Nobody has commented on the Ohio abortion bill yet?

[onoway]

A couple of thoughts.. wasn't Pence's proudest accomplishment as governor axing funding for Planned Parenthood? and he is adamantly against abortion. Barefoot and pregnant, or dressed up and cheering her man on, but ALWAYS subservient when push comes to shove.

 

It is highly ironic to listen to people - usually but not always men - pontificate about how government - usually but not always men - should decide what women can do with their bodies because of some sort of sanctity of life. Have you thought about war lately?

 

A woman can't decide she doesn't want to carry a child to term for whatever reason without all hell breaking loose with people oozing outrage at the right to life of an unborn organism, but hey, let's go off to Afghanistan or Iraq and blow up thousands of people INCLUDING children, some of them babies. Or what about the children trying to reach safety running from Syria, how many right to lifers are looking after any of THEM? Oh - they are just collateral damage, nothing to be done. Sanctity of life indeed, give me a break.

 

It would be also be interesting to know how many of these right to life people have adopted kids, among the ones I have met, NONE have. The people who adopt are delighted to have a child to adopt but none of the adoptive parents I have met have ever expressed any desire at all to force women to carry to term, including one couple who had been waiting quite a few years for a child.

 

The anti choice people I have met, however they dress it up with evangelical piousness, have as their ONLY interest imposing their point of view, of seeing that nobody offends their personal sensibilities by having an abortion. Whether or not the mother is able or wants to care for the child is of no interest, what happens to the child - or the mother - after the mother is forced to carry to term is of no interest. This is a flashback to slavery and is totally unacceptable in any sort of supposedly somewhat enlightened society.

 

Men have no business messing with a woman's decision as to what she does or does not do with her body unless she specifically invites them to be involved with her personal story. Not anyone's else's, only hers and only when invited.

Full stop.

[Winstonm]

Presumably because it implies that if you're against abortion, reversing Roe v. Wade isn't a solution. It won't reduce the number of abortions; affluent people will travel to countries that allow it, poor people will go back to back-alley abortions like they did before it became illegal.

 

Yes, but when what you believe is shown to be inaccurate - it happens to us all, btw - isn't the better response to say, gee, thanks, I'm glad I found that out?

[MrAce]

What makes you think you have a vote? What makes you think you should have a vote?

 

Why do you think you have a vote for disabled, gays, transsexuals, blacks, islamic people, jews, browns etc etc? We all do. Not that we are one of them, not that we judge them. But because we have a say when there are "laws" being made about them, to protect them, to support them. Or as in this last election, to be against them. Did you even know that, if the rights of pregnant women was defined and made laws about it ONLY by pregnant women, they would have MUCH less rights than they do now?

 

The system that we all accepted and having to live under gives me the right to vote in different ways. The same system that allowed idiots to vote for someone who chose to blow 2 civilian cities, babies, kids, elderly. pregnant, nature, everything on its path in Japan just because they wanted no more military people to die and to end the fight between soldiers early. The system that allowed another idiot to kill many people in another country and much more Americans than the 9/11 in order to revenge the 9/11. Some of the idiots still do not recognize they just started a war that will not last less than at least a century.

 

As long as I recognize that little life in a female body as a separate human than the carrier mother, and see laws are being created in order to protect one over the other, oh hell yes I have a say when it comes to tell and argue and defend the rights of these lives. But even then, even with negligence of mother, if that expected baby carries a health risk for the mother, I stated that her rights to live overrides the right of expected baby. My vote, opinion matters. Because there are religious idiots who would argue that the life given by God can not be taken regardless of what and she should take the risk. My vote disagrees with them when people are making laws about it. How do I vote for it? I try to choose people and vote for the people who shares my opinion. It is not like I want doctors to come and ask me for each single case.

 

EVERY ***** election, we vote for a president and other politicians. The position we allow them to occupy gives them many powers, including pressing button that can end all the lives on this planet. Who the ***** gave us any right to vote for people who has these powers? Each time we vote, we put our signature that it is OK for some humans that we elect to have this power and blow the planet when they see their nation is under threat and about to lose!

 

I am not a religious person. There is no religious motivation that shapes my opinions. So, am I right to recognize that little creature as a human? The entire thing is, as MikeH said, I said, it is not clear. What we all trying to establish is, "when should we, if ever, recognize this creature as a human being in the eye of law?"

