It is unfortunate that abortion is not as clear an issue as many would like to make it.

[Smith_3]

The truth is that there is no absolute way of defining when the "life of an unborn" starts. There are objectively a few landmarks in its development from conception to the heart starting to beat, to the fetus being "viable with supportive machinery" to independent breathing, but in the end it boils down to personal taste where one wants to place that line of the fetus "being a person".

One could even reasonably argue that since an infant doesn't have a fully developed awareness, it deserves less protection by law than, say, a fully grown gorilla.

Anyone who considers a fetus a human being must inevitably come to the conclusion that it deserves the same type of protection by law as any other human being. Anyone who doesn't consider a fetus a person will not.

The biggest pro-choice argument for me isn't that a fetus "isn't a person", it is that abortions will happen anyway, regardless whether they are legal or not. And that rich people will always have a better chance of safely doing what they want and getting away with it. AND that men are never at risk of getting pregnant and having to face the consequences. So in the spirit of class and gender equality I think laws prohibiting abortion are not appropriate.

[AllentownJake]

1. Its a class issue

Pure and simple.

The upper crust of our society will continue to have them, you know the people who can most afford to raise a child

[Smith_3]

2. Yes. And if men could get pregnant too, you could bet we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[AllentownJake]

4. If Men could get pregnant than we wouldn't be having a lot of arguments

[shadowknows69]

22. Sorry but bullshit. I hate that particular saying because it simply isn't supported

Women CAN get pregnant and some are pro choice and some anti choice. Exclaiming it would be different for men is simply sexist. I'm 100% pro choice but IMO that statement diminishes the men that are the allies of your biological freedom. There isn't any reason to make this debate a man bashing scenario. Many brave male Doctors put their careers at risk before Roe V Wade to fight for women's rights.

[Lance_Boyle]

70. don't bring logic to the party - it stifles the man-hate

better (for building the ignore list) to let the man-hating wackaloons expose themselves.

[BolivarianHero]

81. People have a hard time reading me...

Sometimes I come across as more radical than most feminists, other times people feel like I trivialise gender inequality by (imho correctly) basing my arguments on class.

[liquid diamond]

118. Thank you for your reasonable post.

I'm tired of assholes saying men have no say whatsoever on this subject just because they can't get pregnant. We are on the same side you fucking morons.

[Old Hob]

115. calling abortion a class issue is like calling torture a legal issue.

first and foremost, these are both moral issues.

[armyowalgreens]

3. Peter Singer argued that some babies up to a certain age can be killed...

He argued that beings that are not self aware have no vested interest in their future and therefore they do not obtain the same legal rights to life that self aware beings are granted.

Basically if the all parties with the potential to have a vested interest in the babies life agree that they want to terminate the babies life, the baby can be killed.

From a utilitarian stand point, it makes perfect sense. I still refuse to fully agree with it though. Even if it makes sense, I still don't like it.

[REP]

6. Thanks for modeling a strawman argument

Of course, only you brought up Peter Singer.

[armyowalgreens]

8. I don't believe I was arguing. But thanks for the heads up.

But please, grace me with your wisdom. How is Peter Singers stance faulty?

[AllentownJake]

12. Peter Singer, Eco Terrorism, etc.

Support for the activities of Eco Terrorism as a defense for Operation Rescue.

You've been saying some interesting things on here. Some very interesting things on here.

:shrug:

[armyowalgreens]

13. Some very interesting things indeed...

I think I've made some enemies.


I do not support terrorism and I do not consider the ALF or OR to be terrorist groups. The term "terrorism" is overused.

[AllentownJake]

15. I think your raising some red flags

I make no accusations, however some of the things you are saying have been said by others in the past who were attempting to mask what their real beliefs were.

[armyowalgreens]

16. Liberalism and militancy are not mutually exclusive.

Just check out Albert Camus.

Believe what you want to believe, no one is stopping you. But I'm telling you right now that I am not lying about any of my beliefs on here.

[AllentownJake]

17. No accusations

your new, and this place has been infiltrated in the past, all new people deal with the suspicion.

[armyowalgreens]

18. I understand.

I just don't like it.

[AllentownJake]

19. Its tame now compared to the primary last year.

Lots of people coming over on Rush's orders to try to stir up fights for operation chaos.

[Quantess]

21. Oh, so you think Albert Camus' writings, circa 1960's

are somehow relevant to "Liberalism and militancy"? In what way, I would like to know.

I read Camus' "The Stranger". Does that mean "liberalism" to you?

