what if abortion got overturned? [Archive]

haplesshobo

10-03-2005, 11:51 AM

An interesting article that talks about what would happen if Roe v. Wade got overturned, and what alternatives women would have. It pretty much destroys the argument that women would need to turn to coat hangers.

Abortion Might Outgrow Its Need for Roe v. Wade

y JOHN LELAND
Published: October 2, 2005

WITH the confirmation last week of John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States, eyes turned to President Bush's next judicial nominee, who, on a closely divided court, may determine the fate of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that recognized a woman's right to an abortion. But such speculation overlooks a paradox in the abortion wars: while combatants focus on the law, technology is already changing the future of abortion, with or without the Supreme Court.

Even if the court restricts or eliminates the right to an abortion, the often-raised specter of a return to back-alley abortions is not likely to be realized, said Dr. Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Services, a nonprofit group that supports access to abortion. "The conditions that existed before 1973 were much different than what they are in 2005," she said. "We have better antibiotics now and better surgical treatments."

But no change is bigger than the advent of an inexpensive drug called misoprostol, which the federal Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of ulcers in 1988, but which has been used in millions of self-administered abortions worldwide. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, freeing states to ban abortion, this common prescription drug, often known by the brand name Cytotec, could emerge as a cheap, relatively safe alternative to the practices that proliferated before Roe.

"We won't go back to the days of coat hangers and knitting needles," said Dr. Jerry Edwards, an abortion provider in Little Rock, Ark. "Rich women will fly to California; poor women will use Cytotec."

Because it was never intended for use in abortions, it has not been widely tested for safety and effectiveness.

In 2000, researchers at three obstetrics and gynecology clinics in New York noted that low-income immigrant women were already using misoprostol as an alternative to going to an abortion clinic, because it was easier and less expensive. They got the pills from doctors, pharmacies, relatives and from contacts in other countries.

The drug causes the uterus to contract and, if the contractions are strong enough, to expel the embryo or fetus. In the United States, misoprostol is typically used off label with the abortion drug RU-486 in non-surgical abortions and in some surgical abortions. A spokeswoman for Pfizer, which sells misoprostol under the name Cytotec, said the company does not comment on off-label use. Last year, Americans filled 365,000 prescriptions of misoprostol for ulcers, according to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical consulting firm.

A dose sufficient to cause an abortion costs less than $2, said Dr. John K. Jain, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern California, who has performed limited clinical trials of abortions using misoprostol alone. He said he found that it was effective 80 to 90 percent of the time, if administered by a doctor. This is slightly lower than its effectiveness in combination with RU-486.

Misoprostol is usually used in the first trimester, but under clinical conditions, Dr. Jain and other researchers say it has been used safely and effectively in the second trimester. Women taking it on their own risk greater rates of failure and higher side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and fever and chills.

Carrie Gordon Earll, a senior analyst of bioethics at Focus on the Family, which supports a reversal of Roe v. Wade, said the existence of new technologies like misoprostol should have no bearing on the law.

"The law operates as a teacher in a moral sense," regardless of people's opportunity to break it, she said. "Even if you have some people who get a drug off the black market and sell it to women, that doesn't mean we don't have a policy to discourage abortion."

In Brazil, where abortion is banned except in rare circumstances, misoprostol is the method of choice for up to 90 percent of all abortions, said Alessandra Chacham, a professor of sociology at the University of the State of Minas Gerais, who studies reproductive health in Brazil. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, she said, pregnant women started to spread the word, because the drug's label warned that it could cause miscarriages. Compared with illegal abortions using other methods, the rate of infection with misoprostol was 12 times lower, researchers have found. But researchers at the University of Rio de Janeiro reported that they also found that among babies born with certain birth defects, a high percentage of the mothers used misoprostol. When the government in response restricted access to misoprostol, drug smugglers created an illegal black market, Ms. Chacham said.

But American women may not be as receptive, said Norma McCorvey, who in 1973 was known as Jane Roe, the woman who brought the case that legalized abortion, but who has since argued for the reversal of the court's decision.

"When women start using these self-induced drugs, and start seeing body parts in their potty, they're going to go bananas," Miss McCorvey said. "And it's going to be horrible."

Dr. Jain said researchers still need to learn more about what happens when the drug doesn't work. Currently, if women fail to terminate a pregnancy using RU-486 and misoprostol, they still have a surgical abortion. But if abortion were illegal, many of these women might carry to term. "Data suggest it causes birth defects, including facial paralysis and limb defects," Dr. Jain said. "It's hard to quantify, but yes, there probably is a risk."

And widespread use of misoprostol could have another unintended consequence, said Mitchell Creinin, director of family planning at the University of Pittsburgh, who has run clinical trials on the drug. In Brazil, if women have problems with the drug, they go to the hospital to be treated for miscarriage. If women in the United States start using misoprostol for abortions, Dr. Creinin said, "someone going through a miscarriage is going to be looked at suspiciously, like, 'Did you do something?' "

Dr. Creinin added that "compared to when abortion was illegal before Roe, misoprostol is still safer." But as with any illegal drug, there is a period of elevated risk before users discover the proper dosages and protocols. If abortion became illegal, he said, "If I were a woman, I'd rather go to Brazil than Mississippi, because at least there they've learned how to do it."

Chad

10-03-2005, 02:47 PM

So people will still have abortions but they'll do it at home with a drug instead of at a doctor's office? How is that any better?
If the argument against abortion is a moral one, then how does this abortion drug solve the moral problem? It's still abortion.
"The law operates as a teacher in a moral sense," regardless of people's opportunity to break it, she said. "Even if you have some people who get a drug off the black market and sell it to women, that doesn't mean we don't have a policy to discourage abortion."
This is clearly incorrect since the law has things which are in contradiction to moral codes such as statutes of limitations where a person can't be prosecuted for a misdemeanour if they evade prosecution for a certain amount of time. In legal codes these debts are dismissed after a while, but in moral codes they are not.
The law also can be intrusive and immoral. If I lose my job because I have to spend time in jail for a crime I did not commit, my employer is not required to give me my job back after the charges are dropped and I'm set free, even if my employer is the state itself. This is clearly immoral.

VV o n g B a

10-03-2005, 05:25 PM

if roe v wade gets overturned, what are some things we can do to control unwanted pregnacies? given the recent freakonomics discussions, i think it's a given that we need to control these pregnancies in order to better everyone's life b/c of the decrease in crime rate.

roe v wade was essentially a eugenics campaign when looked at by freakonomics. judges allowed the babies most likely to become criminals to be disposed of. it bettered society and had measurable results.

the question is what caused the rise in crime from the previous generation? the relation links to the new social morals of the 60 and 70s. because of sexual liberation and the pill, ppl became much more promiscuous than in previous ages. the social repression that kept large numbers of unwanted pregnancies from occurring had broken down. the result was an increase in criminal individuals that would otherwise not have been born.

if roe v wade is overturned in the next few years, we'll need another social revolution in favor of repressing sexual desires in order to hold on to stable, safe society. this is probably just what the fundamentalist christians want, but our alternative is a breakdown in society. sexual repression ends up as pre-abortion, as another form of eugenics (except w/o the killing of fetuses).

we won't be able to screw whoever we want (not as easily anyways and not w/o repercussions), but at least we won't have to worry about getting mugged by some criminal punk that shouldn't have been born in the first place.

Yeahman

10-03-2005, 07:44 PM

This is clearly incorrect since the law has things which are in contradiction to moral codes such as statutes of limitations where a person can't be prosecuted for a misdemeanour if they evade prosecution for a certain amount of time. In legal codes these debts are dismissed after a while, but in moral codes they are not.
Where do you think the laws come from? They are society's best attempts at codifying morality.
Why do you think there's no statute of limitation for murder?

The law also can be intrusive and immoral. If I lose my job because I have to spend time in jail for a crime I did not commit, my employer is not required to give me my job back after the charges are dropped and I'm set free, even if my employer is the state itself. This is clearly immoral.
It's not against the law to rehire you so it's hardly intrusive.

yoMAMA

10-03-2005, 07:55 PM

Who cares?

I'm a men ;)

kimpossible

10-03-2005, 08:25 PM

Who cares?

I'm a hymen ;)

:wink:

yoMAMA

10-03-2005, 08:52 PM

:wink:

LOL

TyroneK(prettypretty)

10-04-2005, 03:04 PM

Chad

10-04-2005, 05:25 PM

Where do you think the laws come from? They are society's best attempts at codifying morality.
Why do you think there's no statute of limitation for murder?
That's only one view.. another view says that laws come not from morals but from guidelines and rules for making the society as strong as possible. If we went strictly by morals, premarital sex, adultery, and usury would all be punishable by law. But the state tolerates these things because they don't seriously interfere with functionality of society. So functionality is actually the basis of our laws.

It's not against the law to rehire you so it's hardly intrusive.
It is intrusive because a person's life can be ruined by the state when they did nothing wrong. Their career can be destroyed.

VV o n g B a

10-04-2005, 05:41 PM

That's only one view.. another view says that laws come not from morals but from guidelines and rules for making the society as strong as possible. If we went strictly by morals, premarital sex, adultery, and usury would all be punishable by law. But the state tolerates these things because they don't seriously interfere with functionality of society. So functionality is actually the basis of our laws.thats kinda what i touched on in my earlier post. historically views against premarital sex actually served to strengthen society b/c it kept unwanted children from being born. if abortion wasn't legal, i'm betting that society as a whole would be much weaker right now b/c those views have eroded. moral views that developed over millenia developed b/c they served a purpose and i think it serves us ill to simply throw them out when we don't know what the consequences will be. in this case, we got lucky b/c of technology and law. legalized abortion came along and saved our asses. just as the french revolution threw out their entire system of gov't and social order and decended into chaos i think it's good if we take changes slowly when there is no precedent. another application that will be interesting to study as its effects become known is that of gay rights. historically, suppressing gay relations must have served some type of purpose. i have no idea what that purpose was, but i'm sure there will be consequences to its removal. so even tho i support gay rights, i'm wondering what its effects are down the line and if we can recover if there are unintended consequences.

