# Do-It-Yourself - Abortion.



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2007)

Full Disclosure - I did not watch the Republican Party, CNN, YouTube Debate. 

The vast majority of the Republican Party has consistantly supported over-riding the Supreme Court's Roe-V-Wade decision which federalized protections for a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. One of the conundrums' of this position is, what to do with those who terminate a pregnancy, if the law is repealed. What is the appropriate punishment for an agent who breaks the law? 

If (or When according to their Party position) Roe-v-Wade is overturned, and a woman chooses to terminate, who is the criminal? 

This question came up in the YouTube / CNN debate this past week. Senator Thompson's response was



> The question is who get penalized and what should be the penalty. I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws that outlaw abortion after viability and it [the criminal penalty] goes to the doctor performing the abortion not the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be. I think that same pattern needs to be followed.


 
The interesting phrase here, is "whoever it might be" ... as long as that whoever is not a doctor. Medical Doctors will be charged and held as criminals if they carry out the wishes of their patients, but the patient will not be held responsible for the "crime". Also, according to Senator Thompson, it will not be criminal for a parent to terminate the unwanted pregnancy of his or her daughter.

"[W]hoever it might be" would probably also mean that the life sentence of Geraldo Flores would be overturned. A couple of years ago, young Mr. Flores punched his girlfriends' abdomen repeatedly to terminate her unwanted pregnancy. He was convicted of two counts of capital murder, for the two induced miscarriages. 

As I understand it, from the debate podium's, there was not one candidate who would have taken a different position. A pregnant woman will, apparently, be able to terminate her own pregnancy without fear of criminal jeopardy. But, any person skilled and knowledgeable with human health care will not be able to assist, without fear of criminal charge and punishment.

Something just doesn't seem right about that.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 30, 2007)

So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Something just doesn't seem right about that.


 
That does seem a litt bassackwards! So basically a girl who is pregnant and doesnt want to keep the child can perform the abortion herself and be charged with nothing? But if someone knowledgable of human health care will be charged with murder? What qualifies as *knowledgable*? 



Kreth said:


> So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?


 
Honestly, I wouldnt be suprised if they did

B


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2007)

I've got five words for the republican party ...

_:stoplurk:   *Stay away from my vagina.  *:wuguns:

_​
When the first woman who self-treats dies, will we get to try the SCJ's who voted such legislation in for double murder if they do?  Manslaughter?


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 30, 2007)

The two big issues that I see here are 1) The entire abortion issue itself and 2) The self termination attempts.  

Personally, I see a use for abortions.  I don't think that they should be used as birth control, but there are situations where it makes sense.  When the mother is in danger, obviously....and if the child is in danger.  Now, that doesn't mean that they might not survive afterwards, but there are alot of situations where the mother simply cannot take care of the child - or will not.  The child will end up in an orphanage or in a bad home.  If the mother is mature enough to know that she CANNOT take care of the child, I feel that it is for the greater good.  If abortions are made illegal, society will be inundated with children that cannot be taken care of, with no or bad homes, and who society as a whole will be forced to take care of, by way of taxes and government assistance.  Politicians really need to look at this with a pragmatic approach in my opinion.

If we put those who would perform the abortion in jail or otherwise punish them, women may start doing them on their own.  This may not only hurt the mother, but it may also end up in a severely damaged child...


But then, my honest opinion is that Politicians just need something controversial to argue about.  I don't see this as an issue needing federal intervention....it is an ethical problem - if you don't agree with it, don't do it!!!  If you don't want other people to do it....too bad, that's life.  There's lots of stuff that I don't want other people to do and that I don't think is ethical, but they do it anyway.  Nothing I can do about.


----------



## Ray (Nov 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Medical Doctors will be charged and held as criminals if they carry out the wishes of their patients, but the patient will not be held responsible for the "crime".


In general MDs shouldn't necessarily just carry out the wishes of their patients.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2007)

Pardon my ignorance of how American laws are enacted but is abortion legal because of the court ruling or a law passed by the government?
In the UK abortion is legal because of an Act of Parliament, it was debated in the House of Commons voted on and passed then the same in the House of Lords, it is the law now and can only be overturned the same way that it was passed and that's not likely to happen now. It's not even an issue in elections now, I can't remember the last time it was even mentioned. 

Shesulsa, love that post! I agree!


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Pardon my ignorance of how American laws are enacted but is abortion legal because of the court ruling or a law passed by the government?
> In the UK abortion is legal because of an Act of Parliament, it was debated in the House of Commons voted on and passed then the same in the House of Lords, it is the law now and can only be overturned the same way that it was passed and that's not likely to happen now. It's not even an issue in elections now, I can't remember the last time it was even mentioned.
> 
> Shesulsa, love that post! I agree!


Thanks.

Here it became legal via a court ruling in the legal case of Roe vs. Wade.  Google it or look it up on Wiki, it's a lot faster than my retyping - I'm sure I'd screw something up anyway.

So you'll often hear right-to-lifers crying to 'overturn Roe V. Wade' to make abortion illegal again.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2007)

Here is the link to the Wiki article on Roe v Wade.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Pardon my ignorance of how American laws are enacted but is abortion legal because of the court ruling or a law passed by the government?



The Supreme Court overturned the laws banning it on constitutional grounds. So, it's a court ruling that makes it legal in some states and specific state laws that allow for it in others (e.g., if memory serves it's a constitutional right in California--I could be wrong).


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 30, 2007)

The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born.  Then, it can go to hell for all they care.

I'm not sure of the motivation.  I understand that the churches wish to make abortion illegal, but I can't see the logic of that.  Let me explain why I am confused. 

As I understand it, the Christian religion teaches that you have ONE SHOT at getting into heaven (or else you end up in hell).  Now, there 
*may* be various LEVELS of heaven and hell, but let's keep it simple for this argument.

A human is born, and then comes to some age of accountability.  At some later point they die.  They are then assigned to EITHER heaven or hell.  So, there is some chance that they will go to hell.

Okay, now, consider this.  A pregnancy is aborted.  IF that fetus is human (and has a soul), that human has not yet reached the age of accountability.  Therefore, upon its death, the soul enters into heaven.  We have a *100%* *guarantee *that the soul makes it to heaven.  What could be finer?  The soul in question "hits the lottery", big time.  Not only do they not have to experience this world (which is so sorry that it itself should be aborted, IMHO), but they also get to go to paradise, no questions asked. 

???

Where exactly is the problem with this???

Why would churches be so opposed to this?  It makes no sense to me!


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2007)

Actually ... if memory serves (dusts it off and shakes it a little), I believe most Christians believe we are all born sinners and one could logically and emotionally conclude that since many in the church believe a baby is a baby from conception and that life beings at conception that original sin is already present from that moment on and that the soul will indeed spend eternity in the service of Satan.  Only if the entity is successfully born (regardless of status) and baptized can the soul enter heaven.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 30, 2007)

I suspect that it has something to do with this:

I for one, see things my own way, which admittedly may be quite strange, but this is how I see it:

The world sucks (if you REALLY have a good look at it).  I'm not talking about "our" world.  I'm talking about the world of suffering which we are protected from.  Our hearts cry out, "Why will God not fix things?"  Why all these diseases, heartache, etc.

Some voices cry out, "Its up to us, the humans to fix things".  But, that does not work.  We cannot manage to fix things.  So, we cry out again, "Please, God, fix things."

But, He does not.

So, the only way to REALLY beat the game is to NOT HAVE OFFSPRING.  One way or another, if no one spawns children, the game comes to an end.  No more human suffering.

This "opting out" is scary to some, perhaps.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 30, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Actually ... if memory serves (dusts it off and shakes it a little), I believe most Christians believe we are all born sinners and one could logically and emotionally conclude that since many in the church believe a baby is a baby from conception and that life beings at conception that original sin is already present from that moment on and that the soul will indeed spend eternity in the service of Satan.  Only if the entity is successfully born (regardless of status) and baptized can the soul enter heaven.



I remember being taught differently.  Of course, teachings can vary WIDELY, and there is no way that I know of that it can be confirmed one way or another.  There are warring factions within Christianity, as well as other religions.  

If only it were simpler, more "sure", validated by some measurements!  For something so important to be left up to such interpretation is very unsettling!


----------



## morph4me (Nov 30, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.


 

Well said!!

The whole abortion issue has always seemd to me to be one of the government butting in to protect a fetus at the expense of a child. Much like the pro lifers who blow up abortion clinics, they are pro life only if that life is a fetus, and yet they don't seem to see the irony :idunno:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2007)

I suppose I'm a cynic but I feel the abortion argument like most things isn't actually about religion but control. Religion is the means of control in this case, it could just as easily be argued the other way around as in China where you are made to have abortions if you get pregnant after having your one 'allowed' child all for the general good of course but it is still other people wanting the control of the majority.
I will allow that there are people who are genuinely concerned for the unborn child but how many are really just wanting people to conform to a rigid set of rules? Made by them of course! 
Why should other people worry whether I'm going to hell or not?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.
> 
> I'm not sure of the motivation. I understand that the churches wish to make abortion illegal, but I can't see the logic of that. Let me explain why I am confused.
> 
> ...


 
Wow ... this sure mucks up the thread. 

I was discussing the politics of the United States of America. 

You are discussing theology. 

As I recall, our Constitution states that there will be NO Religious Test for service in our government, EVER.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Wow ... this sure mucks up the thread.



