Opponents of Roe v. Wade usually argue that the Constitution’s privacy rights don’t include abortion, and that regulating abortion is a state responsibility. But Mike Huckabee doesn’t want abortion returned to the states. “If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong,†he said, likening the issue to slavery. In contrast, Fred Thompson takes a traditional federalism approach, arguing against Roe v. Wade but also against a pro-life constitutional amendment.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.</
125 Comments
Of course it is a matter for the States to decide, I am pro-choice and even I recognize that the only matter of privacy is if a woman has an abortion it is not a matter of public concern. It is only the information as to who has an abortion that is to be protected. But it was not a matter for the Federal government to decide if it is legal or not legal to have an abortion. That steps over the power given the Feds by the Constitution, since it does not concern interstate commerce. Unless you want to argue that by one state allowing abortion and one not allowing it. Then women would be traveling to other state to have an abortion to escape punishment for having an abortion in their home state. But that is a huge stretch, also the argument that money for an abortion would be exchanged is a straw man since every state would have the ability to gain such commerce and some have chosen not to. No it is a state not a federal matter to decide.
Dawg,It was decided by the Supreme Court as a constitutional issue. That means it’s not up to states to decide. We had that for a short while before Roe v Wade, and it was a mess, with women crossing state lines to get abortions, not knowing for sure they wouldn’t be prosecuted by their home state when they returned. What we have now is simple and effective, which of course is not what the anti’s want.
The only “discussion” about abortion should be between a woman, her God and her doctor. It is simply nobody elses damn business. And NO we are not going back to the days when states decided women’s rights. The days when poor women in Alabama were forced to give birth or get dangerous illegal abortions while the better off got on a plane to New York and got a safe legal abortion. We ain’t goin back and these donkey ass religious nutcases ought to get that through their heads. They may long for the days when women were oppressed- and for that matter blacks too- but it ain’t gonna happen anymore!
It better be a states-issue because no where in the Constitution does it mention abortion. And what isn’t written in the Constitution is left to the states. Me personally, I care two-shites what you do with your body. I’d never condone it, cause I think it is murder, but it’s your conscience, not mine. If your a God-fearer, then you deal personally with him/her, not me. And no zealot around here has any right to deem that you can’t. Because if they truly were the “God fearing” people that they claim, they remember that this supreme being gave each of us free-will. Most of these zealots have to clean up their own cross-dressing, pedophile and abuse-laden backyards before they can legislate my morality.
It is NOT a state’s issue, it’s a woman’s rights/humanity/medical issue.
If we ban abortion, and some states would severely limit what reproductive choices a woman could have-not only in abortion but also other birth control…we would be no better than China that forces people to abort.
It is clear in all the nations that believe reproductive freedom is the bastion of women’s rights for her health and economic freedom, those women all do better than in countries where it is illegal.
As an American, I expect that safe access to healthcare should be accessible to all citizens and resident “guests” who can afford the quality care that US medical clinics are known for.
Safe and legal abortion should be just that…safe and legal.
Abortion is a human rights issue, not open to the states.
I believe that the medical community has basis in defining something alive when it has a heartbeat. This delineator of life is assumed regardless of what is connected to that person (ie ventilator, feeding tube, etc). I also believe in a creator who is referred to in our Declaration of Independence who guarantees everyone the right to life. Since the unborn has a heartbeat, he/she has a right to life. And that right trumps a woman’s right to do whatever she wants with the contents of her uterus.
Many who think I have no right to decide when life begins have no right to decide so themselves either. However, we can rely on the medical community to decide the necessary components of life that should be applied to ALL people. In that case, nearly all abortions should be illegal.
With that said, the right to an abortion should not be a states issue. This is no different than allowing slavery in certain states based upon popular sovereignty thus dividing a country that claims to be unified.
If abortion stops a beating heart, then it is wrong and should not be allowed anywhere in a society that claims to give all its citizens the right to life.
As a society, we should continually strive to improve our lives - and the lives of those who will live after us. I believe passionately that preventing pregnancies is an infinitely more compassionate means of dealing with this issue. But we aren’t there yet.
I hate rape with every fiber of my soul - yet they continue to occur, as they have throughout the ages. It must also be said that many untenable pregnancies occur from no sin at all: two hard-working, honorable individuals who respect one another and are faced with life-threatening situations.
Not all pregnancies derive from acute retardation (mine) and abject dissolution (my impregnator’s).
Finally, we must remember this: abortions have occurred throughout the centuries before Roe. Women died by the hundreds; hospital wards were full of self-aborting and/or butchered, dying women - desperate, terrified women. Are we to forget these women?
I can’t forget them - not least because one of them was my grandfather’s first wife.
No one talked much of this long-dead woman during my childhood. To this day, I’m not even sure of her first name. Her memory elicited silent scorn; my grandmother forbade my grandfather from mentioning her name - and he didn’t.
Is this something of which to be proud? I don’t believe so.
In January 1973 (as a high school freshman), I knew nothing of pregnancy - nothing of sex - nothing of rape and/or exploitation. I thought of first-trimester abortion as “a procedure” that could be endured quickly - and forgotten even more quickly.
I was a fool, as many teenagers are. The late Pope John Paul II was right about this much: many of us post-abortives “look at life in a new way” (to quote 1995’s “The Gospel of Life”).
Unlike the late pontiff, however, I cannot favor illegalizing all abortions. I believe death, butchery and terror would ensue.
Finally, at age 16 I was one of those individuals who, through human error and emotional retardation, helped to create a pregnancy which I could not continue (given the prurient and sinful circumstances at that time).
It cannot be my right to imperil others. I do not possess the moral capital to do so.
Yuck, another abortion thread.
Couldn’t we talk about Thanksgiving or something?
Or would that be too traditional?
Of course abortion is a national issue, not subject to 50 different state determinations. Abortion is a gross violation of the unborn human being’s Constitutional 14th. Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. These rights must be balanced with the mothers. Please note I said balanced with the mothers rights.As soon as the obvious is fully acknowledged, that a living, fully human unborn child has a right to life, protection and due process the child will be protected. And none too soon.To not recognize the living child as both alive and human, fully deserving protection, is unequivocally absurd and/or a lie.
Prolifers are their own worst enemies.
We are more than a generation away from any national law to ban abortion.
That would require a Constitutional Amendment.
That Amendment would not be supported by the majority of Americans if it did not contain exceptions for “rape, incest and the life of the mother”.