Craig

10-04-2005, 05:55 PM

If abortion gets overtuned, then the neo-conservative overlords will have more competition for the shitty jobs, substandard housing, etc. and a larger more easily controlled populace to fight for scraps ...

Thus the rich scumlords will have a comparatively much higher standard of living, because they are making life worse for almost everybody else (in addition to owning the businesses employing the workers and the housing being rented to the masses, etc.) ...

Faithless

10-04-2005, 06:15 PM

Who cares?

I'm a men ;)
If it got overturned, would it be the work of activist judges on the conservative side?

CM

yoMAMA

10-05-2005, 08:50 AM

If it got overturned, would it be the work of activist judges on the conservative side?

CM

LOL

deez nuts

10-05-2005, 09:00 AM

Who cares?

I'm a men ;)

as a man you should care.

i don't think you're that adept at poking and prodding with ye ol rusty clothes hanger to initiate fetus termination protocol. it's not like popping the lock on your car if you locked your keys in it.

DragonKnight

10-05-2005, 09:43 AM

Overturning Roe vs Wade still violates women's rights. Sheesh, let's keep your beliefs, your Bible, your Koran, *and* your fucking coat hangers out of women's vaginas.

Yeahman

10-05-2005, 10:15 AM

Overturning Roe vs Wade still violates women's rights. Sheesh, let's keep your beliefs, your Bible, your Koran, *and* your fucking coat hangers out of women's vaginas.
Not overturning it violates the baby's rights. Sheesh, let's keep your murderous ways to yourself.

i don't think you're that adept at poking and prodding with ye ol rusty clothes hanger to initiate fetus termination protocol. it's not like popping the lock on your car if you locked your keys in it.
And why are we still talking about coat hangers? And even if someone uses a coat hanger to abort, you really think he/she would use a rusty one?
Nice attempt at effect but it does nothing to contribute to the debate. I might as well post a pic of an aborted fetus.

DragonKnight

10-05-2005, 10:26 AM

Not overturning it violates the baby's rights. Sheesh, let's keep your murderous ways to yourself.
All depends on views (there *are* cultures out there that don't even view conception as the beginning of life). Oh well, I rather not go around on circles on this again. I think I'm right, you think you're right *yawn*...I already said my piece anyways.

Oh and sheesh, let's keep your self-righteous, arrogant, fucktarded, sexist, racist, Western Christian-fundamentalist extremist centered soapbox ways to yourself.

kuilong

10-05-2005, 12:13 PM

If we went strictly by morals, premarital sex, adultery, and usury would all be punishable by law. But the state tolerates these things because they don't seriously interfere with functionality of society. So functionality is actually the basis of our laws.

Which is why most moral and political philosophers make a distinction between "public morality" and "private morality." That's how (say) John Courtney Murray, a Catholic, was able to advocate that contraception be decriminalized in Massachusetts.

ChinaLama

10-05-2005, 04:08 PM

All depends on views (there *are* cultures out there that don't even view conception as the beginning of life). Oh well, I rather not go around on circles on this again. I think I'm right, you think you're right *yawn*...I already said my piece anyways.

Oh and sheesh, let's keep your self-righteous, arrogant, fucktarded, sexist, racist, Western Christian-fundamentalist extremist centered soapbox ways to yourself.

well i didn't see all this but i think you're the first one to say shit like "Keep your coat hanger out of a woman's vagina."

neonphoto

10-05-2005, 06:44 PM

If overturning Roe v Wade simply means that the legality of abortion becomes a state issue, what's the harm in that? I am sure that there will be organizations offering to transport women to states that allow it from states that don't.

Personally I think the practice of abortion is a horrible violation against the woman that elects to have one. Clinics rarely allow them to see the ultrasound that is done prior to the procedure. The clinic would like you to think that they are merely providing a service when they don't make any effort to help women find other options. They are really just about making money.

When you consider that a disproportionate number of aborted babies are minorities, I think you have to wonder if this is purely about a woman's right to choose. If the money spent on abortion had been spent on better access to health care and birth control perhaps their wouldn't be so much to fight about.

Yeahman

10-05-2005, 07:45 PM

If overturning Roe v Wade simply means that the legality of abortion becomes a state issue, what's the harm in that?
Good point. Overturning Roe v. Wade would just mean that the states may now decide for themselves.

DragonKnight

10-05-2005, 11:41 PM

If the money spent on abortion had been spent on better access to health care and birth control perhaps their wouldn't be so much to fight about.
Define better access to health care and birth control. ye110's method (according to his previous posts on the subject) would be abstaining instead of passing out condoms and providing access to contraception.

ChinaLama

10-06-2005, 10:25 AM

DragonKnight

10-06-2005, 10:41 AM

people get plenty of education on contraception already; porno stars use condoms! =)
Was that a serious post? Probably not considering the content. Just want to make sure.

Of course, if it was a serious post, then according to neonphoto the education could be better.

neonphoto

10-06-2005, 12:36 PM

Define better access to health care and birth control. ye110's method (according to his previous posts on the subject) would be abstaining instead of passing out condoms and providing access to contraception.

In a perfect world people would wait until they got married to have sex. I have noticed that this isn't a perfect world.

I think that we could do a better job of telling young people what the real consequences of having sex are before marriage. Young women ought to know that waiting and marrying a virgin will mean that she will have NO risk of dying from cervical cancer - just an example. That is the message we ought to give to minors. "You think you're ready, but you ain't."

Having said all of that, since the government will pick up the cost of obstetrics for a poor woman without health care it only makes sense to spend a fraction of that cost giving that same woman access to birth control. Why do we have the government pay $6,000 to bring a baby into this world and object to paying $300 for birth control pills? It is nonsensical.

For a sexually active young woman a yearly exam with the minimal labs and access to whatever form of birth control suits her situation. She ought to pay a small fee for it with the government subsidizing the rest of the cost. Waive all of the fee every year she comes in and hasn't gotten pregnant.

DragonKnight

10-06-2005, 02:38 PM

In a perfect world people would wait until they got married to have sex. I have noticed that this isn't a perfect world.

I think that we could do a better job of telling young people what the real consequences of having sex are before marriage. Young women ought to know that waiting and marrying a virgin will mean that she will have NO risk of dying from cervical cancer - just an example. That is the message we ought to give to minors. "You think you're ready, but you ain't."

Having said all of that, since the government will pick up the cost of obstetrics for a poor woman without health care it only makes sense to spend a fraction of that cost giving that same woman access to birth control. Why do we have the government pay $6,000 to bring a baby into this world and object to paying $300 for birth control pills? It is nonsensical.

For a sexually active young woman a yearly exam with the minimal labs and access to whatever form of birth control suits her situation. She ought to pay a small fee for it with the government subsidizing the rest of the cost. Waive all of the fee every year she comes in and hasn't gotten pregnant.
That is a very moderate approach to a solution. I like it. Good post. :smile:

neonphoto

10-06-2005, 04:08 PM

That is a very moderate approach to a solution. I like it. Good post. :smile:

um thanks.

deez nuts

10-06-2005, 04:23 PM

And why are we still talking about coat hangers? And even if someone uses a coat hanger to abort, you really think he/she would use a rusty one?

good point. they'll prolly opt to stuff their face with birth control pills first in an attempt to have a miscarriage.

I might as well post a pic of an aborted fetus.

sure why not? i won't delete it if you do. i can't say for the others. it's obviously something you feel passionate about. i know a couple that was going to get an abortion and changed their minds when they saw the pro life people with the pics of an aborted fetus.

DragonKnight

10-06-2005, 04:29 PM

um thanks.
Personally I'm curious to what ye110 has to say on your post. Not that I'm predicting anything, just want to hear his opinion.

Faithless

10-07-2005, 12:54 AM

Why, if the Department of Justice is so gung ho against abortion, does it not print abortion stats as crime stats if it's such a crime?

Here's the closest thing you get from the DOJ (infaticide):

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm

National Abortion Federation:

http://www.prochoice.org/policy/courts/doctorsspeak.html
SUPREME COURT/Doctors Speak Out about Roe v. Wade

Doctors who provided abortions before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 know too well the consequences women suffer when abortion is illegal and not accessible.

Dr. Phillip Stubblefield

Dr. Stubblefield fears the consequences of a return to pre-Roe days. "We would go back to the bad old days where women got abortions anyway. Some women could afford to go out of state. Others could not. In the 1940's, 1,000 women a year died of illegal abortions. Maybe we would not go back to that level, but we would undoubtedly have a lot of sick women."

Dr. William Harrison

"During the first six months of my residency, almost all abortions, except for those done to save the life or physical health of the mother, were illegal. Each night we would admit to the wards of University Hospital in Little Rock (a fairly small hospital, as metropolitan hospitals go) girls and women with raging fevers, extraordinary uterine and pelvic infections, enormous blood loss, and a multitude of serious injuries of the pelvic and intra-abdominal organs as a result of illegal and self-induced abortions."

Dr. Curtis Boyd

"Many of the doctors of conscience who have provided abortions through the years were moved to do so by the horrors of botched illegal abortions. I saw those ill and sometimes dying women in my medical training too. I was moved by their plight. But that was not what drove me to risk my career and sometimes my life. I was moved by the certain knowledge that women's lives could be ruined when they could not abort a pregnancy."

Dr. Eugene Glick

"I think the image that I retain was that of a 31-year-old Mexican-American woman who died of endotoxic shock with her husband and four or five children around," he says. "And that scene is in my mind and has been in my mind coming back all the time. I see the bed, I see the kids crying and I see the husband crying."

Dr. Mildred Hanson

As the head of a hospital committee on abortion and sterilization in the 1960's, Dr. Mildred Hanson coached women through an elaborate system to prove that an unwanted pregnancy threatened their life or mental health. But one day she received a frantic call from a young woman seeking her help, and without a name or number all she could do was familiarize her with the process and ask her to call back. She never called back. "I later learned that she committed suicide by jumping out of a 17th-story window. To this day, I feel responsible for her death."

neonphoto

10-07-2005, 04:55 AM

Faithless

10-07-2005, 07:27 AM

Yeahman

10-07-2005, 08:30 AM

I like how people like to say, "well so and so started this and that, and now they are on the other side...".