[armyowalgreens]

23. Read "Resistance, Rebellion and Death".

Albert Camus was an important member of the French Resistance during WWII.

The Stranger was an analysis of existentialism. His other writings address different topics.

[AllieB]

73. I've read every single Camus novel in French.

I've also read his other writings. In what way do you think he was a militant? You are aware that he broke with Sartre over Stalin?

[armyowalgreens]

82. He fought in a resistance group...how is that not being militant?

Please explain to me how that isn't being militant to be in a resistance group. He helped fight against the occupation when there was no hope for anything else. You clearly have not read enough of his work.

I specifically remember reading some of his writings from WWII as he discussed why pacifists are so wrong. He explained that when peace and justice fails, we must take up arms to defend our ideologies.

[AllieB]

99. Dude, he was fighting against the Nazis. You consider that 'radical'?

That puts you on the side of the Nazis.

[armyowalgreens]

106. Oy Vey you really need a reality check.

1. His radical views came from his philosophies, not from his actions in the resistance.

2. When referring to militancy, I did not mean that in a radical way. I meant that he was willing to fight, literally, when all all methods of accomplishing his goals were exhausted.




But thanks for suggesting that I'm a Nazi. That's a really logical suggestion. It doesn't make you look like a fool who's lost the argument.


:sarcasm:

[AllieB]

108. What argument?

You're the one pontificating and acting like a foolish college student. :shrug:

[armyowalgreens]

111. Oh I see. You never came in here and suggested that I flunked history.

Wait...no you definitely did.

Keep it coming fool. I'm sure you can pump out more college jokes.

I want 5 more to add to my library.

[AllieB]

112. Oh boo hoo.

You haven't been around here very long. You need to develop a thicker skin. You also don't seem to have much agreement with the Democratic platform. So, are you around here to learn or to promote un-Democratic talking points?

[armyowalgreens]

113. I have quite the thick skin after spending years outside running in the AZ sun.

I think everyone is here to learn. I'm here to learn and to discuss and present my own views.

I'm a registered democrat and I hold views that are in line with the party ideology. But I am in no way happy with the party. They are corrupt and I really don't trust very many of their politicians.

There is nothing undemocratic about my views.

[AllieB]

72. Good lord. You sound like a college student that flunked World History 101.

:eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

83. And you sound like a drive-by poster.

Post facts, not insults.

[AllieB]

100. Sorry, I actually work for a living.

If you look at my posting history, you'll see that I usually post facts. Your posting history is quite the opposite, as other posters have pointed out.

[fascisthunter]

102. .

[AllieB]

109. Yup, you're right. He's been on quite a few people's radars.

[armyowalgreens]

107. Still waiting for those facts...

If you only have time for insults, I suggest you stop posting.

[northzax]

117. how are they not terrorists?

terrorism, by definition, is the use or threat of violence to attempt to coerce group behaviour (by a non-state actor)

ELF is a terrorist organization. OR is a terrorist organization. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. there were certainly cells within the Montana Freemen who were terrorist (paging Tim McVeigh)

or do you use a different definition? the difference between AQ and OR is what, exactly? scale?

[armyowalgreens]

129. I use a slightly different definition.

I wrote a brief report, for my ethics class, on what I believed true terrorism was.

"Terrorism is the exploitation of a populations fears and weaknesses in order to accomplish a moral, social or political goal."


I do not believe that the purpose of ORs or the ALFs actions is to exploit peoples fears. I believe that their purpose is to destroy infrastructure that they believe supports what they fight against. If they frighten people, it is an unintended result.

But if you look at the entire picture, the manipulation of people by groups like AQ is a much, much bigger function of the group than the OR or ALF. It is one of their primary functions. They use fear to mold the society that they invision. I just don't see that as a function within the OR or ALF.

Actually, one of the best modern examples of terrorism that I can present is the Bush Administration. They fit right in to my definition. I mean absolutely perfectly.


On a side note....Too many acronyms.

[northzax]

142. i'm not sure I buy your definition

since I think it's more about intimidation (what fear and weakness was Al Qaeda exploiting when they attacked the USS Cole?)


but I note that even under your definition, this is terrorism. for population, think 'women's health care providers". isn't the mission of OR to chase them out of business through fear and intimidation? why are there so few Dr. Tillers?

[Quantess]

41. Your perspective is that of a person who believes that life begins at conception.

Do you disagree?

[armyowalgreens]

85. No. I do not believe that "life" begins at conception.

There is a scientific definition that needs to be met in order for something to be considered "living". A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy does not meet that definition.

