no one knew what the militias were). My wife and I met when we were both in leadership positions defending abortion clinics from blockades during the 1992 Democratic Convention, and I have broken a Kryptonite lock off a pair of clinic doors with my bare hands. (Okay, I took the easy way out -- I tore off the handles -- but it doesn't sound as cool that way.)

Simply put, I believe in abortion on demand and without apology.

That said, I'm also a lawyer. And like many other pro-choice lawyers, I believe that Roe v. Wade is good policy, but mediocre or downright bad law. Had the ERA passed, Roe would have had a sound constitutional foundation. But the ERA failed at least in part because the political organizations that had been developed to fight for abortion rights in state legislatures, and that had subsequently been put to use in the battle for ratification of the ERA, declared, "Mission Accomplished" and essentially fell apart post-Roe.

In retrospect, I think that the movement as a whole may have been better served if we'd continued to fight it out in the state legislatures, let alone if the ERA passed before the Court took the issue out of the political process, albeit temporarily. I'm not sure about that, though, because illegal abortions probably would have killed thousands and permanently injured tens or hundreds of thousands before the political process worked.

If abortion goes fully back to the political process, we'll have to rebuild those political organizations, which is good. There will also be deaths and injury due to illegal abortions, which is unmitigatedly bad, although the death rate will likely be but a small fraction of the pre-Roe 10,000 per year. Let's not forget that travel is far cheaper and faster today than it was 33 years ago, making even individual state bans less a prohibition than an expense. As always, poor and otherwise powerless women will bear the brunt, but that has ever been the case, in this as in so much else.

So at this point, on the distinct question of whether to return abortion to the political process, I see a very tough call between a better long-term political and legal prospect on the one hand, and a fair number of dead women on the other. (And yes, if you've followed the above, you'll know that the number of aborted fetuses "saved" aren't part of my calculation.) Although that's a choice I don't like to have to make, it may well be made for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnoe

First of all, thank you for the cordial response. You don't appear to be emotionally involved or anything.

Second, : "you care to mention can we get to remind you of the the incest or rape victim having to carry their child to full term? Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child"

I'm not sure how you find that relevant to whether or not a person believes a fetus is a "life"... my original premise about the constitution. Life is not fair. It's really, really, really, not fair at times. But I don't believe you let the definition of a "life" be effected by trying to create a balance sheet for an unfair situation.

If a baby is a baby in one situation... it's still a baby in the next. Just because you are homely and I'm gorgeous doesn't mean you're not a male too.:wink:

---

Simple - a fetus is not a baby and Sex is not simply an act of procreation.

As already discussed this is a concept widely accepted throughout the developed, democratic world.

I have no problem with you choosing to not have an abortion. But object strongly to your moral, religous choices restricting the choices avalilable to others. I also think that an un-enforceable law that will create backstreet abortionists, abortion tourism and prosecute doctors is bad law.

Just out of interest what is your view on capital punishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Such a simplistic and selfish view :nonono2:

Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child.
.

---

This is a scary precedent, and although I am in favor of abortions (or to put it in better terms - in favor of a woman's right to choose), this is one aspect of the abortion debate that makes me a bit worried.

"Oh, sorry honey, I was gonna pull out, but the phone rang and it startled me."

"We just don't wish to have that child."

Abortion will be convenient for all the sluts of America! Birth control gone awry.

[QUOTE=joshbu]So there's this video (I'll see if I can dig it up...) where there's a debate over abortion in a church somehwere in the south. The priest spends 5 to 10 minutes raging about murder, fetus rights, etc... all the usual bullshite.

Then it comes to the supporters turn:

supporter: So your contention for rape victims and children of people who cannot financially or emotionally support a child is adoption?

priest: Of course.

supporter: I have a list here of 200 children waiting for adoption in this county. If adoption is the answer, then clearly your congregation will gladly start by taking some of these kids in.


No offense, but that is one of the most misguided statements on this thread. As Morissa Tomei was asked in 'My Cousin Vinnie':

Judge: "is that an opinion?"

Marissa: "No, it's a fact"

The list is enormous of families wanting to adopt in the U.S. I come from a family that has 5 adoptions in it so don't try that kind of B.S. on us.

