Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade, it’s rare to find a Republican willing to point out the apparent contradiction in Republicans opposing abortion rights yet favoring small government and privacy rights. “They turn away from those principles. I wonder if they can see the inconsistency in their position?†Senate Vice President John Vratil (in photo), R-Leawood, said this week. He also called abortion an “issue that government has no reason to get involved in.â€
Meanwhile, Eagle columnist Brent Castillo argues on today’s Opinion pages that science has made the case for the pro-life movement.
206 Comments
Actually I’ve seen very little evidence that Conservatives Republicans actually beilive in the small government rhetoric they use to get elected. I could literally fill these pages with big government conservative proposals
If not for Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton, we would probably NOT be discussing abortion nearly as much as we do, today.
The reason the issue will not go away is that the Supreme Court of the United States violated the Constitution, overturning State laws that had been in effect, and working for years, and did so withoug regard to true science.
The public would support a complete ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
The public would support expanding the parental rights of parents, over pregnant teenagers.
The public would support a complete ban on late term abortions, except to save the life of the mother.
The Roe and Doe are tyranical decisions by SCOTUS. Many liberal legal scholars, who support “abortion rights” agree that these decisions were not sound, legally.
There is no, true, “trimester” demarkation in a pregnancy. Even if their was, “Doe V. Bolton” pretty much says that the “health” exception to late term abortions can cover just about anything.
This issue will, eventually, be returned to the political arena. It is the Courts who should stay out of it. A simple Act of Congress, passed by majority vote, and signed by the President, would be enough to tell the Supreme Court that they no longer had any jurisdiction over abortion.
If Vratil is too much of a wimp to handle the Democratic process, we can find a replacement for him.
Senator Frist used his expansive knowledge about medical science to determine that Terri Schaivo was going to walk out of her bed any moment and become a legendary tap dancer. Like Brent’s embryo, she had no brain but a beating heart therefore she must have been completely alive.
Science can be misused by those who don’t understand it and want to use it for political purposes. Brent did that in today’s column. It makes me wonder how such a knuckle dragger can get a job with the Eagle.
Hey Senator
What is “smaller government” — 50 individual states or the Federal Government, through unelected judges?
“The public would support a complete ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother”
No they wouldn’t - polls have shown that the public supports a woman’s right to choose. It is only in the last trimester that the view changes.
Even in South Carolina, that bastion of liberalism, only 28 percent support a ban on abortion in all cases.
You view is distorted and wrong, again, Rossell.
Paul, the majority of the public is pro-choice:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Funny thing how Republicans instantly becomes fans of Roe v. Wade when they don’t want their private records to be seen by anyone else. Rush Limbaugh became a huge advocate of Roe v. Wade and the ACLU when they argued the state couldn’t have access to his medical records. But you are an advocate of Big Brother government so you think the 4th Amendment should be overturned.
Doug, I congratulate you. You were able to apparently read the whole thing; I didn’t make it past the first sentence.
Econ, I understand you violently disagree with SCOTUS on its abortion decisions. Good luck in your never ending quest to change the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS, which, in my opinion and only my opinion, won’t happen as you desire.
In his remarks, Sen. Vratil reminds me of remarks on this topic I’ve read attributed to the late Senator Barry Goldwater, remarks with which I totally agree.
Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Courts:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/11815.html
See Article III, Section II, United States Constitution.
“Article III, Section 2 clearly states: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress small make.”
Didn’t south Dakota enact a total ban on abortions with a life of the mother expection only to have it rejected by the voters
VT
Not violently
I know it was a figure of speech, on your part, but —
Paul, since the majority of the people are pro-choice:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
How do you figure that the public (that would be 100%) would be supportive of your views?
I know and understand that, Econ. It’s my opinion that what you seek “ain’t gonna happen”.
Logically you would think that conservatives would be in favor of abortions after all its much more cost effective than paying out government funded healthcare, welfare, education and so on.
Yeah, Econ, I could have used a better figure of speech. To anyone who might have been misled: I know Econ will not resort to violence to evidence his disapproval of the SCOTUS abortion jurisprudence.
Speaking of Brent Castillo, how come he never gets to make a WE Blog topic?
I mean, after all, the Interns do.
Is Brent one of the caste system “untouchables” at the Wichita Eagle?
OK, this is an NRLC website, but you can go directly to the polls, cited, if you wish:
“First, when the 1,015 respondents were queried in early January whether abortion policies should stay the same or change, only 39% opted for the status quo. Nineteen percent wanted policies less strict but 39% wanted abortion policies more strict!
Second, beyond that, nearly three-fourths of the public rejects the reasons for all or most abortions. The impact of the congressional debate over partial-birth abortion in moving the public in a more pro-life direction would be difficult to exaggerate.”
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL02/polls.html
I thought Brent quit the paper but still has his weekly column
More opinion polls:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL06/pres.html
Econ, do you have anything more recent than 2002? Polls, that is.
So Paul, you have concluded that 39% represents the entire public. Even when you see reality for yourself you still manage to miss it somehow.
VT
The only reason that Congress might not restrict the Courts, in this area, is because the Pro Life radicals do not like this option.
The radicals, on BOTH sides, want one NATIONAL law to settle the matter.
Telling the Court to stay out of it would simply let the States figure it out for themselves.
There IS no “inconsistency in [their] position.” Said inconsistency is there only if one focuses on one, and only one facet of conservative thought.
Roe is, as a matter of constitutional law, a mess, and difficult to defend legally. Further, it grew from Griswald, a decision which made the right ruling for the wrong reasons; those wrong reasons (and the fantasy of “penumbras” to the constitution) grew into the stepchild which was Roe. The proper ruling in Roe would have been that the matter was a subject on which the constitution is silent, and thus was a political matter for the states to decide for themselves.