[Odin2005]

124. Thank you for reminding me why I think Peter Singer was an ass and why I hate...

Utilitarianism.

[armyowalgreens]

131. Yeah Utilitarianism tends to polarize discussions.

As of right now, I study utilitarianism for educational purposes. I have not necessarily adopted it as my own beliefs. But I see why people like it. I also see why people hate it.

Peter Singer has a lot of enemies.

[EndersDame]

5. The state should not be making any medical descions for any adult

I think that teens should beable to get abortionstoo (hey if they are old enough to become pregnant they are adult enough to decide if they are ready for that or not) butunderstand that is not as clear cut as a woman over the age of 18 to get a medical procedure

[REP]

7. It's not about the fetus; it's about the woman (remember her?)

All the arguments about fetal personhood, viability, ensoulment, etc are pretty much irrelevant. It's happening in her body; she has the right to withdraw her participation.

[Orsino]

52. Well, it is true that in some third-world areas...

...they still use women to gestate fetuses. Or so I hear.

In America, though, we apparently have the technology to grow them in a vacuum.

[Greyhound]

9. Utterly ridiculous. It is only muddied when people like you

give credence to the absurd notion that this future being has rights equal to those of the existing person.

Don't buy the frame and it is a non-issue, it is up to the woman, period.

[Chulanowa]

10. The fetus is not a person until the cord is cut

Until that is is at best a commensalist symbiotic organism, and at worst an unwanted uterine growth. That is to say, it is not an independent being until it is independent of its mother.

There is no "life of an unborn" status. There is only the life of the mother. Even if for a fragment of a moment we entertain the notion that the fetus is a "person" the fact remains that the pregnant woman's rights to an empty uterus trumps any other person's claims to said uterus.

[cali]

20. no, the fetus is not a legally protected person until birth

but, sorry, a fetus of 7 months is more often than not, viable. And the state has an interest in that future life. this is settled law. To claim there is only the life of the mother, is legally erroneous. No, the woman's right to an "empty uterus does not trump any other right. After viability it's weighed against the right of the unborn child.

Abortion and Fetal Viability

In the 1973 ROE V. WADE decision, which established the right to abortion throughout the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. That right, according to the court in Roe, is not absolute and must be balanced against the state's legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. According to ROE, at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus), the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling, and the state may proscribe abortion, except when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. In PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH(1) (1976) and COLAUTTI V. FRANKLIN(2) (1979), the Supreme Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination

[pnutbutr]

28. you don't have any children do you?

I used to think the same way until I had kids. I still support the right for a woman to choose but would encourage her to have the child instead of choosing an abortion.

[cali]

30. so would you encourage a 17 year old who's still in H.S. to have a child?

How about an incest or rape victim, or a woman carrying a fetus with fatal anomalies? How about a poor woman with several children to support? Doesn't whether you'd encourage a woman to have a child rather than an abortion depend on the woman/girl and her particular circumstances?

[pnutbutr]

33. In all instances

I would support having the child and make sure all options regarding the individuals case were discussed with her but it is her choice in the end and I wouldn't try to prevent her from choosing the abortion option, particularly in instances like those you described.

[cali]

36. I certainly wouldn't. to encourage, for instance, a fourteen year old

victim of incest/rape to have a baby, is mind bogglingly misguided to me.

[pnutbutr]

39. 17 then 14, maybe we'll go to 10 next?

I would make sure she has discussed all her options with a doctor, family planning, whatever before making a final decision. Adoption is always an option in there. Of course abortion as well. In the end it's her choice. I'm just supporting that we provide information and counseling before she makes her decision. Many older women regret abortions they had when they were younger.

[cali]

Should that information be legally mandated?

[pnutbutr]

48. Mandated?

No. Encouraged? Yes.

[CTyankee]

59. "Many older women regret abortions they had when they were younger."

Many older women who were forced to go through a pregnancy and childbirth and then give up the baby at birth also regretted it. They mourned the baby they gave up on its birthday every year for years. This I learned from a social worker who was in private counseling practice about 15 years ago.

I don't think you can say how you'll feel years from now or anyone can. The closest thing to empirical studies on this were those that convinced Everett Koop, the Surgeon General under Reagan and himself pro-life, that he could not say that it had been clinically and scientifically proven that abortion causes mental illness in women who have had one.