 

I have the right to vote for people who recognizes this expected baby, creature, embryo, fetus or whatever name you like, as a human being.

 

One candidate this election said, if he is elected, he will make sure people of x nation or people of y religion will be send back from USA or similar things. There were people who voted for him and there were others who did not. And you are questioning my right to vote to protect a life that I consider as human being? You may disagree with me that I should not consider the fetus as a human being. I will have no problem with it. I may not agree with you but that is ok. But unless you come up with some solid argument why it should not be considered as a human being, we are going back down to the basic chicken/egg argument where there is no clear agreement.

[helene_t]

To those who believe that rape (or incest) is a valid reason for abortion but that abortion should generally be illegal, I have a question:

 

What is the operational definition of rape/incest for this purpose?

 

If it is just that an accusation has been filed, then I am sure that some evil rape revisionists would say that accusations are filed in order to get abortion. There will be a few cases where an accusation was filed, followed by abbortion and then followed by withdrawal of the accusation. It is already so that rape victims face all kind of suspicions that deter them from reporting to the police. We don't want to make that situation worse.

 

It the definition is a guilty verdict, then it is even worse (especially in a country that uses lay juriors) because some juriors will be influenced by the suspicion that the accusation is a scam to justify abortion. Besides: the rape case will have to be rushed through courts to produce a verdict while abortion is still possible. So the result will be later abortions (nobody want this, especially not the pregnant rape victim) and less reliable justice.

[nige1]

Barmar explained my worry. For WinstonM, I'll spell out my view again:

in principle, I feel that abortion is undesirable, for the reasons stated by Mr Ace.

In practice, If I were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, I don't know what I'd do.

On this issue, I argued that more weight should be given to female than male opinion.

I don't object to the quoted research. I have no reason to doubt it's veracity.

The implications of the research should concern us:

If strict abortion law doesn't reduce abortion rates, that's an argument against it.

[barmar]

Yes, but when what you believe is shown to be inaccurate - it happens to us all, btw - isn't the better response to say, gee, thanks, I'm glad I found that out?

It's like being unhappy when the weatherman says that it's going to rain. You're not unhappy about the process of weather forecasting, you're unhappy about the rain. There's some value in finding out, so you'll know to take an umbrella, but that doesn't make up for the displeasure of the rain itself.

[onoway]

To those who believe that rape (or incest) is a valid reason for abortion but that abortion should generally be illegal, I have a question:

 

What is the operational definition of rape/incest for this purpose?

 

If it is just that an accusation has been filed, then I am sure that some evil rape revisionists would say that accusations are filed in order to get abortion. There will be a few cases where an accusation was filed, followed by abbortion and then followed by withdrawal of the accusation. It is already so that rape victims face all kind of suspicions that deter them from reporting to the police. We don't want to make that situation worse.

 

It the definition is a guilty verdict, then it is even worse (especially in a country that uses lay juriors) because some juriors will be influenced by the suspicion that the accusation is a scam to justify abortion. Besides: the rape case will have to be rushed through courts to produce a verdict while abortion is still possible. So the result will be later abortions (nobody want this, especially not the pregnant rape victim) and less reliable justice.

Why Helene, didnt you know? If a woman REALLY wants not to be pregnant, rape or not, her body will reject the baby! So no need at all for abortions! We know this because a lawmaker (who is anti abortion, a man of course, and naturally has no medical training of ANY sort btw,) tells us so. Since when did truth ( or reality) stop having any connection with anything coming out of government or splattered all over the internet?

[mikeh]

.

 

Men have no business messing with a woman's decision as to what she does or does not do with her body unless she specifically invites them to be involved with her personal story. Not anyone's else's, only hers and only when invited.

Full stop.

I upvoted your comment, but I do have reservations about this concluding part.

 

I think society has an interest in how we treat our bodies. For example, with a woman who is pregnant, society has a strong interest in her not consuming alcohol, since doing so may result in her child having fetal-alcohol syndrome. Such children often grow up to have very limited impulse control. They make up a large proportion of prison inmates. They live difficult lives. All because mum drank.

 

Same thing with many drugs.

 

It isn't just women, but it is 'just women' in terms of the harm that a woman can do to her child during pregnancy.