So.

If whatever movement they were a part of was solely about them, I can see that making a difference. But if they are a part of something bigger, and then leave, that's their tough luck.

That goes for Nathanson and McCorvey, too. McCorvey and her lawyers may have brought the original suit, but the Supreme Court didn't just rule in her favor. They struck down something that affected many more women's lives.
Oh can I just add one more abortion flip in the other direction?

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society's problems -- an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.

When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.
- Ted Kennedy (1971)

Faithless

10-07-2005, 10:03 AM

I love it. Ted Kennedy as the poster-boy for flip-floppers everywhere.

Sometimes, I don't mind the flip-flop.

When it came to the Iraq war, look at all the Senators who voted for it (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237). I'm sure that some have flipped to the anti war side, now.

On flip flopping on the choice issue, itself... (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archived/Kissling%20on%20Kucinich.htm)
Few public figures change their position on abortion, and when they do there is usually hell to pay from one side and rejoicing in heaven at the return of the prodigal son or daughter on the other. Antiabortionists point with pride to Dr. Bernard Nathanson who once presided over one of the first and largest abortion clinics in New York and who now champions fetal life. Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v Wade, has become the poster child of Operation Rescue. Christopher Hitchens was the bad boy of the Nation crowd for his politically incorrect views on abortion rights and Naomi Wolf, prochoice but troubled, drove us all crazy.

In the 1970s, Senator Edward Kennedy found a way to reconcile respect for fetal life with a prochoice position and has become an ardent supporter of choice. Following the Webster Supreme Court decision when it looked as if Roe was on its way to defeat, many politicians who had been nominally antiabortion felt that they no longer had the luxury of sitting it out and became publicly prochoice.

It has been said Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has never met a restriction on abortion that she didn't like, yet at the same time she upholds the central tenet of Roe. Strong prochoice supporters could equally be said to have never met a restriction they could support until laws against partial birth abortion emerged. Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, all of whom are regularly lauded by the prochoice movement and vilified by the American Life League found it impossible to take the prochoice position on this issue. It should be noted that the prochoice movement has had the nuance to accept, with regret, these "lapses" by such men of principle. Equally notable has been Senator Orrin Hatch's very nuanced understanding of when and under what circumstances human life acquires high value. Hatch's antiabortion voting record was always 100 percent-until research on fetal stem cells became an issue. The senator developed the novel view that fetal life outside the womb was of lesser value than that in the womb and more cogently that the potential life-saving benefits of such research outweighed any argument that fetal life was inviolable. Again, while the antichoice movement was unhappy with this position, it has been tolerated.

deez nuts

10-07-2005, 12:58 PM

a kennedy man's idea of an abortion is having her killed.

neonphoto

10-07-2005, 01:25 PM

good point. they'll prolly opt to stuff their face with birth control pills first in an attempt to have a miscarriage.

Or you can have your boyfriend hit you in the abdomen with a baseball bat until you miscarry and then bury the baby in a field.

That happened with two teens in Michigan.

neonphoto

10-07-2005, 01:28 PM

neonphoto

10-07-2005, 01:30 PM

a kennedy man's idea of an abortion is having her killed.

Wicked and funny. I like that.

Faithless

10-07-2005, 01:39 PM

I did not mention Dr Nathansan flip flopping to gain credibility. I mentioned it because he was directly responsible for assisting in making up the numbers related to the women who died as a result of illegal abortions. Now that he is no longer in favor of abortion he is willing to admit it. Some would actually question his credibility because of the flip flop. (If he was lying then how do we know he isn't lying now?)

I didn't intend for you to take that to mean that because Dr Nathanson switched sides that it is proof of the horror of abortion. I mentioned it out of fairness in understanding the validity of the info.
Some would question his sanity because he created "Silent Scream", too.

What to do with accidental pregancies?

http://www.overpopulation.org/teenpreg.html

Alan Guttmacher Institute: "85% of teen pregnancies are unplanned, accounting for about 1/4 of all accidental pregnancies annually."

Alan Guttmacher Institute - Family Planning Perspectives (abstracts) Understanding the Impact of Effective Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Programs
"Each year, the U.S. government spends an estimated $34 billion on behalf of families in which the first birth occurred when the mother was a teenager."
"The children of teenage mothers are at greater risk of lower intellectual and academic achievement, social behavior problems, and problems of self-control than are children of older mothers, primarily due to the effects of single parenthood, lower maternal education, and larger family size."

nola

10-07-2005, 01:50 PM

I know the abortion industry would like you to think that they are merely providing a safe alternative service to women who would like to terminate their pregnancies. Personal experience says otherwise. They don't care about helping women. They want you to come in, hand over you money, get it over with and get out.What the hell do you know about personal experiences with abortion? Have you had one? I had one and they were extremely caring, wonderful, gave me every kind of attention and time.Some would question his sanity because he created "Silent Scream", too.

What to do with accidental pregancies?

http://www.overpopulation.org/teenpreg.html

Alan Guttmacher Institute: "85% of teen pregnancies are unplanned, accounting for about 1/4 of all accidental pregnancies annually."

Alan Guttmacher Institute - Family Planning Perspectives (abstracts) Understanding the Impact of Effective Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Programs
"Each year, the U.S. government spends an estimated $34 billion on behalf of families in which the first birth occurred when the mother was a teenager."
"The children of teenage mothers are at greater risk of lower intellectual and academic achievement, social behavior problems, and problems of self-control than are children of older mothers, primarily due to the effects of single parenthood, lower maternal education, and larger family size."Now unwanted pregnancies are a much uglier picture than aborted fetuses.

neonphoto

10-07-2005, 02:01 PM

What the hell do you know about personal experiences with abortion? Have you had one? I had one and they were extremely caring, wonderful, gave me every kind of attention and time.Now unwanted pregnancies are a much uglier picture than aborted fetuses.

Actually I do know because I did have one.

I was not treated kindly. I wasn't offered any sort of counseling. I wasn't treated unfairly, but it was all about getting me in, performing the abortion and getting me out of there. I had lots of emotional problems afterward and there was no resource for me to deal with that. They didn't have anything to offer either. I was depressed and suicidal for a long time after that.

Does that answer your question?

nola

10-07-2005, 02:04 PM

Yes, sorry about that. My condolences. You are a Caucasian female I see now. Where do you live?

neonphoto

10-07-2005, 02:08 PM

Yes, sorry about that. My condolences. You are a Caucasian female I see now. Where do you live?

In the midwest US.

I am thankful that your experience wasn't as brutal. However, I don't think that compassionate abortionists are the answer. I would prefer that we not choose them at all. I am not saying this well, but I hope you get my point in spite of that.

nola

10-07-2005, 02:12 PM

Faithless

10-07-2005, 02:33 PM

Some stats.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/NEWS08/510020304

Pro-choice supporters say even though viability has been lowered, it's still a moot issue because of the reality of when abortions occur.

For example, almost all abortions in the United States - there are about 1.29 million annually - are not performed near or above the age of viability. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports in their most recent data from 2001 [which excludes three states, including California] that 88 percent of all abortions are performed under 13 weeks gestation, with only 1.4 percent - or about 18,200 abortions - at 21 weeks and above.

The CDC does not break down abortions by individual week. However, the Alan Guttmacher Institute of New York did a survey on abortion nationwide in the early 1990s. From its report, the institute said that 1.5 million abortions were performed in 1992. It estimated about 10,000 abortions were done at weeks 21-22; 5,000 at 23-24 weeks; 850 at 25-26 weeks, and about 320 at 26 weeks or greater.

Dr. Martin said though he's saving infants at younger ages, he worries the public gets an inaccurate idea of what's possible. For example, though 24 weeks is considered viable by many doctors, only about half of babies born this early survive. In those who do, half have serious complications, such as mental retardation, while the other half varies from those with moderate problems to normal babies.

neonphoto

10-07-2005, 02:38 PM

I'm in the midwest too. I was in northern Florida at the time. That really sucks, neon! I don't know if I have any consequences or if I've shut out the feelings for a much later age.

Welcome to YW, by the way. Post an introduction in the Planet YW forum if you want to.

Thanks for the welcome. I do appreciate it.

I don't know why, but I have never posted an intro in a forum. I just don't.

Yeahman

10-07-2005, 04:13 PM

What to do with accidental pregancies?
WTF is an accidental pregnancy? A guy with his pants down who slips on a banana and falls into an unsuspecting girl who just happens to be naked?

hooligan

10-07-2005, 04:19 PM

WTF is an accidental pregnancy? A guy with his pants down who slips on a banana and falls into an unsuspecting girl who just happens to be naked?

WTF is an accidental presidency? A guy avoids the draft, smokes a lot of crack, is an alcoholic, becomes the president through the SCOTUS, then nominates anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS?

DragonKnight

10-07-2005, 05:17 PM

WTF is an accidental presidency? A guy avoids the draft, smokes a lot of crack, is an alcoholic, becomes the president through the SCOTUS, then nominates anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS?
Now, now...scary enough the slight majority of Americans actually voted for him the 2nd time around. Go figure. I'm more into finding a way to improve our country in spite of our country's poor judgement. :wink:

Anyhoo, I think unplanned pregnancy is a better term. That can occur even without coitus. Like a guy shoots a load while they're humping each other in their undies. Or a condom breaks, birth control pills can actually fail, etc. Yes, accidents do happen. Personally I'd like a woman to avoid abortion as much as possible. But it's a woman's private choice to do what she wants with her body. I'm not going to deny that right to her. There are other belief systems that will say life begins at birth and not at conception. But I leave that debate for another day.

Now that being said, I say go full stream on educating those at risk of unplanned pregnancies. You see ye110, this is your chance to go and preach your abstinence lecture. It's a good cause. I myself am more on the next stage, birth control. Also, not all unplanned pregnancies are the result of premarital sex.

On a personal note, I can't wait for a birth control pill for males. I think it's time for guys to step up to the plate on preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Faithless

10-07-2005, 05:52 PM

WTF is an accidental pregnancy? A guy with his pants down who slips on a banana and falls into an unsuspecting girl who just happens to be naked?
Exactly -- except, the banana is usually something like Pinot Noir and the guy swears he was wearing a rubber.