Women are moral agents. As such, they can and should take the responsibility for their actions. But they should have the ability to make the decision about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. The pro-life movement wants to take away women's moral agency, treating them as not quite able to act as a male would act given a moral dilemma in their lives. That is why pro-lifers don't blame the woman. They always blame the doctors. Think about it.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. Not these women

http://imnotsorry.net/

[scarletwoman]

126. Who the fuck are YOU to "make sure" any woman does ANYTHING?

Either people are free to make their own decisions -- however they arrive at them -- or not.

"Many older women regret abortions they had when they were younger." I highly doubt it. I never have, nor has any other woman I know. Do you have any actual scientifically valid statistics to back up your assertion? (As opposed to anecdotal propaganda pushed by anti-choice groups?)

On the other hand, I have a sister who became pregnant at age 16, carried it to term, and gave up her baby for adoption. She became an alcoholic for over 20 years, attempted suicide several times, refused to ever have another child, and still suffers to this day (43 years later). She would have been far better off if she had simply ended the pregnancy. It would have never ruined so many years of her adult life as giving up that baby did.

sw

[AllieB]

55. You're not a woman, are you?

Again, always on the wrong side of an argument. It's amazing you hang around here.

[pnutbutr]

61. I'm not on the wrong side

people just interpret what I say to be opposed to them in some way. It's like being in a parallel universe where reading comprehension doesn't exist. I don't oppose abortion, I would just never recommend someone get one and would suggest and provide if wanted, information and maybe even counseling on alternatives.

No I'm not a woman. That doesn't change the fact that after having children my views changed slightly. My wife's did also.

[Chulanowa]

63. You can think however you like

But what I said is pure scientific fact. And I'd rather the legal status of a medical procedure be based on actual science, than some googly-eyed emotional knee-jerk response.

[Hello_Kitty]

76. Right, because your personal experience is universally applicable.

Parenthood changed you so of course it will change everyone else who does it. That's why there are no children who are neglected, abused, or murdered by their parents. :sarcasm:

[noiretextatique]

86. why is it any of your business?

you made your own choice to have children, so why do you think some other woman needs your input to make the right choice for herself?

[Terran]

88. By your logic, it would be acceptable to abort a nine-month old fetus

for any reason...am I following you correctly?

[Chulanowa]

94. Sorry, but you made me laugh

Do you seriously expect me to respond to that ludicrous hypothetical?

Technically, you are following correctly. But your example is mind-numbingly stupid.

[Terran]

132. Not stupid--just previously expressed on DU as an acceptable choice

I don't have a link as this was years ago, but one pro-choice advocate here told me that it was perfectly acceptable to abort a nine-month old fetus if that was what the woman wanted--after all, it's her body, right?

[Chulanowa]

136. It's an idiot hypothetical

But, still, as a hypothetical situation, yes, she has that right.

However, I doubt such an example will ever exist, so it's a moot point.

[Terran]

139. Well, I'm not the one who conceived of it.

Like you, another poster posited a set of circumstances that resulted in such a possibility, and this person, when asked about it, condoned it.

My point is that there are people on both sides of the issue who have staked out insane positions without consideration of reality.

[Chulanowa]

143. How is it "insane" exactly?

I mean in the bounds of the hypothetical, yes, I would condone it.

However there is zero chance of the hypothetical ever coming to pass, both due to the simple logic of it (finding a mother who wanted to do this and a doctor who would assent would be unlikely enough as to be functionally impossible) AND the legality of it (Roe vs. Wade actually has protections against such a situation)

Might as well be asking people "If unicorn meat tasted like strawberries, would it be permissible for vegetarians to eat it, since unicorns are immortal?"

I mean sure you could argue about it... but why the fuck would you, what's the point? A hypoethetical situation with no grounding in reality is pretty damn worthless.

[Scout]

114. yes, it would be ok. because we TRUST women to make good, sound

decisions for themselves and their families. and we KNOW that women don't just abort healthy, normal fetuses in the ninth month of gestation, much less doing so on a whim.

PROVE that has happened since Roe v Wade. PROVE that a woman legally aborted a nine-month fetus that was going to be born normal and healthy (although that is always an assumption until after the fact) and PROVE that said abortion had nothing to do with the life and/or health of the woman.

or else STFU already.

[Old Hob]

116. they just leave them in trash dumpsters or in boxes along the roadside at that point

or, preferably, they put them up for adoption.
edit for link

[Scout]

138. perhaps if the pregnant woman had been able to get a first trimester

abortion, she wouldn't have had to give birth and then abandon the fetus.

what does this have to do with 3rd trimester abortions? nothing.

so you still haven't made or proven a point that has anything to do with abortions :shrug:

[Terran]

133. No, I won't STFU

because I've been told on DU before that such an act would be acceptable. And the logic expressed by the poster I questioned supports this--the fetus is not a "person" until the cord is cut. Talk about a stupid idea...