I also have an app't tomorrow morning with a couple (husband and wife) that are both physicians. They cannot have kids naturally so they are adopting from khazikstan. They are going to be so relieved from this information you've enlightened on us. They can cancel their tickets overseas.

On the same day they voted on this there was a bill being debated on making it legal to ride your horse or your bike while intoxicated. Dakota, South Dakota...dang. I grew up there, on a ranch about 60 miles from the capitol Pierre. There are alot of one issue peeps there. Daschle basically got shitcanned because of abortion.

I don't believe anybody has the right to tell someone else how to live, what to choose. If you make it illegal my next door neighbor will set up an obgyn clinic in their basement. People have been having abortions since they been getting knocked up. Think about how hard it is to score a bag of weed. Making it illegal will ease some peoples conscience is all it will do. It won't save anybody anything. And this is from a kid that was adopted at birth along with two other sibs. My Mom could have made the choice, didn't, gave me up and I was raised in a great family and I'm close with her and her other kids now. That was her choice. I have a daughter, if she was raped and impregnated I'd kill the prick that did it first and then find a way to get her taken care of and helped.

Alpinedad,

Good inpu. It was interesting to hear your angle from your experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnoe

No offense, but that is one of the most misguided statements on this thread. As Morissa Tomei was asked in 'My Cousin Vinnie':

Judge: "is that an opinion?"

Marissa: "No, it's a fact"

The list is enormous of families wanting to adopt in the U.S. I come from a family that has 5 adoptions in it so don't try that kind of B.S. on us.

I also have an app't tomorrow morning with a couple (husband and wife) that are both physicians. They cannot have kids naturally so they are adopting from khazikstan. They are going to be so relieved from this information you've enlightened on us. They can cancel their tickets overseas.

---

Try again boy-o. Your the one drawing from opinion.

the Percentage of Women Adopting Has Declined
In 1995, about 500,000 women were seeking to adopt a child, and 100,000 had applied with an agency. [2] The same year, an estimated 1.3% of women adopted one or more children, a decline from 2.1% in 1973. [3]

[3] [The estimate refers to currently or formerly married women age 18-44.] Chandra, Anjani; Abma, Joyce; Maza, Penelope; Bachrach, Christine, Adoption, Adoption Seeking and Relinquishment for Adoption in the United States, at pg. 5, Advance Data, No. 306. National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (May 1999).

Those long waiting lists are for healthy, usually white babies. Meanwhile, any kid over a certain age, or not white, or born to a drug addict have fewer people out there to help them. The average stay for a kid in foster care in this country is 33 months. Yet your lovely couple can't help THOSE kids, can they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

This is a scary precedent, and although I am in favor of abortions (or to put it in better terms - in favor of a woman's right to choose), this is one aspect of the abortion debate that makes me a bit worried.

"Oh, sorry honey, I was gonna pull out, but the phone rang and it startled me."

"We just don't wish to have that child."

Abortion will be convenient for all the sluts of America! Birth control gone awry.

---

Are you saying that society will be better off if the people you describe procreate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinedad

I have broken a Kryptonite lock off a pair of clinic doors with my bare hands. (Okay, I took the easy way out -- I tore off the handles)

---

love it- Kind of mirrors the facile arguments of pro-lifers - "If we make it illegal it'll stop the heathens murdering all the poor little babies"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshbu

Try again boy-o. Your the one drawing from opinion.

the Percentage of Women Adopting Has Declined
In 1995, about 500,000 women were seeking to adopt a child, and 100,000 had applied with an agency. [2] The same year, an estimated 1.3% of women adopted one or more children, a decline from 2.1% in 1973. [3]

[3] [The estimate refers to currently or formerly married women age 18-44.] Chandra, Anjani; Abma, Joyce; Maza, Penelope; Bachrach, Christine, Adoption, Adoption Seeking and Relinquishment for Adoption in the United States, at pg. 5, Advance Data, No. 306. National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (May 1999).

---

Would those numbers be different if children were available for adoption? What came first, the chicken or the egg. You don't think women were deterred by the cost and difficulty of adoption?