 

I don't advocate criminalizing such behaviour, since I doubt that doing so would have any beneficial effect. Drunk driving is way down, smoking is somewhat down, in NA over the past 40 years, and this has been by way of education, plus some limits being placed on advertising. I think most women these days know the dangers of alcohol and drugs when pregnant, but maybe more needs to be done in terms of education and addiction-assistance.

 

In addition, I suspect few would be comfortable with very late term abortion, when the child would be viable, albeit maybe only in a pediatric icu.

 

So I see some qualifications to your last sentence but otherwise thought your post to be excellent.

[alok c]

Barmar explained my worry. For WinstonM, I'll spell out my view again:

in principle, I feel that abortion is undesirable, for the reasons stated by Mr Ace.

In practice, If I were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, I don't know what I'd do.

On this issue, I argued that more weight should be given to female than male opinion.

I don't object to the quoted research. I have no reason to doubt it's veracity.

The implications of the research should concern us:

If strict abortion law doesn't affect abortion rates, that's an argument against it.

Really!!!

[Winstonm]

It's like being unhappy when the weatherman says that it's going to rain. You're not unhappy about the process of weather forecasting, you're unhappy about the rain. There's some value in finding out, so you'll know to take an umbrella, but that doesn't make up for the displeasure of the rain itself.

 

I appreciate your comments but isn't it wiser simply to adjust to reality than be displeased by it?

[Winstonm]

Barmar explained my worry. For WinstonM, I'll spell out my view again:

in principle, I feel that abortion is undesirable, for the reasons stated by Mr Ace.

In practice, If I were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, I don't know what I'd do.

On this issue, I argued that more weight should be given to female than male opinion.

I don't object to the quoted research. I have no reason to doubt it's veracity.

The implications of the research should concern us:

If strict abortion law doesn't affect abortion rates, that's an argument against it.

 

Thanks for answering. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

[Winstonm]

Presumably because it implies that if you're against abortion, reversing Roe v. Wade isn't a solution. It won't reduce the number of abortions; affluent people will travel to countries that allow it, poor people will go back to back-alley abortions like they did before it became illegal.

 

I found out over my life (yes, I changed viewpoints) that it is easier to start from a neutral position and adjust my beliefs based on facts rather than start with a preconceived notion and discover later that the facts don't support my beliefs.

[nige1]

deleted

[billw55]

I think society has an interest in how we treat our bodies. For example, with a woman who is pregnant, society has a strong interest in her not consuming alcohol, since doing so may result in her child having fetal-alcohol syndrome. Such children often grow up to have very limited impulse control. They make up a large proportion of prison inmates. They live difficult lives. All because mum drank.

The full post was interesting but this bit made me raise an eyebrow. You claim that a "large proportion" of prison inmates suffered fetal alcohol syndrome? Do have data to back up this claim?

 

Obviously refraining from drinking while pregnant is a good idea, but I generally don't favor pushing good ideas with bad information (if it is indeed so).

 

 

[mikeh]

The full post was interesting but this bit made me raise an eyebrow. You claim that a "large proportion" of prison inmates suffered fetal alcohol syndrome? Do have data to back up this claim?

 

Obviously refraining from drinking while pregnant is a good idea, but I generally don't favor pushing good ideas with bad information (if it is indeed so).

 

I had a number of sources for this, and the most important one, at the time I posted, was more anecdotal than statistical, altho my expectation was that the source of the information did in fact have real world data to back her up.

 

I spoke, admittedly a few years ago, with a neuropsychologist, someone with whom I have dealt for many years and for whom I have enormous respect. We were then discussing a young man who had suffered a concussion, and my interest, from an insurance claim perspective, was the probable impact of this injury on this man's future, especially in terms of employment.

 

He had been previously diagnosed with FAS. In British Columbia, the tort system provides for compensation for negligent injury, but it does so by comparing 'no-accident' and 'with accident' scenarios. It was thus central to my task to understand what life would have been like for this young man had the accident not occurred. I knew he was a poor student, and had had minor run-ins with the law, and I knew he had FAS.

 

I was advised by my expert that his life was likely to be unhappy in the no-accident scenario. People with FAS have poor impulse control. They tend to have significant learning problems. They tend to be unable to hold down jobs, even jobs that they are capable of doing. They tend to simply not show up or to get into verbal or even physical altercations with co-workers and supervisors. I stress that we are speaking of generalities and different people will have different experiences, but I was told that FAS victims (because they are victims) tend to exhibit these behaviours far more than do people at large.