That said, I likewise doubt it will be undone, and at this point, I can accept that. That said, in addition, I will also NOT get involved in a long thread on abortion; such discussions are rarely illuminating and counterproductive. I’ve said my peace, and on this subject it will be all.
I’m much more interested in how some defend Roe, based as it is on imaginary “penumbras,” as protecting an individual right and then argue with a straight face that the 2nd amendment, which uses the clear words “the right of the people” does not.
You’re right about the radicals on both sides wanting a national law on abortion, Econ. That is one of the factors underlying my opinion that the jurisdiction of SCOTUS on this issue will not be restricted by the Congress.
Let the States decide on abortion. If your state doesn’t approve, go to another one. If you have to pay more for it, so be it. Otherwise, you can get it done for free…
VT
Hard to find good polls on the issue, or recent polls.
However, the partisans on BOTH sides always insist that the numbers don’t change much, over time.
Informed Consent is very popular.
Parental Consent is popular
Parental Notification is very popular.
No taxpayer funding is very popular.
Partial Birth Abortion bans are very popular.
More thant that, if you poll ONLY the people who claim that abortion is their “most important” issue, you come up with a prolife advantage of 4% to 8% in nearly every area of the country.
I do not put much stock in polls.
However, the “Pro Choice” side knows, full well, that more restrictions are comming.
If they thought the public was “with” them, why on Earth do they need the Supreme Court?
GMC,
I’ll not try to defend the “penumbra” underlying the explication of a “Constitutional right of privacy” in Griswold, found controlling in Roe. Your position on the Roe decision is one of consistency to other Constitutional principles you have espoused. I am not comfortable with the supposed Constitutional basis of either decision, but from a bit different perspective than you. Either there exists a “right to privacy” or there doesn’t. The drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not specifically single such out for protection from the federal government. Given that such right was not so protected, then perhaps the best approach under our federal system of government would be, as you suggest, to leave it to the states as a political question. I believe that there should be a uniform federal position on the matter, but I cannot justify my belief on any Constitutional basis other than one about which we both would laugh.
Now, I could go off on some pretended Commerce Clause analysis on why the federal government may be permitted to be involved in this question, but in the interests of my sanity (and hopefully yours) I won’t.
Hmm, I must have deleted my brilliant exposition of the difference in my perspective from that of GMC70. Now, if I can just remember it….
It is not Hypocrisy at all.
The “size” of the government has little to do with whether or not you feel the governments job at a minimum is to outline laws which safegaurd the lives of individuals from destruction for the mere conveinence of another.
Once again, you will NEVER be able to understand why someone is Pro-Life if you can’t grasp this concept:
Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting.
You don’t have to agree with it to merely acknowledge what it is those you disagree with actually believe.
So when you look at the issue of abortion with the premise that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting then it is not a matter of big government or large government.
All these arguments against abortion have absolutely nothing to do with the actual premise that those who are Pro-Life believe.
Oh, yeah, it was that prescribing contraceptives (Griswold) and a woman obtaining an abortion (Roe) are things in which Government has no business being involved at any level with reference to proscribing.
For the life of me, I cannot understand what the government is doing messing in a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.
What life were the “pro-lifers” protecting when they wanted contraceptives made illegal? For that matter, what life were they protecting when they banned distribution of sex ed materials?
Values boy says life before rights.
Over my dead body will you have a say over my rights.
You still breathing mama? Cause your rights have been TRASHED over the past 20 years.
Mega-dittos, Taz!
Political_Mama, fortunately, your rights stop at my life.
Science has shown that unborn babies are as much human as any of us blogging right now. Of course if I bring that up, you are suddenly not in favor of science anymore are you. They are of course defenseless, infantile, undeveloped and of can not vote. Which is why we should reqlinquish our power from terminally ending their life based upon our selfish wishes. It is in our own selfish interest to have power of life and death over another human being.
During the days of slavery and even reconstruction in the south, there was no penalty for killing a slave. Should we have left it up to the southern slave owners to decide whether or not black people are people? How then should we expect ourselves to respect the life of the unborn that threatens our hallowed convenience?
Roe v Wade (like slavery) is a human rights disaster. Which is why it is not an issue to be decided by the states.
hypocritical is when you want abortion to be considered murder, but don’t support the same harsh penalties for women who have them, and don’t support police investigations into miscarriages. If a 5 year old child were suddenly dead in the parents’ home, there would be a police investigation, so why not use some of those enhanced interrogation techniques on any woman who loses a pregnancy. Also, pregnancies should be registered with the government as soon as they are detected so the fetus can be given a SSN and full rights under the law, no more waiting for the second trimester to tell people.
I’d like to see a pro-lifer defend that logical conclusion of their position.
Conservatives will only defend freedom as long as people use it in a manner of which they approve, which does not include the right to have an abortion or marry a same sex partner. Conservatives believe that freedom is the right to do as you are told. Their small government rallying cry only applies to unbridled captitalism, they love big government oppression when it comes to fundamental personal liberty.
rfl, funny how you bring up slavery when the descendants of slave owners are again arguing in favor of states’ rights.
Abortion is a mere “medical procedure”????
That’s a euphemism if I’ve ever read one. I can think of a few “medical procecures” performed by at Auschwitz during WWII. Too bad those “medical procedures” got the perpetrators hanged!
On the other hand, I don’t often agree with Brent Castillo, but I thought today’s column was far and away his best ever.
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, this paragraph is the basis of his argument:
“Knowledge about newly formed life has come a long way since Jan. 22, 1973, when Roe v. Wade became our legal standard. Science has shown that the DNA of nascent life is unique. We know that the heart forms at about three weeks. At nine to 11 weeks, the fetus can squint, swallow and move his tongue. Some scientists believe a fetus as young as eight weeks can feel pain.”
