For the "pro-choice" people...

[Alaska Darin]

Or, as Robin Williams said, "God gave us a brain and a penis but only enough blood to run one at a time."

109211[/snapback]

Few times have more accurate words been spoken.

[Arondale]

There is no bandaid for the issue.  The adoption argument is nothing more than a panacea or "pie in the sky" when you are talking in the millions ANNUALLY.

 

Our society of instant gratification and blame placement instead of patience and personal responsibility are the biggest reasons this is even an issue.

109199[/snapback]

 

 

My point wasn't to say that adoption is a bandaid or cure-all for abortion. My point was in reference to the pro-choice argument that if abortion is made illegal, women will be put at risk due to backalley abortions. The argument was that poor women would not be able to afford to pay for a safe abortion, since they would be illegal; therefore, they are put in danger due to their socio-economic status. That argument just does not work. Its not as if, with abortion illegal, women will be forced into dangerous, backalley abortions. They have a choice - they can choose adoption. There is nothing that could happen that would make it necessary to have a dangerous, backalley abortion. If they choose to do so, then they choose to put themselves at risk. The legal system and society are not responsible for the consequences of a bad choice when a better choice was available.

[UConn James]

But you can't deny that from the middle of the 20th century through the present, that practice has increased exponentially.

109114[/snapback]

 

Actually, you can.

 

Very few things, especially one like sexual activity levels, have changed appreciably throughout human history. Just that 'Leave It To Beaver' and the like didn't air the dirty little secret of the human race. Just that more people talk openly about it now.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

This has to be one of the best threads I have read here in a while. Classic stuff.

 

1. I especially enjoy the holy rollers who think sex should only be done for the purpose of procreation, with the lights off, under the covers, missionary, on your birthday or christmas ONLY with your wife or husband. I truely feel bad for you.

 

2. I am not a woman. This is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. I love how men feel it is the OBLIGATION of women to carry out a pregnancy. It is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. Nothing like a bunch of guys telling us how the world should be.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

This has to be one of the best threads I have read here in a while. Classic stuff. 

 

1. I especially enjoy the holy rollers who think sex should only be done for the purpose of procreation, with the lights off, under the covers, missionary, on your birthday or christmas ONLY with your wife or husband. I truely feel bad for you.

 

2. I am not a woman. This is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. I love how men feel it is the OBLIGATION of women to carry out a pregnancy. It is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. Nothing like a bunch of guys telling us how the world should be.

109900[/snapback]

Your post is the best post on this best thread

[blzrul]

Your post is the best post on this best thread

109908[/snapback]

Amen.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This has to be one of the best threads I have read here in a while. Classic stuff. 

 

1. I especially enjoy the holy rollers who think sex should only be done for the purpose of procreation, with the lights off, under the covers, missionary, on your birthday or christmas ONLY with your wife or husband. I truely feel bad for you.

 

2. I am not a woman. This is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. I love how men feel it is the OBLIGATION of women to carry out a pregnancy. It is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. Nothing like a bunch of guys telling us how the world should be.

109900[/snapback]

 

A retort:

 

1) No one's saying that. All we, the COMMON SENSE PEOPLE RIGHT OF THE AISLE are saying is, practice a little bit of responsibility and you won't have to butcher unborn babies.

 

2) I'm so proud of you and your "enlightened" attitude. You say it's a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue? Who speaks for the BABIES?

 

You know what? Your sanctimonious bullstevestojan is no better than what you decry. Just like other leftists, you're a hypocrite.

[Mickey]

Roe, AFAIK has NO PROVISION explicitly stating that the government cannot force an abortion, even as it does have one that prevents the state from making such an abortion illegal.

 

Do you have a link that shows where such a provision exists?

 

And, in the future, what would stop the courts from broadening Roe's domain?

 

Once you open a legal door, it's kind of hard to close it again.