The problem is, the radicals in the prolife camp will not allow these exceptions, even though these exceptions only account for about 5% of all abortions.
So, we have a stalemate.
We have an “unholy alliance” between the radicals on both sides.
One side wants “no restrictions” and the other side wants “no compromise”.
Therefore, the status quo wins!—-By the way, prolife purists, Lincoln did not “free all the slaves” at the same time.
Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation did not apply to loyal border states. They got to keep their slaves until the end of the war.
Lincoln played politics.
So should YOU!
How about abortion being a patient’s and doctor’s decision? It’s a medical procedure and we don’t need a bunch of politicians playing doctor.
“How about abortion being a patient’s and doctor’s decision? It’s a medical procedure and we don’t need a bunch of politicians playing doctor.”Posted by: Doug | November 21, 2007 at 11:07 AM
And should it be the same situation with the elderly or infirm or whoever else is considered socially expendable or defenseless? We’re talking about ending a separate human life. It’s not just the “patient’s and doctor’s” interests at stake here, and the baby has the most to lose, their very existence.Where else can one or two decide to end the life of a separate human being, saying it’s just a “medical procedure”. So is euthanasia.
I wonder what would happen if all of the energy expended ON BOTH SIDES was directed toward actually SOLVING the issue rather than fighting. Consider all that money oing to Gerrad House, Anthony Shelter, adoption services, etc etc etc.
I don’t contribute to Planned Parenthood; I do contribute to those.
Mark, elderly people make the own medical decisions all the time. I don’t know what crack you are smoking but old people can’t be aborted. Perhaps you should leave the conversation to the grown ups.
doug, Mark - the ‘other end of life’ issue is a much easier one for me. As noted, the elderly or sick are actually in a position to make such decisions and especially advance directives.
his is an issue I have faced personally - both with close friends and relaives and possibly with myself. I had surgery that could have had an adverse outcome. Had a decision been needed the proper people were my wife with advice from her Priest and our family doctor. That State has to business being involved.
Like it or not, “Mark” –
The law has to be arbitrary sometimes. If you drive 36 in a 35 mph zone, you’re guilty of breaking an arbitrary law. For a lot of arbitrary reasons, *personhood* doesn’t begin until you’re born. I and most pro-choice people I know hate these reproductive rights debates because, even when we try to find some common ground, or express respect for your theological arguments about life… abortion opponents tend to revert back to ideological absolutes.
I don’t care if you believe life begins at conception, or life begins at quickening, or life begins at birth, or life begins at 40… the issue in civil law is when does one reach *personhood* under the law. Most of us pro-choice advocates have agreed to meet abolitionists in a compromise and most of us will embrace a consideration of a fetus’s viability pre-birth.
But the fact remains, the two humans involved in a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy have differing rights; one is a person and the other isn’t yet. That’s the law. It may seem arbitrary, but that’s how laws are.
A woman arbitrarily has more rights than the developing fetus in her womb, just as someone who’s 18 arbitrarily has more rights than someone who is 17 years and 364 days old.
Ben,
There are fundamental differences on this debate which makes compromise unlikely.
Either you think that an unborn baby is like a cancer and can be eliminated by a “medical procedure” or you believe that human beings with a heart beat and brainwaves are indeed alive and should not terminated flippantly.
How else can we solve this issue unless by convincing the other side to think the opposite based on facts and reason?
Thoughtful and intelligent debate is a place to start.
Ben, I would give all that I have to solve this issue. For example….
If Dr. Tiller called me - right this very minute - and said, “Our clinic has a government grant to develop newer, more efficacious means (ideally, natural means) of preventing pregnancy, and I’d like you to work solely toward that end. The only drawback would be that, owing to the materials with which you’d be working, your life span may be shortened.”
It would take me all of one second to say, “Yes!”
Even if I were to croak before I hit the half-century mark. That’s how much this issue resonates with me, Ben.
Of course, this won’t happen in our lifetimes, through no fault of Dr. Tiller’s or anyone else’s. I believe this ameliorative remedy will be found - perhaps centuries in the future.
Until that time, this issue elicits a lingering sadness that I cannot wholly eradicate.
Peace - and healing - remain elusive. They won’t be effected by harming other women.
MH,
So of those “rights” at age 18 are privileges, not rights.
There is a difference.
Also, there are more legal responsibilities at 18 than 17.
Which goes back to privileges and being wise enough not to abuse said privileges, lest they be taken away.
If you drive 36 in a 35, you are within tolerance levels. No one is going to give you a ticket for that as it would never stand up in court.
The Libs always assert that someone must protect minority rights or those rights of those who cannot defend themselves.
Except for babies who are still in the womb. It appears that Libs mantra of assigning rights and privileges stop at the womb and birth canal.
Explain why Germans believe that life exists in the womb and needs protections. Are the Germans wrong?
Explain to the Germans why abortion in their country shouldn’t be illegal. Abortions of course are done, but are seldom prosecuted.
Is there a lower sense of morality in the U.S. than there is in Germany?
Monkey,
Have you ever seen a person die? I have. The time of death is not when the feeding tube or ventilator is inserted. It is determined with the heart stops beating. That is death.
So if a beating heart indicates life, an unborn baby who has a beating heart is alive. So we as a society have already “arbitrarily” decided the delineation for life. Do want to decided when life begins based on your desires or based on the facts? Let us be consistent.
BenI understand your “elder law” arguments.
I am torn on some of those issues. I am totally against euthanasia.
However, not everyone can be trusted to make end of life decisions for dear old mom and dad.
I have had some gut-wrenching cases where a terminal client changed beneficiaries 3 day in a row, for instance, depending on which “loving child” was in town at the time, to say goodbye!
Correction…Do you want to decide when life begins based on your desires or based on the facts?
“rfl” –
You’ve mentioned your arbitrary standard that death “…is determined with the heart stops beating” before.That’s simply not the case, legally or medically. There are dozens of medical procedures in which the heart is stopped. All those people aren’t “dead.” “Brain death” is what the whole Terri Schaivo hoo-hah was about, and it certainly isn’t an isolated case.
But my intent is not to get into a metaphysical discussion on when life begins, but how the law determines real and present rights (not privileges, as “Kansas” refers to them) in a society.
And speaking of the prophet “Kansas” –
“If you drive 36 in a 35, you are within tolerance levels.”
Sorry, “Kansas,” but you’re wrong. There’s nothing in any law book that makes for “tolerance levels.” Now, as a practical matter, your observation that, “No one is going to give you a ticket for that” is probably true, but that’s an arbitrary law enforcement policy, not black-letter law.