It's tough to see the far right hate on abortion rights and at the same time slice and dice welfare and health programs for the less well off. If you're not going to give folks an out on an unwanted preganancy based on the value of life, you're a dick for not backing that up once that life exits the womb. I'm not so naive to think that all the righty's are the same, one contingent has their "morality" play that gathers votes and another contingent has the "economy" play, but damn. The dudes in the chairs making decisions are accountable to everyone, not just the special interest of the moment and I wish they'd start acting that way.
The true gravity of "Life" and "Choice" and "Privacy" are heavy issues, I wish they weren't treated like wonton whores for pulling votes from fanatics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canuk

I hate comments like these...you can't paint an entire religion, race, or sex, with the same brush simply because some radical elements of said religion hold views that differ from yours. It's no different than saying you hate Muslims because of what happens in Iraq. It's a simple minded, head in the sand, way to live, and it puts you on the same level as those you are speaking out against.

You can probably tell I'm a Christian. Do I agree with abortion? No, however I accept the fact that we have free will, and the right to choose. I might not necessarily agree with someone who chooses to abort a pregnancy, but they do have the right to make their choice.

---

While I appreciate your point, what is truly scary to me is that Bush and Rove have decided that enough of the Christians in this country can be painted with such a broad brush, and they have used that base to push this country into radical positions that the majority of countries and citizens on the civilized list agree are contrary to modern democratic principles of human liberty. ?

P.S. I really do love some christians. shhh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinedad

Are you saying that society will be better off if the people you describe procreate?

---

No, not at all. But abortion shouldn't be relied upon for birth control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

love it- Kind of mirrors the facile arguments of pro-lifers - "If we make it illegal it'll stop the heathens murdering all the poor little babies"

---

PNWBrit,
I'm not intentionally debating you but again I have a problem with your statement. I understand the intent of your comment. But again, we can't dictate law based on what people are doing. Let's say the Supreme Court determines that the protection of "life" extends to a fetus. Then one judge says, "wait a minute. They're going to have abortions anyway, let's change our interpretation of "life" so it's legal and girls can have it with the best medical facilities possible". It is their job to interpret the constitution as written... even if it's not popular or convenient. It IS the foundation of our country.

http://www.biglines.com/photos/norma...ines_53960.jpg

:fuckyou: I hate christians.:fuckyou:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnoe

That is one of the hardest issues for me. You bring up one of the best arguments for it. I guess when it comes down to it, though, I would have to say two wrongs don't make a right. If I truly believe that it is a life we're dealing with, then it has to be protected according to our constitution. I believe it's a life at conception. Therefore it has to be protected. It is incredibly difficult and I don't have the answer for the alternative. It sucks that the mother would have to carry in that situation. My wife is in public health and we discuss this often. We have both come to the same conclusion.

The fact that a rapist has the same rights as the mother has to be the first issue addressed. That is atrocious if reported correctly.

---

There is a very viable alternative, its been used in Europe for awhile. Yet the morning after pill faces the same attack from the republican sides of the aisle across this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bud Green

http://www.biglines.com/photos/norma...ines_53960.jpg

:fuckyou: I hate christians.:fuckyou:

---

I love Green Buds.:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnoe

PNWBrit,
I'm not intentionally debating you but again I have a problem with your statement. I understand the intent of your comment. But again, we can't dictate law based on what people are doing. Let's say the Supreme Court determines that the protection of "life" extends to a fetus. Then one judge says, "wait a minute. They're going to have abortions anyway, let's change our interpretation of "life" so it's legal and girls can have it with the best medical facilities possible". It is their job to interpret the constitution as written... even if it's not popular or convenient. It IS the foundation of our country.

---

There is a whole school of legal theory that postulates that laws that are not followed are not useful and that laws are generally a reflection of society's tendencies - so while you are right that inconvenience should not be a way to interpret the constitution, the fact that no one would obey one interpretation is a good indicator its not a correct one. You are still on this natural law kick, as if there is only one "true" meaning of the constitution and we just have to discover it. It's just not that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Nothing like a court made up of men telling women how to control their bodies.

