Women's right to choose

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement. Throughout her tenure, Justice O'Connor has been part of the razor-thin
majority that has kept Roe v. Wade from being dismantled.

Now, for the first time in over a decade, there's a
vacancy on the Supreme Court. And unless we act quickly,
it will be filled by a right-wing extremist bent on ending
a woman's right to choose: www.care2.com...

Let's tell the Bush administration: we want a Supreme
Court Justice who will uphold Roe v. Wade. NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL A WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH HER BODY!

STOP IT!

Stop the political campaigning. If you have something you'd like to discuss, then by all means start a discussion. But this is bullcrap.

Two in a row even.

Did I break some kind of rule or something? If so, sorry. I thought my post would indeed start a discussion of the issue. But in retrospect, I guess it's all been said here a 100 times already. I tried.

Originally posted by dollmonster
NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL A WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH HER BODY!

How about....no government has the right to tell ANYONE what to do with there body? I.E. the "war on drugs". I'm not advocating hard drugs but if that is what a person wants to do.....as long as it affects noone else...then by all means do it.

Yes, and the same can be said about wearing seat belts, motorcycle helmets, riding in the back of a truck and more. These are just a few of the freedoms that have been taken away in my lifetime. It should be left to the individual to make his own choices, right or wrong!

Why should women have the unconstrained "right" to murder their children?

If a woman refuses to feed, clothe, and send their born child to school they'd be arrested. Why make a demarcation at the time of birth?

The government tells people what to do with their bodies all the time, that's why I can't buy crack over-the-counter at my local drugstore.

Some of you are missing the point entirely? I'm not talking religion or morality. The right to chose is about freedom, civil liberties plain and simple. I'm not deputing the ethics of it. That's a matter of personal belief.

So don't be taken in by the governments pretense to our well being. Does it not commit murder by implementing the death penalty, or waging war when most of the world denies it's provocation? Does a government really care about it's people when it allows the poisoning of it's environment or the sale of untested drugs to the unsuspecting public? Think again if you think Uncle Sam gives a rats ass to our well being by enforcing seat belt or no-smoking, or even scarier, gun control laws. It's all about control and nothing else.

I'll give you religious moralists something to contemplate. How would you like to lose your freedom of religion? That could be on the agenda somewhere down the line if people don't wise up

I am pro-choice because I honestly believe that such an issue that divides so easily (some politicians use this one to get votes, some people actually would vote for a candidate that is 'pro-life' but is against their other interests, or wont vote for a candidate that is in their best interests but is 'pro choice') and stirs up so much emotion should be left for the individual and their loved ones to choose what they believe is the right thing to do based on their sense of ethics and morality.

I think this is important because on a matter like this once someones mind is made up on it they aren't likely going to change it whatever you say or whatever 'proof' you have to back your position up.

Besides, I dont want to see young girls have to resort going to backyard abortion clinics or throwing themselves down stairs or doing harm to themselves to get rid of the foetus.

What about the Presidents "right to choose" who he thinks would be the best Supreme Court justice? It is in his job description.

Rowe v Wade is bad law and should be changed. The father has no rights whatsoever.

dollmonster,
Let me understand exactly what you are attempting to voice here.
Not only are you stating that the that NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL A WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH HER BODY!
IS this correct?
So what you are stating is that, it should be up to the woman to commit murder so that she and her partner, who both decided to have uprotected sex, with impunity? So in other words, a woman (or anyone else) should not have to "pay the piper. Women as well as men have have been taught and should know that if they want to have sex, there maybe a price to pay if they decide not to take precautions.
Using your own logic here then, If a person decides to go out and drink then drive, then get's into an accident that kills another that the drunk should not be held cupable for the death of another.

According to the Medical Community

In THE TRANSACTION OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, vol. XXII (1871), we read: "Long before quickening takes place, motion, the pulsation of the heart, and other signs of vitality, have been distinctly perceived, and, according to approved authority, the foetus enjoys life long before the sensation of quickening is felt by the mother. Indeed, no other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception."

At what point do medicate experts say life begins? In 1981, while considering S 158 (known as the Human Life Bill), the U.S. Senate heard testimony from 57 international authorities. The Senate's report stated: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being -- a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, told the Senate: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, chief geneticist at the Mayo Clinic, stated: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth of Harvard University declared: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life beings at conception."