Sorry for mucking the thread.  It was not intended.  The argument is a political one.  People elect presidents, who appoint Supreme Court judges.  Groups sometimes vote in blocks.  The religious community sometimes votes as a block.

To wonder about what motivates their vote I thought would be fitting in the thread.  I was wrong.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As I recall, our Constitution states that there will be NO Religious Test for service in our government, EVER.




True, but it also bans passing laws based on the beliefs of one religion.

The only justification for anti-abortion laws is that one (powerful and perhaps still in the majority) religion says it's a no-no.

I have my own opinions about abortion at the personal level.  Everybody does, and they're strong opinions.  But it is _not the government's place _to have an opinion on this issue.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I have my own opinions about abortion at the personal level. Everybody does, and they're strong opinions. But it is _not the government's place _to have an opinion on this issue.


 
Which begs the question(s) ... 

Why does the Republican Party have such an opinion? 

Why would someone vote for a Republican Candidate when the principles of that Party are in conflict with the principles of Government they hope to serve?

I don't ever expect this discussion to reach those who are religiously motivated to a 'pro-life' position. I'm not trying to reach them. There are, however, many people who look to the Republican Party for other reasons. 

One begins to wonder when those who support the (theoretical) smaller government/less taxes/more individual responsibility positions within the Republican Party will be driven away from the Party by the incredibly radical idea of medical self-diagnosis and treatment, which can only endanger young women at difficult points in their lives.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

I think you hit the nail on the head.  The Republican Party, for coming on to thirty years, has aggressively courted the conservative Christian vote.

Take for example the 2004 election.  I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories, but I do believe this.  If all the conservative Christian voters who came out just to oppose gay marriage had stayed home, it would be Kerry & Edwards running for re-election next year.

Since they rely on that group for their power base, Republicans have to court certain issues that have no place in government at all, less still the federal government.


----------



## crushing (Nov 30, 2007)

Kreth said:


> So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?


 
Wow, that is an incredible jump.  I think most pro-lifers recognize the difference between abortion and contraception.  Some of the pro-lifers that are also relgious may have separate doctrine regarding contraception, but the two things shouldn't be confused.



newGuy12 said:


> The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.


 
I've heard similar claims before, but I haven't seen that at all.  Where have you seen this situation?


----------



## crushing (Nov 30, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head. The Republican Party, for coming on to thirty years, has aggressively courted the conservative Christian vote.
> 
> *Take for example the 2004 election. I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories, but I do believe this. If all the conservative Christian voters who came out just to oppose gay marriage had stayed home, it would be Kerry & Edwards running for re-election next year.*
> 
> Since they rely on that group for their power base, Republicans have to court certain issues that have no place in government at all, less still the federal government.


 
Not necessarily.  Only a few states had the anti-gay marriage proposals, and two of the states where such proposals passed also went to Kerry/Edwards.  Unfortunately, one of those states that passed an anti-gay marriage proposal is my home state of Michigan.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

crushing said:


> Wow, that is an incredible jump.  I think most pro-lifers recognize the difference between abortion and contraception.  Some of the pro-lifers that are also relgious may have separate doctrine regarding contraception, but the two things shouldn't be confused.



Probably extreme, but look at the sources.  Many pro-lifers come from religions that also oppose contraception.  If they get their way on this issue, why wouldn't they push further?  That's just human nature.





crushing said:


> I've heard similar claims before, but I haven't seen that at all.  Where have you seen this situation?



Much of the pro-life movement aligns heavily with the conservative elements on the political spectrum.  Those same elements often support the death penalty and push to cut funding to social programs, education and welfare.

I'm not saying I disagree with those sentiments, but you can see how the poster's statement isn't entirely without merit.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 30, 2007)

crushing said:


> Wow, that is an incredible jump.  I think most pro-lifers recognize the difference between abortion and contraception.  Some of the pro-lifers that are also relgious may have separate doctrine regarding contraception, but the two things shouldn't be confused.


I don't think it's that big of a jump. If we're going to legislate a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, why not legislate surgical contraception? It's as slippery a slope as gun control. If abortion is illegal, then will we have investigations into women who deliver stillborn, due to poor health? After all, that baby might have survived had she taken better care of herself. :idunno:


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2007)

Kreth said:


> If abortion is illegal, then will we have investigations into women who deliver stillborn, due to poor health? After all, that baby might have survived had she taken better care of herself. :idunno:


And before anyone thinks that *this* is a slippery slope, pay attention to all the chubby kids who are being taken from their parents by the authorities and charging their parents with neglect because they're overweight or obese.

Your rights and tax dollars ... down the friggin' bowl ....


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head. *The Republican Party, for coming on to thirty years, has aggressively courted the conservative Christian vote.*
> 
> Take for example the 2004 election. I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories, but I do believe this. If all the conservative Christian voters who came out just to oppose gay marriage had stayed home, it would be Kerry & Edwards running for re-election next year.
> 
> ...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

Tez, it's probably a little bit of both (kinda like any relationship...I'm in good shape because I like to be in good shape...at the same time, I'm in even better shape because my _wife_ likes me to be in good shape).  But the result is the same...legislation of issues that have no place in the political realm.


----------



## Catalyst (Nov 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As I understand it, from the debate podium's, there was not one candidate who would have taken a different position. A pregnant woman will, apparently, be able to terminate her own pregnancy without fear of criminal jeopardy. But, any person skilled and knowledgeable with human health care will not be able to assist, without fear of criminal charge and punishment.
> 
> Something just doesn't seem right about that.


 
If I understand it correctly, I would have to agree with you.

The doctor/health professional is not the decision-maker, they're just the means to the end. 

If someone hires a hitman to rub out a spouse, business partner, etc. for life insurance money; they're just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I don't see what would make the circumstances of the abortion any different the hired hitman example.

Rudy Giuliani (albeit a different candidate) possessed fanatical zealotry in going after the Mafia Bosses who ordered killings, not just the Mafia Hitman who pulled the trigger.

Maybe I'm missing something ?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Full Disclosure - I did not watch the Republican Party, CNN, YouTube Debate.
> 
> The vast majority of the Republican Party has consistantly supported over-riding the Supreme Court's Roe-V-Wade decision which federalized protections for a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. One of the conundrums' of this position is, what to do with those who terminate a pregnancy, if the law is repealed. What is the appropriate punishment for an agent who breaks the law?
> 
> ...


 
Two things: 

(1)  The phrase, "whoever it might be", at least in the context of the quote you provided, seems to just be one of those things you add in when you're speaking on-the-spot; I don't think it had any substance to it.  Presuming for the moment that Roe v. Wade is overturned, I expect that they would punish the aborting doctor for the same reason they punished Dr. Kavorkian: the act is illegal, and the doctor in question is ultimately responsible for it being performed, no matter what the patient's wishes were.  

(2) As for the at-home abortions, whether they be through means similar to the Geraldo Flores case or through the use of a wire-hanger, I don't see why they would be treated any differently then they were already with the Flores situation.  Perhaps with Flores, they were simply punishing him for the consequences of his assault, but even if it were the pregnant woman herself who was performing the abortion, I don't know quite why she'd get a free pass.  Maybe I missed something.  

All that said, I'd vote against anyone who tried to mess with the Roe v. Wade decision.  It doesn't even say abortion's alright, it simply sets limits on state laws that attempt to legislate abortions.  Any attempts to go beyond the limitations of Roe v. Wade in making abortion illegal smacks of dogmatism.


----------



## Kacey (Nov 30, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born.  Then, it can go to hell for all they care.



I actually know several women this happened to, over the course of a couple of years; they had made the very difficult decision to end an unwanted pregnancy, and had gone to a local Planned Parenthood office to arrange for the procedure.  As each left the planning appointment (which included counseling, to be sure that they did not want to carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption) they were accosted by people who spent hours convincing them not to terminate the pregnancy, and more, to keep the unwanted child following the birth.  Three of them were convinced to do so (the fourth had a spontaneous miscarriage at 2 1/2 months, while the pro-lifers were still attempting to convince her to complete the pregnancy).  The pro-lifers provided money for prenatal care, helped with birthing classes, and held baby showers for each one of them - even drove one of them to the hospital for the birth.  Once the babies were born - nothing.  No support - emotional, financial, assistance with child care - nothing.  Once the child was born, they were no longer interested; their aim was accomplished.

If you don't approve of abortion - don't have one, but don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my own procreative system.  Likewise, if you are going to allow your religious/moral convictions to lead you into talking women out of abortions, then accept that you have just made yourself responsible for the child(ren) you save, from that moment until the child(ren) are self-supporting.  If you cannot, or will not, accept that responsibility, then mind your own damn business.

I recognize that others will have different experiences and opinions than the ones I expressed above - and that's your right, just as it is my right to hold the opinion I do.  As a teacher in a low-income area, I have had to teach far too many unwanted children, children who are clearly aware that they are unwanted - I see no reason to add to the problem by legally restricting abortions from those who want them.  I do not agree with those who use abortion in place of birth control - I see a moral/ethical difference between preventing conception and ending it - but that does not mean I have the right to force my moral/ethical code on others simply because their life experiences have given them a different perspective - and neither does anyone else, when it relates to a person's control over her (or his) own body.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 30, 2007)

Kreth said:


> So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?



No, I think it's more of a "when does human life begin?" situation, not a "whether human life should begin" issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Why would someone vote for a Republican Candidate when the principles of that Party are in conflict with the principles of Government they hope to serve?