And to relate this argument back to my original point, Roe v. Wade tried to determine a “tolerance level,” regarding abortion rights; that the state has no compelling interest to interfere with the privacy of a woman and her doctor during the first trimester of pregnancy. That was Justice Brennan’s attempt to strike a compromise on the issue. But abortion abolitionists steadfastly refuse to accept compromise.
It is not the job of civil law to dermine when life begins, “rfl.” That’s the job of philosphers and priests, not a show of hands in legislatures.
Huckabee should change his name to wannabe. What is he trying to do? Pick up the 7 votes that were for Brownback?? This stance will only further marginalize him.
Roe v Wade? It’s the law. It’s really the best we can do with this issue. Sending it back to the states would just make a bigger mess of it.
Paul - good point about beneficiaries - that is why advance directives are so needed. Probably a good thing my mother had followed my other advice: “You earned it, you spend it. Have fun!” And she did. I seem to recall inheriting a few hundred bucks and a lot of personal momentos. A few hundred bucks more than I deserved. But I definitely deserved the momentos.
MonkeyHawk:
Like it or not the life abortion ends is not “arbitrary sometimes”. It is always alive and it is always human. Abortion ends the alive part of that fact without due process or equal protection.You can choose to believe what you will but that doesn’t change fact. But if you are comfortable living with your lie that’s up to you.
Not really, abortions are performed on stillborns. Perhaps you ought to learn about the subject a bit more.
See, “Mark” –
Because we disagree with how civil law must deal with reality, you call me a liar.
Ever wonder why you ideologues have been fighting Roe v. Wade for thirty-five years and gotten nowhere? It’s because you think you speak for God and that’s not the way we operate in America under the Constitution of the United States.
There are dozens of medical procedures in which the heart is stopped. All those people aren’t “dead-Monkey
Okay for the billions of people post utero who’s heart is not stopped, is there any debate legally or medically that they are alive or dead? NO! Then why try to debate that with the unborn?
Legally and medically speaking a person with a heart beat is in fact ALWAYS alive. Case closed, no debate.
When a heart beat stops without a successful restart minutes later, the patient is dead. The difference between a stopped heart and a time of death is measured in minutes if a restart is not achieved.
Thus there is extremely tight medical and legal correlation between life delineation and the presence of a heart beat. Apply that same standard to the unborn.
In an effort to end the squabbling let’s just say that medical decisions should be left between a patient and their doctor. That way no one needs to judge who’s making right or wrong choices. Will that work for anyone? Because you know neither ’side’ is going to change. Another good example are the posts regarding vaccinations…there were good opinions on both sides. Who’s right and who’s wrong? I don’t pretend to know, but do we wanna start regulating every medical decision in another’s life? I think not.
Happy Thanksgiving to all you bloggers!
According to the anti-abortion/pro-death crowd a zygote is a living being that should have full protections of the Constitution while a woman with a uterus has no rights.
“a woman with a uterus has no rights.”
What Doug said. Full rights for women who haven’t had hysterectomies! We sure don’t want to see them terminated like their “pregnancies”.
According to the bible women are just property like cattle. This is something bible thumpers want put on courtroom walls and in classrooms. So why should a fundy care if their property dies because of a lack of medical care or because a property owner decides to liquidate some property?
Years ago it was the fundies who were upset that women were being given medication to reduce the pain in childbirth. They argued that their zombie Jesus cursed women to have labor pains so pain relievers are against god’s will.
If men could get pregnant then the entire Christian religion would be different.
MonkeyHawk:No where in this discussion have I brought God or faith or beliefs in. My argument has been confined strictly to a secular point of law. That being the 14th. Amendment and it’s guarantee of due process and equal protection. And if you and Doug recall, or can look above, I said these rights must be balanced with the mothers. The question of whether the aborted was alive and human is really not arguable, it can simply be nothing other, it is ending a human life. A life I think we all, and the Constitution, must respect and protect.It is not my intention to call you a lier, and I admit that’s pretty much what I wrote. What I was referring to is the desire for some to believe anything so as to put themselves in a position of ultimate authority, even over someone else’s life, the innocent babies in this case.Now lets go have a nice, and filled with gratitude, Thanksgiving!
These are my thoughts on the matter:
Abortion is wrong. However, in the current form it isn’t going to go away any time soon. Many of us who are “pro-life” in name though don’t do things to alleviate the impact abortion has on society and thus maybe do not act fully pro-life. Maybe it is just donating time(as in my example below), or money to organizations who try to help those women in need.
What do I mean? Talking here all day doesn’t stop anybody from getting an abortion most likely. But what about tutoring to the teenage mother who wants to finish high school to go to college, or tutoring the single mother who is in college so she might get a shot at a decent paying career to support her child(ren) in the long run? I do the second for one hour a day.
It isn’t easy to address the reasons and then reach out a helping hand in all situations. But it is more than words, which don’t do anything to address the reasons abortions are sought. Perhaps we need to provide alternatives: birth control pills, plan B, donating our efforts to help that single mom or the struggling parents, etc.
In the context of the above, the question is where does life begin? RvW stated that there wasn’t enough evidence to show when life began to prevent abortion. So some of us believe life starts at the moment of conception and should be protected until natural death. Others believe it is at birth. Still others state life begins some where in-between. So should it be a medical consensus that determines this or should it be a law based on medical consensus?
Either way, life is protected under the constitution and it is probably important to define when and where life begins because the right to life is listed first: life, liberty, then happiness.
No, Doug does not hate religion! So stop saying that!
It’s a proven OK tactic to make up irrelevant crap to try to make some point. BTW, what was that point Doug?
And what isn’t written in the Constitution is left to the states. Posted by: Duane
Great! Then let’s stop sending our hard earned dollars to Washington for them to spend on social programs such as crop set aside, WIC, EIC, and all corporate welfare.
Afterall, spending on socialist programs in not in the US Constitution.
That steps over the power given the Feds by the Constitution, since it does not concern interstate commerce.
Posted by: writerdog
Great~!Then let’s stop sending our hard earned dollars to Washington for them to spend on social programs such as crop set aside, WIC, EIC, and all corporate welfare.
Afterall, spending on socialist programs in not in the US Constitution.
A sensible and well made and truly pro life post Danny.
Mark, the Constitution only applies to those people born or naturalized as citizens in the United States (as well as corporations incorporated in the United States). A fertilized egg does not have Constitutional protections.
