Lieberman Calls for Abortion Discussion

[velocity]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Lieberman-Abortion.html?pagewanted=print&position=

December 26, 2003
Lieberman Calls for Abortion Discussion
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:30 p.m. ET

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman says he believes in a woman's right to choose an abortion, but he thinks advances in medical science call for a re-examination of the current definition of abortion rights.

The Connecticut senator said those advances may force reconsideration of the approach to abortion rights as defined in the Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lieberman said the period of time a woman actually has a ``right to choose'' gradually grows shorter as medical science pushes fetal viability ever-earlier in pregnancy, the Manchester, N.H., Union Leader reported in its Friday editions.

...cut...more at article.....

[Khephra]

1. It's going to get real hot in here at any moment...

(ducking for cover now...)

[jamesarg]

83. Lieberman was the 2000 running mate of Al Gore for our Party

I look over the message board and I see you all knocking Joe Lieberman. He was our VEEP Nominee in 2000, you all seem to forget that. He was our standard bearer along with Al Gore. He would be the Democratic Vice-president had things gone fairly.

It was Al Gore and Joe Lieberman against George Bush and Dick Cheney. Not just Al Gore. Lieberman is who made the election so close in Florida and he is the only one who could carry Florida today in the current presidential field. So stop knocking him please.

- James

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. Biggest mistake of Gore's career.

Yes, Gore won in 2000, but with a better veep candidate it could have been a large enough victory that it couldn't have been stolen. Did you see the Cheney/Lieberman debate?

[Mississippi Liberal]

109. Utter rubbish!

I consider Lieberman the chief reason that Gore is not President today! With the exceptions of Zell Miller and maybe James Traficant, Gore couldn't have found a running mate in the Democratic Party more capable of antagonizing potential Nader voters. Lieberman was pro-censorship, pro-corporatist, soft on separation of church and state, and as radically pro-Israel as any repug out there. He disgraced himself in the debate against Cheney, undermined Gore during the Florida Fiasco, and has consistently enabled Bush ever on the war, the Patriot Act and the tax cuts. And of the nine Dem candidates, he is the only one who might be WORSE than Shrub as President. Their domestic policies would be largely the same, but Shrub at least occasionally reins in Ariel Sharon when he goes on a rampage. Lieberman would be even more blindingly pro-Israel at a time when the entire Middle East is nothing but gasoline-soaked kindling beneath the potential bonfire of World War III.

[Robb]

2. Oh, man... did he really just say that?

OK, that's it. I now officially have no idea what Joe's strategy for winning is. :eyes:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kremer]

4. I agree! Let's talk abortion. First, abort your campaign Joe!

Then we'll talk about a woman's right to choose!

[smirkymonkey]

93. Exactly the kind of abortion I was thinking

about! Please, Joe, either join the repukes or go away!

[OrAnarch]

5. How about a reconsideration of Lieberman's party.

:)

[tibbiit]

18. no sh*t

tib

[Khephra]

6. I think we've just seen a campaign completely implode

Joe's running on the "Bring up every divisive issue I can and pick the Conservative side" platform.

[goobergunch]

12. lol

Yeah, I really don't see how this is going to help Lieberman in any caucus or primary.

[niyad]

7. more proof that joe is "bush-lite"-- what a waste

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Is he running for president as a Democrat?

Because he sure sounds like a Republican. Sure, there are abortion opponents in the Democratic party, but by and large, this is not an issue to run on during the party race.

Wow. Who are his advisors? Do they have a clue?

Wow.

Have I said Wow yet?

Wow.

[Khephra]

13. I'll say it again for you.

WOW.... I can't even really find the words to bash him for this. This is just so suicidal for the primaries. Wow...

[smirkymonkey]

96. Yes, but it's the Republican

arm of the Democratic Party - I'll bet you didn't even know there was one!!

Well, there is, and it consists of Joe Lieberman and..., uh...well, I guess that's it for now. :)

[PassingFair]

111. Don't forget ...

Jamesarg!
Lieberman, party of two, Lieberman, party of two...

[wryter2000]

9. Please go away

Please, please, please go away. I sooooooo want to be ABB, but I can't while there's a snowball's chance in Hades for this moron to get the nomination.

What is the DLC thinking?

[worldgonekrazy]

10. Joe actually has an interesting point

My first reaction was "here is Joe doing his impression of a Republican again," but if you think about what he is saying there actually is some sense to it. If a baby can be born and survive at X time, then wouldn't having an abortion on or after X time be darn close to taking a life? I hate to sound like a right-winger, but I don't think the abortion issue is as black and white as most people make it.

[niyad]

14. that argument is nothing but a wedge to eventually eliminate a woman's

right to choose. and kindly remember that MOST abortions are performed in the first trimester-- there is no chance of viability.

[OzarkDem]

115. Abortion is a wedge issue

Its time to rethink the wisdom of having it the leading Dem issue for women. There are a lot more important issues facing women today that aren't divisive or controversial. Time to stop drinking the kool aide every 4 years.

I support a woman's right to choose, but I'm sick of the party talking about it as if its the most important thing to women.

It isn't. We need to embrace the entire spectrum of women's health issues and women's issues in general.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Lieberman wants to re-argue Roe v. Wade

Fetal viability was the basis of Roe. This is why some of us that are pro-choice preferred what Judge Ginsburg wrote a few years back that the Court should have used equality under the law as the basis to legalize abortion.

Lieberman is not interested in equality under the law, if he were, he would be a strong supporter of gay marriage. Joe wants to re-argue Roe by saying that advances in medical science makes it almost possible for a fertilized egg to be viable.

What a puke!

[mmm]

19. good summary

ain't he a piece of work?

[worldgonekrazy]

76. Maybe I am mis-reading it...

But it seems to me that what Lieberman was trying to do was warn Democrats that the Roe v. Wade decision could essentially be negated by scientific advancements. Thus, when he says it should be "re-examined", I think he is referring to the legal basis of "viability" as what should be re-examined. In other words, Dems ought to seek a more solid ruling.

Maybe I am just giving Joe too much benefit of the doubt. Unlike most here on DU, I do not hate him. He does have quite a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth, but I think his intentions are generally good.

[LiberalFighter]

32. It is contrary to Republican and Democrat beliefs

Republican: It is government interference. Big Government. Too many laws.

Democrats: Everyone knows or should know what those beliefs are about abortion.


My take:

The government is interfering in the decision of the mother and/or father.

The government is interfering in the practice of medicine. They may board certify physicians but they cannot board certify themselves to practice medicine.

The government is not knowledgeable about what each pregnant woman needs in the way of medicine. This in effect is the government becoming the HMO requiring certain procedures to be followed regardless of any circumstances that require a different treatment. I am sure many of you know about HMO's and their procedures. Since when do insurance companies know the proper treatment?

It is not the function of churches to interfere in the lives of every citizen of this country and other countries. They are entitled to influence their own parishioners when it is within their own household.

It is not the function of churches to interefere in legislation via elected officials that are of the same faith. Elected officials have a duty to serve all of the citizens within their district. They cannot and must not force their beliefs thru legislation on everyone. All citizens have a right and expectation to be treated the same.

Those that argue this is a democracy are right. But their definition of a democracy is wrong when it involves the United States. We have laws that are enacted and not all laws are legal. They may think they are legal because Congress passed the laws and the president signed them under the majority rule belief. But that majority rule has to pass constitutional restrictions. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the majority from trampling over the minority.

[LiberalFighter]

34. I do wish that all children were wanted and..

that all pregnancies were wanted. But that is not the case!

Too many of the pro-choice opposition procreate too many children. Why? They are not helping their family to mass produce children. And they are not helping society by mass producing children that are dumped in the schools and society.