 
Good point.  If the government can control a person's uterus, what else can they control?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Take for example the 2004 election. I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories...


 
Then you have not done enough research and have listened to too many talking heads.  The electoral system in this country has been compromised.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Then you have not done enough research and have listened to too many talking heads.  The electoral system in this country has been compromised.



Actually I've done enough research to dismiss most of the hysteria out of hand.

Does our system of government adequately represent the will of the people?  Not by a long stretch.  But this isn't because of back-alley shenanigans.  It's because of how the system is built.

It's not compromised.  It's just not doing the job you want it to do.


----------



## crushing (Nov 30, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Good point. If the government can control a person's uterus, what else can they control?


 
No one cares what a woman does with her own uterus.  This isn't about a hysterectomy.  The concern comes in is when the action affects another person.

If Susan Smith drove her car into a lake, and her 'unwanted' kids were not in it, no one would have really cared, except for maybe the insurance company when she claimed it was stolen.

You can do with your fists and feet whatever you want, hit a heavy bag, do a hyung, but the laws tell you not to use them as weapons against innocent people.  Is that not also the government controlling your body in a similar fashion?

I do find Thompson's response curious, to say the least.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Then you have not done enough research and have listened to too many talking heads. The electoral system in this country has been compromised.


 
If we haven't done anything about it since the compromise in 1960, do you think anything will ever be done?


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 1, 2007)

The primary concern of Pro-Lifers: they're afraid of their "Christian Nation" being out-bred by the Muslims.


----------



## kaizasosei (Dec 1, 2007)

abortion is truly a classic amongst difficult topics.  Very difficult subject.  

Being an active parent or someone that has become aware, it becomes apparent what a great influence our action and even opinions can have on our surroundings.  i think that in a similar way, all the different sources of spiritual or moral guidance, are in a similar position.



> Why should other people worry whether I'm going to hell or not?



this is funny... i guess if someone really cared  about your spiritual wellbeing, it would be a noble thing.  however, i'm pretty sure most are just using it as an excuse to maintain their powertrip.

so for example if we make marijuana legal, many people will take to smoking and much will change- ultimately, certain types of people will flock in the smoking areas and many more otherdrug-users will also gather there.  so at first whilst we thought it was alright to legalize marijuana begin wondering about the subsequent reprocussions.  stuff escalates.  that is why lawmaking is truly a facinating subject in itself.  the initial potheads turned into an acceptable culture clouded by still graver elements of the drugworld.

my personal take on abortion is, the mother should decide and have some degree of controll over her situation.  
i mean, i'm not saying i am disagreeing with the catholic 'life is too holy' spiel, actually, i agree more than i don't.  however, i dislike hateful and hasty kinds of extremism.  after all, suicide is not permited in the catholic church.  however, it would be impossible to try to keep someone alive if they didn't want to live.  
  Is an unborn baby a life that needs to be protected?  yes. i do think so.  however, it is the child of an individual that has the responsibility to govern  his own world.  

lawmakers will continue to face much opposition whatever guidelines they offer or laws they impose.

i think people need too spend less time making laws and more time helping on another.  with all the killing, starving and death in the world, it is not as big as an issue as some would have you believe.  however, human life is holy and everyone may play their part. but it doesnt help when leaders and great establishments of authority take up extreme positions,,,that is where this 'problem' originates from.  - no piece of cake to send it back to where it came from.  

with all the messed up medical procedures out there, i think it would be silly taking up a religious standpoint on even this most holy subject of unborn life.  those that claim they love life and claim that they are protecting it, should also find the heart to reach out and help those around them by supporting them and guiding them to the wisest decision.  not by judging them on whatever evil.

so when is it ok to abort?  well, it is when your children come to you? when you yourself are in trouble, it suddenly all changes.

well, just for the record, if i were a woman, the chance that i would abort would probably be under 1 percent.  if my wife or girlfriend would be pregnant, i would never ask for an abortion no matter what.  also, most likely i would be happy.  der mensch denkt, gott lenkt. 'mankind sneers but god steers'- if my girlfriend or wife were to get pregnant and want to abort, i would probably beg her not to-maybe even get angry, but i don't think i could have any real control over the situation-even as the wouldbe father.

if people realized the imortality of having children and just how precious their own blood is, then i guess they would be less likely to want to abort.  

it's like asking someone? do you want to spar?  do you want to go hiking? do you want to have a baby?  - so often times, in my eyes, abortion is a sign of weakness and stupidity. ok stupidity might be to strong and judgemental a word.  

 basically, one shouldnt judge anothers situation that one hasnt studied indepthly..and that's only the beginning.


j


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 1, 2007)

A few things...



kaizasosei said:


> so for example if we make marijuana legal, many people will take to smoking and much will change- ultimately, certain types of people will flock in the smoking areas and many more otherdrug-users will also gather there. so at first whilst we thought it was alright to legalize marijuana begin wondering about the subsequent reprocussions. stuff escalates. that is why lawmaking is truly a facinating subject in itself. the initial potheads turned into an acceptable culture clouded by still graver elements of the drugworld.


 
Here's another perspective on this....I am assuming that you are using this as a metaphor for the downward spiral that Abortion may taken.  Degenerating into basically birth control for some people (If I'm putting words into your mouth, please correct me!).  But my opinion is that our world seeks balance.  Look at the animal world.  Without human intervention, things will balance out.  Over time, a proportion will become apparent where there are just the right number of predators and prey.  There may be a population explosion, but then, as more resources are consumed and the predators can't keep up, the larger population will shrink for lack of resources.  Same with predators, if there isn't enough prey, either the extra predators will die and the stronger faster ones will live or more prey will emerge to compensate (due to not as much hunting) and it circles in repetitive iterations until balance exists.  (stay with me, I'm getting to a point)

Take the drug example.  If Marijuana were suddenly legalized....at first, there would be a HUGE population explosion.  Many people who didn't smoke before would, those who do now would smoke more and more groups would start to form.  But there are some underlying psychological and societal changes that would start.  Part of the appeal is that it IS illegal.  The ones who smoke now obviously don't care and the ones who start will be doing it for opportunity.  But after the initial shock, a balance would start to form.  Those who were doing it just because they never could would get their chance to try it and either continue or stop completely.  Those who were doing it anyway would now be able to do it in public or in special areas - no longer taboo, nothing special.  Is there rampant marijuana smoking in Amersterdam?  You'd never know.  Those who do it stay where they belong, do it responsibily and don't bother anyway (The other problem with this example is that people who are high are NOT violent and generally are not hurting others).  Eventually, a balance begins to exist.  Just like drinking in Germany....there nearly as big of a problem with alcoholism or drunk driving or addiction.  Because its just always legal.  It isn't an issue, they are taught responsibility from an early age.  There's nothing special about it.

Now I'm not saying that people are having abortions because it is taboo and not allowed, but if it was no longer an issue, a balance would emerge.  Right now, the predators and prey are fighting for dominance.  If the issue was removed, people would find a way to create balance.  If the legal issues and moral pressure was removed, there would probably initially be many more people doing it.  But look at economic laws of supply and demand....demand increases, the first thing that happens is prices gradually start going up, then more suppliers emerge to fill the gap and the start ups get the money, then other compensate.  Eventually a balance is reached.  The same happens with the moral, people will be raised with the possibility and it not being controversial.  Parents who believe it is wrong will teach their children.  They will group up without a question in their minds.  Parents who do not, will not influence their children.  Eventually both groups will become mature thinkers and make decisions for themselves and a balance would emerge.  



kaizasosei said:


> my personal take on abortion is, the mother should decide and have some degree of controll over her situation.
> i mean, i'm not saying i am disagreeing with the catholic 'life is too holy' spiel, actually, i agree more than i don't. however, i dislike hateful and hasty kinds of extremism. after all, suicide is not permited in the catholic church. however, it would be impossible to try to keep someone alive if they didn't want to live.
> Is an unborn baby a life that needs to be protected? yes. i do think so. however, it is the child of an individual that has the responsibility to govern his own world.
> 
> lawmakers will continue to face much opposition whatever guidelines they offer or laws they impose.


 
This is the real root of the arugument...An unborn baby's life must be protected because it cannot protect itself.  But at what cost?  At the cost of the mother?  At the cost of society?  At the cost of the child later in life?  A lot of these babies being protected are in reality being doomed.  Not to sound cold, but some would be better off aborted.  I am of course referring to a situation where the pregnancy was accidental and the mother KNOWS that she cannot support the child and does not want the child.  I mean, if my wife accidentally got pregnant, we wouldn't get an abortion, we wouldn't need.  We can support the child, we eventually want children, it would be unexpected, but welcomed.  Now....two years ago, it would be different.  Unmarried, not making enough money to support the kid, a life style that isn't condusive to kids (military without the option of getting out - we couldn't take a kid to Korea).  In that case, it may have been a good choice.  Of course, I don't know because I wasn't in the situation....so I don't presume to know what I would have done.  But if the option wouldn't have existed the child would be the one punished.  Life is precious, but a choice must be made for some people.  Have a kid, not be able to afford it, not want the child, the child has no money, a bad home life, has severely reduce opportunities in life....and it goes on.



kaizasosei said:


> i think people need too spend less time making laws and more time helping on another. with all the killing, starving and death in the world, it is not as big as an issue as some would have you believe. however, human life is holy and everyone may play their part. but it doesnt help when leaders and great establishments of authority take up extreme positions,,,that is where this 'problem' originates from. - no piece of cake to send it back to where it came from.