 

Included in this is a propensity to activity that would be criminal. Getting into fights. Using drugs. Stealing, breaking and entering, etc.

 

This in term would lead to heightened risk of imprisonment. Fights can lead to serious injury or death, especially when fueled by drugs or alcohol.

 

That is the anecdotal part of my reason for making my post.

 

I don't know much about experiences outside of Canada and don't claim much expertise in the Canadian perspective. I do know that inmates with FAS make up a disproportionate share of inmates being provided with specialized assessment/treatment, and one can readily find this out (bearing in mind that I use google from a Canadian location) by googling fetal alcohol and imprisonment.

 

In addition, and this is me thinking, not statistics talking, it makes sense to me that a population characterized by learning difficulties, impulsivity, low socio-economiuc status, which are all common attributes of victims of FAS, would end up in prison more often than those of us fortunate enough to not have this problem. I concede that this reasoning is not evidence. It does seem to me to be a plausible hypothesis but it would be no more than that absent data.

 

Edited to correct a typo that I had in FAS....for unrelated reasons I had a different acronym in the back of my mind when typing

[barmar]

I appreciate your comments but isn't it wiser simply to adjust to reality than be displeased by it?

We're humans, not Vulcans. We can't just shut off our feelings about things. If a study comes to a disappointing conclusion, why shouldn't we be unhappy about it?

 

Of course, you have to live with it, just like we'll all have to live with the result of the recent election for the next 4 years. But we can still express our feelings about it.

[Winstonm]

We're humans, not Vulcans. We can't just shut off our feelings about things. If a study comes to a disappointing conclusion, why shouldn't we be unhappy about it?

 

Of course, you have to live with it, just like we'll all have to live with the result of the recent election for the next 4 years. But we can still express our feelings about it.

 

Live long and prosper.

[onoway]

In response to MikeH's post:

I would be interested to know if the high rates of FAS are also correlated with race. Certainly I know some people who think so, including one doctor who practised medicine for years in coastal BC, a large part of his practice made up of natives. I knew him in NS, when he was close to retirement and was the "advisor" for a study another student and I were doing on depression. He freely and without any context at all told us that when he was working on the coast, he would automatically do hysterectomies on any native women he could. What we understood him to be saying was that this was often without their knowlege, much less their consent. If he was in there for a gall bladder or appendix, that was a freeby he threw in. Or so we understood him to say and we had no reason to doubt him. We also got the impression this was not an unusual practice but that may have been him trying to justify it, no idea. We were both too stunned to ask if he ever did tell them.

 

Then the question of abortion doesn't come up, of course.

[onoway]

I have no data to back it up but my feeling would be that if a woman was told that a) her baby would probably be extremely demanding and b) probably not very satisfying to care for, eg. cry constantly, or not recognize or ever respond to her for months, c) they would possibly never be fully functional adults, and in fact d) they would probably be taken away from her anyway because of her drinking, most of them would opt for abortion if it was available without a lot of guilt tripping imposed on her for thinking about doing it. FAS children are often really really hard. I knew someone who adopted 4 of them, all one family and it was a disaster. Excellent intentions and no clue what they were getting into. So sad.

 

But there is so much guilt and shame still associated with even thinking of having an abortion that many women who probably should, don't even consider it, they can't deal with the stigma. So they have these kids they don't want, can't handle, resent and despise for "making their lives miserable". The life such children lead is often worse than the way most people treat their dogs. Society gets to deal with those unhappy, unloved, unnurtured kids. Although difficult, poverty is often surmountable as a life experience, I'm not sure that being resented and disliked by an unhappy mother is, especially by a child who may have other issues of their own to deal with.

 

Note: Just because a child is unplanned doesn't mean it necessarilly is or would be unloved, far far from it, even in some situations that to outside eyes look impossible.But doctors know that even if the decision has been made and a child is slated to be given up for adoption by a mother, she often changes her mind when the baby is born and all the reasonable decisions fly out the window, often but not always to be bitterly regretted later by both.

[diana_eva]

....

 

He freely and without any context at all told us that when he was working on the coast, he would automatically do hysterectomies on any native women he could. What we understood him to be saying was that this was often without their knowlege, much less their consent. If he was in there for a gall bladder or appendix, that was a freeby he threw in. Or so we understood him to say and we had no reason to doubt him.

....