And guy's just need to learn to do face plants in these situations, in stead. :rolleyes:

Out of the thousands of times, you've had sex, how many times did you intend to impregnate?

haplesshobo

10-07-2005, 05:56 PM

I don't see how this "destroys" the argument that women would "need to turn to coat hangers." That expression hearkens back to the unapproved, untested and underground methods used to perform abortions back when getting an abortion was illegal and performing them was something that could bring you jail time. It's a figurative expression.It's not necessarily the coat hangers themselves that family planning advocates fear as much as it is the creation of an unsanctioned, uncontrolled world of medicine which would service a need that would not be abated or lessened by the banning of abortion.

The problem is that its hard to know when something is being figurative, and when its to scare the shit out of people. I posted this article in response to somebody who wrote about Judge Robert's nomintaion: "say goodbye to planned parenthood and hello to clothes hangers and long drives to mexico, teenagers. and i guess we should be saying bye to some of you since some of you will likely die in the process."

Relying on a medication approved for other uses that only work in certain situation and whose illegal use is likely not to be taught to doctors in an environment marked by peer review and open candor would recreate that part of the pre-Roe world. It would be more dangerous to women because we would not be able to learn accurately what kind of procedures are being used, let alone control who would be performing these abortions or where these abortions would take place. Once you turn abortion into a criminal act, you inevitably put it abortion in the control of criminals, who can prey on a captive audience and have much less to lose by the practice of bad medicine.

Its actually not that uncommon for doctors to prescribe drugs off label, for something other than what it was originally approved for.

I'm not arguing that overturning Roe v. Wade would make it safer or healthier for women, but that the fears of it have been exagerrated. Science and medicine is moving faster than politics, and a lot has changed in the past 40 years. You're not going to see a return of the butchery commited with illegal abortions 40 years ago.

nola

10-07-2005, 05:56 PM

Now that being said, I say go full stream on educating those at risk of unplanned pregnancies. You see ye110, this is your chance to go and preach your abstinence lecture. It's a good cause. I myself am more on the next stage, birth control. Also, not all unplanned pregnancies are the result of premarital sex.

On a personal note, I can't wait for a birth control pill for males. I think it's time for guys to step up to the plate on preventing unplanned pregnancies.Good points.

They are developing a male birth control pill. Do you think men will reliably take it?

DragonKnight

10-07-2005, 06:15 PM

Good points.

They are developing a male birth control pill. Do you think men will reliably take it?
To be quite honest, I wouldn't count on it. Unless you live with your man and take account his pill-taking each day. Just to be safe, I recommend women take the pill as well and make that man slap a jimmy-hat on. Can't be too careful. I wonder if they'll develop something similar like Depo-provera or even Norplant for males?

Yeahman

10-07-2005, 06:29 PM

Out of the thousands of times, you've had sex, how many times did you intend to impregnate?
I don't know if I'm up to thousands just yet.
Unintended pregnancy makes sense. Just like if I do poorly on an exam. I did not intended to do poorly but I didn't accidently do poorly either.

nola

10-07-2005, 07:34 PM

There's unplanned pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies. Men like to say pregnancies were meant to be. Believe me when it happens to you and you're not prepared to support a child it's a mistake and you are terrified and obsessed with either getting rid of it or dying yourself.

hooligan

10-07-2005, 08:03 PM

Excellent point on how crappy abortion is now. Obviously, we need more funding for appropriate healthcare for those seeking abortion as an option.

Faithless

10-08-2005, 12:09 AM

I don't know if I'm up to thousands just yet.
Unintended pregnancy makes sense. Just like if I do poorly on an exam. I did not intended to do poorly but I didn't accidently do poorly either.
But you can intend not to impregnate.

You can keep working it, and working it, and working it, and working it --

All night with that same extra thin piece of latex.

But how did you know that the condom had an eventual tear? You were so busy working your willie to explosion that you didn't stop to check if your condom was intact.

Then she's pregnant.

"Hey babe, it was an accident!"

Faithless

10-08-2005, 12:56 AM

Something else to consider for the pro-life homophobes. Conservatives. Whatever.

"I don't want to upset anyone," (Aaron) Greenberg said. "But I don't think, with certain conditions, that there's anything morally objectionable with choosing a child's sexual orientation."

Even if hatred is the motive, he said there's no harm in a homophobe choosing not to have a gay child.

Lawyer suggests abortion if a test could prove fetus has "gay gene' (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/08/26/NEWS3525.dtl)

Wednesday, August 26, 1998

CHICAGO - A Chicago lawyer who has published articles about the legal and ethical issues of sexual orientation research says that if a so-called gay gene is ever isolated, parents should have the right to abort a gay fetus or manipulate its genetic makeup.

His stand prompted a swift response in San Francisco, where Supervisor Tom Ammiano called the idea frightening, the proud parents of a lesbian found it very painful and a gay rights attorney called it "ludicrous from a scientific point of view."

In Chicago, attorney Aaron Greenberg is set to present his argument Thursday at the 16th annual symposium of the San Francisco-based Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

"I'm pro-gay, but also pro-freedom," Greenberg said Tuesday.

"All things being equal, I think a kid who is heterosexual would have an easier life, not for any good reason, but because people irrationally discriminate (against homosexuals)," he said, giving what he speculated would be the biggest reason parents would want a straight child.

He said parents who make such a decision also would probably relate better to a heterosexual child and might feel they would have a better chance of eventually becoming grandparents.

Greenberg's view - particularly when presented to a room full of mostly gay and lesbian medical professionals - is likely to be controversial.

"It's just pure evil," said David Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay political group. "It stems from the whole notion that being gay or lesbian is not quite worthy of a parent's love."

Others say Greenberg has a point.

"I think it'd be a terrible thing if you ended up foisting gay and lesbian kids on parents who you know don't want them," said Timothy Murphy, a medical humanities professor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and the organizer of the GLMA panel.

Greenberg, a corporate lawyer who has published with Northwestern University researcher Michael Bailey, said he understands that - even if one has no problem with abortion or genetic engineering - his ideas can make people very emotional.

"I don't want to upset anyone," Greenberg said. "But I don't think, with certain conditions, that there's anything morally objectionable with choosing a child's sexual orientation."

Even if hatred is the motive, he said there's no harm in a homophobe choosing not to have a gay child.

Discussion called important<

Members of GLMA, which meets through Saturday, say it's important to discuss the issue, no matter how controversial.

"Sure it's going to upset people. But I think it forces us to come to terms with the fact that people hate us and there's no magic bullet to make it go away," said Ben Schatz, executive director of the GLMA. "I think this underscores that we can't look to science or technology as an antidote to bigotry."

But in San Francisco, Greenberg's view raised alarm.

"I find it very frightening," Ammiano said. "I think that in Germany during World War II there were some of the same rationales" for the elimination of Jews.

"Discrimination against gay people is fast eradicating, and certainly even if it's still around, it wouldn't justify that," he said.

"I think this guy is grabbing for the spotlight, and also capitalizing on the campaign against gays that's coming from the Republicans."

Ammiano referred both to the current ad campaign by the Christian right and anti-gay rhetoric and legislation in Congress.

Sam and Julia Thoron, who have a grown lesbian daughter and head the San Francisco chapter of Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays, praised their daughter's intellectual strength, sensitivity and warmheartedness, and called Greenberg's view painful.

"The world will be better because my daughter is in it," Julia Thoron said.

"Nothing wrong with being gay'<

Sam Thoron said that, as with the anti-gay ad campaign,

"All of this implies that there's something wrong with being gay. There's nothing wrong with being gay, underline and exclamation point."

At the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, staff attorney Shannon Minter said Greenberg's view has no scientific merit and shows how ill-informed the public is on theories of how sexual orientation is formed.

"The idea that they will ever isolate a single gene that (causes homosexuality) is ridiculous," he said. "All of the scientific research that has indicated there may be a genetic component to sexual orientation has emphasized that it is incredibly complex and involves a complicated interaction between genetic makeup and experience and environmental influences.

"I think all children and all parents would be much better off if everyone concerned about discrimination against lesbian and gay children and youth spent their time and energy trying to educate people and build acceptance and love."

To date, researchers looking for a genetic explanation for homosexuality say they have found similarities in gay twins and other siblings.

A 1993 study, for example, found that gay brothers tended to share the same region of the X-chromosome, called Xq28, suggesting that there may be a gene in that region that affects sexual orientation.

Some look at the findings as proof that homosexuality has a biological link. Others continue to insist that homosexuality is a learned behavior.

Either way, it is not now possible to isolate a gay gene or genetically engineer a fetus.

Yeahman

12-15-2005, 06:50 AM

It requires a subscription:
http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VNSRJQV&tranMode=none

Gist of the proposal is to overturn Roe v. Wade for the sake of the country. It's the most divisive issue in American politics. It's not as divisive in other countries because they don't have a Roe v. Wade. Their abortion laws were decided by the people. Why not do that in the US? Overturning Roe v. Wade won't ban abortion. It'll just allow state and federal legislatures to regulate it. Most states will keep abortion legal. Some will ban them but those states already have so few abortions as it is. If someone really wants an abortion they could just cross over to another state.

VV o n g B a

12-15-2005, 07:45 AM

a while back i prolly wouldn't have liked this suggestion as much. but it makes sense. let the states sort themselves out. if u wanna live in a godly state, then u can expect to live by god's laws. if u don't wanna live there, then god's laws can take a hike. makes sense to me.

why do more ppl move out of saudi arabia than into it? partly b/c they live under "god's laws" i bet. let those states turn in to saudi arabia for all i care. i just gotta make sure i get out before then.

yoMAMA

12-15-2005, 09:09 AM

so overturning a key judicial precedent just for the sake of convenience?

that's a weak argument.

if u wanna live in a godly state, then u can expect to live by god's laws. if u don't wanna live there, then god's laws can take a hike.

i'm no constitutional law expert, but didn't somewhere in the constitution said, the government and religion should be seperate?

so can any state have "God's laws"?

hooligan

12-15-2005, 09:14 AM

No, because it's just going to make an already divided country even more divided amongst state lines.