Is planning a conservative method of doing things?
Financial planning is not about the husband and wife. It requires proper planning for the children. If the effect and expense of additional children are not considered then the parents are fiscally irresponsible.

[Unforgiven]

73. Bullseye!

Exactly, This is an issue no government belongs in, in any way or manner. Period. No argument!

[NashVegas]

39. Not Really

The foetuses in these cases are not viable without major scientific intervention.

The bottom line is that the state has no business forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy under any condition.

[worldgonekrazy]

77. But according to current legal precedent...

the state very well could interfere because as it stands right now the "viability" of the fetus is the litmus test for whether an abortion can be performed or not. If this isn't changed, inevitable advances in medical science will make abortions much more restricted because a fetus can be "viable" earlier and earlier. See what I am saying? I think it is the point Joe is trying to make.

[Must_B_Free]

42. Yeah we're kind of on the wrong side of the issue

Listening to Bob Marley has me convinced that promoting life is always the just thing to do.

I think people should have a choice, but should always choose life over convienence.

I don't agree with policing the situation, but I also don't think it's a valid form of birth control like Sinead O'conner thinks.

[roguevalley]

51. personally, he's a dork.

if someone wants to adopt all these unwanted children and
end abortion, step forward. No one wants that. They want
reproductive servitude. Joe Lieberman mystifies me to death.

[Cuban Peril]

75. First Post.

If you were to ask these 'unwanted' children if they would have rather been aborted, what do you think they would say?

Just a thought.

[YEM]

11. Say goodbye, Joe! It's been real!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bicentennial_baby]

17. Fuck You Joe Fuck You Joe Fuck You Joe

Thank the lawd he has no chance in hell of ever becoming president...now if he'll only drop out and shut up.

[liberalhistorian]

20. "Drop out and shut up",

LOL! My sentiments exactly, although fat chance of that ever happening.

[0rganism]

21. What exactly is Joe's constituency, again?

About a year ago, I recall listening to Joe and his wife Hadassah on NPR, talking about how important abortion rights were in the context of supreme court nominees. Now he wants to mangle the premise of Roe v. Wade?

I wish he'd figure out where he stands. Maybe that's why he wants to have a discussion, to figure out what he believes.

[liberalhistorian]

22. It's a little late for him to just NOW

start figuring out what he wants to believe, isn't it?

[0rganism]

27. True, but I'm trying real hard to give him benefit of the doubt

After all, if Dennis Kucinich can flip on the issue in the last year, maybe Joe Lieberman is just doing the opposite to balance him out.

Like I said, trying real hard.

[mouse7]

54. Pro-life Likud Party members, I think

Whole bunch those in South Carolina and Oklahoma.

[MurrayDelph]

23. Here's my discussion of abortions, Joe:

your mama should have had one!


Seriously, my wife is a retired RN, who, during nursing school learned about the concept of a "bad save" -- technically alive,
but never to have what most would consider a "quality of life."

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[put out]

25. No, Joe.

I choose for me. You choose for you. Now you need to sit down and be quiet about it.

[Malva Zebrina]

26. Lieberman is desperate

he wants to bring up single issue items in order to sensationalize his run. He is truly desperate. I find him rather pathetic and almost laughable.

[Moderator]

28. Reminder: Nicknames for Candidates and Supporters not permitted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=29664

Per the DU Forum rules, let's refrain from calling Senator Lieberman "Holy Joe" and the like in our discussion.

Thanks!

DU Moderator

[Voltaire99]

29. There's your campaign issue, Joe!

Limit abortion rights!

Sure to capture the fetus vote with that one, you right wing schmuck.

[MaineDem]

30. I think he can kiss the nomination goodbye

Don't you dare mess with my constitutional right, Senator!

[Karenina]

31. I just wish

EVERYONE would extract their noses from women's crotches. It's NOT YOUR BUSINESS.

[Judi Lynn]

33. Wonderful! I've thought this for ages but didn't have the nerve to say it!

If I knew how to do a cartwheel, I'd do it! Thanks so much.

[pllib]

35. this has been an enlightening discussion

Not.

Joe raises an interesting question. ( And I do not support Sen Lieberman, nor am I going to argue that abortion should be legalized). Roe was argued using fetal viability as a point prior to which the states interest in the life can be superceded by a women's right to privacy. At some point, science will be able to sustain an embryo from conception to term. Physicians already routinely conceive embryos in vivo and keep 24 week babies alive, most of whom survive with a good quality of life. Although this is decades, if not farther, away, at some point medical advances will make Roe v. Wade moot.

Joe is right, we do need to have another debate about abortion in this country, one that moves beyond the slogans tossed out by those who are ardently "pro-life" or "pro-choice." This is an issue that is about more than the women's right to choose, or the fetuses right-to-life. It is about justice, for women and children.

Why do women choose abortion? Most choose abortion out of desparation - they lack the support, emotional or financial, to carry them through a pregnancy or to support their child. Their choice of abortion is not really a "choice." It is the unjust structures of our society - the lack of economic opportunity, universal health insurance, the still not equal rights of women in our society (for example, why should my female patient, trying to prove paternity, be the one that has to pay hundreds of dollars for genetic testing to prove that her partner is the father of her baby?) that lead many women to choose abortion.

Abortion is not an "equal opportunity" procedure. Abortion rates are declining overall, except among those of lower socioeconomic status, where abortion rates are rising. 33% of black pregnancies end in abortion. 16% of white pregnancies end in abortion. What does this statistic say about the relative value our society places on the life of a poor child, or of black child vs. a white child, or about the support that is available to white women as compared to black woman? I agree with Joe on this point abortion should be safe, legal and rare - rare in that if we truly had social policies that supported women and children, not many women would choose abortion.

Finally an approach to abortion that acknowledges the moral ambiguities of abortion, that acknowledges that abortion is not a social good, not some end, in and of itself, but rather, in most instances, an indicator of an unjust society, can help Democrats take this wedge issue away from Republicans. Many moderates, who are socially progressive, cannot stomach voting for Democrats because of their strident support for abortion. Candidates that could support abortion rights, but at the same time acknowledge the moral ambiguity that most Americans feel towards abortion, could make a forceful argument for the kind of social programs (universal health care, affordable adoption, real welfare reform, child care, paid family leave) that would decrease the need for abortion. This would pull many of the "Reagan democrats" back to the Democratic party, and show-up the extreme right-to-lifers as the hypocrites they are.

[Karenina]

41. There is NO DEBATE.

There is NO REASON for those, not personally involved, to inject their "opinions" into a woman's and her family's PERSONAL LIFE. If a woman decides absolutely, for whatever reason, that NOW is NOT the time to introduce another life into this world, THAT is the decision and no one can contradict it. Many in the U.S. would rather see her DIE than honor HER decision. I am reminded of the quote, "If I cannot be trusted in a decision, how should I be trusted with a child?"

[pllib]

44. What if?

A woman and her family decided they only wanted to have male children? That they would abort all of their female fetuses? (It is happening in India.)
Is this a morally justifiable decision? Would you support it?

What if we applied this logic to other spheres of policy discussion? Why should society pay for prenatal care? If the woman and her family bears sole responsibility for any decision, shouldn't they bear all of the cost?
Should we really care about the effects of environmental toxins on the developing embryo?

The extremely libertarian view you are advancing discounts the greater social ramifications of individual decisions, and weakens any argument one could make to improve the health of women and their children though progressive social policies.

There is a debate going on - you can choose to engage constructively in it, or not. Sloganeering will do little to make any progress on achieving real justice for women and their children.

Peace.

[worldgonekrazy]

78. The point is that Roe v. Wade is shaky ground

To base abortion rights on. That is what Lieberman is trying to say. I'm not a big fan of the guy because he seems to lack a spine, but in this case he is spot on, IMO.