---

Yeah, I agree, to an extent. But the question nobody wants to tackle is, when does human life begin. It is well established in American law that a person can(for the most part) do whatever they want with their own body right up to the point that their actions infringe on somebody else's rights. So, the real question is; when does that mass of tissue become a human being with rights? When we as a society decide that, this whole abortion debate goes away. I wish we would spend more time dealing with that issue and less time yelling well established principles at each other.

Women(and men) have a right to do with their bodies as they see fit: nobody disputes this.

Human beings have a right to live: nobody disputes this.

So why all the yelling?!?:rolleyes:

Perhaps I'm being too obtuse. I'll lay out my argument step by step.

1. The perscribed "solution" for abortion is adoption. It is my contention that this solution is flawed for the following reasons.

Of the population of births that would have been aborted:

a. A certain unknown percentage of women will keep the baby, if only for a while. Those that were truely incapable of raising a child (again, an unknown percentage) will likely put their child up for adoption, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Children that are not infants have lower adoption rates, longer waits in foster care, and a higher percentage of dissolution.

b. Only a certain (unknown) percentage of women will give birth to healthy babies. It is likely given the demographics of the women that recieve abortions that this percentage will be much lower than the overall population. Again, sick children have much lower rates of adoption, etc...

c. Finally, given the demographics of women who recieve abortions, a significant percentage of the births will be for minorities. Yet again, there are lower percentages of adoption for minorities (thankfully, not that much lower.)

Now, there's a lot of unknowns there. My contention is that these percentages are not favorable. You contend otherwise I'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

When we as a society decide that, this whole abortion debate goes away.

---

The problem is, all the science in the world won't convince either side that their way of thinking is wrong.

Legalized abortion = Less chance of having car stereo stolen???
"Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt

"Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

No, not at all. But abortion shouldn't be relied upon for birth control.

---

Abortion is birth control. By definition.

That said, it appears that your issue is with "reliance." To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any evidence that there is any statistically-significant group of people who "rely" on abortion as their primary form of birth control.

To repeat, even assuming for the sake of argument that these people exist, aren't they exactly the people you wouldn't want to procreate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime. "

---

That's kind of funny. I guess it's true that an unborn child doesn't get the chance to be screwed up by bad parenting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmear

The problem is, all the science in the world won't convince either side that their way of thinking is wrong.

---

Very true. But I don't think it's a matter of science. I think it's more a matter of consensus. Many things in out society are a bit arbitrary. What constitutes death isn't 100% accurate 100% of the time. As rare as it may be, people have been clinically dead and yet were revived, so obviously something was still there. We have a definition of death, it would seem that we should be able to come up with a definition of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinedad

That said, it appears that your issue is with "reliance." To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any evidence that there is any statistically-significant group of people who "rely" on abortion as their primary form of birth control.

---

I wonder if Dr. Gaper is speaking to that segment of society that uses abortion as a convenient means of not taking responsibility for its actions? (e.g. oops I got pregnant)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmear

I wonder if Dr. Gaper is speaking to that segment of society that uses abortion as a convenient means of not taking responsibility for its actions? (e.g. oops I got pregnant)

---

I'm no abortion expert by any means, but I've heard that it's not very pleasant at all. I don't think anyone wants to use it as some "convenient" method of birth control, simply because it is not convenient, especially after being through the experience once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnoe

It can piss you off that it was written by "religious" men.

---

Just because they were religious doesn't mean they put their religion into the document. Legal conservatives can't say that you need to take Constitutional language, then turn around and say it must have been intended as a statement of Christian faith, when the one reference to religion- other than the First Amendment- is in the last line, where it says "year of our lord."

edit: also, fwiw, that Freakonomics book is flimsy, flimsy, flimsy.

i feel like we are being transported back to the 50s: the erosion of all our civil liberties in the name of "saftey" (then: communisim. now: terrorism), a womens right to choose (then: abortion illeagal in most states, only the wealthy could afford them. now: ummm, heading that way again...), creation'ism based science (then: even scientists back then understood and accepted evolution...now: umm, pretend science based on the bible), global warming wasn't known then, and according to this administration, its not really happening either....I mean, this administration is really frightening and leading us backwards in all aspects (security, the economy, science, the environment, our fundemental rights/civil liberties, foreign relations, etc)....