I don’t agree with the tacit approval Brent seems to give abortion protestors who use graphic images in their protest activities. It is difficult for me to see how such could influence opinions on this subject.
Ron Paul endorsed by Jane Roe, yes, THAT Roe
TJ,
You can not legally prosecute people for a crime that was not a crime when they committed it. Do remember anybody being charged with Slavery solely for owning slaves before the 13th amendment was ratified?
Didn’t happen.
I shouldn’t have to state the obvious but then if that is what you need to catch up to the rest of civilization, I try to oblige.
How many men involve themselves in their wife’s, girlfriend’s, sisters, or mother’s medical care decisions? There are all kinds of medical choices that women decide for themselves every day without a brouhaha from others, such as contraceptives, natural family planning, pap smears, breast exams and on. If one is truly pro-life focused wouldn’t being involved in (or demanding) procedures that detect cancer fall into the pro-life category? Where is that bandwagon?
Let’s let women make their own health care decisions with their physician, sans men’s input. No disrespect to any men, I just don’t see you asking women to get involved in your medical decisions..
TJ,
EVERYONE of us are either descendants of slaves or of slave owners.
I DON”T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING for a past that I had no part in creating.
Don’t try and pull that crap, get over it.
And here we are, several posts later, and people still look confused about why people who are Pro-Life get involved in a “medical prcedure”
READ CAREFULLY:
Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting.
That is it. Plain and simple. Most all of our thoughts and actions on abortion are formed from that premise.
Once again, you don’t have to agree with it to at least understand it.
” “They turn away from those principles. I wonder if they can see the inconsistency in their position?” ”
Referring to the republicans, of course. For example: Pro-life until after birth, then you’re on your own. As in not overturning Bush’s veto of the child health insurance act.
Small government? How about the department of homeland security? Just a blip on the beltway, huh.
“Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting.”
But don’t vote FOR SCHIP because that is socialism.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………………
But don’t vote for SCHIP because it is a STATE’S responsibility.
On abortion: Science has made it for the unborn to survive earlier and earlier in the pregency. The so-called government opinion that the “fetus” isn’t human until birth line is getting finer and finer all the time. So if a “fetus” is birthed at 6 months, and survives to adulthood, I guess it really ain’t human?
Roe V Wade was a bad decision by SCOTUS, and should be overturned, with the whole thing turned over to the states. That’s what the Constitution is all about.
Most chicks I know that have had them have had numerous abortions. If folks would grow up and quit getting knocked up whilst drunken in the backseat of daddy’s car we wouldn’t have to have to much of this argument. I couldn’t care less if you want to do it, hell have a dozen of em. that’s what you have to live with, not me.
And if it’s about women’s lib, y’know, I’m an asshole enough to say that the truth is that “women’s lib” was engineered to get our kids away from the family and to be raised by the state. And it added the bonus of getting to tax both parents for their labor.
Taz
As to this post:
“Taz
Posted January 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
For the life of me, I cannot understand what the government is doing messing in a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.”
—–
How about the doctor in Haysville, who is up on charges for the drugs that he gave his patients?
Hey, that was “between patients and a doctor” was it not.
WS Clark and Sol,
What does SCHIP have to do with the unborn child being a human life worth protecting or not?
Using your backwards application of logic:
You support SCHIP for those that are not killed, but you don’t support not killing those SCHIP could help if they hadn’t been?
I’ll make you a deal:
We will support SCHIP if you support ending most abortions except in the most extreme cases involving the life of the mother, rape, or incest.
Nice misogynist view there Pleefer.
BIG effin’ eyeroll.
Nathan,
With all due respect to your opinion, my vote is you don’t get to decide anything for me.
Wichi,
Does that also apply for when you kill a 5 year old too?
It’s not misogyny, it’s fact, Wichi, deal with it. Why can’t folks see that it is the mother’s job to nurture the child? Is it that friggin’ complicated? I’m a firm believer that women are more intelligent than men yet are the weaker in strength. Women and men are not equal, that is something you’ll have to come to terms with. I’m the farthest thing from a “misogynist”, I am a speaker of self evidence though. I just can’t hang with the idea that SOME women want to be lazy and selfish and rely on trivial friggin science in order to cover up their stupidity. Try a rubber.
Brent Castillo apparently does not read his own paper.
Just a few days ago, the Eagle ran a story that showed the primary force in a woman exercising her right to choose is economics.
The majority of women seeking abortion have already been through the process of gestation, birth AND parenthood. They choose not to have another child in order to care for the ones they already have.
Given the attitude of many so called “pro life” people as to social spending? Who can blame them?
Oh yeah, men’s lib here…I’m rolling my eyes too.
The laws, concerning abortion, will be much more strict, in 10 or 20 years, then where they are now.
I mostly get frustrated with the prolife radicals who won’t allow us to return this issue to the states, in a more direct manor, through simple legislaton. Orin Hatch (another Mormon) first thought of this idea, and the prolife radicals ate him alive.
Radical prolifers thought it was GREAT when Phil Kline went after abortionist George Tiller.
The irony is that the radical prolifers attacked Democrat Governor Joan Finney, and a number of prolife legislators, when Finney signed the bills into law that Kline used, agaisnt Tiller!
We would have fewer abortions, in this country, if the prolife radicals would learn from other political movements.
Learn from history, my friends.
Lincoln did NOT free all the slaves.
Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation” only freed the slaves in the rebel states, in order to help the North win the Civil War.
There were still slaves in 2 “loyal” states until the 13th Amendment was ratified.
“Small government with a big asterisk”
I’ve always thought hemmorrhoids should be named asterisks.
Anyway, Rhonda’s got it backwards. “Roe” made abortion a national issue. Conservatives would like to see it returned to the states for regulation.
JR,
So, if we provided state care for the child after birth would you then be against abortion except in the most extreme cases involving the life of the mother, rape, or incest?
