Do-It-Yourself - Abortion.

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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!)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.