108421[/snapback]

The constitution also doesn't specifically state that the government can't stop you from writing a satirical essay on the mating habits of blind mice but "free speech" generally covers it. Roe, its predecessors and progeny, are based on a Right to Privacy arising from the Due Process Clause. That Right to Privacy, given meat by the Roe decision, would easily prohibit the State from forcing a woman to have an abortion. Actually, that Right to Privacy would be far easier to construe as prohibiting forced abortion than prohibiting the state from outlawing abortion. Read the opinon. Here is a blurb that makes it clear that the ruling is based on a Right to Privacy grounded in the Due Process Clause:

 

"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy."

 

This right is not absolute. In order for that right to be by-passed by the state, the state would have to demonstrate a "compelling state interest". There are reams of cases that help give guidance as to what constitutes a "compelling state interest". It is abundantly clear that the state would have a difficult time to the point of absurdly impossible, to show that it has a "compelling state interest" in forcing a particular woman to abort a particular child.

 

Broadening Roe's domain would be to broaden the right to privacy and by expanding the realm of individual action and restricting the power of the state over that realm. If Roe were expanded, state power would shrink. I am beginning to sense that you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of the decision in Roe. It is not a case that at all expands governmental power, quite the opposite. It is a landmark in a line of cases going back to 1891 that recognizes a Right to Privacy that restricts governmental power.

 

Your arguments seem to indicate that you see the ruling as somehow expanding the government's power over individuals. The only part of the ruling that could lead to that concern is where it finds that at the point of viability, the state's interest in protecting the unborn child is compelling enough to permit it to make abortion illegal from that point of the pregnancy on. If that is the part that concerns you, the answer is additional case law that goes further than Roe and prevents the state from prohibiting abortion even past the point of viability. An expansion of Roe would therefore make it less likely that the state could ever force an abortion and if that is your concern, you should be advocating an expansion of Roe, not it being overturned.

 

Here is a link to the opinion in the Roe case, tell me where it is that you see it granting government increased rather than decreased power over the reproductive decisons of individuals. Roe v. Wade

[Mickey]

Exactly. And I think another compelling argument is that the Nazis and oviet Communists used abortion for eugenic purposes. The potential for social engineering is far too great to allow such a barbaric thing to continue.

108428[/snapback]

But Roe specifically grants the rigth to decide to have an abortion to the individual and prohibits the government from being involved. Do you not see that if you grant the government jurisdiction over reproductive decisions, you make the type of abortions by the state that so worries you more likely to occur? You can't give the the right to make a reproductive decision (carry baby to term) to the government without also giving them the theoretical right to control other reproductive decisions (not to carry the baby to term).

 

If Roe is overturned, in the absence of a right to privacy:

Government can override a person's decison to terminate a pregnancy.

Government can override a person's decison to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

Under Roe, due to the right of privacy it defines:

Government can't override a person's decision to terminat a pregnancy.

Government can't override a person's decision to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

How would you protect against government intereference with reproductive rights by giving the government the right to interfere with reproductive decisions?

[Arondale]

This has to be one of the best threads I have read here in a while. Classic stuff. 

 

1. I especially enjoy the holy rollers who think sex should only be done for the purpose of procreation, with the lights off, under the covers, missionary, on your birthday or christmas ONLY with your wife or husband. I truely feel bad for you.

 

2. I am not a woman. This is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. I love how men feel it is the OBLIGATION of women to carry out a pregnancy. It is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. Nothing like a bunch of guys telling us how the world should be.

109900[/snapback]

 

 

1. It doesn't do you or your opinion much good if your only response is to make fun of and exaggerate the ideas of the opposing side. Find me a place in this thread where it was said that "sex should only be done for the purpose of procreation". So I if you adhere to sex within the confines of marriage, that all of a sudden is less enjoyable than sex outside of marriage? You can feel bad for me all you want, I could care less. I'll live happily with my wife. I'll live knowing my children will grow up with a mother and father. I'll live knowing I didn't get some teenage girl pregnant. I'll live happily since I didn't become a father at the age of 16. I'll live knowing I didn't get a girl pregnant who then got an abortion. I'll live knowing I am safe from AIDS and other STD's.

 

2. Why do you and others believe, just because this thread is mostly a discussion among men, that it is only men who are telling women what to do. This is not a man v. woman issue. I can get you in touch with hundreds of women that are just as pro-life as I am. So I guess you believe it is a woman's right to kill a viable baby via partial birth abortion? I guess you believe that it is a woman's right to have a doctor perform a procedure where, while the fetus is dangling partly out of the her body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, a doctor uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The doctor then crushes the skull or uses a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapses the fetus' head, and pull the fetus from the uterus.