“The laws, concerning abortion, will be much more strict, in 10 or 20 years, then where they are now.”
This is called wishful thinking.
It is not for me to make such a deeply personal decision for another human being Nathan.
I offer only some remedy. Remedy beats rhetoric any day.
JR,
So, basically, it is little more than a red herring to keep bringing up all this stuff about state funded care for a child when trying to attack someone who is Pro-Life.
That is what I thought.
Hey Wichi,
Ever hear the term Social Engineering?
Truth can sometimes be very painful.
Nathan, we are not discussing 5 year olds. I happen to believe that although an embryo may be a human life form, it has yet to be developed into a fully functional human being. A zygote, embryo or undeveloped fetus is not sustainable outside the womb, period. I feel that a woman has the right to make a decision based on those facts.
Naturally, once a baby IS born it is a live human being.
You ain’ta gonna get me on some politically correct nonsense.
As soon as a heart beats, it’s working.
Not at all Nathan.
Women choose abortions for lots of reasons. Economics is a big one but not the only one.
What about a woman in her 40’s who accidentally gets pregnant and the baby has Down’s syndrome?
Also? If you outlaw abortion except for cases of rape, I promise you the number of “rapes”: will skyrocket. I’ve never been one for prosecuting the innocent.
But if we removed the economic reasons behind a woman making this choice. Maybe we would do much to limit the need.
JR,
Should we also allow murderers to go free and only offer economic reasons for people to not kill each other?
“What does SCHIP have to do with the unborn child being a human life worth protecting or not?”
The anti-choice conservatives are only concerned about a child until it makes it’s way down the birth canal and the doctor declares the time of birth - after that, the “I have mine” mentality takes over and any assistance given to that child is considered socialism.
Those are the facts.
To my way of thinking, this is all about sex - if you have sex and end up pregnant, then - in the minds of conservatives - you are to be punished by having to have a child, whether you had intended that or not.
If the anti-choice folks really, truly wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions, they would be SCREAMING for comprehensive sex education and the open availability of birth control.
The fact that they do not only tells me that they have no REAL consideration for the unborn, only condemnation of the mother.
Just read Pleefers post up thread and you will get the true ideology of the anti-choice movement.
At least one con had the guts to post his true agenda.
Even if it was stupid.
econ101,
By allowing states to decide for themselves the legality of abortion, you are allowing for a split in the 50 state union on the scale of the civil war era.
The idea that some states could allow slavery and others not, flopped in the 1860 Republican primary and it will flop today. This is an human rights issue not to be won over by trying the please all sides. Either an unborn human is a human or it is meaningless tissue. Which is it?
Lincoln argued forcibly against Douglas over how illogical popular soverignty is regarding the human rights issue of slavery. Lincoln was right.
I see your point that he held is cards close by not alienating those border states so that they stayed loyal to the North. But his intent was never to allow for a long term state by state slavery policy.
I am offering a solution Nathan.
It isn’t perfect.
And you are offering what? You never say.
You may not like it. Certainly I don’t like it. But abortion is part of nature. In the wild, a stressed (by hunger, danger, etc.) pregnant female often spontaneously aborts.
In human beings, thinking and analysis enters the picture. The majority of women who choose to end a pregnancy do so for economic reasons. They spare what resources they have for their children already born. You can make all the laws that you like. But all you will do is make a bad thing worse.
“you are to be punished by having to have a child, whether you had intended that or not.”
Having a child is punishment? How do your kids feel about that?
————-
“If the anti-choice folks really, truly wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions, they would be SCREAMING for comprehensive sex education and the open availability of birth control.”
Says who? The strategy of changing hearts and minds seems to be having an effect, since the number of abortions is down significantly. Most people believe in further restrictions for abortions too. It should never be done for convenience or for economic considerations.
———–
“they have no REAL consideration for the unborn, only condemnation of the mother”.
So opposition to abortion is condemnation of the mother????
——————
“Even if it was stupid.”
That wasn’t the smartest post that you’ve ever written either WS.
The reason abortions are down is contraceptive use is up, more than likely. There is no hearts and minds b.s.
rfl
You are looking at this the wrong way.
“States Rights” actually prevented slavery, in the Northern States, for nearly 100 years, until the whole country was ready to follow.
I’d say WS was spot on outlander.
And I’d say he hit a sore spot on you.
Here is what gives you away.
“Most people believe in further restrictions for abortions too. It should never be done for convenience or for economic considerations.”
Unless you are more clear? I take this to mean YOU mean: “I don’t care if you do not have the resources to care for another baby! You WILL have it and you WILL raise it. Or you WILL be punished.”
WS,
You’re a dolt. I’m not “anti-choice”, I care less what people do. If it doesn’t affect me, do what you want. I personally don’t like abortion. Don’t even try to act like you know me. You know nothing about me. I’m not a Republican nor a Democrat, to me all of you are fighting over scraps. I represent NO ONE but myself, do not try and pigeon-hole me. I find all politicians equally sickening on both sides. I speak from my heart, a heart which has no hatred for anyone in it. All you people want to do is fight and keep propelling divisiveness. This is exactly what I was talking about with the social engineering and you, WS are not awake enough to understand it. We are all supposed to be fighting over race, sex, creed, religion while the pieces of dog squat in power take what they want.
All over the news today, not one channel agreed on what kind of stimulus package we were going to get. We are the most dumbed down population in the world (third world countries have it made, at least they don’t have any real education) and we are being taken advantage of while we argue bs. You all want discord here, fine, then have it. Fools.
No JR. Here is what I mean:
Life trumps economics.
“Having a child is punishment? How do your kids feel about that?”
If a woman accidentally gets pregnant, she should be forced to have a child by denying her access to abortion?
None of my children were unwanted, Outlander, the question is moot.