[loyalsister]

46. You make good points

Trouble is this puts us on a very slippery slope. "At some point, science will be able to sustain an embryo from conception to term."
If it were determined that every single conceived embryo "deserved" a chance at life, what happens to the pill? What eventually happens to fertile women in states that have those child abuse while pregnant drug laws.
The legal question should come down to is it reasonable to prioritize a potential life of a fetus over that of the woman. Unless we're idiots, it would be the person who very well may be a parent to existing children.

[pllib]

47. slippery slope?

Interesting - usually the slippery slope argument is made by those opposing abortion. However, at some point we will develop the ability to grow babies outside a uterus, and we will continue to make advances in keeping ever younger preemies alive. At some point, the arguments underlying Roe will be undone by scientific advance.

Does every fetus deserve a right to life? I personally believe so. However, I recognize that many do not share this belief, and we, as a society, have to figure out how to reach some middle ground that gives some acknowledgement of the values that lie on both sides of this debate. I believe that a fetus, while it may not be fully human, is obviously human to some degree (what else is it, a fish?), and is therefore deserving of some protection.

The intent of birth control pills, and the morning after pill, are to prevent, not end pregnancy, and thus, should fall outside the scope of the abortion debate (although I know many ardent pro-lifers do not agree with this). I share your concern about the child abuse while pregnant drug laws. This is a wrong-headed approach that seems to be more intent on satisfying the self-righteous than actually helping a pregnant woman who suffers from a substance abuse problem and her baby.

[roguevalley]

52. God. This is a no win, you know. This is about rights, the woman

of course coming out on the losing side of things as always. Women cannot have this choice. Its against ____ will. It can't be the
best and easiest decision but those against abortion say it is nothing to the people who decide to have one. No one I know who ever
had one thought it was easy. None of them did it for frivolous reasons. In fact, in my experience it was just the opposite. I do not consider myself an anomoly.

We are very good with concepts but realities are harder. We say every zygote in the universe must be born. In a perfect world they probably would be. But in our world its not perfect. When they are born, we don't take care of them. Where is the educational support, support for day care so families can work and rise out of the poverty that is currently going up? Where is the expenditure and thinking our people, the concern for the future that we are frittering away in tax cuts, wars and hellish diregard for the earth these little embryos are going to be stuck with some day?

Its all about abstractions, isn't it? The hard realities, the birth of children that aren't wanted/ill/born into improvrishment/neglected
etc is never a part of the argument. Its always about the zygote and not about the families that have made the decision, the woman who has
to bear the child and the environment the child comes into.

Check out the poverty stats, the child abuse/neglect stats, the desperation of people who will never get out of poverty but have less opportunity because of it to control family size than others better off. What about the masses of people right now living in disease, poverty and starvation who cannot control the size of their families while we withhold funding of child planning because our sensibilities and moral high horse is offended? What about Thai families selling their daughters as prostitutes because they cannot afford them. If you are going to talk about Indian/Chinese desires for male children, add other places that have all their children and must face terrible decisions because they cannot afford to feed them.

What about the 2 billion children that go to be hungry every single night? Do we not think of them too? No. They don't live in our line of sight and so we can indulge in abstraction and not reality. There is poverty here, people without homes, living in cars and boxes whose plight is just as terrible but they don't exist for us because we refuse to see them.

Its easy to talk about philosophy and abstraction. Its the hard, evil, mean reality that never makes it into the picture. I personally feel better for an unwanted aborted baby than one that is born and dies from parental neglect. At least the first didn't have to face the reality of the second.

Stay out of women's business, Joe.

[joshcryer]

60. Yep, but assuming such technology was available...

...hopefully we'd have gotten our act together with regards to poverty. But I personally don't see it happening.

Anyway, it would obviously be hard for a woman to say "I want that viable fetus to die" when we're talking about a procedure that is essentially the same as abortion (ie, you get all the benefits from abortion), only the child survives. Basically, this is "abordoption."

I don't see how you want the woman to "win" in this context. Are you saying the woman, if the current technology exists, should be allowed to decide the fate of a child? (As far as viablity goes, the embryo or fetus is no less viable than a newborn.)

[smirkymonkey]

94. Bravo!

Great post...and the most sensible one I have seen yet. The pro-lifers seem to be living in some kind of idealized version of reality, completely ignorant of real life outcomes.

The only way to make this a win-win is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and we all know how likely that is - especially w/ the fundies trying to erode all reproductive and birth control rights. What a mess.

[loyalsister]

58. Without a doubt!

You talk about "every fetus" deserves a chance. I think one of the points you missed in my post was that the point where they can be grown outside the uterus is the point where people say "every barely conceived egg that deserves a chance" and the birth control pill comes under attack.
This glorification of the fetus at the EXPENSE yes EXPENSE of the woman would be a massive step backwards. It's matter of thinking about a woman as LESS important than something that has never been capable of living separately from another human being. Something that, in our society that keeps calling for more independence from women have needed government help, would provide heroic medical intervention to keep this thing alive at the expense of who??? Conceptually, it's degrading as hell!

[joshcryer]

59. It would become extremely costly.

I mean, can you imagine? We can hardly deal with our current populations, it would be a disastor if such technology was had and people deemed that every viable fertil embryo should be allowed to live. Perhaps they do, objectively it would be a heck of a lot easier to define human life and human rights in general that way. "You are a human and you deserve to live as soon as your embryo multiplies."

But, on other grounds, I don't see the problem. The women could have some kind of extraction procedure not all unlike an abortion, which keeps the fetus/embryo intact so that whatever technology we have can maintain it until it's fully grown.

I think you guys are being too hard on this idea. It's common sense.

[loyalsister]

70. Small sacrifice

when the payoff is putting women back in their place. That's what this is about. Taking choices about reproduction away from women is about taking power away from them. Believe me, for those who believe it would make the world a better place the expense would be a very small sacrifice to make.

[joshcryer]

71. Hmm, don't see how choice is taken away here...

Whatever happened to equality? Why should women have a monopoly on reproduction? This technology would allow men and women alike to have babies. :)

I've said enough on this matter.

[Crowdance]

74. What technology? This technology doesn't exist.

And, if it did--your point reduces women to nothing more than vessels. I suspect the role of women in the gestational process amounts to significantly more than that of a baby delivery system. I believe that women imbue humanity in the fetus during the gestational period. It may be that, without a woman's energy in the process, we'll create less-than-human people with your dream technology.

And a big question I ask every time I hear this idea broached (no, this is not the first time): who pays? I'm guessing this technology is going to be very costly to operate. I'm reminded of the cost many parents expend saving seriously premature infants--hundreds of thousands.

[joshcryer]

85. Roe vs. Wade does that.

Not me.

[Crowdance]

114. Huh?

[iverglas]

92. ya think?

"However, at some point we will develop the ability to grow babies outside a uterus, and we will continue to make advances in keeping ever younger preemies alive."

Hmm. "<G>row babies outside a uterus."

Funny thing is that uteruses are generally -- in fact, now that I think about it, I think I could confidently say EXCLUSIVELY -- found INSIDE a WOMAN. I mean, uteruses in which one might find z/e/fs, of course. (Dog knows where one would ever find a uterus with a baby in it.)

But I digress. If at some distant stardate we are capable of "growing" z/e/fs outside a WOMAN, how exactly would you suggest -- assuming that we are talking about z/e/fs that originate inside a woman, and not inside a petrie dish -- that the z/e/fs in question be got OUT of the women in question, if she didn't want it got?

I mean ... without violating her fundamental human rights -- to life, to liberty and to security of the person. And I mean ... unless whoever proposes to excise, or magically transport, those z/e/fs out of women's bodies and acquire possession of them without the women's consent is also proposing to offer up his/her kidneys or blood or bone marrow ... or hell, why not his/her heart or liver or lungs? ... to whoever comes along and wants 'em.