So as determined by the medical community, LIFE begins at the moment of conception which is the actual fertilization of the ovum which can take place up to 5 days after the act of intercourse.
When Does Life Begin?

Developmental Biology

At six weeks, the baby has brain waves that can be measured with an electroencephalogram

www.mccl.org...

Social or "Birth Control" reasons account for approximately 93 percent of all abortions. The so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, health of the baby and threat to life or health of the mother account for less than 7 percent of all abortions.16

The above quote is from the same link directly above.

Again, what you are defending is the woman's right to kill an innocent life just so she and her partner can "enjoy life" , Not taking any precautions, etc.
HMMM as stated above, then no one should have to pay for any crime including rape as it is an infringement on thier rights!
That is a wonderful outlook.

Now let's look at some of the other points which you are advocating.

Yes, and the same can be said about wearing seat belts, motorcycle helmets, riding in the back of a truck and more. These are just a few of the freedoms that have been taken away in my lifetime. It should be left to the individual to make his own choices, right or wrong!

You can do all of the above if that is what you wish although, the police will give you a ticket for failing to abide by the law.
Seatbelts- You the driver are taking your own life into your hands. Any passengers are putting their life into your hands when not wearing a seatbelt. They are betting that you are in your right mind, that you are not going to kill them in an accident. OOPs, forgot, going by your origional statements, if the driver kills the passengers it's okay.
Motorcyles and helmets- In many states, a person can ride without a helmet as long as thei post a seriously large bond first. The bond is to pay for any medical treatment (which of course insurance will not pay for) due to thier foolishness.
Riding in the back of a truck. the statments that I made above in regards to seatbelts again hold true here. I do though invite you to do a search on the net for pix on the kids killed by riding in the back of a truck where they have nothing but the open air to keep them in the vehicle. Enough said on that.

Does it not commit murder by implementing the death penalty, or waging war when most of the world denies it's provocation? Does a government really care about it's people when it allows the poisoning of it's environment or the sale of untested drugs to the unsuspecting public? Think again if you think Uncle Sam gives a rats ass to our well being by enforcing seat belt or no-smoking, or even scarier, gun control laws. It's all about control and nothing else.

Let's look at the first line, does the goverment commit murder with the death penalty? Well, let's see, a person that has been given the death penalty has commited a crime which has caused the death of another person. Another innocent person. They have been tried and convicted of such by a panel of their peers. But again, by the logic in which you advocate a woman's right would of course negate anything which the person on death row has done.
As to the war in Iraq, if that is what you are refering to.... agree and disagree with you. The reasons that the goverment gave which prompted the wat have been proven to bogus. Does that mean that Sadaam Husain should still be in power? I think that over 5000 Kurds who were murdered by a chemical attack led by "Chemical ALI" under Husain's orders would disagree with you.

As to poisoning the environment, there are laws, which I agree with you need to be enforced but how does this support your argument to do away with the abortion laws?

Sale of Untested Drugs? Do you have anything to support this? To date, the drugs that have been sold on the open market to the american people have been tested. There should be more testing with a wider testing range and all the testing results need to be out in the open and at least available to the medical community. I am unaware of any drug which is openly sold today in the US that has not undergone at least some testing.

No Smoking- although their are laws in place to prevent underage smoking and there is alot of anti-smoking advertising, I have to agree with you to a point on this. The goverment should take some of the billions that have been won in law suits against the tobacco industry should be used to help people quit the habit and insurance companies need to allow the use of drugs such as welbutol to be used for stemming tobacco use.

Gun Control- What are you trying to get at? Should the goverment take away the right of people to own guns? By the logic that you use to promote overturning the abortion laws, this would be an infringement on the gun owner's rights and thus should not be regulated.

Loss of religious freedom- again this begs the question how does this support your main argument? The abortion laws are in place to protect lives when a person decides that it is inconvient to them. How does this have anything to do with the right to religion?
Remember, The Constitution which goes

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Notice the word life? so our goverment supports that life is somethign that should be faught for.
Before you go on and hit on the Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, should those two rights negate the first when support of the Liberty and Happiness will cause the death of another innocent person?