Happiness is not guaranteed.
Only the pursuit of.
Fleetwood,
I stand corrected! You are right.
Danny,
A very good and thoughtful post indeed.
I agree with you, however, I do have one thing I would like to add.
There are those who think that to be Pro-Life you have to support certain things or do certain things and that simply being “political” isn’t really being pro-life.
On that note I would like to make a similar comparison to another heated topic like the war on terror.
There are many people who are against the war and demand we bring our troops home.
What would they say if I were to present the same argument to them that they have about Pro-Life people?
If you are really against the war then you would be out trying to do things one on one with people and trying to change the underlying cause for people wanting to be at war against terror.
The reality is that we are at war and it isn’t going to change. So all this talk about demanding an end to it isn’t doing anything.
If you are really against the war you would be out helping people and doing things to change the circumstances which cause it.
Stop the political debating about it and go out and make a difference instead.
Now, do you anti-war people agree with that?
Will you stop talking about how wrong the war is and cease your demands for an end?
I doubt it.
The same thing is true with abortion.
There are many aspects to being Pro-Life.
Some are very good at helping others and donating their time. Others choose to be in the political arena to bring change and awareness.
I think they are both wonderful ways to be Pro-Life and it is not wrong to simply fight the good fight in the political arena. That is after all the entire point of politics.
So while others are out donating their time for change there are those who put their time into the politics of change.
Talking here all day doesn’t stop anybody from getting an abortion most likely.-Danny
True, but there are a lot of misconceptions about what is really happening during an abortion that many people refuse to accept. Getting those facts outside to air where they can be either debunked or thought upon is my goal in this blog.
Off the blog, there are things that we all can do to help those who come from difficult backgrounds that make abortion seem like the only alternative. I encourage unmitigated compassion to be given to all women no matter what their decision is.
However, I feel that if they choose abortion, they will not be any happier with that decision than if they had simply given the child up for adoption. Just because it is legal, doesn’t mean women will ultimately feel good about the decision to have an abortion.
Why do I feel that way?Because, If there is a Creator, and if he did endow us all with an unalienable right to life, then we will feel the pangs of guilt if we take that right away from someone else. Our conscience can be a cruelest judge of all.
If robbing old ladies were legal,
Could I do it? Yes
Would I still feel good about it?No.
Changing laws you mean Nathan?
That won’t end abortion.
It’ll just drive it underground so the “pro life” people will not have to address the problems in our society that bring a woman to choose the procedure.
Ending the war JR?
That won’t end the loss of life or suffering.
It’ll just drive the terrorists back out into the open to train and recruit at will to once again strike at our nation with impunity and kill even more.
This way you anti-war people won’t have to face the reality of actually having to confront terrorism.
End our dependence on Arabian oil and moderate our Israeli policy and terrorism is a non issue Nathan.
OR we could continue the easy way. Just as you SEEM to wish to do with abortion.
You don’t like it. But actually adressing what causes it, that’s hard. Just like addressing what causes terrorism is hard.
Your a simple solution guy.
Outlaw abortion.
If people in other lands do not like our policies? Tough. If the object or act? Kill them.
JR,
Did you ever figure out what you were doing to cause the trolls to target you and others?
JR,
My point was that there is a political arena of ideas and there is nothing wrong in fighting in it.
Do you disagree?
Do you or do you not want abortion outlawed and in all cases or do you not Nathan?
JR,
No.
Oh boy, here we go with the JR and Nathan show.
Up until now most of this debate has remained relatively civil.
Try not to disturb that guys.
rfl,
I fully agree talk still needs to happen as it brings to light why abortions are sought and ways to reduce abortions, but I’m one who believes that in and of itself talk isn’t going to help stop the act of abortion. I think it takes both talk and actions to address the reasons abortions are sought.
Nathan,
I see your point. Being political has to occur. But I think being political alone isn’t going to reduce the number of abortions sought, at least while it is legal.
I guess I’m saying we need both: those who are good at donating time, money or other resources and those are are good at debating and explaining why abortion is wrong. I just happen to think both need to occur and that there may not be enough people out there willing to do the time and money part of it and be out there working with the women who need the help.
Another good assesment Danny.
Also? Abortion is useful as a political football. Well for those who want laws against it anyway. Think of the numbers of people investing all their thought and endeavor as to politics with just this ONE issue on their mind. It can make or break a candidate who could be “right” about all the other things. That’s a shame.
JR,
I could say the same about the war.
Look at how many democrats staked their entire campaign on being against the war.
I am saying the same thing Danny is saying and agree with him.
So where is the disconnect on patting him on the back and arguing with me?
Nathan I don’t think any Democrats ran with the war as their only issue. That’s Republicans.
Danny is talking about addressing the causes of abortion by doing more than talking about it. You are only saying abortion is wrong and inviting people to fugure out where to go from there. The easiest means is changing law. I’ve already been over that.
And I have to go for now.
JR,
I still don’t know why you have a mental block in your head.
Where have I ever said that legislation is the only thing to do?
I agree with Danny and support those actions people take on their own to help end the causes of abortion.
I also think that there is a place in the political arena to bring about change too.
So why do you insist that I am only about politics?
Back to the original point and question on this thread:
Abortion should be a state issue.
Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton took most decisions away from the states.
By the way, the Doe decision pretty much makes ALL abortion legal, since it has a very broad definition of “health”.
Again, the reason(s) we are at a stalemate are not that hard to figure out.
There is an “unholy alliance” between the radicals on both sides of this issue.
Abortion rights radicals want NO restrictions at all.
Prolife radicals want NO abortions at all.
Therefore, the status quo usually prevails.
If left to true majority opionion, most abortions would be illegal.
However, the politicians listen to the activists, and the activists, on both sides, won’t allow anything much to happen on the national level.
Overturning Roe v Wade and Doe V Bolton would allow the individual states to experiment with this issue, as our founders intended.
By the way, my radical prolife friends:
George Tiller is currently being prosecuted for laws that Operation Rescue, ALL and RTLK, all of the “no compromise” groups opposed.
Kansans for Life actually favored current Kansas law, signed by Democrat Governor Joan Finney.
I am more of a KFL, National Right to Life guy.
Take what you can get.
Politics is the art of compromise.
Those who refuse to compromise actually refuse to change the status quo!
There is no compromise- the woman’s rights- living breathing feeling, comes FIRST. Without her, there is no life for the baby, there are no other future babies. This is a decision that is hers and hers alone. As it should be. End of discussion.