 
Exactly - if the government would stop worrying about this and using it as an election tactic and take care of the people we already have the issue wouldn't be as big of a deal.  If they want abortion to stop, don't make it illegal, give those people who need it options.  Take care of them, before they have the child AND after.  Nothing is solved by making an anti-abortion law.  It will just go underground.  Did drugs stop being used when they were made illegal?  Nope, it got much much worse.  Laudinum (an opiate) used to be sold over the counter and people would get high on it.  It was commonplace, but not a major problem.  It was legal.  There was no war on headaches.  Making things illegal complicates the problem.  Soon we're going to be having wars on illegal abortion clinics and wars on amateur abortors.......more of a tax on the legal system and law enforcement.  

Lets face it, Abortion is an election tactic.  Politicians DON'T CARE - face it.  They want elected, if telling people that they'll make killing legal would get them elected, it would be a new election platform.  Its just about power.  Period.  All they are doing it parroting their party's ideals and pretending they care - just like every other issue.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 1, 2007)

crushing said:


> No one cares what a woman does with her own uterus. This isn't about a hysterectomy. The concern comes in is when the action affects another person.
> 
> If Susan Smith drove her car into a lake, and her 'unwanted' kids were not in it, no one would have really cared, except for maybe the insurance company when she claimed it was stolen.
> 
> You can do with your fists and feet whatever you want, hit a heavy bag, do a hyung, but the laws tell you not to use them as weapons against innocent people. Is that not also the government controlling your body in a similar fashion?


 
There's a fine line here.  The concern comes in when the action affects other people - this is a true statement, but what happens when either alternative affects others.  

It is very tidy to have an opinion on this issue when it does not affect you (this is not directed at any individual, no offense intended), but when you are in the situation, things get different.  The problem with those on the "anti" side of the issue, in large part, have not considered the consequences of their actions.  As it has been said - we make a law, they are all happy and stop protesting and walk away.....and then they go find some other issue to protest.

But what is left behind.....a bunch of women with unwanted children.  And more importantly, a bunch of children who are unwanted.  I feel that those who support abortion are much more concerned about the people and their lives.  I feel that they need to consider this.....What will happen to those unwanted children AFTER they are born???  


Oh.....and when answering that question, no being idealistic!  Can't say that the mother will find a way.  Or that the community will support them.  That's easy to say now, but in reality, she may not find a way, the community might not care, the child MAY end up homeless and start committing crime.....just like on Dr. Phil....."Because my parents didn't love me enough." (I know....logical fallacy....emotional appeal)


----------



## kaizasosei (Dec 1, 2007)

what you say is very realistic.  

i could argue that by judging people one could be in effect already affecting them negatively.  unfortunately, and for several reasons, physical violence is often a direct result of emotional turmoil.  matter of fact it is like that for probably 95% of all physical violence.  accidents not included of course.

most all fights and strikes break out after the subjects feel emotionally hit or infringed on.  

so violence could be seen as a kind of language to many.  unfortunately or fortunately??  whatever the case, the law does not permit unjust violence, but has the eye to be usually able to judge the truth of the matter when necessary violence occurs.  -ofcourse im sure the system is still far from perfect also there are sometimes terrible mistakes made and innocent people incarcerated.


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 1, 2007)

here is a link for some fun reading. http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html 
It goes on about several females who picket the clinics only to return later for an abortion them selfs!

My view on abortion is simple. It is my body, it is my choice, when it is your body you can choose. I had a bumper sticker awhile back that read ~ Keep your laws off my ovaries and I'll keep my foot out of your ***. 

I have sat with my 14 year old cousin and helped her decide if she should keep her child, a product of incest. We sat and cried and debated all night over moral issues, health issues, money issues, I was there as a sounding board. My job and my goal was to give her a non-judgmental person to talk things out with. In the end she chose to abort. I gave her a hug and asked if she needed me to talk to her with her mom, and if she needed a ride to where ever she needed to go. Am I proud of that fact? no, incest and teen pregnancy's and abortion are never things to be proud of but it is not my body and not my choice. 
It was not easy, I wish every child conceived could have a good loving and safe home, but that is not going to be the case. 

On the same side of the family, i have a half cousin. Her first child was taken by the state and placed in the custody of the grand parents ( my aunt and uncle) because of drug use, neglect and other horrible things. A year later that same woman becomes preg again. She smoked, drank, and did drugs all through her pregnancy. She gave birth to a deformed child, who was addicted to heroin, that suffered for 3 days before her body gave up and she died. Maybe had the mother chose abortion that child wouldn't have known hell on earth for 3 days. But it was not my body, nor my child it was hers

But when i was 15,  I had a friend who boasted about each of her abortions. She could have sex and not face any of the consequence cus she was underage so Planned parenthood wouldn't charge her a dime for the services. Do i think she was correct in her behavior? no, but its not my body it is hers.

My views have changed a lot, and so far the best thing i can come up with is, to each there own. If you don't want an abortion don't get one, if you think is right for you, then that too is your choice.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 1, 2007)

kaizasosei said:


> what you say is very realistic.
> 
> i could argue that by judging people one could be in effect already affecting them negatively. unfortunately, and for several reasons, physical violence is often a direct result of emotional turmoil. matter of fact it is like that for probably 95% of all physical violence. accidents not included of course.
> 
> ...


 
It is true and has been proven time and time again that Theory X leaders create a self fulfilling prophecy...obviously this relates to worker motivation, but the same can hold true for people, expect the worst and you will get the worst.

But, I'm sure sure I follow how that relates to the abortion issue.  Like I've said before, I'm probably just a bit dense, but I'm not following the entire violence line of reasoning or what you are referring to with "i could argue that by judging people one could be in effect already affecting them negatively"  Please expand.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 1, 2007)

As I stated previously - I'm with Brandy on this one.  I don't agree with abortion used _instead_ of birth control, as I see a significant difference between preventing conception and ending it, but neither do I think that anyone not directly involved in the situation should have any say in the matter, either.  The father can request, certainly - but the mother should have the final say, unless and until medical procedures allow for the fetus to be transferred from the mother to the father.

I say again:  if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.  But don't tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body, simply because your moral/ethical precepts are different than mine.


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 1, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I say again:  if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.  But don't tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body, simply because your moral/ethical precepts are different than mine.



lol  yay for the short version of my post


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Which begs the question(s) ...
> 
> Why does the Republican Party have such an opinion?
> 
> Why would someone vote for a Republican Candidate when the principles of that Party are in conflict with the principles of Government they hope to serve?



While you champion against the evil republican party, remember that the same double standard applies to the democratic party as well. Most are very quick to throw away individual rights if they feel it will be better for the collective good, for example, and often make decisions that are directly in conflict with our principles of government.

By your logic, we shouldn't vote for anyone. I could just as easily say "how can anyone vote for a democrate when their principles are in conflict with our government," too.

But to do so would really not be productive, and would only amount to a tricky way to try to get people to not vote for a (rep., dem., green, etc.). Finding one broad principle of a larger party, picking it apart, and using it to broad stroke all individuals in that party is ineffective. Canidates are far too diverse within  each party  for that to paint an accurate picture.  One example is Guilliani being a republican, but being pro-choice. 

So we really need to look at individual canidates, his/her stance on an issue, and what effect they could have on the issue to make reasonable decisions here...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So we really need to look at individual canidates, his/her stance on an issue, and what effect they could have on the issue to make reasonable decisions here...



That said...

If you will notice, the presidents stance on this issue has had very little effect. The president can really only propose a bill, execute veto power, or elect a supreme court justice when that time comes to effect the issue.

Bush has been in office for almost 2 terms now, is pro-life, and has done nothing to change our current laws in favor of his pro-life stance. 

I think the same will be true with the republican nominee. I just don't see any president on either side (dem. or rep.) doing anything to change the current legal status of abortion. 

So to me, this is a non-issue when we are looking at potential presidents.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2007)

Well said BrandiJo and Kacey! it seems to me that more often than not that the 'pro-lifers' assume that the women who have abortions are the feckless unthinking ones whereas from what I've seen the opposite is true,I don't think there can be many, if any, women who have decided to have an abortion without a great deal of thought and heartsearching.The decision I believe is never taken lightly and the least people can do is respect that decision, they don't have to think it's right but it's not their decision, it's for the woman concerned to make. My support would be with a woman whatever decision she made, my views wouldn't come into it.


----------



## kaizasosei (Dec 1, 2007)

well, sorry for changing the subject somewhat.  

  although the subject at hand is abortion and whether or not it should be accepted. 
ultimately, the arguement will spiral into different avenues like morals and generaly what one might call philosophy as well as the more extreme religious views.  
i for one agree with what everyone is saying here.  basically i think i understand.  definately can relate.  however, there are many that may take offense at what they consider to be wrong or false.  and at that point discussions and arguements can get quite heated due to the strange kind of emotional attachment that we seem to have for some subjects more than others.  

to each his own- that sounds very fair to me.

j


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2007)

Kaizasosei, you've rather lost me I'm afraid.
 In my country abortion is accepted and is not an election or even a political issue anymore.There was a discussion a few weeks ago about changing the law as to when the cut off date for abortions should be in the light of medical advances that enable very premature babies to survive but there is no discussion about whether abortion should be legal or not. It's legal and accepted, I believe this is the position in many European countries too. No political party or politician would put abortion pro or anti on their manifesto. We don't have demos outside clinics or threats to medical staff. There are of course people who are anti abortion but they basically keep their thoughts to themselves or confine them to fellow believers on the whole. Every so often they will have a small campaign but they know the law will not be changed. Even the Catholic church here is quiet on the subject as they are about contraception now.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2007)

kaizasosei said:


> well, sorry for changing the subject somewhat.
> 
> although the subject at hand is abortion and whether or not it should be accepted.
> ultimately, the arguement will spiral into different avenues like morals and generaly what one might call philosophy as well as the more extreme religious views.
> ...