 

What is classic about your response is that it offers no intelligent argument whatsoever.

[Arondale]

But Roe specifically grants the rigth to decide to have an abortion to the individual and prohibits the government from being involved.  Do you not see that if you grant the government jurisdiction over reproductive decisions, you make the type of abortions by the state that so worries you more likely to occur?  You can't give the the right to make a reproductive decision (carry baby to term) to the government without also giving them the theoretical right to control other reproductive decisions (not to carry the baby to term).

 

If Roe is overturned, in the absence of a right to privacy:

Government can override a person's decison to terminate a pregnancy.

Government can override a person's decison to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

Under Roe, due to the right of privacy it defines:

Government can't override a person's decision to terminat a pregnancy.

Government can't override a person's decision to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

How would you protect against government intereference with reproductive rights by giving the government the right to interfere with reproductive decisions?

110102[/snapback]

 

The conclusion you come to is based on the perspective you are coming from.

 

You believe that making abortion illegal is granting "the government jurisdiction over reproductive decisions". I believe that making abortion illegal is granting equal rights to the unborn. It is making the life of the unborn and the life of the mother equal in value.

 

If Roe is overturned, how can you argue that government "can override a person's decision to carry a pregnancy to term"? Again, if Roe is overturned it will be on the premise that the unborn have equal rights. The decision will not be based on privacy rights or the right to choose, it will simply be a matter of life. That being the case, if Roe is overturned there is no way the government will then be able to make a woman terminate her pregnancy.

 

An issue relating to abortion that I find very interesting is the murder of a pregnant woman. The unborn victims bill was passed as law this year and many states have similar laws. How can it be double murder in this case, but when a woman chooses to kill the baby herself, there are no consequences? I don't see how anyone can reconcile those two situations. There is no difference. Motive, circumstances, etc. do not change the fact that an unborn child is killed. I find it interesting that the government can pass such laws yet still say with a straight face that abortion is different.

[blzrul]

A retort:

 

1) No one's saying that. All we, the COMMON SENSE PEOPLE RIGHT OF THE AISLE are saying is, practice a little bit of responsibility and you won't have to butcher unborn babies.

 

2) I'm so proud of you and your "enlightened" attitude. You say it's a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue? Who speaks  for the BABIES?

 

You know what? Your sanctimonious bullstevestojan is no better than what you decry. Just like other leftists, you're a hypocrite.

110019[/snapback]

Any any valid points you may have made or may make in the future are greatly diminished by your intolerance and inability to refrain from personal attacks just because you don't agree.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Any any valid points you may have made or may make in the future are greatly diminished by your intolerance and inability to refrain from personal attacks just because you don't agree.

110308[/snapback]

 

Thanks debbie....I needed the laugh.

[Alaska Darin]

Any any valid points you may have made or may make in the future are greatly diminished by your intolerance and inability to refrain from personal attacks just because you don't agree.

110308[/snapback]

The volume of posts for the "It Takes One to Know One" board continue to increase.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

A retort:

 

2) I'm so proud of you and your "enlightened" attitude. You say it's a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue? Who speaks  for the BABIES?

 

You know what? Your sanctimonious bullstevestojan is no better than what you decry. Just like other leftists, you're a hypocrite.

110019[/snapback]

 

Who speaks for the babies? The mother speaks for the fetus. Thats who. Plain and simple. God Bless America.

[Mickey]

The conclusion you come to is based on the perspective you are coming from.

 

You believe that making abortion illegal is granting "the government jurisdiction over reproductive decisions".  I believe that making abortion illegal is granting equal rights to the unborn.  It is making the life of the unborn and the life of the mother equal in value.

 

If Roe is overturned, how can you argue that government "can override a person's decision to carry a pregnancy to term"?  Again, if Roe is overturned it will be on the premise that the unborn have equal rights.  The decision will not be based on privacy rights or the right to choose, it will simply be a matter of life.  That being the case, if Roe is overturned there is no way the government will then be able to make a woman terminate her pregnancy.