“The strategy of changing hearts and minds seems to be having an effect, since the number of abortions is down significantly”
Most likely abortions are down due to some comprehensive sex ed and the availability of RU486 and the fear of STD’s, hence more condom use.
“So opposition to abortion is condemnation of the mother????”
So why are (most of)those that oppose abortion also those that are opposed to the expansion of SCHIP?
Because they want the absolute best for the mother? Not likely.
“It should never be done for convenience or for economic considerations.”
That is not what the majority of Americans think.
As for stupidity - read Pleefer’s post once again.
I’m providing my thoughts from my own beliefs, understanding, and views. Nobody contributes to these thoughts but myself.
Life begins at some point, and that point is conception. Wichi, you are correct in that at the moment of conception the life is still forming and by itself it could not live outside the womb. However, that same statement says this is a life, but not worth protecting, for a variety of reasons when defending the right to have an abortion.
This is where those of us who are pro-life disagree with abortion, in so far, that the unborn have the right to live no matter where in development that person is.
WSClark, I respect your opinion on the most vocal of many prolife groups, seemingly in that they are all words and no action. Not all of us believe that just being political is enough, but some people are better at that than others and both political activists and action are necessary in order to reduce the need for abortion. I volunteer my time tutoring single parents in college(this includes those mothers who are pregnant). It isn’t very much and I realize that. However, if the parent graduates, the goal then is that this person has a chance at a job and a chance at raising their child(ren) without the need for further assistance. At least, that is what I would hope would be best.
JR, I’ll address the issue of the 40 year old who gets pregnant and the child has downsyndrome. I have a relative in that exact position, who at 44 became pregnant and their son has down syndrome. He is simply the most adorable child their is and requires every bit of their attention. Why should down syndrome be a reason for abortion? I ask this because I view life beginning at conception so I can easily equate this line of thought to Nazi Germany in killing of Jews and others who “weren’t perfect.” I know not all share my view of where life begins, I’ll accept that as reason enough for the moment anyway.
With that said, I’ll defend abortion for those when medically necessary. Much of this stems from murdering someone in self defense. If the unborn is threatening the life of the mother, then I believe she should have that medical necessity clause present to save her own life.
WS
You are absolutely wrong on public opinion.
Please show me a poll that says that abortion should be used for birth control.
The majority is clearly against abortion except for cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
Stupid WS?
You’d need a friggin Rosetta Stone to try and decipher what the hell you are talking about.
“Life trumps economics.”
You only have to convince all the mothers who are acting in the interest of their already born children outlander. That or legislate YOUR judgement on them. Me I’d like to offer them a carrot and not a stick. You will only hide the problem in criminal secrecy.
“You know nothing about me”
And I thank God that I don’t.
Yeah, the feeling is mutual.
“Please show me a poll that says that abortion should be used for birth control.”
Huh? Since no one has said that, why would you pull that nugget out of your hindmost orifice, Paul?
For obvious reason I do not know the exact figures (no one could possibly know) but I would guess that 99.5% of the time that when folks have sex, it is not because they want to procreate.
They want the pleasure and the love of the sex.
Birth control is not 100% - accidental pregnancies occur all the time - I would guess that at least 50% were not intended.
It is noteworthy to mention that the anti-choice folks were also the ones against RU486 and are also against comprehensive sex education.
Jeez, are you folks also against masturbation and cold showers?
“Yeah, the feeling is mutual.”
Thanks, Pleefer, now I don’t have to worry about you dropping in for coffee in the morning.
Wow Rhonda, how intellectually shallow.
Small govt conservatives, like me, believe that what the govt does should partly be about protecting those who can’t proect themselves, like unborn fetuses.
Given your logic above, then you must think the small govt. conservative no longer want courts or the police either.
Brilliant analysis!
With the logic of “people just want to f%$k and damn the consequences”:
I love driving fast and drinking much whisky at the same time, I should be able to get left of center, ram head-on with a family of four, kill them and be legally protected.
And yes, WS, jerk off all you want.
Abortion should be safe and legal. Abortion on demand - without apology.
My own opinion (thanks for asking) is abortion is wrong on too many levels. I am a firm believer the fetus is a child. It then is not the child’s fault it was conceived, whether by rape, incest or drunken night out. Killing the child solves nothing and, again, in my opinion, cheapens mans’ inner spirit.
That said, I can’t condemn those who do get an abortion for the simple reason I don’t read minds, nor is it my duty to judge; that belongs to a much higher Spirit than myself. Bit, also, if a law, such as that proclaimed by SCOTUS, were to come up for state vote, I would have to vote no. If the law were to pass. I would also have to accept it, while at the same time condemning it. A few out there might be able to understand that.
JM Walker, a person of reason.
Don’t be offended that I agreed with you, please.
JM,
I can accept that reasoning. Don’t judge the mother for having an abortion, because nobody really knows what was in her head. Doesn’t mean though that trying to do ones best to reduce the need for abortion is a bad idea.
“And yes, WS, jerk off all you want.”
Actually, Pleefer, I don’t need to since I have a girlfriend to help me with that, but thanks for your concern.
“With the logic of “people just want to f%$k and damn the consequences””
And consider that MOST folks faq for reasons other than procreation, it is obviously stupid to suggest that folks “damn the consequences.”
Or are you just jealous that you ain’t getting any?
As usual, your post is stupid, but thanks for trying.
Yeah, jealous. Quite adroit of you bro.
Danny, of course not. If none were ever needed, in my opinion, man would finally reach the age of reason.
JM,just being an eavesdropper on your converse, you are sounding like you might be enlightened.
I’ll go back to my own business now.
“JM,just being an eavesdropper on your converse, you are sounding like you might be enlightened.”
Nahhh . . . just too damn old:-)
Regardless, when you start throwing the line, “Age of Reason” out there, my ears perk up.
Who said we need small government? We need big government to take care of us.