The argument is self-defeating because it's not going to resolve anything.

A.R.A.M.

12-15-2005, 09:31 AM

A key reason suggested in the article for scraping Roe vs. Wade from a liberal/democrat pov is that it has been a lightening rod for Republicans/conservatives. Take away that issue and all they have left to drum up support is the "War on Christmas." Sure it is merely an expedient political move, but I think that is a good argument for letting go of Roe vs. Wade, especially since most states are likely to continue to allow abortion, or at least some form of abortion.

Yeahman

12-15-2005, 09:59 AM

yoMAMA

12-15-2005, 10:44 AM

It's true. As Kerry said after the election, there were lots of people who aren't voting Democrat for the sole reason of the abortion issue.

I think his lack of charisma had something to do with the electoral defeat too.

Craig

12-15-2005, 11:06 AM

Perhaps a good argument for the conservatives to keep abortion is telling them that the people that are going to abort their children are most likely liberals ...

hooligan

12-15-2005, 11:40 AM

Well, I can't believe that women's rights are not considered political posturing material. How low will we go?

Craig

12-15-2005, 12:20 PM

Well, I can't believe that women's rights are not considered political posturing material. How low will we go?Do you really think most American conservatives or liberals give a rat's ass about other people's rights ?

Most seem just to care about their conscious / feeling good about themselves and the slant of propaganda they've been fed.

It's doesn't seem to be about a women's right in the USA it seems to be about imposing your group's will and beliefs onto other people and forcing them to blindly follow.

Hiroshi2

12-15-2005, 12:51 PM

>:^|

12-15-2005, 12:53 PM

I think in large part the abortion issue is used to distract us from other issues at hand. But in any event, I believe I've read several reputable sources that say the majority of U.S. citizens support abortion rights in limited circumstances.

The problem with overturning Roe v. Wade is that abortion is not just about getting rid of unwanted babies, it's also a serious health care issue. As it is now, there are very limited abortion providers simply because doctors don't like to get shot or bombed or because hospitals with religious affiliations refuse service. Simply "going to another state," as one poster mentioned, is only an option for people with resources.

Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of contraception. It should only be used in cases of a woman being raped or incest. Other than that, abortion IS murder, so as far as I'm concerned they can overturn that case. But then they should go back and rewrite the federal law so that in special cases (rape, incest, etc) it may be used, but other than that, ruled illegal and punishable by law.

Or maybe they should make fathers equally responsible.

bushido

12-15-2005, 04:32 PM

Do you really think most American conservatives or liberals give a rat's ass about other people's rights ?

Most seem just to care about their conscious / feeling good about themselves and the slant of propaganda they've been fed.

It's doesn't seem to be about a women's right in the USA it seems to be about imposing your group's will and beliefs onto other people and forcing them to blindly follow.

Right on Craig. Nowadays, individual freedom be damned. Majority rules.

Shuriken

12-15-2005, 07:24 PM

Here is something that I posted on another thread:

If events continue on their present course, it will only be a matter of time before Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that recognized abortion as a woman’s constitutional right, is overturned. This saddens me. I don’t say this as any great fan of abortion. If a woman is contemplating getting an abortion but still has some doubts, I would encourage her not to go through with the procedure. But if she does want to have one, it should be in a safe and legal setting, preferrably before the fetus is viable. The choice should be hers. Most importantly, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, if a woman is compelled by others to carry a pregnancy to term, this puts her at a disadvantage with her male competitors — who would never face the physical predicament of pregnancy — on the job market. In this instance, abortion is an equalizer.

I am in favor of reasonable limitations on abortion, but every piece of abortion-limiting legislation that I have heard of seems more like a bad-faith means to overturn or disempower Roe than a good-faith solution to a legislative need. Some pro-choice liberals argue, quite sensibly, that abortion should remain legal but is not in the Constitution, and therefore, Roe ought to be overturned. But at the moment, constitutionality is the only thing keeping abortion legally alive. If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe anytime soon, I’m sure the Republican-dominated Congress would quickly ram through a bill outlawing abortion — with Senate Republicans probably employing the “nuclear option” to thwart any Democratic fillibuster.

Yeahman

12-15-2005, 09:48 PM

The problem with overturning Roe v. Wade is that abortion is not just about getting rid of unwanted babies, it's also a serious health care issue. As it is now, there are very limited abortion providers simply because doctors don't like to get shot or bombed or because hospitals with religious affiliations refuse service. Simply "going to another state," as one poster mentioned, is only an option for people with resources.
Who doesn't have the resources to drive to another state or hop on a bus?

If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe anytime soon, I’m sure the Republican-dominated Congress would quickly ram through a bill outlawing abortion — with Senate Republicans probably employing the “nuclear option” to thwart any Democratic fillibuster.
Congress can regulate abortions right now but they don't. Getting the partial birth abortion ban through was a challenge and that was a very popular bill with over 70% support in the US including the majority of registered Democrats.

The nuclear option applies to presidental appointments, not for legislation.

There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans too.

At the state level places like Mississippi have all but banned abortion already. It's the states that would decide. But even if it was up to the US Congress, what does it say about the pro-choice cause if the will of the people needs to be suppressed to their way?

Hiroshi2

12-15-2005, 10:43 PM

Or maybe they should make fathers equally responsible.

Hey, that's a good idea too. All I'm saying is, abortion is NOT a contraceptive and should not be used as one. If you want "birth control" there are plenty of other ways to do that, but once the egg has been fertilized, and life has been conceived, no it's too late. That's you, playa. YOUR responsibilty.

Arex

12-15-2005, 11:26 PM

^ It's easy for you to say that 'cause you wouldn't be the one who has to bring a child to term simply because a condom broke or you happened to be that unlucky 1% of women who get pregnant despite taking the pill. I'd say that decision should be left to the person (i.e., woman) who's going to have to bring that child to term.

Of course abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Anyone who does that is an idiot. But if a girl isn't mature/financially secure enough to raise a child, why force her to? Rather than ruin two lives, it seems a lot more reasonable to me to allow the woman to simply remove the non-viable cells from her body.

I don't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned because the decision as to whether to obtain an abortion is such a personal choice. If you're opposed to abortion, that's fine, when you accidentally get knocked up you don't have to get one. But there's no reason you should be able to deprive your neighbor of the right to make that choice for herself, whether it's across state lines or it's your neighbor across the street.

Yeahman

12-16-2005, 05:46 AM

Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of contraception. It should only be used in cases of a woman being raped or incest. Other than that, abortion IS murder, so as far as I'm concerned they can overturn that case. But then they should go back and rewrite the federal law so that in special cases (rape, incest, etc) it may be used, but other than that, ruled illegal and punishable by law.
If it's murder why does it matter if it's the result of rape or incest?

^ It's easy for you to say that 'cause you wouldn't be the one who has to bring a child to term simply because a condom broke or you happened to be that unlucky 1% of women who get pregnant despite taking the pill. I'd say that decision should be left to the person (i.e., woman) who's going to have to bring that child to term.

Of course abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Anyone who does that is an idiot. But if a girl isn't mature/financially secure enough to raise a child, why force her to? Rather than ruin two lives, it seems a lot more reasonable to me to allow the woman to simply remove the non-viable cells from her body.

I don't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned because the decision as to whether to obtain an abortion is such a personal choice. If you're opposed to abortion, that's fine, when you accidentally get knocked up you don't have to get one. But there's no reason you should be able to deprive your neighbor of the right to make that choice for herself, whether it's across state lines or it's your neighbor across the street.
Nobody gets accidentally knocked up just as nobody gets fat accidentally.

Why prevent women from killing their babies? It isn't the woman's choice whether or not her baby should live.

>:^|

12-16-2005, 06:39 AM

^ It's easy for you to say that 'cause you wouldn't be the one who has to bring a child to term simply because a condom broke or you happened to be that unlucky 1% of women who get pregnant despite taking the pill. I'd say that decision should be left to the person (i.e., woman) who's going to have to bring that child to term.

Three scenarios of acquaintances/friends:

1. Contraceptive failure. Woman is taking maintenance medications known to be harmful to developing fetus.

2. Couple plans to have a child. Finds out in middle of pregnancy that fetus is missing its brain.

3. Couple plans to have a child. Wife is diagnosed with aggressive cancer after conceiving. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy cannot be given while she is pregnant.

Who doesn't have the resources to drive to another state or hop on a bus?

Does "Katrina" mean anything to you?

Yeahman

12-16-2005, 07:10 AM

Does "Katrina" mean anything to you?
You think those people didn't leave because they didn't have bus fare?

>:^|

12-16-2005, 07:29 AM

You think those people didn't leave because they didn't have bus fare?

Not to jump on you personally, yellowman, but this kind of thinking is very prevalent in our society and allows us to ignore issues of poverty. You can see it in our current administration.

Have you always got interstate bus fare? Do you own a car? Do you have approximately $800 in cash that you could call up at a moment's notice? Just for kicks, I looked up the bus fare to/from LA to SF. It's $78.

And if you always have this kind of money, I guess it would be easy to imagine that everybody else does, too.

Yeahman

12-16-2005, 07:37 AM

hahahaha so you really think they didn't leave New Orleans because they didn't have bus fare?! lol
Jsut for kicks, by bus it would cost me $5 to go to the nearest state.

DragonKnight

12-16-2005, 09:44 AM

hahahaha so you really think they didn't leave New Orleans because they didn't have bus fare?! lol
Jsut for kicks, by bus it would cost me $5 to go to the nearest state.
That's for you. How about for them and whole families from New Orleans? Face is right, this type of thinking turns a blind eye to poverty. Perhaps you should concentrate more on the poor rather than women's rights to their vaginas.

kuilong

12-16-2005, 09:51 AM

And this assumes that all the contiguous states have more liberal abortion laws as well! Has no one ever wondered why it's so difficult for poor women in PIE to get abortions (there aren't any abortion clinics in the province) when they could just pop over to New Brunswick? And this is in a country with one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world (indeed, no abortion law at all).

Hiroshi2

12-16-2005, 11:31 AM

If it's murder why does it matter if it's the result of rape or incest?

Isn't the answer obvious???

Of course abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Anyone who does that is an idiot.

