Let us Re-visit Abortion, Here Are Some Proposals

a reply to: worldstarcountry

??? does that extend out to other health care providers?? I mean, not all doctors who do abortions work for planned parenthood, there are many that also deliver live babies... and probably, more gyn/ob's will do abortions under some circumstances.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

We are specifically discussing the proposed legislation for amendments to abortion laws.

Why do you reject Roe V Wade? What is it about Roe V Wade that you would like to see changed?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

But you should not be looking to change anything about the rate of abortions, until or unless you have provided the backup necessary to support all the extra children which will be born fatherless, to unfit mothers, and into economic circumstances which cannot support them.

Please address that, before continuing this particular crusade. And lets just get one thing clear... these are not separate issues, but the very same issue, they cannot be separated from one another because one is a driver for or affects the other. What will you do to ensure that the huge uptick in unwanted children is accounted for? Make it good!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: worldstarcountry

??? does that extend out to other health care providers?? I mean, not all doctors who do abortions work for planned parenthood, there are many that also deliver live babies... and probably, more gyn/ob's will do abortions under some circumstances.

Exactly! If a doctor performs an abortion, are they then barred from accepting Medicare from every other visit or procedure she/he performs?

a reply to: Grambler

so, where is the amendment that says that women can own property in her own name or hold control of her own earnings? where is the amendment that states that she should have control of the families assets where her husband passes away? the one that says spousal rape is rape and that husbands really don't have the right to beat their wives??

a reply to: TrueBrit

I agree. Pro-life people cannot pretend that cause and effect are two separate things. If you make abortion illegal there WILL be consequences and it behooves us to talk and consider them BEFORE we implement changes. Not implement them then act surprised when we are blindsided by them.

A popular refrain I tend to hear from the pro-life crowd (and op if this doesn't apply to you, then disregard) is that a woman just shouldn't have sex like saying that is going to magically make these women stop having sex and unwanted pregnancies will just magically disappear if you believe it.

a reply to: dawnstar

I am gathering yours and others opinions and input, and should have something written up this week. That is actually a very valid concern, and I want to try and address and account for that as well. That is why I wante this discussion, so I can get that kind of input and work towards compromise.

a reply to: windword
My entire OP is the answer to Roe v Wade. Women still have the legal right to terminate unwanted life. This is about creating responsibility. The question should be, why would a woman need more than one non-exempt termination of life in a year?? Anybody who does is probably living an irresponsible and dangerous lifestyle that is a threat to public health.
a reply to: TrueBrit
I believe with the knowledge that humans now actually have to be responsible in their creation of human life, or face light criminal penalties for repeated dangerous behavior, there may be a surge in responsible sexual encounters

a reply to: worldstarcountry

My entire OP is the answer to Roe v Wade.

I didn't ask you for an answer to Roe V Wade. I asked you why you thought it needed one. What, specifically are your problems with Roe V Wade. If it isn't broken, why fix it?

a reply to: TrueBrit

this is the result of the nuclear tests we did in the past:

Lijon Eknilang of the Marshall Islands explains her experience with the effect of nuclear radiation. "I cannot have children. I have had miscarriages on seven occasions. On one of those occasions, the child I miscarried was severely deformed - it had only one eye...Our culture and religion teaches us that reproductive abnormalities are a sign that women have been unfaithful. For this reason, many of my friends keep quiet about the strange births they have had. In privacy, they give birth, not to children as we like to think of them, but to things we could only describe as "octopuses," "apples," "turtles," and other things in our experience. We do not have Marshallese words for these kinds of babies, because they were never born before the radiation came. Women on Rongelap, Likiek, Ailuk, and other atolls in the Marshall Islands have given birth to these “monster babies.” Many of these women are from atolls that foreign officials have told us were not affected by radiation. We know otherwise, because the health problems are similar to ours. One women on Likiep gave birth to a child with two heads. Her cat also gave birth to a kitten with two heads. There is a young girl on Ailuk today with no knees, three toes on each foot and a missing arm. The most common birth defects on Rongelap and nearby islands have been “jellyfish” babies. These babies are born with no bones in their bodies and with transparent skin. We can see their brains and hearts beating. The babies usually live for a day or two before they stop breathing. Many women die from abnormal pregnancies, and those who survive give birth to what looks like purple grapes that we quickly bury.

psci3206colorado.blogspot.com...

if you look into the effects of agent orange in vietnam, you will find another assortment of deformed babies.
go on to iraq with it's depleted uranium weapons, and another assortment.