 
I think you misunderstand the original post. The subject at hand is not abortion, per se, but rather the Republican Party's position to make the proceedure illegal.

If they are able to overturn Roe V Wade, as it seems all Republican Party candidates desire it seems that they will be unwilling to bring charges against the individual who breaks the law; i.e. the woman who terminates a pregnancy.

Of course, overturning Roe V Wade, would put the decision of whether legal (and safe) abortions are available at the State level. So, those young women in Mississippi and Arkansas (choose your state here) will be unable to make decisions legally. If a young woman in a state that prohibits abortion, somehow manages to terminate a pregnancy (e.g. Violates the Law), the Republican Party told us they will not prosecute.

That's like giving Amnesty to the undocumented / illegal immigrants, isn't it? A known violator of the law will not be charged; will not be prosecuted.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think you misunderstand the original post. The subject at hand is not abortion, per se, but rather the Republican Party's position to make the proceedure illegal.
> 
> If they are able to overturn Roe V Wade, as it seems all Republican Party candidates desire it seems that they will be unwilling to bring charges against the individual who breaks the law; i.e. the woman who terminates a pregnancy.
> 
> ...


 

I think your question misses a few key points, chief among these that a woman doesn't (normally) perform an abortion, she has one performed on her. The doctor is the logical target, as the one who has committed the "crime"-hypothetically. And, as you pointed out, it will go to the states if the SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade-in which case, we will have a hodgepodge-legal to one extent in some states, to a greater extent in others, and not legal at all. I imagine that we'd see a lot of women-and _girls_- traveling from states where it was prohibited to states where they could obtain one by walking into any Planned Parenthood, still.....


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> While you champion against the evil republican party, remember that the same double standard applies to the democratic party as well. Most are very quick to throw away individual rights if they feel it will be better for the collective good, for example, and often make decisions that are directly in conflict with our principles of government.
> 
> By your logic, we shouldn't vote for anyone. I could just as easily say "how can anyone vote for a democrate when their principles are in conflict with our government," too.
> 
> ...


 


			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> That said...
> 
> If you will notice, the presidents stance on this issue has had very little effect. The president can really only propose a bill, execute veto power, or elect a supreme court justice when that time comes to effect the issue.
> 
> ...


 
There is much here ... 

First, if you wish to present the same arguement for or against the Democratic candidates, please specify an issue. An generic, well they do it to does not give us a very good starting point to discuss.

Second, Mr. Guiliani, while has supported the 'Pro-Choice' position in his elections, he has publically stated that he will appoint 'Strict Constructionist Judges'. Those who follow the issue know that this language is dog whistle code to the religous right. There is a belief that the Roe V Wade decision was a poor application of legal understanding by judges who interpretted a 'right to privacy' where none is spelled out in the Constitution or Amendments. A 'Strict Constructionist Judge' would not interpret a 'right to privacy' to exist. Thus, Roe V Wade is unconstitutional. 

In legal circles, a much more important code word is 'Stare Decisis'. Which means the decision stands. A judge, or court can veiw Roe V Wade as a matter of settled law. The decision of that 1974 Court has been law for more than three decades, and its decision stands.

As for your ascertion that President Bush has not acted in a Pro Life manner ... I can only say your analysis is extremely poor. 

Judge Roberts and Judge Alito both have indicated their willingness to ignore Stare Decisis. Both squirmed under the Judiciary's advise and consent hearings to be as vague as possible on the subjects, but in rulings since have shown their stripes. And, Mr Bush's circuit court appointments have been similarly radical right wing appointments, even if they have been under the radar. Often, those appointments were against suggestions of the Senators in the States served by those circuit courts.

And that is before we analize the bastardization of science the current administration has undertaken. The ban on Stem Cell Research has seriously hurt the American scientific community. The recent breakthrough on getting skin cells to behave like stem cells, the scientists tell us, could have taken place years ago without the Presidents' ban.

And, then look to Terry Schiavo. The President interrupted one of his vacations ~ how many vacation days has he had ~ to fly back to Washington to sign a law over-ruling the legal next of kin's authority, and keep Ms. Schiavo on life support.


. . . .  and you claim he has done "nothing".


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2007)

elder999 said:


> I think your question misses a few key points, chief among these that a woman doesn't (normally) perform an abortion, she has one performed on her. The doctor is the logical target, as the one who has committed the "crime"-hypothetically. And, as you pointed out, it will go to the states if the SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade-in which case, we will have a hodgepodge-legal to one extent in some states, to a greater extent in others, and not legal at all. I imagine that we'd see a lot of women-and _girls_- traveling from states where it was prohibited to states where they could obtain one by walking into any Planned Parenthood, still.....


 
The language Senator Thompson used was "*the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be.*" 

I posted the name Geraldo Flores, as a 'whoever it might be' candidate, who helped a young girl terminate a pregnancy she did not want. Mr. Flores was convicted of murder for the two aborted fetuses he battered to death in his girlfriends womb. Yes, he certain was the person who ended the pregnancy. But, it was at the wishes of the girl. 

Do you think the Senator was advocating that Parents perform abortions on their daughters? 


Lastly, I'm pretty sure that there is an 'Equal Protection' clause somewhere in those Amendments ... if we reverted the laws to the several States, would all American citizens have 'equal protection' in regard to choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The language Senator Thompson used was "*the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be.*"
> 
> I posted the name Geraldo Flores, as a 'whoever it might be' candidate, who helped a young girl terminate a pregnancy she did not want. Mr. Flores was convicted of murder for the two aborted fetuses he battered to death in his girlfriends womb. Yes, he certain was the person who ended the pregnancy. But, it was at the wishes of the girl.
> 
> ...


 
Geraldo flores was not a doctor-therefore, it what he did was illegal everywhere in the U.S.-additionally, whether he did it at her bidding or not, his actions constitued assault on his girl's person, and therefore, by extension, murder upon her fetus-just as though its death had occured in the commission of another crime, a mugging for instance.He also was not a "whoever it might be" candidate-he didn't _facilitate_ the performance of an abortion, or even perform one-he assaulted his girlfriend. I suppose if she had died (not at altogether implausible, under the circumstances) he shouldn't have been charged with murder, by your viewpoint?

As for what the Senator says, he was _legally correct_, no matter your (or anyone else's) feelings on the matter....


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2007)

Looking to Senator Thompson's language, it seemed to indicate that *after* Roe is overturned, a pregnant woman could choose to terminate her own pregnancy without fear of penalty; the girl's parents could assist in terminating an unwanted pregnancy without fear of penalty, and 'whoever it might be' could assist in terminating a pregnancy without fear of penalty. 

As to the idea of 'assualt'. Can the State bring this charge without an accuser? If we assume that Mr. Flores girlfriend wished to create a miscarriage, it is reasonable to believe she would not bring assault charges. 

You are usually more careful about ascribing motives. Are you attempting to bait me with your "by your viewpoint" comment? I am attempting to describe and understand the language and ramifications of the Republican Presidential Candidates. Also, I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. And, while having seen every episode of Law and Order 300 times doens't make me an expert, if the girlfriend died as a result of the attempted miscarriage, I think there might be a place for some charge;  something short of murder; manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or something like that. Would those charges be brought by the State if the family did not wish to press charges? 


As to the Senator being "legally correct" ... The language looks like the Senator is speculating, rather than making a definitive legal argument. And, in his analogy, he draws a specific reference to the 'parents' and 'whomever it may be' that would be outside of the penalty a medical professional would face.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Looking to Senator Thompson's language, it seemed to indicate that *after* Roe is overturned, a pregnant woman could choose to terminate her own pregnancy without fear of penalty; the girl's parents could assist in terminating an unwanted pregnancy without fear of penalty, and 'whoever it might be' could assist in terminating a pregnancy without fear of penalty.


 
I think he's saying that whoever _performs_ the abortion would be prosecutable (?-I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV either!)-as in the first part of his statement:



> I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws that outlaw abortion after viability and it [the criminal penalty] *goes to the doctor performing the abortion*_ not__ the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be._ I think that same pattern needs to be followed


 


michaeledward said:


> As to the idea of 'assualt'. Can the State bring this charge without an accuser? If we assume that Mr. Flores girlfriend wished to create a miscarriage, it is reasonable to believe she would not bring assault charges.


 
Yes, in many instances the state can and does bring assault charges without an accuser. This is a really good example of one, in that it constitutes _domestic violence_.



michaeledward said:


> You are usually more careful about ascribing motives. Are you attempting to bait me with your "by your viewpoint" comment? I am attempting to describe and understand the language and ramifications of the Republican Presidential Candidates.