[Scout]

137. prove your allegations or STFU

a fetus does not have any rights and is not a person until after it is born.

[Terran]

140. great--you're just reinforcing the idea

that it would be acceptable to abort a nine-month-old fetus.

I can't prove what I've said about another DU'er stating this would be okay because it was three or four years ago--I'd have no idea what to search for at this point. You'll just have to trust me that it happened...shouldn't be too unbelievable since you're almost saying the same thing.

[SoCalDem]

11. Abortions have been with us since the first woman picked up a sharp stick

she found, and ended her pregnancy (and probably her own life).

The problem here is the massive interference in the "doctor-patient" relationship, and especially for poor women whose medical experiences are scrutinized with a magifying glass, since she is probably "on assistance".

Of course these days, most of us have a "third party" looking over our shoulder for every doctor visit we have too.

Doctors should be able to choose what procedures they will or will not participate in, and they should be forthright with their patients. The patients should be able to choose the doctor who will potentially provide them with "full-service" medical care.

Every teenager should have easy access, and plenty of education about birth control, and it should be cheap and available without sermonizing.

No one is forcing women to have abortions, and the smart woman is the one who has it before she even tells anyone she's even pregnant. With all the cheap in-home tests these days, a woman can find out for sure , right away, and can end the pregnancy quickly. The ones that happen later, are usually true medical emergencies, and the "activists" need to stay out of those completely. No one carries a wanted child for months, and then decides to have an abortion..

[mmonk]

14. They will happen as you say. No one is being served by

criminalizing it. Sending it back underground is just plain unreasonable.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Many legal systems do set specific limits

Since one cannot say when a baby becomes a 'person', usually these limits are based on the more concrete issue of when a baby, if born prematurely and given appropriate medical treatment, might have a chance of survival. Usually considered to be 24 weeks.

In the UK and some other Europaean countries, abortions can be performed freely up to 24 weeks, but after that time only if there is danger to the mother's health, or the baby would have severe or fatal disabilities.

[cali]

26. pretty much the same here- 24 weeks. Hasn't changed much since Roe.

[Hepburn]

91. Legally...

...a fetus becomes a person when it is born AND on its own takes its first breath ~~ means being "born alive." Until such time, it has NO constitutional rights. The only rights at issue, IMO, is a woman's right to privacy. A fetus even IF viable outside of the womb has -0- constitutional rights.

JMHO

[pnutbutr]

25. Let the states decide

whether they want it legal or not. Remove control from the fed and you eliminate the mess of it being a national issue.

[armyowalgreens]

27. Civil rights should be dictated on a federal level.

Otherwise ass backward states like the one I live in can do whatever they want to millions of people.

[pnutbutr]

31. I'm going to be hated for this but

Women and men have a responsibility, a personal responsibility to avoid pregnancy if they have no interest in having children. With the direct ability to prevent the situation from becoming a civil rights issue, it is not a civil rights issue. People can't control their race, age etc... but they can control pregnancy. That control eliminates it as a civil rights issue IMO.

[Ignis]

68. We don't hate your opinion, just your ignorance.

Please cite a free, readily-available method of birth control that provides 100% protection 24/7, and also protects against pregnancy in the case of rape or incest (i.e., a situation where the woman does not consent to sex).

If you can't provide that, then you have no business restricting civil rights.

PS: Nice "personal responsibility" plug from you...yet again. Is it the "personal responsibility" of a woman who's been raped to bear the rapist's child? :eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

74. I'm not surprised with this one

S/he hearts private health insurance. I guess the irresponsible sluts s/he wants to be forced to have babies so goddamn bad are SOL if they lack expensive health insurance.

[Ignis]

95. Hey, they should take "personal responsibility" for being poor.

That's the Randroid talking point, at least. :rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

75. What I do with my body and any pregnancy that ensues from it is none of your fucking business.

That's the civil rights issue, champ.

[colinmom71]

80. No hatred intended here, but your statements ignore the practical fact...

That ALL birth control methods have a statistically significant FAILURE rate, including surgical sterilization methods for both females and males. Planned Parenthood did a survey of it's patients over a two year period. They asked their patients who were seeking abortion services whether or not they were using some form of birth control at the time the pregnancy occurred. The survey revealed that about 60% were using some type of contraception at the time they became pregnant. "Control" can only work for so long...

