Not only sex ed, but low (or no) cost contraception, too. In those impoverished areas, such contraception could go a LONG way towards reducing unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, abortions.
Agreed. Also agreed. A Sex Ed class that I would design would include fetal development along with everything else.
I think his point is that neither him nor I (the two pro-choicers arguing this position) are arguing in favor of abortions past the first trimester. EDIT: In the above sentence, I meant elective abortions. Obviously, there should be exceptions for the mother's physical health (ie, life and death matters) or cases of rape or incest where it might go unreported for obvious reasons.
Please explain where our form of government differentiates and defines fully developed. The slippery slope you speak of looks like this- abortion eugenics genocide In March 1934, however, the Hereditary Health Court in Hamburg rendered a judgment which stated that abortion on grounds of racial health was not an offense. In its decision, it referred to a Supreme Court decision during the Weimar democracy seven years earlier, allowing the procedure for "medical necessities."(25) In June 1935 the sterilization law was also amended to allow abortions on eugenic grounds and these abortions had to be followed by sterilizations, dependent -- technically -- on the woman's consent.(26) Thus, sterilization, eugenics and abortion all come together. For the first time in German history, abortion was legal. But one cannot ignore the roots reaching back almost fifteen years to the beginning of the Weimar democracy, during which time arguments had been made that unborn life was not that important so was therefore expendable. Despite the racial theories behind this decision there were some non-Nazis who approved because of the allowing of choice.(27) In 1938 the government announced that Jews could have abortions at any time, since this could only benefit the German people.(28) The Jews, as well as "unfit" Germans, had a "choice" most Germans did not. This meant that the Nazis saw abortion as a very useful weapon against undesirables; e.g. as an act of elimination. During World War II the Nazis used sterilizations and abortions (also birth control and even the promotion of homosexuality) extensively in eastern Europe to carry out their eugenics policies. The specific aim was to keep eastern females available for slave labor while at the same time weakening eastern nations by hampering the reproduction of Slavic peoples.(29) Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, a chief architect of the Holocaust, and personal friend of Adolf Hitler, once stated that the tragedy of abortion for German women was that afterwards women often could not have children. Not in the loss of an "individual life," as he put it.(30) The Nazis used the word "parent" to describe pregnant women and the fathers of the unborn(31) and the word "child" to describe the unborn themselves.(32) Nazis forbade abortion in order to preserve German unborn but allowed, even encouraged, the destruction of non-German unborn.(33) 25. Jill Stephenson, Women in Nazi Germany (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1975), p., 62. 26. Atina Grossman, Reforming Sex: The German Movement For Birth Control and Abortion Reform, 1920- 1950 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 27. Stephenson, p. 61 28. Ibid, pp. 62-63 29. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, October. 1946-April. 1949. Vols. IV-V, "The RuSHA Case" (Washington, D.C., U.S Government Printing Office, 1949), IV, 685-86 V, 95-96. Cited here- after as TWC. This is the published account of the trial, representing about 15% of the testimony. 30. Persoenlicher Stab Reichsfuehrer- SS (Personal Staff Files of SS Head, Heinrich Himmler, German National Archives, Berlin, Germany, R320/N518, p. 89-90 31. Letter from Obersturmfuehrer Meine to Himmler, December 23, 1942, in Ibid, NSI9/940 32. Himmler to Gauleiter Eigruber, October 9, 1942, in Ibid, NSI9/3596 33. Letter from Himmler to a Dr. Conti, in Ibid, NS19/3438 http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol16no1_2001.html
I must clarify before I am asked to. I don't think any of you are in support of eugenics or genocide or Hitler. But you can research the precedents and parallels of abortion rights in other eras and countries. slippery slopes are just that - a place you don't want to go. Also I would very much support you in the limitation of abortions past the first trimester. That is a great step for us all to support. Unless there is a medical threat to the mother. We can work together.
Yes, the principals ARE eternal. How they are interpreted or implemented, I'll agree, is not eternal. But the principals ARE. Our forefathers wrote the constitution to build a framework to ensure our basic freedoms are protected. It was not a perfect document and they made allowances for that by provisioning ammendments. As such, it has been ONLY amended to CLARIFY specific aspect of how those principals are applied. But again, no lasting ammendment has ever REDUCED the freedom of Americans. You must remember that. Any changes have only GRANTED new freedoms. Fine, but we are working on new laws all the time to fine tune it. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a new abortion challenge just yesterday. So like Social Security, we shouldn't throw out the whole program by implementing an outright ban. Lets just refine it. But the interpretations have always PROTECTED or GRANTED new rights...not eliminate rights...at least not the lasting interpretations. Cute picture but I totally disagree with your portrayal. I am completely flexible on the topic at large. I want to stop abortions too but I want to attack it from a different angle. Just because you are trying to paint me in a corner on one aspect of the debate doesn't make me inflexible. I'm totally open to compromises. But at the end of the day, we must sustain basic American principals of freedom. Because without that, we can't sustain America as we know it and that's how people got executed for expressing their opinion in Afghanastan. We cannot start down that path.