 
Well, I don't think I have any difficulty understanding what he was saying, and I think "your viewpoint," or _interpretation_ is flawed.



michaeledward said:


> Also, I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. And, while having seen every episode of Law and Order 300 times doens't make me an expert, if the girlfriend died as a result of the attempted miscarriage, I think there might be a place for some charge; something short of murder; manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or something like that. Would those charges be brought by the State if the family did not wish to press charges?


 
While a lesser charge might be the one chosen by the authorities-usually for reasons as fundamental as getting a conviction from a jury with people like, well, *you* (or me!) on it-the state is typically the one that presses such charges, in the place of the victim, rather than the family, or the family's wishes-as in _The People vs...whoever_And, hell, Michael-I've got a daughter-I know that if she were to die under such circumstances (fat chance!), I wouldn't hesitate about pressing charges against the guy-would you?



michaeledward said:


> As to the Senator being "legally correct" ... The language looks like the Senator is speculating, rather than making a definitive legal argument. And, in his analogy, he draws a specific reference to the 'parents' and 'whomever it may be' that would be outside of the penalty a medical professional would face.



Well-I think that when referring to those outside the penalty:woman, girl, parents, whomever-he's talking about those that would facilitate, rather than perform, and I think it's pretty clear. In this context, and in reference to how he prefaced it, he is "legally correct": in circumstances where an abortion can be viewed as illegal, it is the person performing it: physician, physician's assistant, nurse, midwife or veterinarian-who is legally liable.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2007)

elder999 said:


> In this context, and in reference to how he prefaced it, he is "legally correct": in circumstances where an abortion can be viewed as illegal, it is the person performing it: physician, physician's assistant, nurse, midwife or veterinarian-who is legally liable.


 
And, doesn't that bring us back to where this thread started, a "Do it yourself" Abortion. 

A medical professional shall be punished, but if "_the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be"_ terminates her pregnancy, apparently, no jeopardy.

Isn't it also strange that Senator Thompson believes that only 'girl{s}, young girl{s}' have need to terminate a pregnancy. I suppose that makes the argument easier to take, for some.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 1, 2007)

kaizasosei said:


> so for example if we make marijuana legal, many people will take to smoking and much will change- ultimately, certain types of people will flock in the smoking areas and many more otherdrug-users will also gather there.  so at first whilst we thought it was alright to legalize marijuana begin wondering about the subsequent reprocussions.  stuff escalates.  that is why lawmaking is truly a facinating subject in itself.  the initial potheads turned into an acceptable culture clouded by still graver elements of the drugworld.



Do you really believe that anyone not smoking now will start up just because it's made legal? I find this very hard to believe.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 1, 2007)

I suppose we should look to the Greeks for their opinion, since we got democracy & most everything else from them. 
Their standards were pretty much as they are now, short of infanticide and selling of unwanted infants to slave traders and the like. 
They used birth control and had chemical and surgical abortions, as long as it was before the woman announce she was pregnant and was obviously showing & the fetus isn't viable. This goes along with our practices now. 
Let's keep church and state separate.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There is much here ...
> 
> First, if you wish to present the same arguement for or against the Democratic candidates, please specify an issue. An generic, well they do it to does not give us a very good starting point to discuss.



Well, I don't want to get into it here, because I think it would derail the thread. But broadly, most dems position on gun control is a big one.  Some  would say their position on having a stronger federal government with federal regulation and programs (rather then leaving those rights and regulations to the states) is another.

My point is that arguing along these lines is sort of silly. I think that we would need to look at the canidates rather then the party, and not broad brush everyone on a particular side of the political spectrum. 



> Second, Mr. Guiliani, while has supported the 'Pro-Choice' position in his elections, he has publically stated that he will appoint 'Strict Constructionist Judges'. Those who follow the issue know that this language is dog whistle code to the religous right. There is a belief that the Roe V Wade decision was a poor application of legal understanding by judges who interpretted a 'right to privacy' where none is spelled out in the Constitution or Amendments. A 'Strict Constructionist Judge' would not interpret a 'right to privacy' to exist. Thus, Roe V Wade is unconstitutional.



Well, I don't know about that. Strict constructionist does not necessarily mean that they will follow that line of arguing. The issue of privacy, and whether or not it should be protected goes far back and beyond this issue: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Point is, just because one is a constructionist, that doesn't mean that one would follow that same line of arguing to overthrow Roe V Wade.

That is here nor there, though. We just looked at the original canidate outside of his party for the answer, and that is the krux of it, and all I am saying. We have to look at the individuals, not just the party...



> In legal circles, a much more important code word is 'Stare Decisis'. Which means the decision stands. A judge, or court can veiw Roe V Wade as a matter of settled law. The decision of that 1974 Court has been law for more than three decades, and its decision stands.
> 
> As for your ascertion that President Bush has not acted in a Pro Life manner ... I can only say your analysis is extremely poor.
> 
> Judge Roberts and Judge Alito both have indicated their willingness to ignore Stare Decisis. Both squirmed under the Judiciary's advise and consent hearings to be as vague as possible on the subjects, but in rulings since have shown their stripes. And, Mr Bush's circuit court appointments have been similarly radical right wing appointments, even if they have been under the radar. Often, those appointments were against suggestions of the Senators in the States served by those circuit courts.



Judge Roberts specifically said that he would not overturn roe v wade earlier this year; Alito said he would look at it if it was revisited, but gave no indication that he would overturn the decision.

Regardless, have we seen ANY indication that the Supreme Court will take up the issue? Have abortion rights been terminated due to the election of these judges? Eh... no.



> And that is before we analize the bastardization of science the current administration has undertaken. The ban on Stem Cell Research has seriously hurt the American scientific community. The recent breakthrough on getting skin cells to behave like stem cells, the scientists tell us, could have taken place years ago without the Presidents' ban.
> 
> And, then look to Terry Schiavo. The President interrupted one of his vacations ~ how many vacation days has he had ~ to fly back to Washington to sign a law over-ruling the legal next of kin's authority, and keep Ms. Schiavo on life support.
> 
> . . . .  and you claim he has done "nothing".



He has done very little.

Terry Schiavo has little to do with the abortion issue, so I will ignore that point.

Stem cell research is also another issue (although not completely); but I am not so sure how badly this hurts the scientific community: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

They still have access to stem cells through federal funds which has yielded  results in scientific research. The idea that we need stem cells from aborted fetus's to do the job is speculative, from what I have read. But I don't pay real close attention to this issue.

But, I will concede to you on this point; Bush's pro-life stance caused him to veto a bill that definatily impacted with what the scientific community can recieve funding for; so his stance did do SOMETHING.

But, you should probably concede that in 2 terms of presidency, his prolife stance has done nothing (to date) better or worse for the rights of the mother to have an abortion.

My conjecture is that these results would be the same for most republican presidential candidates, and for most democratic candidates for that manner.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2007)

Just because you don't see it, does not mean the damage has not already been done. Or else there wouldn't be so many threads in The Firing Range about decrying how bad the Democratic Party candidates would be for the proliferation of firearms in America.


----------



## crushing (Dec 1, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> My view on abortion is simple. It is my body, it is my choice, when it is your body you can choose. I had a bumper sticker awhile back that read ~ Keep your laws off my ovaries and I'll keep my foot out of your ***.


 


Kacey said:


> I say again: if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. But don't tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body, simply because your moral/ethical precepts are different than mine.


 
Most people don't care others do with their own bodies, with their own ovaries, their own uterus, or what have you.  Where many people have the problem is when there is at least one other individual affected.


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 1, 2007)

crushing said:


> Most people don't care others do with their own bodies, with their own ovaries, their own uterus, or what have you.  Where many people have the problem is when there is at least one other individual affected.


Would the other individual be a fetus? 

Please don't miss understand i love children, and someday want to become a mother. However If what ever is growing inside me cannot live outside of me then it is still my body.  I dont like abortion, i wish every pregnancy was a wanted on, but its not. 

Sometimes it is the smartest choice not to have a child. My mom used to tell me horror stories of when she worked Peds ICU as a nurse. The one that stuck with me the most was the 5 month old with a cracked skull. Apparently the parent threw the child against the wall then when she still would not stop crying beat on her head till she was unconscious. By the time that child recieved medical care she lived 4 more hours. Now both parents are in jail, wouldnt it have been better (for all involved) had the chose to not give birth. Even if you feel abortion is murder, at least it would have been done before the child was aware.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

So those of you who make the argument of "it's my body", I have a question.

Do you believe that drugs, any drugs (both "legal" and "illegal", should be allowed, without a perscription to any adult person who wants them.  After all, it is "your body."  And if you do, do you debate / fight / feel passion for that issue as much as you do over abortion?  And if not, why not, as it is the same argument.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So those of you who make the argument of "it's my body", I have a question.
> 
> Do you believe that drugs, any drugs (both "legal" and "illegal", should be allowed, without a perscription to any adult person who wants them. After all, it is "your body." And if you do, do you debate / fight / feel passion for that issue as much as you do over abortion? And if not, why not, as it is the same argument.


 
My position is not quite ... "it is my body" ... because I am male. I do think that because I am male, and therefore can never experience the reality a woman faces with an unwanted pregnancy, that I should not be the person dictating to the woman what she can and can't do. You know the old joke ... if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Concerning substances we may choose to put into our bodies. I am much more on the side of ~ whatever  you want, as long as it doesn't injure others. You know, the personal responsibility side. You see, I am alcoholic. I can not take intoxicants safely, because my judgement goes out the window, and I don't do things safely. I don't buy the theory of gateway drugs. I think the drug war is largely a racist matter. 