Your statements also ignore the fact that it took a Supreme Court ruling (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965) to have the ability to access birth control declared to be civil right for US citizens. Before the Griswold ruling, it was illegal to provide contraception or to even provide information about birth control methods. Look up the old Comstock obscenity laws. Griswold is essentially what struck them down in regards to information on human sexuality.

Oh, the majority of the Roe v. Wade ruling was based on the reasoning in the Griswold decision. Ironically, striking down Roe would significantly weaken Griswold, thereby potentially making birth control dissemination also illegal... Which would lead to restricted access to birth control, leading to more unwanted pregnancies, leading to more illegal abortions or single moms on welfare, etc.

And don't fool yourself with the notion that anti-abortion foes only want to outlaw abortion. A lot of them are also anti-contraception and would have no problem lobbying for birth control being made illegal as well...

[Ignis]

97. Thank you.

Facts are like sunlight for "personal responsibility" types. In their world, there are only Oppressed Taxpayers and Welfare Leeches; there is no room for statistics that run contrary to their stereotypes.

:hi:

[bettyellen]

105. ignorant assumptions

[cali]

29. No,. Wonen have a constitutional right to control their own bodies

that's just a terrible idea.

[pnutbutr]

35. what is the constitutional right that provides that? n/t

[cali]

37. Roe v. Wade. What the heck do you think SC decisions are about?

[pnutbutr]

38. :rofl:

Roe v. Wade is a supreme court ruling that set precedent, not a constitutional right. :rofl:

[cali]

40. bzzzzt. the SC found a constitutional right

to abortion. the SC interprets constitutional law. you really are very ignorant. Let me help alleviate that sad condition:

According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.


<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

I find it shocking that any poster here doesn't know what the SC does and that abortion is a Constitutional law. Such ignorance is appalling.

[pnutbutr]

42. :rofl:

I'm glad you googled it to find out. :rofl:

[cali]

44. I didn't need to google, sweetums. I provide that citation to help

you step out of your abysmal ignorance, but I can see that you're someone who would prefer to wallow in their own ignorance. it's just pathetic.

[pnutbutr]

45. Why didn't you just tell me

the 14th, Due Process.

[cali]

46. glad to see reality has dawned on you.

Roe v Wade was a perfectly good answer to your question. It's the case that established a CONSTITUTIONAL right to have an abortion.

[pnutbutr]

47. It established precedent.

The constitution establishes rights. Unless you believe the courts make law.....?

[cali]

49. uh, no. It is a constitutional right. duh. the SC interprets the Constitution

and yes, of course the courts "make law"- in the sense that they determine what the law says. Is it a constitutional right to marry someone of a different race? Is it a constitutional right not to be enslaved? Your arguments here are just unbelievably uninformed. Sad. Sad. Sad.

[pnutbutr]

50. :rofl:

The constitution provides the rights, the supreme court determines how those rights are provided or applied based on cases brought before it. The decisions on those cases serve to set precedent which BTW is not law. I'm uninformed though, what the f do I know anyways?

[cali]

51. yes, you're ignorant. anyone who argues that abortion isn't

a constitutionally protected right is ignorant. Of course, SC decisions are law.

[pnutbutr]

53. read about

precedent.

[cali]

54. I'm familiar with stare decisis. You need to read about the SC

you know so little. Now do answer the questions I put to you about slavery and interracial marriage.

[pnutbutr]

56. Slavery

abolished 13th amendment.

Interracial marriage 14th amendment. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Precedent creates a previous ruling based on the constitution regarding a topic that is supposed to be followed by subsequent rulings. This is however not always the case as there are several contradicting SCOTUS cases over the years. Precedent is not law, it is more like a guideline or suggestion on future rulings of similar basis.

[cali]

57. abortion- 14th amendment.

Sorry, no matter how you dice it or slice it, SC decisions have the force of law. blathering that they don't, is ludicrous.

[pnutbutr]

58. See we're getting somewhere here

force of law is not the same as law. What you described is precedent.

[Pacifist Patriot]

60. Gracious no!

That would put some Americans in privileged positions and others in oppressive states. The impoverished who live in non-freedom of choice states would be disproportionately burdened. The right to privacy should be dictated at the federal level. This is a constitutional matter, not one for the states.

[Terran]

90. Dumbest idea I've ever heard

Instead of one mess you would have 50 messes; a continual struggle in all 50 states between both sides using whatever legal, and probably illegal means they can find, to gain the upper hand.

Civil rights must remain in the hands of the federal government. That you question this idea makes me wonder what you've been doing besides paying attention since the 1950's.