it doesn't seem to take much to screw up our genetic code to the point where we are seeing monsters, cyclops, and turtles, and such... it seems like the US has gotten quite good at it. the folic acid that is given to women in western countries does alot to prevent such birth defects, but then, I had three kids and each time it was planned parenthood that was giving me the folic acid. and with our advanced technology, we can detect many of these deformities and if severe enough quietly put them out of their misery before they come into the world.
but you probably should include all those babies, and the care that they would need, in your list. and the right to life really need to start reassessing just what "human is"... before we start investing a fortune to find a way to cure those jellyfish babies of all their deformities to the point where they can live anything close to a fullfilled life!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

I've only conceded the court's say on this because I don't see an Amendment passing through Congress anytime soon. Even before this election happened, and predating Obama. This country's partisan divide was already too deep in the 90's for there to ever be an Amendment passed in this country again... At least that's my opinion on that. It's no surprise that legal experts are trying other tactics to get government say on an issue.

But that is a poor reason to root for the courts to rule. basically your argument is you will change your stance on who you think should control abortion law to what ever best fits what you want the outcome to be.

That seems hypocritical to me.

And also, I think your fears are unjustified. If Roe v wade was overruled most states would allow some form of abortion. Even if you lived in one of the states that didn't have abortion, you would be able to travel to a state nearby and get one.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

But it is no ones right to enforce that morality which informs your attitude to this situation. No ones, but Gods. If you believe in Him at all, you will understand that attempting to force your morality on those who do not follow his edicts is not Christian in the least.

Why then would you do it? What imperialist position allows you to be arbiter of right and wrong? What provides you with the right to inflict your morality on others? Nothing, nothing is the answer, and for that reason, I would say you need to readjust your attitude to this whole topic.

Furthermore, the assertion that one could simply prevent abortion and have everything else look after itself is simply foolish, not to mention short sighted. Human beings are wilful creatures, and all that removing legal abortion from the arena will do, is force people underground, while at the same time increasing the level of poverty to which children are exposed, and the number of children growing up with behavioural and personality dysfunctions, as result of the resentment and abandonment that will inevitably result from mothers giving up children for adoption, or killing themselves because the stress is too great. It will not change the sexual habits of a statistically relevant number of people, only whether those habits result in damaged children, as opposed to an abortion.

This is nothing more than singularly shortsighted of you, I am sorry to say

One comment.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

That is all.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler

so, where is the amendment that says that women can own property in her own name or hold control of her own earnings? where is the amendment that states that she should have control of the families assets where her husband passes away? the one that says spousal rape is rape and that husbands really don't have the right to beat their wives??

The difference is the constitution specifically outlined who could vote, it did not outline the things you are mentioning, and therefore an amendment was not needed to pass to change these things. The fact that women were ruled to have the right of men by courts was enough to grant them all of these rights.

Abortion is different. It is not giving a current set of rights to a group that had already had those rights to a new group based on the fact that all humans are entitled to.

This is the argument though that is used to grant the courts the right to rule on this, they argue the right to privacy is applied to women to mean that they may have abortions. I feel this is incorrect. I fee that privacy has nothing to do with a decision of rather or not to terminate a pregnancy, and so it should be left up to the states.

But again, be careful what you wish for. We have already seen how thw courts are now ruling privacy can sometimes be invaded, such as with warrant less wiretaps and the NSA.

By putting all your faith in the court, don't get upset if conservatives ones get appointed and decide abortions are not legal. I can already here the gnashing of teeth and screams of injustice, but it is you and others that are claiming the court has the right to determine abortion policy.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

My problem with your proposal.

YOU ARE NOT MY GOD.

We fight for freedoms in this country.
When we win our freedoms we don't give them back.

Try and take what we fight for and you will loose.

This is the opinion of a man who believes abortion as birth control is deplorable. It is not something I would want for me and my family, nor would I recommend it to anyone.

My choice for me and my family is pro-life, but I choose freedom over theocracy.

I AM NOT GOD EITHER.

So I will fight for the freedom of others, even if I disagree with them. This is not a time to march backwards but a time to plow progressively forward.

Breaking free from Theocracy.
Breaking free from Aristocracy.

originally posted by: Grambler

This is the argument though that is used to grant the courts the right to rule on this, they argue the right to privacy is applied to women to mean that they may have abortions. I feel this is incorrect. I fee that privacy has nothing to do with a decision of rather or not to terminate a pregnancy, and so it should be left up to the states.

It is MY business.

Not the governments. State or otherwise.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: worldstarcountry

But it is no ones right to enforce that morality which informs your attitude to this situation. No ones, but Gods. If you believe in Him at all, you will understand that attempting to force your morality on those who do not follow his edicts is not Christian in the least.

