Do-It-Yourself - Abortion.

[kaizasosei]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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...

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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...whoeverAnd, 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?

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]

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]

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]

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.