You ever heard of the concept of "rights"? You ever had anyone explain to you what it MEANS?

"Does every fetus deserve a right to life? I personally believe so."

I personally believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Since I am unable even to explain that belief, let alone present a coherent argument for it, I generally refrain from maundering on in public about how public policy should be reframed to protect my fairies from apple pollen. (My fairies are allergic to apple pollen, and I think that all apple orchards should be burnt to the ground to protect my fairies from choking to death. And I really don't care how many orchard owners' life's work, and dreams of financial security, went up in smoke with them.)

But hey, maybe you could explain how a z/e/f could/would exercise this right to life that it "deserves" ... without the entire concept of rights, and life as we know it, becoming a Lewis Carroll tale.

I've sure asked a lot of people to explain that to me. Maybe you'll be the one who succeeds. Or hell, who even tries.


"I believe that a fetus, while it may not be fully human, is obviously human to some degree (what else is it, a fish?), and is therefore deserving of some protection."

Damn, that's so cute. May I quote you sometime? -- "what else is it, a fish?" Hey, how about right now: my big toe is obviously "human to some degree (what else is it, a fish?)".

So, is my big toe "deserving of some protection"? If I negligently break it (which I did, some 15 years ago), should it be able to have me charged with assault? to sue me for damages? Should it be able to obtain an injunction to prohibit me from wearing sandals, or kicking cars? Should the law prohibit me from going barefoot in the snow? Should the law prohibit me from having my toe amputated?

Maybe you'll be able to explain how my big toe could/would exercise rights that would obviously be in competition with the rights of *me*. Good practice for the original question, eh?

"However, I recognize that many do not share this belief, and we, as a society, have to figure out how to reach some middle ground that gives some acknowledgement of the values that lie on both sides of this debate."

I recognize that many do not share my belief in the fairies in my garden, but obviously they should feel a compelling obligation to reach some middle ground with me that gives some acknowledgement of the value I assign to my fairies, regardless of whose rights might be violated by whatever arrangement we work out. I'm sure you agree.

.

[smirkymonkey]

97. LOL!

and many good points taken! :hi:

[joshcryer]

105. The question is...

What rational reason would a woman, who did not want to go through a pregnancy have, for not letting her viable fetus be removed from her and allowed to finish out its growth cycle? It's the same as abortion, only the fetus lives. Same fucking thing! Except the fetus doesn't get basically ground up.

It's a very very hard question to ask, and you really missed the point entirely. There would be no "taking away" of rights.

The most likely scenario (if this were to happen and the laws were to stay the same), is that abortion would become some kind of adbortion, which stands for 'adoption-abortion,' the female-fetus pregnancy is aborted, and replaced with some mechanical-fetus process, so that the child can grow up and go to an adoption center. But, again, this brings up questions about cost, and so on.

If the fundies have their way, this technology would never be invented anyway (because it would obviously require experimenting on fetuses and so on). But this technology could prove very valuable, for example, if a mother dies in a car accident, the fetus can be removed at any point in the pregnancy. Another option would be that this technology obviously would open the door for the father or males in general to have children. This technology would do more good than harm, I'd think, but we'd have to redefine what is protected life and what isn't. That, or somehow fix poverty.

[iverglas]

110. nah, the question is still

... why you insist on diminishing women and trivializing women's choices by characterizing the decision to terminate a pregnancy as one made by "a woman, who did not want to go through a pregnancy". How you could characterize having a z/e/f removed from one's body and farmed out for gestation, and then for rearing after "birth", as "the same as abortion" is quite beyond me, I'm afraid.

Of course, the fact that you persist in demonizing women by using language like "Except the fetus doesn't get basically ground up" is also beyond me. (Remember those sarcasm tags, now.)

Taking penicillin is the "same fucking thing!" as having having a tonsillectomy, only the tonsils don't get basically ground up. And only you still have your tonsils, which you might have preferred, for your own reasons and in your own interests, not to have. Just like a women who is denied an abortion still has a child, regardless of whom it's been given to once it is born (or "born", in your scenario) against her will.


"It's a very very hard question to ask, and you really missed the point entirely. There would be no 'taking away' of rights."

I'm afraid, my friend, that it is you who has missed the point entirely. No one who understood (and valued) rights could say that such a science-fiction procedure involved "no taking way of rights".


"The most likely scenario (if this were to happen and the laws were to stay the same), is that abortion would become some kind of adbortion, which stands for 'adoption-abortion,' the female-fetus pregnancy is aborted, and replaced with some mechanical-fetus process, so that the child can grow up and go to an adoption center. But, again, this brings up questions about cost, and so on."

Yes, I suppose it would bring up "questions about cost", in your mind, from what I've seen. In my mind, it would bring up questions about things like slavery. Having one's control over one's reproductive processes and activities taken away from one is, after all, one of the common features of that institution. Not to mention that being "born" through this kind of procedure and then farmed out to an "adoption centre" reflects just the same kind of mentality -- person-as-means to someone else's end, rather than person as end in him/herself -- as slavery reflects. Whole generations of children who are saleable products for market -- or, worse, unwanted by anyone -- things; that's all I see in your scenario.

Allow me to quote one of my favourite sources (see below for details) (all underlining mine):

50. As is pointed out by Professor Cyril E. M. Joad, then Head of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology at Birkbeck College, University of London, in Guide to the Philosophy of Morals and Politics (1938), the role of the state in a democracy is to establish the background conditions under which individual citizens may pursue the ethical values which in their view underlie the good life. He states at p. 801:

For the welfare of the state is nothing apart from the good of the citizens who compose it. It is no doubt true that a State whose citizens are compelled to go right is more efficient than one whose citizens are free to go wrong. But what then? To sacrifice freedom in the interests of efficiency, is to sacrifice what confers upon human beings their humanity. It is no doubt easy to govern a flock of sheep; but there is no credit in the governing, and, if the sheep were born as men, no virtue in the sheep.

Professor Joad further emphasizes at p. 803 that individuals in a democratic society can never be treated "merely as means to ends beyond themselves" because:

To the right of the individual to be treated as an end, which entails his right to the full development and expression of his personality, all other rights and claims must, the democrat holds, be subordinated. I do not know how this principle is to be defended any more than I can frame a defence for the principles of democracy and liberty.

Professor Joad stresses that the essence of a democracy is its recognition of the fact that the state is made for man and not man for the state (p. 805). He firmly rejects the notion that science provides a basis for subordinating the individual to the state. He says at pp. 805-6:

Human beings, it is said, are important only in so far as they fit into a biological scheme or assist in the furtherance of the evolutionary process. Thus each generation of women must accept as its sole function the production of children who will constitute the next generation who, in their turn, will devote their lives and sacrifice their inclinations to the task of producing a further generation, and so on ad infinitum. This is the doctrine of eternal sacrifice -- "jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today". For, it may be asked, to what end should generations be produced, unless the individuals who compose them are valued in and for themselves, are, in fact, ends in themselves? There is no escape from the doctrine of the perpetual recurrence of generations who have value only in so far as they produce more generations, the perpetual subordination of citizens who have value only in so far as they promote the interests of the State to which they are subordinated, except in the individualist doctrine, which is also the Christian doctrine, that the individual is an end in himself.

"This technology would do more good than harm, I'd think, but we'd have to redefine what is protected life and what isn't. That, or somehow fix poverty."

That's a bit of a dog's breakfast ... so let's stick with the first part. "Redefine what is protected life and what isn't". Whenever you've worked out how that is going to work, the question I have asked so many before you -- how anything that is not born, human and alive (i.e. "a human being") is going to have its life protected in the same way as human beings' lives are protected -- you just let me know.