If you lifers really believe that all life is precious and needs preserved, please, volunteer at a nursing home and watch those who are suffering, not just for moments, but day in and out. I certainly do not want to be kept alive artificially in this kind of situation simply because YOU feel my life is valuable.
“political_mom” –
It’s always difficult to determine gender of posters to these kinds of forums (fora?), but it sure seems as if most of the avid abortion aboloitionists are male.
Which begs the question, is there a gender-specific agenda at play in the reproductive rights issue?
Most women I know are pro-choice, even if they personally would never consider abortion themselves. Women know situations in which they might find themselves desperate enough — and loving enough — to take steps to prevent the birth of a severely-deformed, doomed-to-die-after-a-relatively-few-hours-of-agony, to not carry the pregnancy caused by rape or incest. And for every male on the forum, the issue is strictly academic.
It’s like asking “Nathan” to decide which tampon is more comfortable. Just what is his frame of reference?
I’m pro-choice precisely because I lack the biological plumbing to ever face the choice. Male abortion abolitionists, if they were honest with the issue, would submit the issue of forced castration to a random panel of women.
monkeyActually, single men are the the most likely people to support unrestricted abortion rights.
You have it backwards.
Got anything to back that up Paul?
I agree Monkey, they often don’t know what it truly is to carry another human inside of them, to take the risk themselves. To be the sole provider, to be the one who loses everything. Nor do they often end up being the ones to stay up all night and by the bedside of a sick child.
God, you talk about children like they’re such a horrible liability..didn’t your kids ever give you any joy, PMom?I can’t even imagine life without my kids and grandkids. It wasn’t always easy, but any life worth living isn’t. And I wouldn’t change anything.
Maybe I’m weird, but I never felt like carrying my children, staying up all night with a sick child, or even risking my life for them was a burden. Even when they were teenagers with all the moodiness and acting out, I never felt like they were a burden.
I’m so grateful for my kids. I don’t think most people grow to their full human potential until they become a parent and know what it’s like to love someone more than they love themselves.
We all need to be grateful and count our blessings. Life is more fulfilling when we’re grateful.Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.
I’m with you Mary. The biggest thing I am looking forward to tomorrow is not the turkey … it’s watching the grandkids tear into it. And play and everything else of course.
Many a night sitting up with them - especially their leg cramps after playing too hard. I comfort them, use the heat pad, and sing them back to sleep. A burden? Not a chance!
Besides, they are the only ones who like my singing!
Vote for Ron Paul, he’s delivered hundreds of babies, he leans on the side of pro-life, but he knows that making abortions illegal will only cause problems, he wants the decision left to the states, which will ultimitly give people more power to decide what they want.
This is for sure a states rights issue. Let the feds decide when to go to war and kill our teenage boys and girls.
Let the states decide when to kill babies.
Nevada has prostitution as a legal means of employment. Let the states decide when to murder babies as well. They will police themselves. Some will stay bible thumper banned, while others will be progressively blue and allow the selective murder of our citizens.
A woman is the only person in the world affected by this. They alone, should decide when to stop a heart from beating. Afterall, it is in THEIR body. If a woman wants to terminate like Arnold Schwarzenegger in the terminator, then up until the full term baby leaves THEIR body - it is entirely THEIR decision. It is NOT a moral decision for the father, society at large, or the priest.
Only a mother can rightfully decide to murder an unborn baby.
Geez, the nerve of you people.
polls:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36802
The “increment” it what counts. People who vote on this issue are more likely to vote “prolife”:
“Overall, people who favor further restrictions on abortion are somewhat more likely than those who oppose it to say it is an issue that shapes their voting. As many as 41% of people who want greater limits on abortion say they would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with their position, even if they agreed with the candidate on most other issues. This compares with 35% of those opposed to further restricting abortion.”
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=88
Now, this poll is not scientific, but it supports what I said, men are rather supportive of abortion, compared to women. Why not? It might get them out of child support!:
http://womensissues.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http://womensissues.about.com/b/2007/11/09/gender-and-position-on-abortion.htm&poll_id=4582276888&poll=7&submit1=Submit+Vote—–Interesting side bar, but this USA Today story is a bit flawed. They do not explain that New York abortion law, as well as most other states, are far MORE restrictive than Kansas law. (Hint, Tiller knows this, that is why Tiller does what he does.)Anyway, this is what USA Today says will happen if Roe is overturned:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-16-abortion-states_x.htm
Feminists for Life says this:
“According to the Center for the Advancement of Women, founded by former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton, 51% of U.S. women of all ages oppose abortion in all or most cases for the first time since Roe v. Wade. A recent survey conducted by the Polling Company indicates that 63% of people aged 18-24 are pro-life.
“March organizers are leading women in the wrong direction. Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Abortion is not the best we can do. We need to focus on systematically eliminating the root cause of abortion-primarily a lack of practical resources and emotional support. We need our leaders to know that women deserve better than abortion,” said Foster. “http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/Some%20Feminists%20Not%20Marching.htm
abortion, a tool of male oppression:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0048.html
Pro Life view is a political advantage, according to Wirthlin Group polling:
http://www.euthanasia.com/polls.html
Pmom
Okay, I knew I would find it eventually.I said that men were more likely to be prochoice than women.Here is a poll supporting that position:
“Syndicated Columnist Mark Shields:”On Election Day the Los Angeles Times performed a useful public service by interviewing some 300 actual voters as they exited from their polling places across the country. Most Washington journalists might be shocked to discover that the most emphatically, unequivocally pro-choice sub-group in the electorate has been unmarried males without children and under the age of 35.”
http://www.rnclife.org/reports/1997/jan97/jan97.html
Yes, it is RNC For Life’s webpage, but it should be fairly easy for you to check Mark Shield’s archives, or the LA Times, to verify the data.
“Mark, the Constitution only applies to those people born or naturalized as citizens in the United States (as well as corporations incorporated in the United States). A fertilized egg does not have Constitutional protections.”Posted by: Doug | November 21, 2007 at 02:25 PM
I don’t know about that Doug. I see your point though, and from a strictly secular viewpoint it’s a good one to explore.I see it differently, and here is a high court decision that just occurred that also sees life beginning at conception and that the law has an obligation to protect. As was said, the Constitution list life first in those thing it protects. Even though this court is staying away from the abortion issue this may be another crack in the Roe v. Wade argument. Let’s hope so.