The women should have the right to choose and will back it when it comes time. The Gov't should not make the choice and religion needs to stop making choices for everyone. It's the womans choice. These are my beliefs and no pics of fetuses and slams of me going to a fictional place when I die will change it just as my thoughts won't change yours. We will see what happens when the time comes and I hope that the anti's abortionist don't "murder" too many people when the womens choice is still validated.

I never said I advocate abortion or any other example I used. That is not the issue. The issue is freedom of choice.

I hate abortion and I have four children to prove it! But the fact remains that women always have and always will seek abortions, back alley or otherwise.

The morality of it rests solely on your religious or spiritual beliefs. Whereas Christians consider the fetus a person from conception on, those who believe in reincarnation believe the soul enters the body during the third trimester.

I agree wholeheartedly that too many use abortion for birth control and do not take responsibility for their actions, but that seems to be the rule of thumb for so many people today.

Nevertheless, we cannot let lack of morality, be the determining factor for government control. I say put down restrictions instead. No abortions after sixrteen weeks for instance.

As far as the rights of father's go, maybe they should think about the consequences before giving their seed away.

Now I ask all you "right to life" Christians, didn't Jesus say "turn thy other cheek?" So how can you condone the death penalty? "Thou shall not kill" means everybody. Killing to punish is still killing. You can't have it both ways!

God didn't give us "free will" only to have the government take it away.

dollmaster

Nevertheless, we cannot let lack of morality, be the determining factor for government control. I say put down restrictions instead. No abortions after sixrteen weeks for instance.

16 weeks? Did you look at the links that I provided? If you will notice, I even quoted one that shows that a 6 week old feotus has it's own discernable recordable brain waves. A feotus at the 16 week gestation period, has fingers (with it's own fingerprints) toes eyes, etc. all, it can evewn experience pain as the part of the brain that registers pain is developed at 14 weeks.

Your statement that we should not allow the goverment control of this just due to people's lack of morality is a bad argument for me. Jeffery Dahmer definately was lacking in morality. Would you liked to have him still on the streets?

But the fact remains that women always have and always will seek abortions, back alley or otherwise.

That, may well be the case and I agree with you that this is wrong, but that does not detract that what is being done is murder for convienance and not necessity. Again, I present to you the case of a drug user behind the wheel of a vehicle who causes an accident where it costs the life of an innocent bystander. If by your argument that the goverment should not govern acts just due to it's moral stance, then by that same argument, the drug user cannot be held liable for a crime.
Remember, a feotus is an innocent bystander in this case. It has not commited a crime other than being brought into being just because it's parents are irresponsible.

I have stayed away from the religious angle and the evidence that I have persented is actually the law as well as the standings of the medical community. Both of which state that "life" begins at the moment of onception, not some arbitrary number of days / weeks, but at a specific point in time. There is no religious slant to this it is a fact that is accepted by the doctors, which in this case, happens to agree with religion.

As far as the rights of father's go, maybe they should think about the consequences before giving their seed away.

This is again a problem of not just the father but also of the mother. Except for cases of rape where a woman was not given the choice, a woman can always say no if she fears pregnancy, until her partner uses a condom or until the woman uses some other form of birth control.

Now I ask all you "right to life" Christians, didn't Jesus say "turn thy other cheek?" So how can you condone the death penalty? "Thou shall not kill" means everybody. Killing to punish is still killing. You can't have it both ways!

Again, I reiterate that the laws are based on the scientific community (the medical community) and not just on religious beliefs. The laws just happen to coincide on this.
Also, as you are condeming the goverment for "murder" due to the death penalty which is used for those who have commited and convicted of a serious crime that normally has caused the death of another. Yet, you are pro-choice which basically is soley advocating the right of a woman (and man) to only act irresponsibly (immorally) which eventually leads to the murder (death) of an innocent.
Where is the difference?

Roe vs. Wade (and its companion Doe vs. Bolton) are unconstitutional rulings handed down by activist judges. They are null and void because they are unconstitutional (in violation of the 5th and 10th amendments).

A human life begins at conception. Murder is the killing of an innocent human being. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

The issue is not "right to choose" but whether abortion should be considered a LEGITIMATE choice. And it goes without saying, abortion is wrong. Even atheists recognize that abortion is murder!

A woman who becomes pregnant has three choices, two of which are legitimate: raise the child, adoption, or abortion. Just because something is a "choice" does NOT automatically make it legitimate.

People have the right to choose already--the issue is, is the choice right or wrong?