But that's EXACTLY why a lot of women support abortion. People talk about a right to choose. How about a right to choose to use other contraceptives? How about a right to choose not to have casual sex if you're afraid you're going to have a baby?

I'm not saying people shouldn't fuck casually, but there's a risk that goes with it just like everything else, and if you suffer the consequences, well hell you just suffer the consequences. I don't like the idea of killing something that's already living just because you fucked up.

But if a girl isn't mature/financially secure enough to raise a child, why force her to? Rather than ruin two lives, it seems a lot more reasonable to me to allow the woman to simply remove the non-viable cells from her body.

What a nice way to sugarcoat something that's actually pretty sick. I conceived you as a result of my own actions, but since I don't think I can take care of you, why don't I just kill you.

How about the girl simply take responsbility for her actions? She could've used a condom or the birth control pill....................if she still ended up having a baby anyway....................well, shit, that's your child, it's too late to kill it then.

>:^|

12-16-2005, 12:32 PM

I think the attempt to frame the abortion rights issue as one of "women who don't take responsibility for their actions" is both demeaning to women and overly simplistic. It also ignores the role of the father. Even if you assume (which I don't) that most women get abortions because they don't want kids, how do you think this would change if men were to assume responsibility? If women had supportive partners, would they be as likely to abort?

Also, try answering the three situations I posted earlier.

1. Contraceptive failure. Woman is taking maintenance medications known to be harmful to developing fetus.

2. Couple plans to have a child. Finds out in middle of pregnancy that fetus is missing its brain.

3. Couple plans to have a child. Wife is diagnosed with aggressive cancer after conceiving. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy cannot be given while she is pregnant.

These are people I know. Tell me what you would do.

I tend to believe that most of us draw our moral lines where they are comfortable for us. So when we are men, especially young men who probably don't even support ourselves, it's far easier to talk about other people taking responsibility for their actions.

VV o n g B a

12-16-2005, 12:42 PM

So when we are men, especially young men who probably don't even support ourselves, it's far easier to talk about other people taking responsibility for their actions.i support myself. and i think having an abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions. it's admitting they aren't ready to raise a child.

hell, whatever mothers raised the guys who robbed me should have taken much more responsibility and aborted those motherfuckers before they had a chance to become threats to society. i wholeheartedly support abortion decisions as taking responsibility. the damn women who don't get rid of their future monsters are the ones that are irresponsible.

Azn Retribution

12-16-2005, 12:54 PM

If it's murder why does it matter if it's the result of rape or incest?

Nobody gets accidentally knocked up just as nobody gets fat accidentally.

Why prevent women from killing their babies? It isn't the woman's choice whether or not her baby should live.

It isn't your choice to decide whether she has the choice or not.
Nor is it anyone elses.
Who's the arrogant one now.

By definition a baby is not a living organism until it can exist independently of the mother.
It is a parasite. It cannot think. It exercises no will or cognition. It is only potential.

Murder is the act of taking away the right of a living, breathing, thinking individual of the right to live.

If we were to take your petulant views to an extreme. The act of abstinence itself would be considered "murder".

We have free will for a fucking reason.

hooligan

12-16-2005, 01:23 PM

I think the attempt to frame the abortion rights issue as one of "women who don't take responsibility for their actions" is both demeaning to women and overly simplistic. It also ignores the role of the father. Even if you assume (which I don't) that most women get abortions because they don't want kids, how do you think this would change if men were to assume responsibility? If women had supportive partners, would they be as likely to abort?

Also, try answering the three situations I posted earlier.

These are people I know. Tell me what you would do.

I tend to believe that most of us draw our moral lines where they are comfortable for us. So when we are men, especially young men who probably don't even support ourselves, it's far easier to talk about other people taking responsibility for their actions.

I would sincerely hope, that if I were in any situation where abortion may be an option, I would support the decision in which my significant other may take. I think it's only fair since this society puts the burden upon the woman to raise children.

You don't believe how it irks me having men, especially men with dubious religious backgrounds preach about how we must take away women's rights. It's like all the gains that women have made since the 1960s are slowly being attacked and rolled back. All based on some half-assed religious or moral grounds.

kuilong

12-16-2005, 02:35 PM

Here's a thought experiment to elicit some of our intuitions on this issue:

Suppose that you are in a fertility clinic that is burning down. You're in the hallway. To your left, there is a door which leads to a room in which a five year old child, incapable of escape, is cowering. To your right, there is a door which leads to a room in which there are ten fertilized eggs, on ice, which can be saved through your quick action. You only have time to save whoever's in one room. Which do you choose?

hooligan

12-16-2005, 02:38 PM

Hiroshi2

12-16-2005, 04:15 PM

So now the real question is when does life begin? Which nobody can agree on.

DragonKnight

12-16-2005, 05:32 PM

The eggs! Save the eggs!
"How come when it's us, it's an abortion...but when it's chickens, it's an omelet?"

...and in regards of this whole debate:

"The longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear the phrase 'sanctity of life,' 'sanctity of life.' You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of shit. I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death."

...and one more in regards to when life begins:

"People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process."

- George Carlin, wise man and a wise ass too! :biggrin:

Irezumi Kiss

12-16-2005, 05:36 PM

Azn Retribution

12-16-2005, 07:06 PM

I would sincerely hope, that if I were in any situation where abortion may be an option, I would support the decision in which my significant other may take. I think it's only fair since this society puts the burden upon the woman to raise children.

You don't believe how it irks me having men, especially men with dubious religious backgrounds preach about how we must take away women's rights. It's like all the gains that women have made since the 1960s are slowly being attacked and rolled back. All based on some half-assed religious or moral grounds.

A-freaking men.

Their "religious" ground isn't even grounding. It's bullshit.

Religion is about CHOOSING to believe that
Not forcing your shit on someone else.
More christians really should pay attention to what they believe.

You may disapprove, fine.
I am not saying it is right or moral.
I'm not saying its not something they might or might not regret.

I'm saying they have a right to choose and none of these people
have a right to judgethem.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Funny how fundies never take their own advice.

Yeahman

12-16-2005, 07:42 PM

It isn't your choice to decide whether she has the choice or not.
Nor is it anyone elses.
Who's the arrogant one now.
You are for thinking that you should decide that babies do not deserve to live.

By definition a baby is not a living organism until it can exist independently of the mother.
American Heritage Dictionary:
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

It is a parasite. It cannot think. It exercises no will or cognition. It is only potential.

Murder is the act of taking away the right of a living, breathing, thinking individual of the right to live.
True arrogance.

If we were to take your petulant views to an extreme. The act of abstinence itself would be considered "murder".
Uh right...

We have free will for a fucking reason.
And you think that excuses murder?

"How come when it's us, it's an abortion...but when it's chickens, it's an omelet?"
I don't know about you but I don't eat fertilized chicken eggs.

Religion is about CHOOSING to believe that
Not forcing your shit on someone else.
More christians really should pay attention to what they believe.
So stop forcing babies to die! Stop forcing your shit on them!

I'm saying they have a right to choose and none of these people
have a right to judgethem.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Funny how fundies never take their own advice.
You don't see them attacking pregnant women. Wrongdoing must be judged.

Hiroshi2

12-16-2005, 10:19 PM

First thought answer: The five-year old child.

The five-year-old child is the first answer because his/her cries feel more "real". It's easier to imagine the five-year-old suffering because of your decision as opposed to supposedly non-living 'eggs'.

It doens't take away the fact that the eggs in fact are living.

After all, if I'm not mistaken, in Chinese culture aren't children's ages counted based on when they were conceived, not when they were born, i.e. when a child is born, he is considered nine months old already, even though he was just born. That IMO is a more realistic portryal of life.

kuilong

12-16-2005, 11:22 PM

After all, if I'm not mistaken, in Chinese culture aren't children's ages counted based on when they were conceived, not when they were born, i.e. when a child is born, he is considered nine months old already, even though he was just born. That IMO is a more realistic portryal of life.

Actually, traditionally, the Chinese haven't regarded "human life" as beginning until some time after two sui. (About six months, depending on exactly when the child was born.) For more, you can consult the following article in Journal of Asian Studies:

Furth, Charlotte. "Concepts of Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Infancy in Ch'ing Dynasty China." JAS 46. 1. (1987), pp. 7-35.

I think there was also this article by Hsiung Ping-chen from 1995 or something, but I can't remember where it was. There are passages from the Tang huiyao that explicitly make reference to this, which indicates that the widespread practice of infanticide in rural China was probably not looked upon as murder.

Azn Retribution

12-17-2005, 03:20 AM

a unborn baby/fetus has no WILL. it is not an individual
It does not THINK. It cannot exist independently of the mother.
I think you are the arrogant one here.
Wrongdoing must be judged by who?
YOU?
Sorry. in my book. Only GOD is qualified to judge the instrinsic moral character of an individual in this aspect
Not you. Not the catholic church or any church for that matter.

and I'm sorry. for all your fun bible quoting you forgot something
alot of people tend to believe doesn't apply to them.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."

or how about.

"Let those without sin throw the first stone."

I think that last line by you just proved my point and your hypocrisy.

and you laughed at my assertion?
Im just following your train of thought to its completion.

a fetus in first to second trimester is just POTENTIAL.
It isn't even NEAR a person yet.

Following YOUR logic.

abstinence is the SAME thing as a fetus or a unborn baby.
It is POTENTIALLY a person. If you DON'T HAVE SEX
YOU ARE NOT GIVING A POTENTIAL PERSON THE RIGHT TO LIVE.

IF YOU JACK OFF. THOSE SPERM COULD HAVE BEEN BABIES
OH NOOOOS YOU COMMITED MURDER.

WOMEN COMMIT MURDER EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY OVULATE. Why? THOSE EGGS COULD HAVE BEEN PEOPLE. WHY ARE THEY MURDERING. OH NOOOOOS.

It is now a DIVINE COMMAND TO GO FORTH AND SPREAD YOUR SEED BECAUSE NOT DOING SO IS ***MURDER***

Do you see where your completely and utterly fucking ridiculous train of thought leads?