 

In Romania there are women who live in religious communities where contraception isn't an option (well it could be, but the women would have to hide that they are using birth control). It's not unusual for doctors to ask women if they want a hysterectomy or other birth control devices after they give birth to their 4th, 5th, etc child. They asked me after I gave birth to twins too. I'm not aware of cases where doctors went ahead and sterilized women without consent, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they would.

 

Abortions are a complicated issue. There are a lot of social issues that need to be fixed before blaming women for not being careful enough or not reading the label or whatever. Not even talking about young unmarried girls here, for them it's even worse. Perhaps USA is more emancipated, Romania is very traditional and religious. But still... it's complicated, and women who don't want to have a kid they won't have it through much more dangerous methods if they feel cornered.

[mikeh]

In response to MikeH's post:

I would be interested to know if the high rates of FAS are also correlated with race. Certainly I know some people who think so, including one doctor who practised medicine for years in coastal BC, a large part of his practice made up of natives. I knew him in NS, when he was close to retirement and was the "advisor" for a study another student and I were doing on depression. He freely and without any context at all told us that when he was working on the coast, he would automatically do hysterectomies on any native women he could. What we understood him to be saying was that this was often without their knowlege, much less their consent. If he was in there for a gall bladder or appendix, that was a freeby he threw in. Or so we understood him to say and we had no reason to doubt him. We also got the impression this was not an unusual practice but that may have been him trying to justify it, no idea. We were both too stunned to ask if he ever did tell them.

 

Then the question of abortion doesn't come up, of course.

Bizarre and I had heard similar stories from decades in the past. I also knew a dentist who told me once, with apparent sincerity, that he was upset at the Provincial Government which had recently changed the billing method for welfare patients. Historically, so he told me, they would pay the same for an extraction as for a filling, so he always pulled the teeth since doing so was quick and easy, while doing a filling could become very time-consuming. The change was to reduce the payment for extractions.

 

I began my legal career in the Interior of BC, and there was a fairly large 1st Nations population in the small city where I lived. As a young lawyer I did spend more than a few hours in the Provincial Court, where low-level criminal matters were handled, and there was undoubtedly a disproportionate number of 1st Nations people amongst the accused.

 

I've heard or read stories suggesting that maybe 1st Nations people are disproportionately prone to alcohol addiction for genetic reasons, but I have no knowledge of that and I see no reason to give substance to that story absent evidence: it smacks of the racism that 'your' doctor appears to exhibit. From my perspective, very much as an outsider, it seems to me that socio-economic and geographical factors are sufficient to account for rampant alcoholism and the associated high rate of FAS.

 

I have known a few 1st Nations people. Eddie John, who has become a prominent national figure, was a lawyer in the same city when he got out of law school. A smart man.

 

I bought a piece of stereo equipment online from someone high in the politics of a 1st nations band in Northern Quebec, and while we didn't speak, we emailed frequently. He was and no doubt still is a real audiophile and definitely knew what he was talking about, and was a pleasure to deal with (and I hope vice versa). I have acted for members of two different bands in different disputes, and took instructions from members of the band.

 

But other than that, all I know is from the media or from the limited times I have driven through reserve lands. I have never been to any of the more remote areas.

 

The reality for many in the 1st nations communities is that educational and vocational opportunities are basically non-existent. Many live in communities far from any urban area. Their role models are often few and far between, or are drunk or addicts or violent, and often all three. They are very likely to encounter racism should they venture off the reserve, or if they already live off the reserve.

 

We have a paternalistic government attitude, and while that is changing, the effects of such change will take generations to realize. We are, as a nation, only just closing the book on the revelations of decades of systemic and pervasive child abuse within the (to us now) misguided effort to assimilate children via brutal residential school programmes.

 

All of this, and more, seems to me to more than adequately explain why young 1st nations people end up so frequently as addicts of one kind or another, and why a lot of them appear to have FAS.

 

Btw, while I claim no personal expertise, I am persuaded by those experts who assert that race is very much a social construct. Yes, there are obvious, inheritable traits from one 'race' to another, but absent social isolation, so as to create a defined subpopulation, it seems to me that racial characteristics, like all other characteristics of humans, tend to merge and meld.