its time for the silent majority to speak up, meaning those in the middle that have had their parties hijacked by extremeists...this shit is getting out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnoe

PNWBrit,
I'm not intentionally debating you but again I have a problem with your statement. I understand the intent of your comment. But again, we can't dictate law based on what people are doing. Let's say the Supreme Court determines that the protection of "life" extends to a fetus. Then one judge says, "wait a minute. They're going to have abortions anyway, let's change our interpretation of "life" so it's legal and girls can have it with the best medical facilities possible". It is their job to interpret the constitution as written... even if it's not popular or convenient. It IS the foundation of our country.

---

What would you do if your 12 year old daughter was raped by a member of your family and became pregnant?

I'd suggest that insisting she carried the baby to full term would be a morally repugnant decision compared to her having an abortion. Even if you'd feel happy with it the removal of that freedom of choice from other families is just plain wrong.

There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting abortion. It's writers had no reason to consider it because it was not a concern of society at the time. With respect your selective interpretation is an offence to it's intent.

Would this country actually be a better place if Doctors are jailed for performing a procedure that has been legal for many years and is considered by the vast majority of mankind to be acceptable?

This is great and all but don't forget to raise your fist outside of the interweb. Pretty sure those crazy senators with their politricks aren't reading TGR.

For me, another vote for Cascadia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesIsaidyes

There is a whole school of legal theory that postulates that laws that are not followed are not useful and that laws are generally a reflection of society's tendencies - so while you are right that inconvenience should not be a way to interpret the constitution, the fact that no one would obey one interpretation is a good indicator its not a correct one. You are still on this natural law kick, as if there is only one "true" meaning of the constitution and we just have to discover it. It's just not that simple.

---

Quote:

"The fact that no one would obey one interpretation is a good indicator it's not a correct one"

You are correct that there will still be those who disobey the law. But I disagree that utilization won't change if it becomes illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

What would you do if your 12 year old daughter was raped by a member of your family and became pregnant?

I'd suggest that insisting she carried the baby to full term would be a morally repugnant decision compared to her having an abortion. Even if you'd feel happy with it the removal of that freedom of choice from other families is just plain wrong.

There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting abortion. It's writers had no reason to consider it because it was not a concern of society at the time. With respect your selective interpretation is an offence to it's intent.

Would this country actually be a better place if Doctors are jailed for performing a procedure that has been legal for many years and is considered by the vast majority of mankind to be acceptable?

---

Wow,
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinedad

Are you saying that society will be better off if the people you describe procreate?

---

Totally respect your opinion, I am certainly not against all abortions. But I think Meatpuppet has asked the right question, when does life begin? We should be able to answer this.

I will give you an example. My wife and I had twins 2 years ago. Twins are almost always premature. Ours were 6 weeks but people we now know had them at 24 weeks. They are the same age as our kids and although slow at first, have now finally caught up. By inducing my wife at 34 weeks and the others at 24 we made the decision to have them. They are all heathly and wonderful kids. But the fcked up part is, we could have also made the decision to terminate as well. That in my opinion would have not been right.

When my kids came out they were perfectly heatlhy, definetly well within the defintion of life and deserving of the legal right to it.

I repeat, i am not against the right of a woman to choose.

Quote:

---

Wow,
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

---

Why? Because PNW suggested incestial rape? I'm not sure where you live or what sort of blinders you've got on but that crime, among others, is a reality for many parts of the country. Here in Idaho it certainly wouldn't be ground breaking news.

Who are you to make these decisions for people in these mind bending situations? Who gave you the authority to decide what a victim of rape can or can't do to better her situation and to decline a potentially worse one for the life inside of her? Answer me that and I'll rest a bit easier knowing the minority is right after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnoe

Wow,
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

---

answer the question - would you insist your daughter have the child and more importantly what gives you or anyone else the right to tell someone what they should do in that situation?

if abortion is made ilegal cue black market RU 70 (or whatever that is) and more useless drug war.