If you TRULY believe it is murder. Fine. I ain't gonna change your mind.
but there is no basis to make abortion illegal.
If she wants to abort a baby for whatever reasons its on her hands.
If it is a sin. then its her sin and its her business. Between her and God.
It's her body, her mistake to make.
The baby has no say because it CANNOT EVEN FORM A THOUGHT.
Society shouldn't decide that for her.
and the Church definitely should not.

So tell me.

if a unborn "fetus" is still two cells randomly dividing? is that a person?
if the baby is alive but shows signs of cancer and if its not aborted the
cancer shall spread to the mom. Let me guess. you wouldn't advocate murder in that instance either. and BTW I've seen that happen. 19 year old girl. Her baby developed cancer. it spread from the baby to the mom. The baby died on delivery. The mother died 4 months later.

I love how people use MURDER for fetuses and cells that don't even resemble a person
cept we use disinfect for bacteria that are at one point larger than the developing fetus.

I'm loving the double-standards and hypocrisy.

yet its not murder when we put dogs or cats to sleep so they don't suffer.
but at the same time its murder and/or suicide if a person suffering who will die and is in intense pain wants his life ended or wants to end his own life.
It's also murder if a person is braindead or other similar condition (Terry Schiavo)
and is only a living husk. Can no longer sense or feel anything.
She's dead in every sense of the word except biologically.

Yeahman

12-17-2005, 04:53 AM

Wrongdoing must be judged by who?
By society. That's why we have jails. Or do you oppose those too?

abstinence is the SAME thing as a fetus or a unborn baby.
I don't think anyone here is taking you seriously when you say stuff like that.

If you TRULY believe it is murder. Fine. I ain't gonna change your mind.
but there is no basis to make abortion illegal.
No basis to make murder illegal? :rolleyes:

if a unborn "fetus" is still two cells randomly dividing? is that a person?
Randomly? Do children grow randomly?

if the baby is alive but shows signs of cancer and if its not aborted the
cancer shall spread to the mom. Let me guess. you wouldn't advocate murder in that instance either. and BTW I've seen that happen. 19 year old girl. Her baby developed cancer. it spread from the baby to the mom. The baby died on delivery. The mother died 4 months later.
I seem to have to explain this to every pro-abort. It just goes to show how brainwashed they've been by the radical left.
Nobody opposes saving the mother's life even if it results in the baby's death.

I love how people use MURDER for fetuses and cells that don't even resemble a person
cept we use disinfect for bacteria that are at one point larger than the developing fetus.

I'm loving the double-standards and hypocrisy.

yet its not murder when we put dogs or cats to sleep so they don't suffer.
but at the same time its murder and/or suicide if a person suffering who will die and is in intense pain wants his life ended or wants to end his own life.
It's also murder if a person is braindead or other similar condition (Terry Schiavo)
and is only a living husk. Can no longer sense or feel anything.
She's dead in every sense of the word except biologically.
You should love the double standard otherwise we'd have to throw people in jail everytime they eat a steak. We tend to value human life more than the lives of other animals. You are entitled to be a vegetarian though. You are a vegetarian, right? You aren't just being a hypocrite, right? You don't have a double-standard, do you?

Irezumi Kiss

12-17-2005, 09:58 AM

The five-year-old child is the first answer because his/her cries feel more "real". It's easier to imagine the five-year-old suffering because of your decision as opposed to supposedly non-living 'eggs'.

It doens't take away the fact that the eggs in fact are living.
I'm not denying the eggs' life as they are themselves standing alone...but in this case, as far as future potential as an individual is concerned...that five-year-old has the edge.

What would you have chosen? What happens if you chose the eggs on ice and then just as you were about to clear the burning clinic you slipped on some detritus, fell on your ass and dropped the iced egg canisters, busting 'em wide open and "killed" them as they spread over the dirty asphalt ground?

Unlike a flopping goldfish, you can't pick 'em back up and put 'em in a plastic bag until you got home, now can you? Versus that with the five-year-old, he/she'd only suffer a knee scuff, maybe cut a hand on some broken glass...now, I'm only tossing that little banana peel scenario out there for parity's sake since this choice is unfairly saturated with unrealistic idealisms that can cloud one's mind to the whole enchilada...if we're talking REALITY here sans the idealism, saving the kid is the most PRACTICAL choice at the very LEAST.

Hiroshi2

12-17-2005, 02:58 PM

Yeah I understand all of that. Kuilong was using the analogy to make a point, but there's other things that, as you pointed out, have little to do with whether the eggs should be considered living or not, that factor into whether or not one should rescue the five-year-old or not.

The eggs are living beings, period.

fresh22

12-17-2005, 03:34 PM

Yeahman

12-17-2005, 03:57 PM

That is the source you cite ye110man? The Economist? A non-academic journal? I would have expected better from you. Shame Shame!!!
I think I posted this a while back. It's more about judicial review in general but the same concept; let the people decide.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/sp05/tushnet.htm
If some state prohibited early-term abortions, Congress could pass a statute creating a federal right to choose in such situations. Again, that's a political fight progressives should be willing to take on.
Pro-choice advocates point out how limited access to abortions is today: 87 percent of all U.S. counties are without an abortion provider, medical schools are removing from the curriculum training on performing abortions, twenty-six states have waiting periods, forty-four have parental notification requirements. The list goes on. But why, then, all the fears about overruling Roe? Consider the situation with Roe already in place. If it's so terrible now, how much worse can it get with Roe overruled?
The standard examples of how much worse it can get include statutes with stringent requirements that pregnant young women notify their parents and bans on late-term abortions. But, the constitutional arguments against parental notification statutes and statutes restricting late-term abortions are actually policy arguments. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on late-term abortions for two reasons. The more important was that the statute did not allow doctors to use a specific technique even if it was a much safer medical practice. In other words, the ban endangers women while doing little to save fetuses. If that's a good argument in court, it ought to be a good one in politics as well.
Overruling Roe means that states can decide to regulate or prohibit abortions. (There is a theory that states would thereby be required to enact restrictive abortion laws, but it is unrealistic to think that the Court would do this.) A fair number of "blue" states would impose few or no regulations beyond what they already have. Some "red" states would undoubtedly go further and perhaps ban early-term abortions. Voters-even in those red states-are then going to have second thoughts about whom they have elected.
Claims that liberals trust the people ring hollow today. Liberals can repeat until they are blue in the face that they want gay marriage to be up to state legislatures, but conservative opponents counter-effectively-that liberals hope in their hearts that the courts will go their way if legislatures don't. Liberals say they don't want to impose their values but then run to the courts when they can't get what they want from legislatures. Supporting a constitutional amendment to eliminate judicial review would show that we liberals and progressives really do think that our arguments can ultimately prevail in politics.

Azn Retribution

12-17-2005, 05:05 PM

First off. I resent being called Pro-Abortion.
Just because I believe we should have a choice whether to smoke or not does not mean I am Pro-Smoking.

Calling me that to begin with just proves how big a tool you are.
Just because I support the CHOICE does not mean I support or would personally support a abortion myself. I believe that is a CHOICE best left to the individual just like accepting christ into your life is a CHOICE not something to be forced like some churches love to try to do.

Secondly. I like how you pick and choose arguments and consistently bring up MURDER MURDER MURDER as if it is a end-all, be-all to the debate.
I don't know why I have to explain this time and time again to religious fundamentalists. (I might as well be a hypocrite and start labeling too huh?)

Fine. Ok we'll use your terminology.
Murder of Humans, bad.
Murder of Animals, Ok to a extent.

WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN WHAT IS HUMAN AND WHAT IS NOT?

when we still haven't defined what is "living" and what is not.

I take it Im going to have to slow this down for you.
Since it sounds like you haven't taken general biology
or had the "birds and the bees talk"

It takes a sperm, and a egg to make a embryo.
Is a embryo a person? It could be a person.
Only if it grows and gets nutrients.
Withdrawing from that,
is a sperm a person? It could be a person. It just needs to fertilize a egg. Same logic with a egg. a sperm is a living. so is a egg. They are living cells. Just like a embryo/fetus.

So see.
If you were jacking off. oh look, there's thousands of sperm that just got lost. That was potentially thousands of people who could have potentially been part of society.

When a woman ovulates. she loses eggs that could have potentially been part of society.

You say we are killing something
but DEFINE what we are killing first.
You aren't very consistent with your terms or your methodology.

BY YOUR LOGIC. SPERM AND EGGS ARE THE SAME SHIT as a FETUS or a BABY that is not even more than a few hundred thousand cells.

Where do we draw the line?

and as for your fallacious argument drawing a correlation to a murder of a grown independently living human being and saying society should decide is bullshit.

The reason we have society to begin with is a social contract of mutual benefit for everyone and to protect peoples rights.

Define your shit first before you spout it out.

Shuriken

12-17-2005, 05:17 PM

Congress can regulate abortions right now but they don't. Getting the partial birth abortion ban through was a challenge and that was a very popular bill with over 70% support in the US including the majority of registered Democrats.

Congress has been having trouble getting anti-choice legislation through because the Supreme Court keeps telling them that such legislation must pass constitutional muster.

As for the 70% support, I’m sure that figure is arrived at by how you asked the question. When my extended-family member had her late-term abortion several years ago — her fetus was deformed, and doctors said that it would not live past a year — she and her husband were spared much emotional anguish and financial difficulty. (They later had a healthy baby girl a couple years later.) But because her life was not at risk, her procedure would have been outlawed by the so-called “partial-birth abortion” ban; that law would have compelled her to give birth to something that wouldn’t have had a quality life. While I’m sure that some fetus-equals-baby hard-liners would have made her go through with it, I doubt that most people represented by that “70%” figure would have.

The nuclear option applies to presidental appointments, not for legislation.... It's the states that would decide [abortion].

Once you let that genie out of the bottle, who’s going to put it back in? If most anti-abortion politicians thought that it would be in their political self-interest, I’m sure that they would use the “nuclear option” to muster a vote to outlaw abortion, given the opportunity.

There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans too.

And anti-choice Democrats, unfortunately, as well as Democrats from red states who might feel pressured to outlaw abortion. Also, the Bush administration and this particular Congress have had great success in pressuring recalcitrant Republicans to vote the party line.