Texas Court: Fetus Death Can Be Murder
Nov 22 03:46 PM US/Eastern
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Texas laws allow the killing of a fetus to be prosecuted as murder, regardless of the fetus’ stage of development, but they do not apply to abortions, the state’s highest criminal court has ruled.
Wednesday’s ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected an appeal by Terence Lawrence, who said his right to due process was violated because he was prosecuted for two murders for killing a woman and her 4- to 6-week-old fetus.
The court ruled unanimously that state laws declaring a fetus an individual with protections do not conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that protects a woman’s right to an abortion.
“The Supreme Court has emphasized that states may protect human life not only once the fetus has reached viability but ‘from the outset of the pregnancy,’” the court said. “The Legislature is free to protect the lives of those whom it considers to be human beings.”
So Mark, you are saying a woman can be prosecuted for murder if she has a miscarriage? 70% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so you’ll have a lot of people up on trial. So what will your punishment for these women who are charged with murder? Will you execute these women for having a miscarriage?
70 percent? Uh, wrong.
I was favorably impressed with candidate Mike Huckabee’s logic, comparing the abortion issue to slavery in a nationwide TV interview, suggesting that if abortion were merely a political issue, then Roe v. Wade was wrong in striking down state bans, but as it is in fact a moral issue, then abolition through federal law, as with slavery, is the right solution.Abolition now.
Not gonna happen parkay. Get used to it. You’ll sleep better.
You MIGHT even find a way to actually address abortion.
Advocate for funds for pregnant moms maybe? Give a shout to civil health care perhaps? Do something TRULY pro life?
Do you know what it is to take a position and defend it parkay?
See? You’re getting a reputation here.
You post a wild way out statement and then go away. Do you imagine this enhances your position or encourages others to embrace your cause? I can assure you it does not.
Your posts here are thus sort of like gang style “tagging”. You throw up something only one of your own can understand or relate to. To everyone else it’s just ugly graffiti.
In other words, stick a fight yourself as opposed to picking one between others. It’s not fair for you to place others in the line of fire that you fear.
“70 percent? Uh, wrong.” -Todd
Well okay, it’s 60%, but the question is the same. Will you try the women who have a miscarriage for murder?
Here’s the referenced fact if you want to deny it further:http://www.uams.edu/obgyn/infertility/cycle.asp
Doug,I never mentioned miscarriage, ever. Where are you coming up with that stuff. Miscarriage is not even in this discussion. I’m saying that some states consider a person a person from the moment of conception, as do I, and worthy of protection from someones else actions that result in death. I’ve never advocated prosecuting or punishing women that seek abortion let alone miscarriage. I consider it a tragedy for all involved. Doug, are feeling like you’re losing the points of this discussion and making ridiculous leaps in logic?
Mark, if you contend that a fertilized egg is a life that gets legal protections then the one responsible for protecting that life must be put on trial if that egg dies. If a woman has a child and that child dies through neglect then the mother is put on trial, so why not every woman that gets a miscarriage? If abortion is made illegal then every miscarriage must be investigated as a potential abortion so millions of women will have to be rounded up and investigated.
Miscarriage is an abortion, and if you contend that abortion is murder then every one of these women who pass a fertilized egg through because it fails to implant on the uterus is a murderer and must be sent to prison. Will you give them life in prison or send them to death row?
Doug,
Miscarriage is not an abortion.
They are two different words which describe two different things.
Nice try though.
From your source, “Doug”:
“Of those women that do conceive, 15-20% will miscarry the pregnancy, usually in the 1st trimester.”
I suggest you learn to read before suggesting someone else doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Sorry Todd, you must read the entire article down to the last paragraph. I know it’s an effort but perhaps you can have an adult do it for you.
Nathan, miscarriage is an abortion. Try picking up a dictionary, medical or otherwise. If you can’t do it have an adult look it up for you.
That is from the last paragraph Doug. You’re wrong.
Todd, I might as well add since you aren’t well informed on the subject. You referenced conception. A conception is when a fertilized egg implants on the uterus. I’m talking about fertilization, when the pro-death religious zealots think a life begins. Try to keep up.
“Human reproduction is inefficient. Once fertilization has occurred, it is estimated that over 60% of these early embryos fail to implant normally and produce an ongoing pregnancy.”
That’s the first sentence of the last paragraph. You are probably a fundy so dishonesty is in your nature.
Doug,
You are playing the semantics game now.
The difference is in intent.
There is voluntary abortion and spontaneous abortion.
Yes, a miscarriage can be defined as a spontaneous abortion.
However, the way you are trying to compare the two terms isn’t true.
One is voluntary the other is not.
BTW, I might as well add that when you do the total math my original 70% figure was correct. You see, all these problems would have been prevented if you could have been honest Todd.
Nathan, abortion is abortion. The pro-deathers whined about RU-486 because it causes spontaneous abortions which they decried as murder (and an abortion). You’re the one playing semantics.
Glad you could pick up a dictionary though.
Doug,
Instead of trying to be so insulting, why not simply have a discussion?
Everything someone says is not an attempt at dishonesty.
Sigh…
Doug, come on…… Again, I have never equated the mothers act of abortion as an act of murder. Murder, as a legal term, has it’s own set of connotations. I am not calling abortion murder at all. I am simply saying the conceived child has a life, that that life is human, that that life deserves recognition, physical protection and legal protection. That the child’s interests, as well as the mother’s needs, should to be considered, especially since an abortion severely limits the child’s further options and the child can’t speak for itself. That since that new life is unique and separate, that it qualifies for due process and equal protection.Your “abortion = murder equation” requires me to drop out of this discussion at this point. I think I’ve made my point and you have tried to make your’s, but now I’m confused and no longer interested in continuing.
Okay Mark, a fertilized egg is a life and that life is ended. If I end someone’s life I’m considered a murderer so that’s different from your zygote how?
Nathan, I was calling Todd dishonest which I proved him to be. If you fundies could be honest then I wouldn’t have to call you dishonest. It’s pretty simple.
Doug,
Alright, you are a liar. You are trying to say that a miscarriage is the same thing as an abortion.
It is not.
Especially in the context of the discussion.
Only when you are specifically talking about a spontaneous abortion could you call a miscarriage an abortion.
Why must you be so dishonest?
So RU-486 doesn’t cause an abortion? Good, too bad you antis are constantly lying when you claim it, as well as the birth control pill cause abortion.
Your terrorist friends at Operation Rescue call RU-486 an abortion drug”http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=398
And yes when a woman has a stillborn a doctor must perform an abortion to extract it but even that is referred to as murder by your pro-death fundies.