And abortions, they should be free.
If you have sex with some jerk you shouldn’t be forced to have his baby.
Happened to me 3 times. 3 jerks and 3 abortions.
Jeez, when will guys ever learn?
The scum bags should be happy their is free abortion clinics for girls to go to when they make stupid mistakes like I have.
Who said we need small government? We need big government to take care of us.
And abortions, they should be free.
If you have sex with some jerk you shouldn’t be forced to have his baby.
Happened to me 3 times. 3 jerks and 3 abortions.
Jeez, when will guys ever learn?
The scum bags should be happy their is free abortion clinics for girls to go to when they make stupid mistakes like I have.
Hope I never need another one.
Well, hello, Mr. McCluer, I see you have a new nic - Monica - is this an expression of jealous or are you just thinking of days gone by?
James is a hater in particular in this area.
Me and Walker, we had it out on this one time.
Of those who are against abortion, I call only he and Mary pro life. But that is just me.
Nobody here will believe it. But I USED to be “pro life”. Went to the protests and everything.
I don’t think we can legislate a pro life position as to a woman’s right to choose until ours is a pro life culture at large. Consider the cruel treatment in our country of the aged. We shove them into warehouses to wait for them to die. Look at attitudes to the homeless and poor.
See on the thread next door how some would deny even basic health care to our nations’ kids.
It aint the most appealing society to look around and think of bringing a baby into. Until it is, I don’t think we have any business intruding into a womans decision based on what she sees when she looks around.
You’re sure a paranoid putz, aren’t you William?
I’m not monica or any other poster. Get over yourself and take your hand out of your pants.
Whomever Monika L is, was or will be . . . he/she/it . . . I am prone to believe, is/was/were an abortion:-)
What do pro-aborts feel when they come to know that they are going to becoming parents?
What do the pro-aborts feel when they come to know that they are becoming parents?
Monica is James McCluer……………….the TROLL-BOY!
john_s is James McCluer……………….the TROLL-BOY!
Well…
Thank you WS Clark and JR for telling me what I actually believe when I have never said anything close to that.
WS Clark,
You select one of the most obviously crazy posts by someone who is not a representative of all people Pro-Life and then you arbitralily declare that opinion and more to be the “actual” opinion of people who are Pro-Life.
I am trying to think of a nice and politically correct way of saying that you are full of shit, however, nothing is coming to mind.
You have at least two people here, myself and outlander, who have routinely argued about abortion here on this blog and NOTHING we have ever said or posted comes close to the crap you claim that us Pro-Life people really believe.
There are only a few extreme cases of people in the Pro-Life movement that actually believe that crap.
Not hardly Apophis. What I post as with this nic, this is what you get.
I do hope that your paranoid delusions get better though.
I offered an imperfect solution Nathan.
Now I know that as a Republican you see everything as black and white, yes or no, legal or illegal.
You’ve criticized my imperfect solution.
Where was yours?
“I am trying to think of a nice and politically correct way of saying that you are full of shit, however, nothing is coming to mind.”
Well, Price, as usual you are the one that is full of shit. Of course, you prove that every single day.
So, Price, just what DID I say that offended your delicate sensibilities?
Did I say that you were going to shit yourself?
(Naw - that is one of the lines from your side.)
Did I say that I was going to make you wet your pants?
(Naw - that is your line.)
Just what was it that I said that hurt your delicate feelings?
JR,
I support educational programs which help women understand their pregnancy and the decision they are making when it comes to an abortion.
I support providing women who are considering an abortion material which will show them the groups and various organizations which will help them with their pregnancy.
I support getting women who are considering an abortion all the information they need to help them consider adoption instead of abortion.
There are various other things I support as well.
I completely agree with finding ways to help reduce abortion.
However, those things do not change the fact that I believe abortion is killing a human life that is worth protecting.
As I have always said and most of the time am ignored, The ULTIMATE difference is this:
Either the unborn child is a human life worth protecting or it is not.
If you don’t believe the unborn child is a human life worth protecting then why do you care? Kill it.
If you do believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting, then allowing the child to be destroyed for economic reasons or for whatever inconveinence it might be on the mother is wrong.
“There are various other things I support as well.”
The one thing you do NOT support is comprehensive sex education and availability of birth control.
Until you do that, you are just an anti-sex hypocrite.
WS Clark,
You didn’t hurt my feelings at all.
It was your complete and gross mischaracterization of what someone who is Pro-Life thinks which I was pointing out to be wrong.
“It was your complete and gross mischaracterization of what someone who is Pro-Life thinks which I was pointing out to be wrong.”
Jeez, Price, when I read that post from Pleefer, I thought it was YOU that wrote it.
My bad.
Sorry.
WS Clark,
Patronizing someone is obviously not your strong suit.
Don’t worry about it Nathan, da Dems on this blog haven’t come to reality that they are in a Red state with conservative values.
“Patronizing someone is obviously not your strong suit.”
So, Price, are you going to condemn what Pleefer said or are you going to stand by it like the good little anti-choice fellow that you are?
Either you agree or disagree - which is it?
There is no middle ground.
WS Clark,
Pleefer has written so much in the way of generalities on a variety of subjects here.
I generally don’t agree with what Pleefer says.
Please highlight the specific comments you are asking about.
Come on Price, maybe you can get some talking points from one of the irregular Republicans on the blog, but you gotta have an answer!
Given that 60% of women that have abortions have already had at least one child, you must have an opinion that doesn’t condemn those that choose to engage in sex, right?
Or do you really believe that sex is for procreation only?
Or do you believe that only women that have sex in backseats have abortions?
Having had sex with a few (several) women in backseats, I can tell you that we USED appropriate protection from pregnancy and they would not have opted for abortion.
Actually, I have never had a woman that I impregnated opt for abortion.
Can you say the same, Price?