[Quantess]

32. If men could become pregnant, abortions would be available no questions asked.

The old adage.

[Kievan Rus]

96. Maybe, maybe not

A lot of religious people...in every major faith group...have major issues with abortion.

People are against abortion because they think it is killing a viable life...not because they want to oppress women. After all, a lot of early feminists were pro-life.

[WVRICK13]

34. Agree

The real issue is not the act of abortion but rather the legal realities. Personally, if I were a woman I could never have an abortion because of my soft nature and regard for any living thing. However, I think anyone not capable of having a baby does not have a horse in this race. Men and post menopausal women need to shut the fuck up and stay out of it. When abortions were illegal they still happened. The rich got them in hospitals and the poor died in back alleys.

I used to carry copies of a legal document that I would ask anti-abortion people to sign when they got on their soap box. Simply stated it said, "I agree to adopt the next available baby regardless off race, ethnicity or health issues. Not one pro-lifer agreed with the document in over eight years I carried it.

[corpseratemedia]

43. I'm sorry, you can have a very soft nature and a regard for any living thing

and still have an abortion. Because it is your body, not what a bunch of people who read fantasy books want to dictate.

And thank skydaddy for men and the childless and post-menopausal rofl women (lots of whom had abortions) who speak up in defense of women's power to control their OWN bodies. We need as much support against the forces of misogyny and ignorance as possible.

[WVRICK13]

135. My Comment About My Nature and Abortion

reflected my personal feelings and those are what rule every person in making a decision like having an abortion. While I could not have one I would never support taking away anyones right to chose abortion for any reason; even if they just didn't want anything growing inside them.

[hedgehog]

62. I agree with you that it is not a clear issue. Once fertilization occurs,

there is a continuum of something alive and growing. Some people will draw a line after so many cellular divisions and call it a blastocyst or embryo or fetus. Some draw a line when the living thing implants itself in a uterus. Some will draw a line when the thing has a beating heart, or brain waves, or looks like a baby or can breathe on its own,etc. The point is, the line is an artificial construct. Ten years ago I was peri-menopausal, now I am post-menopausal. Surely that is a significant difference to a physician, but I'm still me. Others will argue over the humanity of a damaged organism, whether a functioning brain or certain life expectancy is required.

We all look at this and make our own decisions. Myself, I'm an optimist and come down on the side of life. But I also realize that society has very limited control over this and that societal interventions cause more harm than good. Does outlawing abortion stop abortion? Not that I can see. All outlawing abortion does is ensure rich women obtain abortions under other guises and poor women are exposed to injury and death. Even if you could make abortion impossible, you can't force people to raise children they don't want and/or haven't the emotional, physical of economic means to care for. Talk to someone who lived through the 30's. It wasn't that uncommon to find new-borns abandoned to the elements or tossed into the nearest river to drown. Toss in all the things that can go wrong early pregnancy and a law aimed at stopping abortion comes down situations which were never going to result in a viable child. The worst result would be punishing a woman who desperately wanted a child, desperately tired to bear a child finally forced to ened a process that was never going to result in a child.

So, insist that every fertilized ovum is the same as an adult person? You're a fool. Insist that every fertilized ovum is a thing until the umbilical cord is cut? You're just as much a fool. The best we can do is ensure every woman has access to health care, information and economic support whatever she decides.

[girl gone mad]

141. Fertilization is also an arbitrary benchmark.

Sperm is alive.

[ceile]

64. I don't see how "my body, my choice" could be any clearer

When someone starts in on "life begins at conception", I just walk away. They are somone who cannot be resoned with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. The best pro-choice argument for me is that people should have sovereignty over their own bodies.

Anything less is slavery.

[solstice]

66. It's crystal clear to me....the woman comes FIRST./nt

[Warren DeMontague]

67. How about the argument that it's fucking batshit insane to define a fertilized egg as a citizen.

"One could reasonably argue" that sperms and unfertilized eggs, being "alive" and "human" deserve "rights", too. Ergo, every time you masturbate or menstruate, you're committing murder. Bigtime.

The bottom line? It's pure insanity to grant rights to single cells or clumps of cells. Particularly rights that trump the rights of the individual upon whose body the development of those cells into a human being is fully and wholly dependent.

[Terran]

92. And now for something completely different:

A little levity...

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

[spanone]

69. pretty clear...it's legal....anyone who stops another person from having one is breaking the law

[uppityperson]

71. What is "life"? Is it dependent upon a soul? Does it mean "living cell/cells"?

A lot of the jargon is around the word "life" and that needs to be defined before much true discussion can happen.