The problem you don’t understand (and that’s a repeating theme with you) is that you zealots consider every fertilized egg a life. Therefore when that zygote dies the woman who played host to that egg must be investigated for murder. How is that difficult to understand? You just want to play semantics because you know how absurd your position is and you can’t defend it.
Doug,
Amazing!
All that and not any of it an actual response to what I posted.
Definition for abortion:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion
“Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage”
Definition of miscarriage:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=miscarriage
“the expulsion of a fetus before it is viable, esp. between the third and seventh months of pregnancy; spontaneous abortion.”
It’s the same thing. I guess you couldn’t pick up a dictionary and had to have an adult do it for you.
Well riddle me this Nathan, would you put a woman in prison for life or execute her for getting an abortion?
Doug,
You posted the same thing I did.
“also called SPONTANEOUS ABORTION”
Which you made no note of in saying an miscarriage was the same thing as an abortion.
“Doug” –
Good luck, but don’t expect any rational thought from the anti-abortion zealots. Logic doesn’t enter the conversation.
In other threads I’ve tried to approach this issue with logic and have been called, essentially, a “baby killer.”
The abortion abolitionists are so wrapped up in theology and ideology they do not understand the real-world consequences of their position.
It’s logical, if they really believed their “Abortion is Murder” bumper stickers, that every woman who sought to end a pregnancy should be sitting on death row. They know that. Some of them, perhaps, really believe that. But because they’ve found some political power in the Republic Party, they know better than to say that.
Regardless of the tangents these Reproductive Rights discussions go off on, it ultimately boils down to an effort to preserve the historical role of women as second-class citizens.
As long as females are the only human beings who can become pregnant, they will be subject to second-class treatment… unless they are given control over their bodies.
What’s bizarre is how this individual right has somehow become a state-control issue for a political movement that resists government oppression. The most *conservative* position, it seems to me, would be that all citizens have the right to decide what happens inside their bodies. The only-est reason pro-choice *isn’t* a “conservative” position is that females are somehow less-than *real* citizens.
Nathan, it appears you can’t comprehend the contents of a dictionary. And it’s clear you don’t want to answer the question. That’s your way of admitting that your position is irrational and undefendable. Does being a religious zealot entail not thinking about your positions or the consequences of your actions?
So what I understand from the pro-deathers is that a fertilized egg is a life as long as it implants but the moment before it implants it isn’t a life for the mere reason the odds are that it won’t implant. Not a very well thought out viewpoint but I never accused fundies of being rational.
LTP, The reason many antis dont want abortion to be classified as murder, then people like Brenda Landwher would have resign her seat and surrender herself over for trial. Also abortion is needed as a rallying cry to mobilize the base, that’s why despite 4yrs of total control over the government nothing was done to prohibit abortions
“Rev Jim” –
I used to work with Rep. Landwher, back when she was just Brenda. A smart, strong-willed woman with a huge chip on her shoulder. And not very well educated.
I don’t know what happened to her over the years. We used to disagree on political issues over the water cooler, but she wasn’t irrational at the time. Perhaps she got a dose of speaking-to-the-choir and a lust for political power. I’ve seen that before from both sides of the political aisle.
She’s the classic “do as I say, not as I do” politician. So naturally, she’s thrived in the Republic Party.
I honestly LAUGHED when Nathan called someone on “semantics”!
My ex and I, we lost a pregnancy in about the 4th month. Another in the 2nd month.
We were sad of course. But there was no funeral. The event was not mentioned in the paper as either news or obituary.
Spontaneous abortion occurs in nature all the time. The pregnant female may suffer stress in a number of forms that causes her body to end the pregnancy.
I don’t think it different in human women who CHOOSE to end a pregnancy. The difference is a human woman can apply reason where animals have only instinct to guide them.
Rather than hound or berate such women, why not use the considerable resources of the “pro life” movement to HELP these women make a different choice?
Answer? Because a large number of “pro life” people would rather have an issue or in the end a result driven by a different agenda.
Answer? Because a large number of “pro life” people would rather have an issue or in the end a result driven by a different agenda.
Posted by: J R | November 23, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Wrong again J R.
It’s because people seeking abortions do not what to be bothered or have the responsibility of seeking out alternative ways. They would rather splash the cash and use Tiller’s drive through window service than consider other methods, because it is expedient and they don’t have any other paperwork or responsibilities to deal with.
Flush, flush - problems all gone. Right?
Kansas, what other ways are there to terminate a pregnancy other than abortion?
Been a parent recently there “kansas”?
I KNOW you’ve never personally carried a pregnancy to term. That is unless you wish to correct me.
Have you ever even been AROUND a pregnant woman for the length of her term?
And yet you feel qualified to judge so?
Another “pro lifer” outed.
I don’t think there is any womb in your body is there J R?
I have female relatives, what’s your point?
Nice try at another empty argument J R, but reality bites and these women who get abortions for the only reason of birth control are just being irresponsible.
There is no other explanation for their cold hearted tactics.
We are not talking about rape, incest or medical emergency, we are talking about women who use Tiller as their ultimate “morning after pill” because they chose not to be responsible.
Kansas, I’d think going to a professional to get the procedure done is the responsible thing to do. What’s wrong with getting an abortion anyway?
BTW, what were those alternatives to ending a pregnancy you were talking about?
Exactly, “J R” –
Anyone who knows anything about the history of reproduction in civilization knows that some women have chosen extreme measures to end or prevent pregnancy.
In the 1960s, when The Pill came out, we saw the true nature of a male-dominated society. As abortion became legal (Kansas was, in the 1960s, one of the early states to permit legal abortion. *Kansas* was *progressive!!* Imagine that!), the Catholic Church and others had only the “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” attack against sexually-active women.
Ah, but then Life Magazine printed a spread about the development of fetuses. The photos featured mis-carriages, but were impressive (and part of the “Star Baby” sequence in Stanley Kubrik’s “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
And then the anti-women people had thier issue: “Your killing a ‘baby.’”
It was as an effective a public relations ploy as “You’re killing a puppy.”
No one wants to admit that all those developing “babies” that show up in Abortion Abolitionist publications are the result of natural miscarriages; that the fetuses in bottles that show up at Operation Rescue demonstrations were doomed in the womb from the start.
Good public relations. Bad public policy.
It happens.
If all those alleged “conservatives” were really conservative, the rights of a walking, talking, thinking female human of reproductive age would transcend those of a developing pre-human in the uterus.