Nathan
I was truly surprised to learn the other day that women who have already HAD babies are choosing to terminate their pregnancies. And this is not the isolated case or few. It’s the majority of women choosing abortion.
I’m hardly a “baby killer”. No you didn’t call me that. But the extreme on your side of things would. I screamed the taunt myself once. I’ve been a single parent since my son was 1. I have experience what it is to be a parent. I’ve seen what pregnancy does to a woman’s body. I was in the room when my son was born.
I’ve also seen what happens when a woman who HAS given birth to a child she THOUGHT she wanted changes her mind.
I’ve had employers tell me the job has to be first and my kid second.
That’s for starters.
I don’t pretend to understand what is in a womans heart or situation when she chooses not to carry a baby to term. I don’t think it is my place to interfere without such understanding. I don’t understand people who do or would want to.
“Pleefer has written so much in the way of generalities on a variety of subjects here.”
Read it yourself, Price. He made a comment about people faq’ing without regard for the consequences.
Hint - it is up thread.
Do you agree or disagree?
Easy, right?
Here is MY solution to the problem…We have the technology available now to implant embryos into women, so let’s go for the middle ground. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she reports to a facility where the “unwanted” embryo is removed, then implanted into the womb of a “pro-life” supporter (or in the case of a male supporter, into the womb of his wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter, etc., although to be truly fair, we need to develop the technology to implant the embryo into a male’s body). At that point, the embryo becomes the responsibility of the “pro-life” supporters, and they can provide for everything from there on and give the resulting child all of the love they claim to have for all of the unborn children.
It is amazing that Swallow always shows up at the wrong time - imagine, if swallow was around at the RIGHT time, there never would have been a stained blue dress.
That was Clinton’s mistake - he didn’t hire an intern that swallowed.
WS Clark,
In some ways yes. I don’t think being pregnant is a punishment. I don’t think having sex is only for procreation.
Do I think that getting pregnant is a consequence of having sex? Well duh! How else do you get pregnant unless it is artificially done?
Do I think that if you are going to have sex you should be aware of what could happen, i.e. getting pregnant, when you do? Yes.
If you support sex education, isn’t part of that education learning that having sex can lead to getting pregnant? Of course.
If you are having sex without any protection then yes, you are indeed taking a risk that pregnancy will happen and you should be man or woman enough to take responsibility for that.
If you are having sex at all, you should be prepared that birth control can fail and that pregnancy can happen.
This is all common sense stuff, no?
WS, I’m around more than you know…I just usually don’t say much.
So, Price, when birth control fails, a woman MUST have the child, right?
And…………..
“If you are having sex at all”
Adults have sex, Price, that is a normal part of a healthy adult relationship. Birth control does fail, but that does not mean that the obvious solution is that a woman MUST carry the child to term.
What is the difference between an EARLY term abortion, the RU486 pill and the birth control pill?
Answer please?
Price, what is the difference between a EARLY term abortion, the RU486 pill and birth control?
Huh?
“WS, I’m around more than you know…I just usually don’t say much.”
And, who cares?
“So, Price, are you going to condemn what Pleefer said or are you going to stand by it like the good little anti-choice fellow that you are?”
And your answer IS?
What’s that Price?
No answer?
WS Clark,
Before I continue playing 20 questions with you, do you admit now that not all Pro-Life people believe what you said they did earlier?
William is on a kick (along with JR and Capn) calling posters by their last name. It is usually interpreted as a sign they want to be superior and/or show no respect by calling the user by the name they have posted with or requested to be called by.
Condemn my comments?
Who cares? I don’t need a buttress, thanks. These are my “obviously crazy” notions and I stand by them, tooth and nail. I don’t need science or religiosity to help me to understand that a beating heart is a beating heart (within or without the womb). You zealots (on both sides) make it very tricky to be YOUR BRAND of “normal”.
I’ll always call a spade a spade, if that’s offensive to either of you, sorry. Some folks don’t like anothers’ opinion’s and I can live with that, can you? Don’t try and put me in between your little squabble for I represent myself, no one else.
If someone wants to have an abortion, let them have one safely, that is the woman’s choice. It’s not in any way mine or anyone else’s place to have a say. The effects are hers and hers alone to deal with, if she’s a God-fearing person, she will meet him and answer for it. If she is not, then it would seem victimless.
“Before I continue playing 20 questions with you, do you admit now that not all Pro-Life people believe what you said they did earlier?”
Huh? What the Hell are you referring to, Price?
Why argue WS Nathan?
You’ve a position of your own to defend.
A woman who has already HAD children is choosing an abortion. As it now seems is the majority in abortions.
What do you tell her? She’s lived experiences you can never know.
How will you convince her to “choose life” when everything around her is telling her otherwise?
You are, as usual, wrong James. About me anyway.
I have called no one here by their last name. Not even you.
And please do not post as to respecting nics.
You have called them irrelevant and worked very hard to make that so.
Price, even if you yank the pilot out of the cockpit before the plane lands, or even if the pilot is wearing a raincoat, some times the plane crashes anyway.
Are you suggesting that there is no time that it is appropriate for air traffic control to abort the landing?
Huh?
I’m outta here - can’t get any straight answers - so this is getting really boring.
I don’t need anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me, no buttress or pat on the back. These are my cold, hard “obviously crazy” notions. I call a spade a spade. I do not represent any “group”, no science or religiosity needed here to understand a beating heart is a beating heart.
If a woman wants an abortion, do it safely. I have no right (nor does anyone) to have a say in the matter. the decision is left in her hands and the effects are there as well. I know some women are left sad afterwards, to others, it must be like getting her nails done. If the chick is religious, she’ll meet her maker and “answer for it”, if she’s not. then there seems to be no “victim”.
I just don’t like them, deal with it.