Do I fight as strongly for this ... probably not. But, I there are a few arguments around here that point to the United States prison population. It is rather shameful that we incarcerate more of our citizens than any other nation on Earth (mostly because of mandatory sentences on drugs). And I have probably made some strong statements there. 

Of course, there are a couple of industries out there benefiting from prisons and pharmacology, aren't there?


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So those of you who make the argument of "it's my body", I have a question.
> 
> Do you believe that drugs, any drugs (both "legal" and "illegal", should be allowed, without a perscription to any adult person who wants them.  After all, it is "your body."  And if you do, do you debate / fight / feel passion for that issue as much as you do over abortion?  And if not, why not, as it is the same argument.



Yes i do, if you want to put trash into your body it should be your right, however if you go out and harm another person on that trash then the punishment should be a big one.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So those of you who make the argument of "it's my body", I have a question.
> 
> Do you believe that drugs, any drugs (both "legal" and "illegal", should be allowed, without a perscription to any adult person who wants them.  After all, it is "your body."  And if you do, do you debate / fight / feel passion for that issue as much as you do over abortion?  And if not, why not, as it is the same argument.



When I was a younger woman, in my high school years, I remember debating vehemently for the right for the woman to choose what happens to her body.  

Now that I am older, and hopefully wiser, my experiences in life have made me change my views a bit.  I still believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, however, after working in the health care profession and seeing women use abortion as a birth control method rather then a last resort *AND* having children of my own and experiencing all the love and attachment I have for them, I couldn't personally ever have an abortion.

I think that your experiences in your life dictate and change your outlook on things.  At least it has for me.



BrandiJo said:


> Yes i do, if you want to put trash into your body it should be your right, however if you go out and harm another person on that trash then the punishment should be a big one.



There was a case here in Winnipeg a few years back of a young woman who was a drug addict and refused to stop using during her pregnancy.  It went to court to try and force her into rehab "for the child's sake" but I don't believe that the courts felt she should be.

I have to wonder now, what kind of life that child has now.  I recall the child was taken away from her at birth and placed in foster care.

My point is, if you believe someone has the right to go out and put trash in their body and they get pregnant, then do they still have the same right to put trash in their body if that child is only a "fetus"?  Where does the line get drawn?  And who, ultimately is responsible once and if that child is born addicted and perhaps permanently damaged due to the parent's *right* to do as they please?

Its a slippery slope with no perfect answer.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 2, 2007)

Lisa said:


> When I was a younger woman, in my high school years, I remember debating vehemently for the right for the woman to choose what happens to her body.
> 
> Now that I am older, and hopefully wiser, my experiences in life have made me change my views a bit.  I still believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, however, after working in the health care profession and seeing women use abortion as a birth control method rather then a last resort *AND* having children of my own and experiencing all the love and attachment I have for them, I couldn't personally ever have an abortion.
> 
> ...



It is, indeed, a slippery slope.  While I support a woman's right to have an abortion, there are very few instances in which I, personally, would choose to _have_ an abortion (e.g. severe medical concerns for mother or child, possibly rape), but my personal experiences are different than those of others, and I am not going to say to a woman whose life experiences are different than mine that she cannot have an abortion because I would not have one in her place.  And yes, I would suggest to any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy that she consider adoption - but there are times when adoption is not an option, for various reasons.  I have taught too many unwanted children to say that any woman should be forced to have a child she doesn't want.


----------



## crushing (Dec 2, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> Yes i do, if you want to put trash into your body it should be your right, however if you go out and harm another person on that trash then the punishment should be a big one.


 
Exactly!


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 2, 2007)

Lisa said:


> My point is, if you believe someone has the right to go out and put trash in their body and they get pregnant, then do they still have the same right to put trash in their body if that child is only a "fetus"?  Where does the line get drawn?  And who, ultimately is responsible once and if that child is born addicted and perhaps permanently damaged due to the parent's *right* to do as they please?
> 
> Its a slippery slope with no perfect answer.



I would have to still side with her choice, however if her born child suffers any ill effect what so ever because of her drug use she should then be punished, jailed and fined and whatever else we can do when we "throw the book at someone"


----------



## crushing (Dec 2, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> Would the other individual be a fetus?


 
Perhaps not just the fetus, but the other DNA contributor with responsibility but no rights.  I think science has easily confirmed that the fetus is a living growing human.  I would think a DNA test would confirm it.  Like a newborn, or even a three, ten, or fifteen year old, it just isn't a fully developed human being yet (heck, some 30 and 40 year olds I know aren't fully developed humans either!    There are few times I though post-natal abortions were in order for some people.  Just kidding!)



BrandiJo said:


> Even if you feel abortion is murder, at least it would have been done before the child was aware.


 
I certainly don't feel abortion is murder.  Murder is the illegal killing of another.  Abortion is no more murder than clubbing a baby seal, or lethal injection or the electric chair for a convicted human in some states.

Like many religious people in regards to evolution, I think many people are relying on faith that a fetus is not a living individual, and instead consider it as a hangnail or intrauterine growth and that is part of their own body, when it is really it's own body that is dependant on the 'host organism' for sustenance and shelter.

Posts like this is about as involved I get in the abortion debate.  You won't find me carrying a sign protesting for or against keeping abortion legal.  I can't imagine the emotional distress a woman must be going through to consider such drastic measures.  Maybe the lack of abortion education and gag on science with the help of the industry helps prevent it from seeming so drastic?


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 2, 2007)

I have issues with late term abortion, and selective abortions (ie i want a boy and odds are this one is a girl) and abortion as a form of birth control. I do not think i could ever have an abortion myself. But why do others feel the need to make that choice for others? I relies that a fetus is human, it will someday grow up to be a baby, a toddler, a teen, and an adult. However when it relies on something else to keep it alive(woman and umbilical cord) and has no other way of life (foster parent, state care hospital) then ultimately it should always be the woman who is carrying it to make the choice. Now once it hits point of  viability then any agency who wants can step in and take over care. 

I am very religious, and i believe in my God and i would like to think that if a parent honestly and truly for what ever reason did not what that child then it would be better off not having to suffer though having been raised/beat/abused/ neglected/ignored by that set of parents. I also believe that any kind of a merciful God would understand that. But then my last church thinks im going to hell so who knows about my biblical views. ​


----------



## Lisa (Dec 2, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> I would have to still side with her choice, however if her born child suffers any ill effect what so ever because of her drug use she should then be punished, jailed and fined and whatever else we can do when we "throw the book at someone"



Interesting perspective BrandiJo, and for the most part I agree with the premise of what you are saying.  However, that being said and trying not to get this topic too far off the original, in the scenario you are describing where the mother will be punished after the fact, then who is responsible for taking care of the child.  The child could be placed in foster care to be raise by state means, thus putting a burden on society because someone had the "right" to do as they please.

See what I mean about a slippery slope.

But I will apologise to MichaelEdward for taking his topic off course here and say this:

I certainly hope Roe vs. Wade doesn't get overturned in your country.  I believe it will be a sad day in history when a law that effects women and their right to bear children becomes a criminal offense.  I would hate to even think of where desperate women will go in desperate times.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So those of you who make the argument of "it's my body", I have a question.
> 
> Do you believe that drugs, any drugs (both "legal" and "illegal", should be allowed, without a perscription to any adult person who wants them.  After all, it is "your body."  And if you do, do you debate / fight / feel passion for that issue as much as you do over abortion?  And if not, why not, as it is the same argument.



That is a great question. I tend to err on the side of legalizing drugs, though, and letting people choose what they want to put in their bodies. I don't do or like drugs or the drug culture, btw, but I have to stand by my libertarian principles. This is worthy of another topic, however.

That aside, though, I don't think it is the same argument. The reason is because it can be said that drugs do things to the society as a whole, making certain places unsafe to live. It is not that someone addicted to crack or meth will necessarily work a normal job and just do the drugs on the side, making it a 'victimless crime'; people severely addicted lose jobs, become homeless sometimes, become desperate, and ultimately can become a burden or even a danger to society due to their drug use. Drug addictions can severely decimate societies. There is historical precedence for this going as far back as the Chinese Opium culture.

So, I see your point, but I am thinking that they are two different arguments because I don't think that the right to terminate a pregnancy can have the same destructive effects on a society as drugs.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I certainly hope Roe vs. Wade doesn't get overturned in your country.  I believe it will be a sad day in history when a law that effects women and their right to bear children becomes a criminal offense.  I would hate to even think of where desperate women will go in desperate times.



It won't go that far, no matter who is president. The worse that would happen is that the rights would go to the states if it was overturned, and women would still have abortion rights granted by most states.

I just do not think that there will ever be this doomsday scenario where abortion is completely illegal, and women are having to "do it yourself" (as the thread implies) or pay some back alley coat hanger wielding evil doctor to terminate pregnancies. It'll never happen.

And the reason for this is two-fold: government regulation on people's bodies always fails, and the majority of the population (being pro-choice) would never stand for it. 

It is almost always a failing proposition to regulate what someone does with their bodies. Suicide is illegal; but how many people do you know who have gone to jail for their attempts? How about pot. Marijuana is illegal, but I bet that I can go downtown and pick some up if I wanted too? Sure, we know our jails are filled with people who commit drug crimes, but the point is that it has done virtually nothing to prevent me from 'getting high' if I really wanted too. Regulating what someone does with their bodies almost always fails.