Unless, of course, the “conservatives” can get votes by calling pro-choice people “baby-killers.”
There’s nothing about the “conservative” movement that coincides with the anti-abortion movement except that the “conservatives” have conned the Abortion Abolitionists into voting them into office. The Cons have essentially controlled government since Reagan was elected in 1980.
How has that Abortion Abolition movement done since then?
Not very well.
And there’s a reason.
What seems to missing here, in what’s turned into a rather numb-skull conversation, is the realization that abortion, as opposed to miscarriage or failure to implant, is the deliberate act of willfully ending another’s life. It’s not simply deciding one’s own future but robbing another of theirs. Usually, in the vast majority of cases, simply out of convenience. The extreme of selfish importance and disregard of another life.
Bob, women don’t spend $400 for an abortion when they don’t need to. Apparently you’re mr. moneybags and throw cash around like it isn’t a problem.
Birth control pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and it’s intentional. RU-486 causes an implanted egg to be miscarried and it’s intentional as well. So you are claiming these are acts of murder. So what’s your punishment for those who use the birth control pill? Will you send them to prison for life or send them to death row?
Doug keeps suggesting that women who have an abortion be sent to prison or to death row.
Doug is the only one here suggesting such a thing. Does he have no compassion for the unborn or the mother?
I’m not suggesting that (typical dishonest fundy). I’m just saying that if you zealots think abortion is murder then why not treat the women as murderers and execute them if your position is consistent.
Doug,
Actually, if we were to say it was murder, we would be going after the Abortion doctors, not the women.
Of course, you have to completely mischaracterize the pro-life stance, the views of the pro-life people, then come up with a completely irrational comparison and then argue against it to make a point.
The National Right to Life Committed has NEVER favored legal charges against women who have abortions.
All legal sanctions, sought by that organization, the largest of all the prolife organizations, are directed at the abortionists.
Also, Rev:
The Supreme Court decisions now in place do not allow us to make abortion illegal.
You are very ignorant, or you are simply trying to appeal to the ignorant, by complaining about a lack of political progress on this issue.—–Having said that, I do believe that Congress does have the power to overturn Roe and Doe by simple majority vote.
They could simply say, “Congress hereby declares that the Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction over the Constituional issues of abortion legality or illegality, and that proceedure is to be regulated by the States and by the Congress, with no Supreme Court impediments.”
This would do it, but I don’t think Congress will have the guts, anytime soon.
ARTICLE III
United States Constitution
Congress has the power, by simple majority, to limit the power of the Court:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html
Have any of you seen the movie “Bella” - now playing at the 13th Avenue Warren? It is a wonderful, evocative film - one that lingers in the memory and heart - long after the credits have rolled. Yes, it concerns reproduction (i.e., a crisis pregnancy). But it’s SO much more than that. It concerns human tragedy - and the means by which two people - and at least one extended family - can complete, heal and restore one another. And, no, it’s not necessarily carnal in nature. This lovely film transcends romantic passion - which can sometimes be transitory and fleeting.
This evening, I found out that this film is based on a true story. A true story! Oh, my - do people like that (the male protagonist) really exist in this world of ours? Do they really? I would like to believe so - but like Nina - the female lead in this beateous film - I too am a damaged, distrusting soul.
It’s too late for me, of course (1974-75 is a long, long way away). But I’d like to think this story really happened in someone’s life.
I dare anyone to see this movie and fail to be moved by the lead actor’s subtle, nuanced performance. (And he’s stunningly beautiful to boot. Think Antonio Banderas - and then some.) And I saw so much of myself in Tammy Blanchard, who plays Nina.
There are differences, however. I was madly in love at age 16 - and dealing with the agony of abandonment, cruelty and gutbucket sadism from my ex. Nina admits she’s “not in love”; moreover, she’s hardly 16 (early twenties is more like it), so she’s worlds away from my younger incarnation.
Anyway - to answer the question of “how do we deal with these situations besides abortion?” If there are people like this in this cold, cowardly world of ours - that’s a step in the right direction.
“Pro Choice (to a point)”,
Nice Post! Wish we had more like you posting concerning this subject.
“kansas”?
Here are YOUR words:
Nice try at another empty argument J R, but reality bites and these women who get abortions for the only reason of birth control are just being irresponsible.
There is no other explanation for their cold hearted tactics.
I think I get it now “kansas”.
YOU hate women! Oh I should have figured.
See? Like I have said here before, I USED to be “pro life”.
This was largely out of spite because I wasn’t “getting any”. I’ve grown since then.
I remember you as “JM” posting that your wife had dumped you and taken your kid. This likely has colored your attitude. Just as my attitude was once colored.
Given your original meltdown on the abortion issue, you are clearly deeply troubled.
Your wife was wise to abort her marriage to you.
Nathan, why just go after the doctor? If I hire someone to kill another person then do you go after the merc or do you go after me as well?
It seems none of you pro-death folks can answer the simple question. It’s like you like to call abortion murder but you don’t want to treat it as a crime.
Nathan, Pall,I’m old enough to remember what it was like before Roe v. Wade, and in most states a woman who had an abortion (and it was discovered) could be prosecuted and imprisoned. It didn’t happen often, but enough were prosecuted that a woman who had complications following an illegal abortion would often refuse to go to an ER until it was too late to save her life. Many, if not most of the women who died as a result of abortions could have been saved but for the law. This is what I’ve heard anti’s say they want to go back to, and if women die, they deserve it.
Last Friday in USA Today there was a full page article written by a grieving father. He felt his message was important enough that he paid the price for national coverage of a topic close to his heart.
Some might have thought it was a prolife ad - it wasn’t. After reading the entire message he stressed the mental stages a person goes through when they choose abortion.
His model beautiful, salutatorian, home coming queen daughter began suffering depression in Sept. of 2001. He hooked her up with a good counselor. She didn’t stay with it long. She attempted suicide the following autumn and again the counselor but it didn’t help much. The following fall she committed suicide.
He was beside himself wondering what he could have done to save her. This was when her best friend came forth with the news that in July 2001 she had an abortion and had never recovered from it.
Many times on this topic I have mentioned that parents need to be involved in these decisions especially when the daughters are very young teens. Mentally many don’t recover. Many years of counseling and therapies are needed.
This isn’t to take a prolife or prochoice stance - simply to say we need to look much more closely at the laws we are passing at state or federal levels. Parents in most instances do need to be involved. Who loves these young women more?