I find it highly amusing that the majority of comments on this thread are being made by men. And when those few (real) women speak up, the men either ignore them or basically call them stupid.
Thanks, guys. Now you know why we don’t really want your opinion on what we can or cannot do with our bodies.
Pregnancy=something you’ll NEVER have to deal with. Be happy about that.
A new poll finds that a majority of Americans oppose including coverage of abortion in any universal socialized health care plan put forward by presidential candidates.
61% of Republicans are pro-life, and 63% want all or most abortions outlawed. 43% of Democrats oppose abortion, but all elected Democrats will get arm-twisted into voting pro-abortion in any important vote, just as we have seen some recently-elected Democrats who campaigned on
pro-life issues betray their constituents, and turn and vote pro-abortion.
The Democrats’ Big Tent has a Big Stick inside it.
RD,
I have never simply ignored someone who posts with me in a discussion on abortion, except for those obvious trolls.
I have yet to simply call someone stupid here either.
I find it funny that you come here and make such sweeping generalities without actually adding much to the conversation yourself.
RD,
Would you say that only women should have an opinion on abortion?
I saw a poll a while back that revealed some 38% of people say they would never vote for a candidate that was pro-choice; and 38% say they would never vote for a candidate was anti-abortion. We’ve heard all the boilerplate arguments on Reproductive Rights from both sides. And it’s boring.
After all the pastic fetuses thrown at women, after all the self-righteous shouts of “Baby Killer” in Planned Parenthood parking lots, after all the televangelists milking money from the faithful for an issue that’s a certifiable loser, after 10,000 years of women seeking something, anything to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy… perhaps it’s time to agree to disagree and get politics out of the equation.
No woman seeks an abortion without considering her options. The abolitionists simply want to remove an option; safe, legal abortion. They’ve ended up tacitly promoting unsafe, illegal abortions.
Look, we’ve seen all the gory pictures, the amazing in-uterine photos of star babies developing from globs of cells into salamander look-alikes into human shaped things. We’ve seen the full-term Gerber Baby depicted on the floor of the Senate just before its brain gets sucked out in a so-called “partial birth abortion.”
We’ve let play the abolitionists’ fantasy that a woman might carry a perfectly healthy pregnancy for eight months and twenty-nine days then blithely decide on a whim to abort it.
After all those Gerber baby depictions, plastic fetuses, “Baby-Killer”-shouters, et al… if such a woman exists who would choose to termindate a viable pregnancy at the latest point, maybe she’s not mothering material, ya think?
As for the so-called “Human Life Amendment,” part of The Huckster’s agenda for amending us into a King James Version of the Consititution of the United States, people have been arguing about when “life” begins almost as long as they’ve been arguing how many angels can dance on a pinhead. And with about the same result.
As I write, my niece is recovering from a tubal pregnancy. She was using birth control but one of those sneaky sperm cells caught up with an ovum in her falopian tube — the beginning of “life” for some people. And instead of trying to attach itself to her uterus, the tiny little “life” stayed there and grew… and almost killed my niece.
For me, the whole “life begins at conception” argument tells me those advocates wanted my niece to die. You can’t talk your way out of this one, “pro-lifers.” That’s what your rhetoric means, whether you realize it or not.
And, frankly, I don’t think you do realize it.
It’s like the old ham-and-eggs breakfast anaolgy: to the chicken, it’s a contribution; to the pig, its a committment. In the Reproductive Rights argument, we males are mere contributors; females are the… (okay, I’m not gonna go there).
The real-world issues — and I won’t address rape and incest and a bunch of other issues in this post — make Reproductive Rights rightfully a female issue, which is why it’s all about “a woman’s right to choose. It’s as silly as expecting “Nathan” or “outlander” or “Econ101″ or “Regular (or whomever he is today)” dictating to women which tampon is most comfortable to use. (use any orifice you have handy to product-test, guys)
“Life” in a Constitutional America begins at birth. It’s arbitrary, I grant you that. But you get to drive 16 years after you leave the womb. You get to vote 18 years after you leave the womb. You get to drink 21 years after you leave the womb. To the day.
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Convince everyone you know to not have one. That’s fine with me. You have the right to persuade anyone and everyone to believe as you do. But don’t go putting your personal and religious beliefs into civil law simply because you might be able to muster up a majority at the polls.
MonkeyHawk,
Almost all Pro-Life people I know believe that when the mothers life is at risk then it is not the governments job to determine who’s life is worth saving.
So, when you interject your little anecdotal story about your neice and then arbitraily say that we wanted her to die, you are full of crap.
When we believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting, it is not silly for outlander, myself, or anyone else to want to protect that life from being killed simply for the mere conveinence of the mother.
I think outlander is a married parent Nathan.
You are not.
Now outlander quit the field when I called him on his stand. I won’t bash it in his absence. Neither do you get to glom onto it.
“When we believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting”
We know now that women choosing GET you and yours Nathan. What is suspect is where you are for these women AFTER they give birth.
I cite another thread this blog TODAY as evidence that this nation is not pro life. Can a mother stop her caring when the baby is born?
How can you do so and demand she go on alone?
Nathan, I’d like to see your thoughts on my solution…since you’re on of the most vocal pro-life people on here.
for that matter, if the technology was developed for a male to carry a pregnancy to full-term, would you put your belly where your mouth is?
“Nathan” offers –
“Almost all Pro-Life people I know believe that when the mothers (sic) life is at risk then it is not the governments (sic) job to determine who’s (sic) life is worth saving.”
So it comes down to a pregnant woman’s right to choose?
Welcome to the club, “Nathan.”
Now get your so-called “Pro-Life,” “Life begins at conception,” “You got raped by your father, have the kid” maniacs to back off.
And then you add, “So, when you interject your little anecdotal story about your neice (sic) and then arbitraily (sic) say that we wanted her to die, you are full of crap.”
<