The right to life (which comes as a package with all the other human rights we recognize) requires that there be a prohibition on killing anything that has that right for the convenience or even survival of the killer (with the exception that we tend to make to permit the killing of something trying to kill us). At bottom, we may not eat each other: no matter how hungry we human beings may be, and how likely to die we may be if we do not eat the other human being on the raft, we may not kill him/her. On the other hand, we may kill anything other than a human being -- even, if we would otherwise starve to death, an animal in a protected species; we could not (constitutionally) be prosecuted for doing that.

There is simply no such thing as having a little bit of a right to life. If something has a right to life, it has the same right to life as anything else that has that right, and we owe it exactly the same protection of its life as we owe everything else with that right.

Pregnancy presents risks to women's lives -- risks that can be entirely unforeseen and unforeseeable. Compelling anyone to assume risks to her life that she does not wish to assume is a violation of the right to life. That's why you can't be compelled, by law, to jump into the icy St. Lawrence to rescue me, even if I will die if you don't. In a very few instances -- military conscription and discipline being the main one -- we do violate that right by compelling people to assume risks to their lives. We believe that this is justified by the need to protect our societies. I have yet to see any remotely similar justification for compelling pregnant women to assume the risks involved in continued pregnancy and childbirth.

If z/e/fs were to be defined as having a right to life, we would quite simply be faced with an insoluble problem. A woman who did not wish to assume the risks of pregnancy and who was compelled to do so, in order to protect the "right to life" of the z/e/f, would be a victim of a serious rights violation. A z/e/f which had a right to life but was aborted, for any reason, would be a victim of a serious rights violation. If you can describe how such a violation could be committed in compliance with the requirements of due process, again, do tell me: how any judge or tribunal could ever decide whether to allow a violation of a pregnant woman's rights, by denying permission for an abortion, or to allow a violation of a z/e/f's rights, by granting permission for an abortion, when neither has done anything that could, under the rules of due process, justify such a violation.

In any event, this entire discussion is so nonsensical as to be almost beyond belief. Pregnancy is not some technological process. Pregnancy is a function of women's bodies. Regardless of whether artificial uteruses are ever invented and used to gestate z/e/fs that have been created in vitro, pregnancy will still be a function of a woman's body, and z/e/fs created in the old-fashioned way will still be part of their bodies. And the interruption of a process occurring in someone's body, or the manner in which that process will be interrupted, and the removal of any part of of someone's body against her will, will always be a rights violation.

I recommend that you do a little reading about rights. You could start here: Madam Justice Bertha Wilson's reasons in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morgentaler, the 1988 decision striking down the Canadian law criminalizing abortion with exceptions.

239. The question then becomes whether the decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. I have no doubt that it does. This decision is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman. The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied and there may be, and usually are, powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well. Her response to it will be the response of the whole person.

240. It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience (although this is, of course, the case) but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma. As Noreen Burrows, lecturer in European Law at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out in her essay on "International Law and Human Rights: the Case of Women's Rights", in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (1986), the history of the struggle for human rights from the eighteenth century on has been the history of men struggling to assert their dignity and common humanity against an overbearing state apparatus. The more recent struggle for women's rights has been a struggle to eliminate discrimination, to achieve a place for women in a man's world, to develop a set of legislative reforms in order to place women in the same position as men (pp. 81-82). It has not been a struggle to define the rights of women in relation to their special place in the societal structure and in relation to the biological distinction between the two sexes. Thus, women's needs and aspirations are only now being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce which is in issue in this case is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

version with paragraph numbers;
version with page numbers

I know that the words may go right over your head, or bounce off the prejudices and preconceptions inside it. I also know, however, that others will hear the ring of truth in them that I hear.


(formatting fixed)

.

[joshcryer]

116. Answer me this...

...do you think a woman should have the choice to abort a perfectly healthy fetus which is in her stomach at the age of 9 months?

[dansolo]

50. Roe v. Wade will never be moot

One of the keys of viability is the development of the lungs, which occurs around the 24th week. I did some research on the topic, and the conclusion was that improvements of medical technology will probably increase the chances of survival for a 24 month old fetus, it is not going to shorten the lower limit of viability by much more. You just can't speed up the natural physical development.

[roguevalley]

53. they are finding with premature children that they face terrible

obstacles to health and learning in their lives because
of their early births. It surprised the researchers because
they believed they catch up. Very few do.

[joshcryer]

61. Well said. My post (#56) brings up the same point, really.

Can't believe you're taking crap for that post. I don't know your political inclinations and I don't care really, it was insightful.

[Politicub]

89. You raise some good points

I think your premise is interesting - that abortion rates are the result of the lack of social programs (universal health care, affordable adoption, real welfare reform, child care, paid family leave).

I submit that we fight to keep Roe as law and choice legal, and allow women to make the decision for themselves, even in our imperfect society.

As the law stands now, women can make their own decisions. It is up to the woman and her doctor. It may not be perfect, and it may indicate a lack of solid social programs, but it is far better than the GOP proposed alternative.

That is why I'm uncomfortable with Lieberman's suggestion to have this discussion. It will be easy for the right to shape the debate with senseless slogans and platitudes, rather than engaging in a true discussion about rights.

But I am uncomfortable at the thought of tinkering with Roe, especially in our sound bite driven society.

Has the right ever discussed rights, except in the context of taking them away?

[eblack101]

36. An Email to Joe Leiberman

Friends,

I recently wrote a letter to Joe about his scurrilous (and rediculous) remarks about Dean. It's not specifically about abortion, but I think you may find it appropriate anyway.


Dear Senator,<BR>
<BR>
When you agree with Republican ideas, that's alright, we're a big party, but when you adopt their (lack of) ethics and dirty campaign techniques, you  disgrace our party and give credence to the notion that you're really a closet Republican.<BR>
<BR>
Up to now, it's been clear that you would become one of the "grand old men" of the Democratic Party. Now I think that you should change your style or you should leave our party, and join those whose style you have recently begun to imitate.<BR>
<BR>
Not one of my friends, who've admired you in the past, Joe,likes what you're becoming...a tired sensation-seeking foolish-mouthed old pol.
<BR>
Don't embarass us and make us ask you to leave the party at the convention, Joe. You can't win this race; even your wife has publically announced it. Do the honorable thing, and throw your support behind whoever you think is the best man besides yourself, and thereby, regain your self-respect and our admiration.<BR>
<BR>
Sincerely,<BR>
Eric Blackstead

[Malva Zebrina]

37. It's pretty embarrassing that Gore took on this man as a running mate

now that I think of it.

[Judi Lynn]

38. I'll bet he has been as appalled as we have

as he unfolded his colors after the election Gore won.

[Must_B_Free]

43. Gore would have won with anyone but Liarman

Smokin' Johnson Joe

[Isere]

40. Hold it!!! This is a bum rap!

Oh, brother, here goes another string of Lieberman bashing and one that is based on nothing at all. Here is what he said and here is his record:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3553168,00.html

The Connecticut senator issued a statement Friday saying, ``I did not say nor do I believe that Roe should be looked at again, revisited or reconsidered.''

Lieberman spokesman Jano Cabrera said, ``There is one reason and one reason only why there is no direct quote from Senator Lieberman calling for the Roe v. Wade decision to be looked at again: Because he never said that.''

According to Lieberman, ``I said in that interview what I have said for years - namely that medical science has advanced the time of legal viability to approximately 24 weeks. In response, the courts have determined that the viability standard has replaced the original trimester formulation of Roe.''

Furthermore, Kate Michaelman praised Lieberman's record and said
``"Senator Lieberman's history in the Senate is of a senator who has protected and defended a woman's right to choose,''

His NARAL rating is 100%.