 

An issue relating to abortion that I find very interesting is the murder of a pregnant woman.  The unborn victims bill was passed as law this year and many states have similar laws.  How can it be double murder in this case, but when a woman chooses to kill the baby herself, there are no consequences?  I don't see how anyone can reconcile those two situations.  There is no difference.  Motive, circumstances, etc. do not change the fact that an unborn child is killed.  I find it interesting that the government can pass such laws yet still say with a straight face that abortion is different.

110201[/snapback]

Have you actually read Roe? It is not a parable, it is a legal document. Questions of Constitutional law are based on "rights", not on this thing you call "matter of life" whatever that is.

 

The unborn and the woman are not separate entities. You can't grant a right to one without taking away from the right of the other. To do that, you have to have grounds for the government to take the privacy right at issue away from the woman involved. The fact that they are doing so by the vehicle of granting some sort of right to the unborn doesn't change the fact that you are taking away her rights. For that to happen you have to take what is now the constitutionally protected rights of that woman and elimenate them so that the government may intervene. That grants to government a power it currently does not have. The fact that it is exercising it to protect a fetus is pretty much an "ends justifies the means" argument. You can't get around the fact that for the government to accomplish that end, it has to subjugate the rights of the woman to its own rights, rights it will exercise for the benefit of the fetus. That is the means.

 

It is the government that will jail the doctor who performs an abortion if abortion is outlawed. It is the government that will jail the women who have an aboriton if it is outlawed. The fetus can't act on its own and do these things to protect itself, it will have to be the government that actually does that. It is the government who will monitor doctor-patient relationships and and review private medical records to be sure that there are no abortifacient contraceptives being given. No matter how you want to frame it as a noble effort to protect fetuses, the practical and legal effect is to provide a potentially unlimited grant of new powers to the government. How you can grant them that kind of power on this issue and not in a broad array of other privacy related matters is a mystery.

 

Even using the logic of your argument, it simply doesn't work out to be a situation where simply equal rights are co-existing side by side. A woman's right to have an abortion simply can't co-exist side by side with her fetus's right to life, one must be ascendant. You have to take her privacy rights away inorder to honor the right to life you claim for the fetus. The only way to do that is to give the government the power to control her body or more specifically, her womb. That opens the door to government intereference in the most private realm of our lives.

 

As for your example of double murder statutes when a pregnant woman is killed, there is really nothing all that puzzling once you apply some critical thought. The right to terminate a pregnancy is the right posessed by the woman who is pregnant. You are not violating a constitutionally protected right of the killer by calling this double murder. There is no constitutional violation. It is called a double murder by the legislators who passed these criminal statutes. Those statues are valid law unless they are unconstitutional as applied to those prosecuted under those statutes. Since there is no constitutional right to not be charged with double murder when you kill a pregnant woman, there is no constitutional violation. By the same token, in states that do not have such statutes, prosecutors and victims families would not be able to claim that their constitutional rights were violated because they can't prosecute for double murder.

 

Remember that the Constitution governs the relationship between individuals and the government. It does not govern the relationship between citizens, one to the other.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Who speaks for the babies? The mother speaks for the fetus. Thats who. Plain and simple. God Bless America.

110414[/snapback]

 

the BABY.

 

BABY.

 

Say it with me, chuckie. BABY. It's not a fetus or an embryo, it's a CHILD.

[blzrul]

the BABY.

 

BABY.

 

Say it with me, chuckie. BABY. It's not a fetus or an embryo, it's a CHILD.

110427[/snapback]

Sez you.

 

There is only one being who knows when life begins and He ain't telling.

[aussiew]

I shall call all my five (yes 5) children tonight and explain that I misinformed them. I had always been convinced that my pregnancies resulted from various birth control methods that failed. But after reading many of these posts I'm now convinced that my pregnancies were a result of irresponsibility. Thanks for the clarification

[stuckincincy]

I have a question. The State of Ohio has a law that adds penalties if a woman is injured/killed while pregnant, and the child perishes in utero. Has the State of Ohio recognized an unborn child as a legal entity with life?