But even if it was up to the US Congress, what does it say about the pro-choice cause if the will of the people needs to be suppressed to their way?

When the Supreme Court called segregation unconstitutional, didn’t they suppress the will of the majority of people in the South who wanted to go to separate schools and drink out of separate water fountains than their minority neighbors? What did that say about the desegregationist cause?

But there’s nothing that I can say that will change anyone’s mind, I know. People predisposed to thinking of a zygote or a non-viable fetus as fully formed human being will continue to do so, regardless of what I say or anyone else says. And because they see the fetus as a human life, they won’t compromise. That tells me that each form of abortion-limiting legislation introduced by an anti-abortion politician is really a means to overturn Roe in the long run, not good-faith means to address a legislative need. Imagine how we might have put this divisive issue behind us if it were otherwise.

>:^|

12-19-2005, 06:25 AM

When my extended-family member had her late-term abortion several years ago — her fetus was deformed, and doctors said that it would not live past a year — she and her husband were spared much emotional anguish and financial difficulty. (They later had a healthy baby girl a couple years later.) But because her life was not at risk, her procedure would have been outlawed by the so-called “partial-birth abortion” ban; that law would have compelled her to give birth to something that wouldn’t have had a quality life. While I’m sure that some fetus-equals-baby hard-liners would have made her go through with it, I doubt that most people represented by that “70%” figure would have.

I believe that most people don't take the absolutist view that it is always wrong to terminate a pregnancy. And I think they might recognize on some level that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is often a very difficult one. For example, I note that nobody responded to the three true-life situations I posed.

However, it's easier just to make it an either-or decision because that requires no nuanced thought.

But there’s nothing that I can say that will change anyone’s mind, I know. People predisposed to thinking of a zygote or a non-viable fetus as fully formed human being will continue to do so, regardless of what I say or anyone else says. And because they see the fetus as a human life, they won’t compromise.

Many people believe abortion is wrong but also recognize that making abortion illegal is an attempt to force their own values and morals on other people. I think this is why I don't like being called "pro-abortion," as another poster noted.

That tells me that each form of abortion-limiting legislation introduced by an anti-abortion politician is really a means to overturn Roe in the long run, not good-faith means to address a legislative need. Imagine how we might have put this divisive issue behind us if it were otherwise.

Shuriken, I wonder if you'd expand more on what you mean by this. Thanks.

SunWuKong

12-22-2005, 09:58 AM

threads have been merged.

Shuriken

01-08-2006, 03:25 PM

Shuriken, I wonder if you'd expand more on what you mean by this. Thanks.

When Congress outlawed dialation-and-extraction abortions (DNX, what anti-choicers call “partial-birth abortion”), was it really addressing a problem? Was there something about the procedure that was bad or harmful to the woman going through it? I don’t think so. Congress outlawed DNX solely because some members don’t like abortion per se and other members found the procedure unpleasant, regardless of whether it was the woman’s best option or not. (Fortunately for me, Congess hasn’t yet outlawed brain surgery just because it’s icky.)

Rather than addressing a social need, laws like these are just to close off some avenues of a woman’s right to choose and make Roe vs, Wade die the death of a thousand cuts.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I can imagine waking up one morning to a United States where women have a theoretical right to an abortion, but no legal means to exercise it.

Yeahman

01-26-2006, 08:04 AM

The liberal argument for overturning Roe is gaining steam.
Support Choice, Not Roe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101901974.html)
Whatever the case, the very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision -- the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution -- strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.
As is the political argument for softening the party's position.
Three Decades After Roe, a War We Can All Support (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/opinion/22saletan.html?n=Top%2FOpinion%2FEditorials%20and% 20Op-Ed%2FOp-Ed%2FContributors)
You can tell yourself that the pro-choice majority stayed home in the last election, or that they voted on other issues, or that Democrats botched the debate. But those excuses are getting tired. Sixteen years ago, as the behavior of voters and politicians showed, abortion was clearly a winning issue for you. Now it isn't. You have a problem.
The problem is abortion - the word that's missing from all the checks you've written to Planned Parenthood, Naral Pro-Choice America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Organization for Women. Fetal pictures propelled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act through Congress. And most Americans supported both bills, because they agree with your opponents about the simplest thing: It's bad to kill a fetus.

ru a banana?

04-15-2007, 01:00 AM

sure why not? i won't delete it if you do. i can't say for the others. it's obviously something you feel passionate about. i know a couple that was going to get an abortion and changed their minds when they saw the pro life people with the pics of an aborted fetus.

Did you get your pic?

Old thread, but I never got my say so.... visit here...

www.geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/abortionphotolinks.htmlhttp://

or here...

www.silentscream.org/index.html

On last one, go directly to video 4/5...

:frown:

ru a banana?

04-15-2007, 01:11 AM

ooops don't know if this is right... 1st link didnt work....

www.geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/abortionphotolinks.html

mrazntre

04-15-2007, 04:26 AM

abortion - man's best friend.

ru a banana?

04-15-2007, 11:48 AM

abortion - man's best friend.

Did you follow the links? Gross...

mrazntre

04-15-2007, 02:24 PM

Did you follow the links? Gross...

it's like a really fast water slide.

deez nuts

04-15-2007, 02:38 PM

it's like a really fast water slide.

hahaha

SUCCESS!

ru a banana?

04-15-2007, 02:43 PM

y'all need some helppppp! i suppose that answer would be no,... The ones of 22, 24 weeks, really bad to look at. (2nd post corrected address)

mrazntre

04-15-2007, 03:05 PM

better than what the Spartans did...

ru a banana?

04-15-2007, 03:14 PM

better than what the Spartans did...

ru callous?

deez nuts

04-15-2007, 03:58 PM

Did you get your pic?

Old thread, but I never got my say so.... visit here...

www.geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/abortionphotolinks.htmlhttp://

or here...

www.silentscream.org/index.html

On last one, go directly to video 4/5...

:frown:

there is absolutely nothing when it comes to the human body or human body parts especially when it pertains to medicine that will shock me.

the only thing that i'm grossed out by is a man's foot. nothing is as ugly as the foot of a man.

ru a banana?

04-15-2007, 03:59 PM

I believe you^ 1st pt.

mrazntre

04-15-2007, 10:28 PM

or cheese on a thong.

ru a banana?

04-16-2007, 11:05 AM

feminists ^ ^^:biggrin:

eos

04-16-2007, 02:11 PM

please don't joke about abortions. to some people it's a highly personal subject.

deez nuts

04-16-2007, 03:50 PM

or cheese on a thong.

not even a fat chick with a yeast infection aka a whopper with cheese or pics of dumpster baby and dumpster baby parts is as gross as a man's feet.

mrazntre

04-16-2007, 05:30 PM

not even a fat chick with a yeast infection aka a whopper with cheese or pics of dumpster baby and dumpster baby parts is as gross as a man's feet.

what if you had to eat off of it?

I think abortions are fair game, except for one instance, which is rape because that's really fucked up. BUT, if some girl is sensitive about abortion because she went out and had sex without thinking about the consequences, then... who's bad is that?

deez nuts

04-16-2007, 05:58 PM

. BUT, if some girl is sensitive about abortion because she went out and had sex without thinking about the consequences, then... who's bad is that?

not the fault of the unborn fetus that's for sure!

poor little fetus.

mrazntre

04-16-2007, 08:12 PM

not the fault of the unborn fetus that's for sure!

poor little fetus.

exactly.. poor little fetus. I guess self-guilt makes it a sensitive subject?

eos

04-16-2007, 08:41 PM

ru a banana?

04-16-2007, 09:01 PM

DON'T EVEN.

i DON'T feel guilty at all. i WANTED my baby. the ones that should feel guilty are my bf and my parents, BOTH sets. do you know the emotional turmoil a girl goes through during this time? do you know how it feels to know nobody else wants the life that is growing inside of you except yourself? my baby is better off wherever it is because it would have been put through a lot of crap if it had been born. i already said more than i wanted to say, and more than you all deserve to hear anyway.

I'm sorry about the way things turned out, it sucks when you have to give up something that means so much to you because of other peoples lack of understanding. Ignore these 2 juveniles, it is questionable if they have even gone through puberty yet.:mad: Thank you for sharing.

deez nuts

04-17-2007, 06:05 AM

mrazntre

04-17-2007, 03:23 PM

i originally didn't see akane21's post because i just did a brief perfunctory glance through the posts. i was just goofing around with mrazntre.

i guess mrazntre was just reacting very badly to being lectured by somebody he doesn't know.

*shrug*

i was just goofing around with my_nuts, and that was actually a proverbial shot in the dark, not an actual dig at reality. i didn't know :confused:

Yeahman

04-18-2007, 08:43 AM

Good news:
Court backs ban on abortion procedure (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion_14)

BTW, the procedure that was banned is so gruesome that the AMA called it "ethically wrong."

ru a banana?

04-18-2007, 07:45 PM

IMO, it is ethically wrong to not in the least allow a baby/fetus if some would like to call it that, to live if it has the capability of doing so outside of the mother's body.
Here's why:
-21 weeks old is the youngest baby living outside of the mother's body, normally 24 weeks is the average for a good chance of survival.
-There are plenty of parents willing to adopt babies, thousands to be specific.
-There is no liability i many places if a mother chooses to abandon the baby w/in a certain timeframe after the babies birth.
-There are many places which are open to mother's in difficult situations.
-The mother whether she undergoes an abortion, or goes to term is subject to some sort of medical procedure/attention whether it be by way of an abortion, natural birth, or c-section. So why not wait?

Logically, the act to not wait is purely a selfish reason unless pressured into it, as in some cases.

Partial birth abortions just go to prove how low a person's state of mind is who can justify infanticide, as the initial justification of abortion was what was done to the mother's body. Infanticide/partial birth abortions, are not affecting in any way the mother's body, but only the infant's. The initial justification being the definition of a fetus, and the inability of it to adjust/live outside of the mother's womb. Technically w/partial births, the infant is outside of the mother's womb, though only partially, and fully able to live without any life-support via the mother's body. There is no logic to justify this. Give the baby to someone who will love it and wants it. Doing a double ++.