For more info check out CNN : http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.lieberman.abortion/

[Cocoa]

45. thanks

it seems Lieberman is disputing that original story, and due to his record I'm going to assume for now that the original story may have been not quite right. It's been known to happen...

[IndianaGreen]

57. Lieberman is being cute with the facts

According to Lieberman, ``I said in that interview what I have said for years - namely that medical science has advanced the time of legal viability to approximately 24 weeks. In response, the courts have determined that the viability standard has replaced the original trimester formulation of Roe.''

Roe in a Nutshell

Roe declared that there is a constitutional right to privacy, that pregnancy is fundamental, and that States had no compelling reason to restrict abortion to the extent they had. Roe also pointed out, in a "strict-constructionist" sense, that the Constitution always used the term "person" to apply post-natally and not to the unborn (Pojman 28-29). The most controversial part of Roe was in the dicta; it established a trimester approach to pregnancy that was based on the viability of the fetus. In this scheme, the abortion decision was left to the woman and her doctor during the first trimester. States could restrict abortions in the second trimester. In the last trimester, States could ban abortions except in cases where it was necessary to save the mother's life. The trimester scheme surprised all the litigants, none more than Sarah Weddington who had argued the case (Weddington 161-162). It was the trimester scheme that received the most flak in the aftermath.

Blackmun

The author of the majority opinion in Roe, the late Harry Blackmun, addressed the controversy that Roe would generate in the second paragraph of the decision. Blackmun wrote that the Court was aware of the "sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy" and of the "deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires" and how "one's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion."

Roe Aftermath: The Firestorm

In spite of Blackmun's efforts to soften and explain the decision to the public, which included a proposed press release (Lazarus 359), Roe became for social conservatives a rallying cry for their cause and a symbol of the nation's "cultural degradation" and "the mass murder of innocent unborn children" (Lazarus 360). None other than Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" in Roe, has joined the fray as a vocal anti-abortion activist. McCorvey never had an abortion, gave birth to a child that she put up for adoption. McCorvey can be seen speaking out against abortion on religious programs such as Pat Robertson's 700 Hundred Club.

The Classic Objections to Roe

The then Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion in Roe. Rehnquist felt that the trimester approach used by Blackmun had no constitutional basis and amounted to "judicial legislation" (Pojman 34). Rehnquist pointed out that at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, "there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion" and that one could only conclude that the "drafters did not intent to…withdraw from the States" the power to pass abortion legislation (Pojman 34-35). Rehnquist also pointed out that the Constitution had no explicit right to privacy.

In their essay "Roe v. Wade: No basis in law, logic, or history", Dennis Horan and Thomas Balch compared Roe's failure to recognize the fetus as a person to other notorious Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott, that ruled that blacks were not citizens, and Plessy, which upheld racial segregation. The authors quote Archibald Cox, who achieved fame as the first Watergate prosecutor, who referred to Roe as "a set of hospital rules and regulations" whose validity will be destroyed with "new advances in science providing for the separate existence of a fetus" (Pojman 74). Horan and Balch also point out that for all practical purposes, if one were to rely on the scheme in Roe, there was no foreseeable scenario in which a State could "constitutionally prohibit abortion at any time during pregnancy" (Pojman 75). People oppose abortion because "it kills unborn human life" (Pojman 77). Historically the unborn was recognized as a person based on "the biological and medical knowledge of each historical era" (Pojman 77).

Another View of When Life Begins

Throughout the centuries there has been different "cutoff" points in which life was considered to have begun. The medieval Catholic Church followed the "forty-and-eighty-day rule" in which "the soul was thought to enter the male fetus forty days after conception and the female fetus eighty days after conception (McDonnell 43)." The Church allowed the abortion of a male up to forty days, and of a female up to eighty days (McDonnell 43). How the Church determined the sex of the fetus remains a mystery to this day. In 1869 the Church "officially abandoned the forty-and eighty-day rule, and adopted the position that the soul was infused at conception, which effectively outlawed all abortions" (McDonnell 43).

Casey: Roe's near-death experience

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Pennsylvania law that required married women to sign a statement attesting that they had notified their husbands that they were seeking an abortion. The Court let stand a provision that required parental notification in the case of minors. The Court also scrapped Roe's much maligned trimester scheme. The remarkable thing is that the Court was going to overturn Roe, but did not do so. In his inside the Court book "Closed Chambers", former clerk Edward Lazarus gives a rather telling account of how the Court, prompted by the likes of Solicitor General Ken Starr (among others), had decided to use Casey to overturn Roe. This would have happened had it not been for Judge Souter. Souter shared the same concern for due process and stare decisis of his hero Justice Harlan, the lone dissenter in the 1896 Plessy decision. Souter convinced Justices O'Connor and Kennedy to write an opinion in which they would uphold Roe not on its merits, but to preserve the Court's institutional integrity (Lazarus 459-476). The language was simply stunning; a decision to overturn Roe would be "a surrender to political pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first place." "(Overruling Roe)…would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question" (Lazarus 476).

What if the fetus has the right to life?

In her classic article "A Defense of Abortion", Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a woman has a right to an abortion even if the fetus is a human person. The fetus and the mother have "an equal right to life," but the mother also has the right to decide, "what happens in and to her body...the sum of her rights now outweighing the fetus right to life" (Pojman 119-120). The right to life is not as simple as abortion opponents think it is. From Thomson's point of view, "having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body-even if one needs it for life itself" (Pojman 123-124). Thomson illustrates this principle by her use of an "imaginary violinist." Suppose, she asks, that you wake up in the morning and find yourself sharing your circulatory system with a famous violinist. The Society of Music Lovers kidnapped you because you have the only blood type that can help the violinist. What if you were told that the violinist's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens to your body? What if you were told that, because the violinist's right to life outweighs your right to life, you "cannot ever be unplugged" from the violinist? Thomson's argument is that this situation is as outrageous as saying that the fetus right to life is greater than the mother's right to decide what happens to her body (Pojman 117-118).

Are the Choices Pure and Simple?

In their essay "Breaking Through the Stereotypes," Daniel and Sidney Callahan give an account of a study that they conducted on the beliefs and views of women on either side of the abortion issue. The Callahans found it difficult to label prolifers and prochoicers as having values that were either totally conservative or totally liberal. Both groups shared common values that could be used as a basis for dialogue. The Callahans found in their interviews that most of the women, regardless of which side they were on the abortion issue, were concerned about the socio-economic and cultural conditions that cause women to seek abortions. The women were willing to work together to find ways to limit abortion choices made solely because of poverty, oppression, or lack of social support. The women were also willing to work together to further social reforms that "would be more supportive of troubled pregnancies." The women also rejected the views of many in the prolife movement that any choice for abortion is due to "crass expediency," and its prochoice flipside that seems only interested in the availability of abortion (Pojman 10-11).

In her introduction to Kathleen McDonnell's "Not an Easy Choice," Ellen Herman argues that the anguish that women experience when making abortion decisions are not rooted in morality or personal choices. The anguish is caused by "the sexual guilt and shame imposed on women by a misogynist culture, and the resulting injustice of the context in which reproductive choices are made" (McDonnell xi).

Financial hardship is the most common reason cited by women seeking abortions. Although there are many reasons why a woman would seek an abortion, money is usually what "tips the scales" in its favor. It is tragic when a woman, who wants to have a child, is coerced by her poverty to have an abortion (McDonnell 71). In her book "Not an Easy Choice", Canadian feminist Kathleen McDonnell argues that abortion "must be carried out by those who love and respect women," and who have a "deep reverence for both life and death" (McDonnell 132). McDonnell also proposes that feminists should make clear that the right to choose "shares nothing with a population control ideology that legitimizes the control and exploitation of women's reproductive capacity in the interest of perpetuating an inequitable political and economic order" (McDonnell 133). Poor women are also victimized by the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the new contraceptive methods being developed and distributed in Third World countries are used primarily "for population control purposes, not to increase women's choices" (McDonnell 138).