Why then would you do it? What imperialist position allows you to be arbiter of right and wrong? What provides you with the right to inflict your morality on others? Nothing, nothing is the answer, and for that reason, I would say you need to readjust your attitude to this whole topic.

This is all true if the assumption is a fetus is not a life. The problem is that this is a very difficult issue, and determining when a fetus is a life is a very difficult thing to do. If the fetus is a life, then people have every right to "enforce morality".

Do you think punishing people for murder is enforcing morality? Your whole point here seems to be that only God has the right to judge people, so therefore we should not make any laws punishing anyone. I don't think I need to tell you that this would lead to the destruction of civilization.

What you say does make sense in a world where you are punishing people for behaviors that are their personal choice that don't negatively affect anyone else. For example, if a person is gay, a person does not have the right to legislate that they change there behavior just because they don't like it.

However, pro life people argue that the fetus is a life. Now it is not just a matter of a persons preference, the person is killing a life. Therefore this is not unjust enforced morality.

So the question becomes, when is the fetus a life? Is it conception? I would say no. But does that mean its not a life until the fetus is completely out of the body? Again I would say no. So the answer seems to be somewhere in between.

That is what makes Roe v wade so troubling. It was a decision relying on medical science from more than 50 years ago. Clearly it deserves another look with more modern technology.

But as long as people on the extremes shout things like "Life begins at conception and abortion is always murder" or "Its totally up to the woman people have no right to interfere with her choice" then nothing will be solved.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

This is the argument though that is used to grant the courts the right to rule on this, they argue the right to privacy is applied to women to mean that they may have abortions. I feel this is incorrect. I fee that privacy has nothing to do with a decision of rather or not to terminate a pregnancy, and so it should be left up to the states.

It is MY business.

Not the governments. State or otherwise.

If the fetus is not a life.

Let me ask you this. Do you have the right to beat your child as you see fit? It your child, you are the parent, so its not the governments business if you want to disipline your child by beating it, right?

Hopefully you would say no, because even though it is your child, that child has rights.

So it then becomes a question of when is the fetus considered a life.

I have heard women say it is literally not a life until the cord is cut. And so if your baby has partially breached, and you decide at that moment you want to terminate, do you have that right? After all its your body right, so what business is it anyone else what you do with it?

a reply to: Grambler

This is all true if the assumption is a fetus is not a life.

That is what makes Roe v wade so troubling. It was a decision relying on medical science from more than 50 years ago. Clearly it deserves another look with more modern technology.

Nobody is asserting that a fetus is not a life. It's the viability of that life that's being measured, as opposed to the autonomy of the woman. That is the line drawn in the sand. As science and medicine advance so does the viability of the fetus.

a reply to: Grambler

Well, whatever next then? You cannot self stimulate because it violates the right of ones sperm to life and the pursuit of happiness, the fulfilment of biological imperatives? You cannot treat a virus because it is life, and killing it is murder? You cannot eat vegetables because they are living things, and uprooting them from the ground is to kill them? No meat for OBVIOUS reasons?

What nonsense is this? Foetuses are not living things in their own right till certain things are the case. I would say, if the baby could survive outside the womb without outright dying in all cases, it's alive, independent of, merely sustaining itself with aid from the mother, rather than reliant entirely upon her.

However, previous to that point, what you have is nothing more than a tumour putting on airs scientifically speaking, and whether you decide to allow that growth to continue till the stage where it DOES become a life or prevent it from doing so, from a coldly logical stand point, is a matter of no consequence at that stage, save for to the mother, for whom it might be understandably difficult.

Now, that is a VERY cold, bald statement of fact, without icing, sugar, or added preservatives of any kind, and I realise it may be unpleasant to hear, but it is also the only way to look at this without allowing religious or ideological bias into the equation.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

I've only conceded the court's say on this because I don't see an Amendment passing through Congress anytime soon. Even before this election happened, and predating Obama. This country's partisan divide was already too deep in the 90's for there to ever be an Amendment passed in this country again... At least that's my opinion on that. It's no surprise that legal experts are trying other tactics to get government say on an issue.

But that is a poor reason to root for the courts to rule. basically your argument is you will change your stance on who you think should control abortion law to what ever best fits what you want the outcome to be.

That seems hypocritical to me.

I can only play the hand I'm dealt. It's not my fault that one side of the political spectrum has arbitrarily decided that the word compromise is a dirty word.

And also, I think your fears are unjustified. If Roe v wade was overruled most states would allow some form of abortion. Even if you lived in one of the states that didn't have abortion, you would be able to travel to a state nearby and get one.

Possibly, no probably, you are correct, but I'm not exactly for reducing women's rights even if it doesn't mean the end of everything.