Next, what is "being a person"? Does having some sort "life" mean something bearing human dna is a "person"?

For many the issue is not simple, but the right to chose a legal hygienic abortion by a provider well trained in dealing with (potential) health issues RATHER than using a knitting needle, that choice needs to be kept legal

[musette_sf]

77. thank you for your post

agreed.

and also thanks for unearthing two troglodytes who belong on my Ignore list.

edit: just one so far, the other got TSd before i could ignore him.

[and-justice-for-all]

79. The Pro-life/Pro-War goons make it sound like it is such an easy decision

to make and that there is never ever any reason to ever have an abortion. Well, there is and it is not up to me or anyone else to make that choice for any women.

[Hepburn]

84. It is a constitutionally protected right of privacy to have an abortion.

The only thing subject to any discussion is what goes on between the woman and her medical provider.

Not my business whether a fetus is a life or whatever discussion of this I may have. Not my uterus ~~ not my business.

[omega minimo]

87. Ding ding ding We have a winner on this total loser of a thread.

[Hepburn]

98. Thank you....

...:hi:

[omega minimo]

101. Another thread people agonizing about others business as if it's their own, not clear on the concept

:shrug:

[Hepburn]

103. Can anyone imagine debating whether or not a man has a right to...

...have a vasectomy?

This idea of anyone having a right to interfere with the medical decisions made by a woman and her doctor is utter nonsense. What the hell difference is it if it is an abortion ~~ it is a medical procedure and not open to debate or discussion with any third party. PERIOD.

Womb Nazis...fuck 'em and feed 'em peanuts!

[omega minimo]

89. "Whether it's a person" is a false argument of those who like to flap their lips about legal rights

of women to reproductive health and privacy.

[northernlights]

93. get your stinkin' nose out of my uterus.

It is that simple. It is my uterus. My health. My life. My medical procedure. My decision. Not yours. Mine.

Or would you like to make it illegal to deny a kidney or partial liver or other spare organ transplant to any living relative who happens to need one? So *you* are forced by the state to suffer immensely and risk your health and life because an abusive, alcoholic parent or sibling or 1st cousin who hates you demands it so they may live?

[Hepburn]

104. ...

...:applause:

[myrna minx]

110. Excellent.

:applause:

[scarletwoman]

127. Brava! Well said!

:applause:

[Bluebear]

119. Let's just trust women to make prayerful decisions about it.

:crazy:

[sendero]

120. I have a simple definition of when life begins..

... it begins when the fetus could survive without the mother.

I don't know exactly when that is, but at that point, in my world, abortion would no longer be an option.

[rucky]

121. It's really the only debate I'm not comfortable having.

So I stay out of it because I'm a guy and it's not really up to me, which makes be pro-choice by default but also keeps my fundie in-laws at bay.

[xchrom]

122. it's as clear as day -- it's not about the fetus..

i know people want it to be -- but it isn't.

it's about the woman -- it's owning your/her body.

and that is really all there is to it.

[Odin2005]

123. IMO if the fetus can survive outside the womb with medical assistance it is a person.

I was born 2 months premature, why should I have had more rihgts when I was born than an 8-month fetus that was more developed then me by a month? Sorry, that is simply wrong.

[northernlights]

144. and I was supposed to be an illegal abortion

but my mother's aunt found out and intervened. So if abortion had been legal in 1953, I would be here. And you know what?

Nobody, NOBODY, should be forced to carry a pregnancy that they don't want. Certainly not one that may kill them.

And nobody should be forced to be born into a world that doesn't want them.

It's not about the "rights" of a potential person. It's about having a place in the world. And, in the case of late term abortion, it's about a *potential* person not having more rights than the woman who's actual life is at stake.

It wasn't that you had more rights than an 8 month old fetus who's mother, say, was diagnosed with cancer. It's that your mother *wasn't* diagnosed with cancer. It's that you weren't horribly deformed and destined to die at or shortly after birth. It's that your birth *wasn't* going to kill your mother.

And it's that you *were* wanted. That there *was* a place for you.

[scarletwoman]

125. Wrong. It's a very clear issue. Women have the right to sovereignty over their own bodies.

As sentient autonomous human beings, they have the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not. Period.

sw

[Maru Kitteh]

128. It couldn't be any clearer. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

Sometimes wisdom really can be found on a bumper sticker.

[EFerrari]

130. It's clear as possible. My body, my decision.

[Hello_Kitty]

134. Hey y'all, give this one more rec, please! Send it to the Greatest Page! eom