Should abortion be prohibited?

As we saw earlier in our discussion of Casey, it is unlikely that a future Supreme Court will adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis to reaffirm Roe's essential holding. A second Bush Administration will undoubtedly resume the tactics of the Reagan and first Bush Administrations to overturn Roe by simply changing the Court's composition (Lazarus 469). Justice Clarence Thomas's unremarkable tenure in the Court gives credence to the view that his nomination by President Bush was done to placate the Republican rightwing, and to overturn Roe, and not for his constitutional scholarship (Lazarus 450-451). We can expect more Thomas-like nominees to the federal bench from a second Bush Administration.

One cannot ignore the possibility that further advances in neonatal care developments will continue to push viability closer to the point of conception. Since viability in Roe marks the earliest point at which the State can impose restrictions on abortion (Pojman 38), it would be within the realm of possibility for a State to intervene on behalf of the unborn the moment a woman first finds out she is pregnant without violating what remains of the Roe construct (Pojman 109).

A concern over the vulnerability of Roe has prompted many prochoicers to look for other arguments that could be used to preserve the right to choose. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, the two attorneys that represented the plaintiffs in the Roe v. Wade case, discussed using the gender discrimination argument when they were preparing for trial. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would violate her right to due process of law. The argument parallels the one used in racial discrimination cases. Weddington and Coffee did not emphasize the gender discrimination argument because there was a lack of precedent in 1971 (Weddington 260-261).

In a 1985 article written for the North Carolina Law Review, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe for being based on the right to privacy rather than on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Ginsburg argues that abortion prohibitions should have been linked to discrimination against women. The conflict, according to Ginsburg, is not "simply one between a fetus' interests and a woman's interests ...nor is the overriding issue state versus private control of a woman's body for a span of nine months. Also in the balance is a woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course" and "her ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen" (Pojman 109).

Conclusion

Philosophers such as Rousseau and Marx described equality under the law as a sham used by the powerful in order to preserve in the law all of the injustices done to the weak. The weak are to give up their class warfare in exchange for being treated as an "equal" to the powerful under the law. To Marx and Rousseau, this is only an illusion because the weak remains weak at the mercy of the powerful having abrogated their right to fight back. Women will continue to be subjugated by society, and be viewed as inferior to men, as long as our society and its laws are based on an unequal power structure. Laws will remain on the books that will treat women on an unequal basis when compared to men. Abortion will continue to be treated as a legal issue rather than as a personal one. It is debatable whether our society can address, much less resolve, the social inequality and injustice that are an inherent part of capitalism.


Works Cited

Lazarus, Edward. Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

McDonnell, Kathleen. Not An Easy Choice: A Feminist Re-examines Abortion. Boston: South End Press, 1984.

Pojman, Louis, and Beckwith, Francis, eds. The Abortion Controversy: 25 Years After Roe v. Wade. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1998.

Weddington, Sarah. A Question of Choice. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.

Copyright

Permission granted by author.

Quoted from Abortion: Should it be prohibited? Published as an article, Reality Complicates Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Issues (May 2001, p. 6) PreConvention 2001 Discussion Bulletin, Communist Party,USA. Copyright the author. All rights reserved.

Communist Party USA
235 West 23 Street,
New York, NY 10011

[worldgonekrazy]

79. Yeah, some people can't see past their hatred for Lieberman

And there are good reasons to be pissed at him. He lacks a spine and seems to prefer kissing Bush's ass to standing up to him, but that doesn't mean he can't ever be right. In this case, he is. I hope people take heed of what Joe is trying to say or abortion will become de facto illegal.

[Deesh]

48. Lieberman & Abortion

Does anybody have the exact interview quotation, or press release, or whatever it is, where Joe Lieberman called for a reconsideration of Roe v. Wade? I'd like to have a direct look at it.

If the original report is accurate, though, and Lieberman is renegging, it must be that his office was bombed with objections.

The women in this thread have given Joe Lieberman all he can handle. Thank you, women posters of DU.

[PassingFair]

112. Yep,

If Joe, or anyone does not want an abortion, then damn right, they shouldn't be forced to have one. Hear! Hear!
That said, I, as a person will fight for sovereignty over my own body. To me, it's a clear facet of Liberty. It's my body, I decide what value to place on my own tissue.

[BiggJawn]

49. I agree...It's legal;. It should REMAIN legal. END of discussion.

OK with you, Joseph?

BTW, while we're on the subject of Zygotes, Mike Fox, Chris Reeves, Mary Moore, me, and whole bunch of other folks could really use some Stem Cell research. How about it?

[mouse7]

55. BREAKING: Lieberman forms US Likud Party

n/t

[joshcryer]

56. It's true that as technology advances...

...the 'line' between a viable fetus and a non-viable fetus is increasingly hard to draw, until we get to this point where mothers aren't even necessary to have children (except for the egg part, of course).

My question, is whether or not we'd be able to sustain all the millions of new people we've suddenly decided to keep; in reality, it would be no different from having an abortion, as the fertalized egg would simply go on to some magical growth center where it would hatch some 9 months later and then go into some child care place, allowing the mother to go on with her life without having to deal with her mistakes(just like with adoption; only this way the mother doesn't have to go through pregnancy).

This is taking it to the extreme, of course. But it does open up interesting possiblities.

BTW, shame on all you flamers. :P

[MaineDem]

62. "Her mistakes"???

I'm not awake enough yet to actually come up with a response to that!

:grr:

[cowpie]

63. Whether I disagree with Joe's remarks is immaterial

I admire him for taking the unpopular position regardless of the consequences. Finally someone that is willing to take his lumps for what he believes. This is what we have been missing since the Carter administration. Unfortunately it will kill his election chances, but at least he is taking a position on something. If you asked Dean about this he would say whatever the radical left would want to hear.

[Robb]

67. "taking the unpopular position regardless of the consequences"

OK, well, I think abortion should be legal until the fetus is around 18 years old. Admire me! :P

[put out]

64. I had to have some coffee to make sure I read it correctly.

Yes, I did, and so did you, MaineDem. Oh my, where to begin. Shame on the flamers, too?

What an enormous slap in the face to women, what could possibly motivate a person to be so callous?

[joshcryer]

66. It was extremely late when I wrote that.

Please don't assume that I don't recognize the other reasons one would have an abortion.

[joshcryer]

65. Oops, and of course for other reasons.

Don't assume that I don't acknowledge other reasons someone would have abortion. The majority of unwanted pregnancies are due to carelessness or the unavailabity of birth control.

Feel free to flame me anyway when you wake up.

[put out]

84. I assume nothing; I don't need to.

I don't need your acknowledgment of my reasons for doing what I need to do for the sake of my family and my own life. My reproductive business is simply mine. Only the ones I love and care for are considered when it comes to managing my health care.

[November 2004]

68. Oh, really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=287237

[Dr. Wu]

69. Hey Joe! Pro-choice does not mean we will let you choose

a different position than we have.

Get with the program.

[Dr Fate]

72. Are you with me? Are you an ordinary guy?

??

[Dr. Wu]

91. We 'doctors' need to stick together.

[The Animator]

80. OK let me get this straight...

As medical technology advances, the window of opportunity for a woman to have an abortion will get increasingly shorter... eventually a woman will only be allow to have an abortion three weeks before she gets pregnant.