 

We do like to hang labels on things, including people. This makes a great deal of sense, since we (or our distant ancestors) had to make rapid decisions on limited information, and hanging labels on things allows us to do that...we 'know' that someone is or is not 'us' without having to wait until we see their face or hear their voice, as one example. Whether that tendency remains, on balance, a good thing is another topic. We like 'us' and are afraid of 'them'.....as demagogues know all too well.

[Winstonm]

Bizarre and I had heard similar stories from decades in the past. I also knew a dentist who told me once, with apparent sincerity, that he was upset at the Provincial Government which had recently changed the billing method for welfare patients. Historically, so he told me, they would pay the same for an extraction as for a filling, so he always pulled the teeth since doing so was quick and easy, while doing a filling could become very time-consuming. The change was to reduce the payment for extractions.

 

I began my legal career in the Interior of BC, and there was a fairly large 1st Nations population in the small city where I lived. As a young lawyer I did spend more than a few hours in the Provincial Court, where low-level criminal matters were handled, and there was undoubtedly a disproportionate number of 1st Nations people amongst the accused.

 

I've heard or read stories suggesting that maybe 1st Nations people are disproportionately prone to alcohol addiction for genetic reasons, but I have no knowledge of that and I see no reason to give substance to that story absent evidence: it smacks of the racism that 'your' doctor appears to exhibit. From my perspective, very much as an outsider, it seems to me that socio-economic and geographical factors are sufficient to account for rampant alcoholism and the associated high rate of FAS.

 

I have known a few 1st Nations people. Eddie John, who has become a prominent national figure, was a lawyer in the same city when he got out of law school. A smart man.

 

I bought a piece of stereo equipment online from someone high in the politics of a 1st nations band in Northern Quebec, and while we didn't speak, we emailed frequently. He was and no doubt still is a real audiophile and definitely knew what he was talking about, and was a pleasure to deal with (and I hope vice versa). I have acted for members of two different bands in different disputes, and took instructions from members of the band.

 

But other than that, all I know is from the media or from the limited times I have driven through reserve lands. I have never been to any of the more remote areas.

 

The reality for many in the 1st nations communities is that educational and vocational opportunities are basically non-existent. Many live in communities far from any urban area. Their role models are often few and far between, or are drunk or addicts or violent, and often all three. They are very likely to encounter racism should they venture off the reserve, or if they already live off the reserve.

 

We have a paternalistic government attitude, and while that is changing, the effects of such change will take generations to realize. We are, as a nation, only just closing the book on the revelations of decades of systemic and pervasive child abuse within the (to us now) misguided effort to assimilate children via brutal residential school programmes.

 

All of this, and more, seems to me to more than adequately explain why young 1st nations people end up so frequently as addicts of one kind or another, and why a lot of them appear to have FAS.

 

Btw, while I claim no personal expertise, I am persuaded by those experts who assert that race is very much a social construct. Yes, there are obvious, inheritable traits from one 'race' to another, but absent social isolation, so as to create a defined subpopulation, it seems to me that racial characteristics, like all other characteristics of humans, tend to merge and meld.

 

We do like to hang labels on things, including people. This makes a great deal of sense, since we (or our distant ancestors) had to make rapid decisions on limited information, and hanging labels on things allows us to do that...we 'know' that someone is or is not 'us' without having to wait until we see their face or hear their voice, as one example. Whether that tendency remains, on balance, a good thing is another topic. We like 'us' and are afraid of 'them'.....as demagogues know all too well.

 

There does seem to be a genetic component to excessive alcohol consumption: https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q3/drink-seeking-rats-provide-sobering-look-into-genetics-of-alcoholism.html

 

By comparing the genomes of rats that drank compulsively with those that abstained, Purdue and Indiana University researchers identified 930 genes associated with alcoholism, indicating that it is a highly complex trait - on par with human height - influenced by many genes and the environment

[Kaitlyn S]

I also would upvote onoway's post if my tablet let me, and Mike's AFS post was also good. To me, he adds another argument in favor of legal abortion. For a pregnant alcoholic may follow an anti-abortion law and let the baby be born, despite her wish to do otherwise, but she won't stop drinking.

 

In fact, many a young woman being forced to carry a baby against her will, planning to give it up, may very well care less about the health of her unborn child, and won't let it affect her lifestyle. I can see outlawing abortion being a recipe for more damaged children.

[Vampyr]

You can't upvote with your tablet? I can with a mini iPad, but maybe there is a mobile version of the app?

[helene_t]

which browser do you use, Stephanie?