But unlike drugs and suicide, over half the population is 'pro-choice', and most people who are 'pro-life' are usually willing to make exceptions in cases of rape, mothers health, etc.; there are very few people who are so hardcore prolife that they believe that abortion should be illegal at all costs.  So, making it illegal would never fly, and never happen. Even if a bible belt state made it illegal (if in the highly unlikely scenario that rights were left  up to the states)  you would simply be able to drive or bus to the next state to get it done. This is not a big deal in my opinion, unless you plan on having abortions every other week, in which case I don't think that even the most pro-choice people will have sympathy for you.  

And this is why I don't put much stock in this issue around election time, and neither should any of you, in my opinion. I have many 1-issue voters in my family who vote soley on this issue (on both the pro-life and pro-choice side), and I'll tell you all what I tell them: voting soley on the abortion issue is throwing your vote away.

C.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Even if a bible belt state made it illegal (if in the highly unlikely scenario that rights were left up to the states) you would simply be able to drive or bus to the next state to get it done. This is not a big deal in my opinion, unless you plan on having abortions every other week, in which case I don't think that even the most pro-choice people will have sympathy for you.
> 
> And this is why I don't put much stock in this issue around election time, and neither should any of you, in my opinion. I have many 1-issue voters in my family who vote soley on this issue (on both the pro-life and pro-choice side), and I'll tell you all what I tell them: voting soley on the abortion issue is throwing your vote away.


 
One wonders if those 'Blue State/Red State' maps are still handy. Driving to "the next state" looks like a pretty far drive from some of those states. Not to mention there are laws already on the books about minors crossing state lines. 

And, if one is too poor to drive or buy that Bus ticket ....


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> One wonders if those 'Blue State/Red State' maps are still handy. Driving to "the next state" looks like a pretty far drive from some of those states. Not to mention there are laws already on the books about minors crossing state lines.
> 
> And, if one is too poor to drive or buy that Bus ticket ....



That is really misleading, though. Just because someone is republican or democrat, or 'red state, blue state,' that doesn't mean that is any indicator as to their opinion on abortion, or how they would/wouldn't regulate abortion.

This is a little better indicator:
http://www.surveyusa.com/50state2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm

As you can see, only 9 states are "pro-life," and only 2 of those states are "pro-life" by a significant margin (over 55%, Utah was at 61% and Louisiana was at 57%) where there might be a danger of making abortion illegal.

The majority of people simply are not pro-life.

With this fact, there isn't a danger of abortion becoming illegal across the board, regardless of who is president.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> The majority of people simply are not pro-life.
> 
> With this fact, there isn't a danger of abortion becoming illegal across the board, regardless of who is president.


 
The majority of people voted for Al Gore in 2000, too. 

You can keep changing the arguement, though, if you wish. Nobody is saying that a change in law will become an 'across the board' change. If, however, a medical procedure is against the law where and when a woman needs for it to be legal, then the woman may not be able to have the medical proceedure performed by her medical professional.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2007)

I am not changing the argument (which is subversive and veiled anyway because there is more then one argument going on here). From the start of the thread, you and many others have made many implications of what would/could happen if pro-life republicans get in power in this thread. I am saying that they are unfounded. Since Roe V Wade, we have many pro-life republicans in power, and nothing has been done to change abortion rights. 

And the statistics and polls indicate that abortion rights would not drastically change, even in the off chance it would be left up to the states.

So, you can be critical of the point of view of some of the pro-life canidates. But I think it is a mistake to think that these view points will matter in the large scheme of things.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I am not changing the argument (which is subversive and veiled anyway because there is more then one argument going on here). From the start of the thread, you and many others have made many implications of what would/could happen if pro-life republicans get in power in this thread. I am saying that they are unfounded. Since Roe V Wade, we have many pro-life republicans in power, and nothing has been done to change abortion rights.
> 
> And the statistics and polls indicate that abortion rights would not drastically change, even in the off chance it would be left up to the states.
> 
> So, you can be critical of the point of view of some of the pro-life canidates. But I think it is a mistake to think that these view points will matter in the large scheme of things.




Was there already not in the last 7 years a couple of Congresses that were controlled both House and Senate by the republicans as wel as a Replubican President? If this is true, and they had the votes, what was done? 

I personally think the Republican Party would prefer to keep it around as a hot button then to do something about it. As this gets some people up in arms and get them emotional for their religious and personal views, and gets them to vote for a group that may not have voted for if they did an investigation. Of course, this common tactics for both parties, so no onw is innocent here.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Was there already not in the last 7 years a couple of Congresses that were controlled both House and Senate by the republicans as wel as a Replubican President? If this is true, and they had the votes, what was done?
> 
> I personally think the Republican Party would prefer to keep it around as a hot button then to do something about it. As this gets some people up in arms and get them emotional for their religious and personal views, and gets them to vote for a group that may not have voted for if they did an investigation. Of course, this common tactics for both parties, so no onw is innocent here.



I think that is absolutely correct. I think that the attempt is to gain the vote of the religious right rather then actually do anything about it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> That is a great question. I tend to err on the side of legalizing drugs, though, and letting people choose what they want to put in their bodies. I don't do or like drugs or the drug culture, btw, but I have to stand by my libertarian principles. This is worthy of another topic, however.
> 
> That aside, though, I don't think it is the same argument. The reason is because it can be said that drugs do things to the society as a whole, making certain places unsafe to live. It is not that someone addicted to crack or meth will necessarily work a normal job and just do the drugs on the side, making it a 'victimless crime'; people severely addicted lose jobs, become homeless sometimes, become desperate, and ultimately can become a burden or even a danger to society due to their drug use. Drug addictions can severely decimate societies. There is historical precedence for this going as far back as the Chinese Opium culture.
> 
> So, I see your point, but I am thinking that they are two different arguments because I don't think that the right to terminate a pregnancy can have the same destructive effects on a society as drugs.



As the question was more an argument of principle, not of consequences, it very much applies.  The principle is "I can do what I want with my body."  If that is true in one case, shouldn't it be true in all cases?

As for the specific situation with drugs, that is better left to another thread, but I will comment in this fashion: hasn't our current "War on Drugs" decimated society, especially those in the minority communities.  Look at the socio-economics of this "war."  Also, if you even talk to drug dealers, the worst thing you could do to them is make them legal.  One need only look at the situation before, during, and after Prohibition to get some idea of this. 

With our prisons free from simple drug users and sellers, we would have more money/space for those that commit the actual crimes (such as burglary and robbery) that these drugs "make" them do.

 It would lower the cost of medicine, changing our health care system.

No, the consequenses to society are not the same.  But that is not to say that the negative impact to society can't be just as bad.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> As the question was more an argument of principle, not of consequences, it very much applies.  The principle is "I can do what I want with my body."  If that is true in one case, shouldn't it be true in all cases?



We tread the lines of logical fallacy with this one; because if what I want to do with my body hurts others, then it makes it a different circumstance, in principle. It can be argued that drugs can individually or collectively cause harm to a society. I don't think that abortion can be argued in that same way. Or, maybe it can.... I don't know.



> As for the specific situation with drugs, that is better left to another thread, but I will comment in this fashion: hasn't our current "War on Drugs" decimated society, especially those in the minority communities.  Look at the socio-economics of this "war."  Also, if you even talk to drug dealers, the worst thing you could do to them is make them legal.  One need only look at the situation before, during, and after Prohibition to get some idea of this.
> 
> With our prisons free from simple drug users and sellers, we would have more money/space for those that commit the actual crimes (such as burglary and robbery) that these drugs "make" them do.
> 
> ...



I totally agree with you there.  I  don't  like drugs  or  what they can cause, but in principle I am for legalization for many of the reasons you described. I think that the consequence of them being illegal is worse then legalization. Incidently, I feel the same way about abortion, which is why I really am not for abortion becoming illegal even though I hate it.

So we agree on those points; I was just pointing out that I am not so sure that "drug use" and "abortion rights" can be argued on the same tier, so to speak, because the consequences of either are so vastly different. But I do see your point...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> We tread the lines of logical fallacy with this one; because if what I want to do with my body hurts others, then it makes it a different circumstance, in principle. It can be argued that drugs can individually or collectively cause harm to a society. I don't think that abortion can be argued in that same way. Or, maybe it can.... I don't know.



Not to beat a dead horse, as we seem to have some consensus, but I want to clarify.  It is not the drugs that cause the burglary.  It is the person.  Just as it is not the gun (or their availabilty) which causes murder, but the person's decision.

Therefore, causing drugs to be illegal only does one thing: prevents the ability of a person to do what they will with their body.

I think I will start my own thread on this.  Should get some interesting debate.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, as we seem to have some consensus, but I want to clarify.  It is not the drugs that cause the burglary.  It is the person.  Just as it is not the gun (or their availabilty) which causes murder, but the person's decision.
> 
> Therefore, causing drugs to be illegal only does one thing: prevents the ability of a person to do what they will with their body.
> 
> I think I will start my own thread on this.  Should get some interesting debate.



Yup. I totally agree with you. One guy might do meth and never do any other crime, and another could rob and kill people; and it is the robbing and killing that would be penalized under a system where drugs are legal.

We are totally on the same page. I was only presenting the other argument because that element is simply what makes it a little different then the abortion argument; but I don't actually ascribe to the idea in that way. That was why I said that I err on the side of making drugs legal.


----------