This, apparently, is chink in Roe vs. Wade's armor. If Leiberman is right, women could eventually lose the protections afforded by Roe vs. Wade.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Perhaps we should focus on finding a solution to dilema presented here. We may need to find a stronger, more stable means with which protect abortion rights.

[PassingFair]

113. Yes!

Now you see our position. DEATH to onanists!

[jamesarg]

81. Lieberman was our VP nominee in 2000

I look over the message board and I see you all knocking Joe Lieberman. He was our VEEP Nominee in 2000, you all seem to forget that. He was our standard bearer along with Al Gore. He would be the Democratic Vice-president had things gone fairly.

It was Al Gore and Joe Lieberman against George Bush and Dick Cheney. Not just Al Gore. Lieberman is who made the election so close in Florida and he is the only one who could carry Florida today in the current presidential field. So stop knocking him please.

- James

[Walt Starr]

90. And that fact is why I nearly voted for Nader

No shit, Lieberman is a Republican. End of story.

[pllib]

82. What if Roe v. Wade were overturned?

I am in no way suggesting that it should be, and I think Souter's reasoning in Casey (the court needs to heed its precedents unless it becomes subject to the whim of politics) is one reason why it won't be. It poses an interesting hypothetical....

1. Abortion would not go away. Many states would legalize abortion. In these states, abortion would remain relatively safe (as a medical procedure - remember, that there are still women who die every year as a result of legal abortion). Women in states where abortion would be illegal would either seek abortion in states where abortion would remain legal, seek an illegal abortion (done safely in a physician's office, or unsafely in a back alley). Complications and mortality rates among women would certainly rise.

2. Abortion would not go away. Nobody on the "pro-life" side seems to realize that. The very sad thing, for those of us who think that abortion is a bad choice (although it should be a legal choice) for women and their children, is that we have the social policy tools to decrease abortion, by providing women with better choices and better opportunity. We don't have the political will to wield them. Democrats are guilty of this as well, by keeping the debate about abortion focused on Roe v Wade, we are unable to move beyond Roe v Wade (assuming that it will not, and should not, be overturned), and find a common ground that would be better for women, their unborn and their born children, and their families than the current public policy stalemate. And which would also neutralize this as an effective issue for Republicans.

3. Abortion would not go away. Some women will still choose abortion, usually for deeply personal and difficult reasons. While I cannot agree with their choice, this choice should remain legal.

4. This makes for enlightening discussion with "pro-lifers" who think that Roe v Wade is the cause of abortions.

"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
Mattie Brinkerhoff. The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869

[usregimechange]

86. This has been discussed by the Justices

I think he is correct.

[Selwynn]

87. YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING BOTH @#$@#$@# WAYS JOE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGRGRGRGRGRGRHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGG!!!!
111!!!!!!111111!!!ONE!!!!1111!1!!!1!!!
!!!11111!!!!11111111111111!1111!!11111

[caledesi]

88. Oh, now ol' desperate Joe is going to start w/ that issue. Go home

Joe, just go home.

[DemocratOrDeath]

95. What is there to discuss???

A woman has the RIGHT to kill any living organism that she does not want invading her body. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If there is a living entity invading a womans body then she HAS EVERY RIGHT TO KILL IT without any intervention from the god squad.

[put out]

98. Hm-m-m. Please expound on your position.

I am not finding it clear from your post.

[DemocratOrDeath]

99. Read it again

If a woman does not want an invading being in her body then she HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE BEING INVADING HER BODY. Get it?

[iverglas]

101. do a search

... for author = DemocratOrDeath in the last 3 days.

"Please expound on your position.
I am not finding it clear from your post."

I found the position in question quite clear. I'm betting that it's the one that our friend will soon be leaving to take up: a role in that popular TV show ... what's it called, now? -- ah yes: Six Feet Under.

(But then I suspect that you too may have recognized the script!)

;)

.

[put out]

106. Thank you. I wondered why

I was being splattered with enraged spittle. Do you supposed (sarcasm) this poster might be a bit disingenuous? Or just very very heartfelt in his/her staunch pro-choice stance.

Too tricky for me, I'm afraid. Hey, would it ever show up on another site? As evidence of the hatefulness of those who are pro-choice?

[themanintheback]

100. It's just that type of attitude about abortion...

that plays into the prolifer's hands. C'mon now, Democratordeath, you sound like you would have no problem killing the baby 15 minutes before delivery.

The majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose but still wish abortion didn't happen. All Lieberman is saying is that it will become tougher to call it a choice, and not a murder, if science keeps pushing back the date of fetal viability.

[iverglas]

102. that would be difficult

"It's just that type of attitude about abortion...
that plays into the prolifer's hands."

... since the attitude in question:

A woman has the RIGHT to kill any living organism that she does not want invading her body. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If there is a living entity invading a womans body then she HAS EVERY RIGHT TO KILL IT without any intervention from the god squad.

... is pure anti-choice attitude.

No one who actually defends women's rights uses expressions like "kill ... living organism", or "kill it", to refer to terminating a pregnancy, or "living entity invading a womans <sic> body" to refer to a z/e/f. If only because those expressions amount to incoherent and irrational babbling, quite apart from the misogynistic attitude they betray.

Agent provocateur is probably about the second oldest profession in politics. Some play the part well, some don't.


"... you sound like you would have no problem killing the baby 15 minutes before delivery."

Hell, I know I'd have a problem doing that. I always have problems doing the impossible. Killing a baby before delivery would be just as impossible as eating a sandwich before bread. No bread, no sandwich; no delivery, no baby.

Nonetheless, and despite the blatantly provoking nature of DemocratOrDeath's rhetoric, a statement by someone that there is a right to do something is not evidence that the person making the statement "has no problem" with it being done. We might all have various "problems" with the doing of various things; however, if we propose to prohibit the doing of them, we have to be able to offer a little more than our problems.

And the problem with the decision in Roe v. Wade and its successor decisions is that this is exactly what the US Supreme Court failed to do. It approved restrictions on the exercise of women's rights for which no justification was offered, and for which the Court stated no justification.

An assertion of a state interest in a pregnancy (or in the meaningless "potential life" to which the Court referred) is not a demonstration of such an interest.

And an assertion that the alleged interest becomes compelling at a certain point (viability, or any other) is not a demonstration that the alleged interest is sufficiently compelling to justify violating women's rights.

That is the real problem with Roe v. Wade. It approves an enormous interference in some very fundamental and important rights of women, without proposing, let alone establishing, any justification at all. I just don't think I'm prepared to give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt that some here felt and agree that this is the problem about which he was expressing concern.

.

[Selwynn]

103. How about stating it this way:

A woman has the absolute right to make medical decisions about her body, privately in consultation with medical professionals, with no interferences from the government and with absolute confidentiality - no exceptions.

[IndianaGreen]

104. That exactly what Lenin thought back in 1919

Soviet women had more freedom and equality in 1919 than American women do in 2003.

Even Trotsky's followers say as much:

The Bolshevik Revolution laid the basis for the social emancipation of women, and although the Stalinist political counter-revolution represented a partial setback, it is undeniable that women in the Soviet Union made colossal strides forward in the struggle for equality. Women were no longer obliged to live with their husbands or accompany them if a change of job meant a change of house. They were given equal rights to be head of the household and received equal pay. Attention was paid to the women's childbearing role and special maternity laws were introduced banning long hours and night work and establishing paid leave at childbirth, family allowances and child-care centres. Abortion was legalised in 1920, divorce was simplified and civil registration of marriage was introduced. The concept of illegitimate children was also abolished. In the words of Lenin: "In the literal sense, we did not leave a single brick standing of the despicable laws which placed women in a state of inferiority compared with men."

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_and_women.html

[GRClarkesq]

107. Death throes of a campaign

Expect more from the candidates on their way out.