Moving backwards through your post (bottom to top): 1. I didn't post the picture of the Emperor to state you were inflexible. I posted it because I'm sure you don't think it's swell when you hear: "America, love it or leave it." or..."you're either with us or against us." When you say, 'this is America, if you don't like it, move to China," you become that very thing. 2. Let's distinguish between amendments and interpretations. Amendments require a process of approval by the states, through voters ultimately. There have been some amendments which have retracted liberties. See prohibition for example. We don't always get it right. What we see as fine in one generation, we see as problematic in the next. 3. The Constitution doesn't speak specifically about abortion. So there is no fundamental principle that absolutely controls, explicitly. Instead, we have interpretation of the law as to that issue. And people disagree all the time as to the interpretation of all of it. Before, abortion was left to the states to decide. Some states said, "nope, not here." Others said, "fine." The interpretations of the Constitution, at the time, justified both positions. 4. Freedoms are always checked. There is no absolute freedom. There is no absolute freedom of speech, to the extent it hurts others in some respects. There is no absolute freedom of assembly. There is no absolute freedom of religion. It does not exist. They are checked next to other things...relative to the rights of others. If my rights come into conflict with your rights, we have a problem. That's what we're talking about here. Right to develop as a human in the womb vs. right to not have to go through pregnancy and bear a child. The problem is, one person has a choice before this whole thing starts...the other does not.
For starters, we don't offer social security cards to a fetus. But we do once they are born...aka...recognized as fully developed. Wow, abortion leads to genocide...thats a pretty big leap. Genocide is the specific targeting and systematic murder of people based on ethnic background. Uh........comparing Nazi Germany to American ideals is also a pretty big leap...on many many many levels. I don't even know where to start. But the fact that Germany was undergoing genocide really isn't new info. Please provide me American examples, please. Or even other countries with a similar set of ideals would suffice, I think. I appreciate your effort in supporting your claim...but I just can't feel you on that one, dude. Sorry. Maybe I'm missing your point so maybe a brief clarification of your actual point is in order. [/B][/QUOTE]
Y'all realize that a ban on abortion will only truly impact those who cannot afford to travel to Europe or Canada? And are you after a ban on invitro procedures (where many embryo's are discarded), or the 'morning after pill' (which interferes with a potential pregnancy), or various birth control pills which take effect after fertilization.... Seems, all too often the debate is spearheaded by religious groups. I don't mean that as a dismissal of their concerns, but mainly to point out that the 'beginning of life' is often a theological discussion. And wasn't the original Roe decision based on right to privacy, or some such thing. Would you be satisfied (as in fully accepting rather than taking as a 'first step') an affirmation of the original Roe decision with a stronger definition of the 'health' exemption? And finally, the bit about doctors seeing dollar signs....wouldn't prenatal care and delivery be much more lucrative?
1. it was. Roe was poorly written. that's attested to by people who agreed with the outcome. they were concerned it wouldn't stand, because the "right to privacy" was not exactly a firm foundation for such a national change. i wouldn't be "happy" with an affirmation of the original Roe with the stronger definition on the health exemption...but i would feel a lot better about it. at least we would be somewhat consistent then. and it would prevent a lot. it would certainly get rid of partial birth abortions, which would be swell. 2. it's not more lucrative for abortion doctors. again, when women are shown ultrasounds and explained exactly what has gone on with the child inside them, they are FAR more likely to actually abort. so real factual information is prevention. you won't get that from an abortion doctor. and the softening of the health exemption means more money.
Not to sidetrack too far, krosfyah let me quote a document signed by or forefathers: "We hold these thruths to be self-evident, 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." Three points- 1. all men 2. created 3. unalienable rights, Life Let us assume for the sake of debate that our forfathers meant created at birth- we then can logically conclude that abortion would have been legal at the time and no laws would ban abortion. Not let us assume for debate's sake that our forfathers meant created at conception- we then can logically conclude that abortion would be illegal at the time and laws would be passed to prohibit abortion. Now all we need to do to understand their intent is look at the laws and morals at the time of the constitution and after. This should clarify what side the framers of the constitution were on this issue, because this isn't a new issue. English Law Henry Bracton, (1216-1272) "the Father of Common Law," apparently regarded abortion (at least after 5 or six weeks) as homicide and it seems that at early Common Law abortion was a felony, and, therefore, a hanging offense. Later commentators, Coke and Blackstone, held expressly that abortion after quickening was not the crime of murder, but a separate crime (a "grave misprision"). It is unclear whether pre-quickening abortion was still criminalized. The Miscarriage of Woman Act of 1803 ("Lord Ellenborough's Act," 43 Geo. 3, c. 58.), introduced a statutory abortion scheme in England. Pre-quickening abortion was made a felony and post-quickening abortion was a capital crime. In 1837, with abolition of the death penalty, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85. § 6, the quickening distinction was removed and all abortion was punished as a single felony. In 1861, the Offenses Against the Person Act, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, § 59, introduced a replacement statutory scheme, where, as before, all abortions were felonies. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34, was passed. It supplemented the OAPA and included a defense for bona fide efforts to save the mother's life. A common law health exception to the OAPA was introduced in 1938 by Rex v. Bourne, [1939] 1 K. B. 687, 3 All E. R. 615 (1938). Finally, the Abortion Act of 1967, while maintaining the general prohibition of abortion, introduced broad exceptions for genetic defects, and the mental and physical heath of the mother. Under this law, abortion is generally permitted if a pregnancy is unwanted, as childbirth is seen as more of a health threat than early abortion. However, this law does not apply uniformly throughout the U.K., e.g. Man and Jersey. American Law In the United States, before general codification of law became commonplace in the 19th century, criminal law was based on the Common Law inherited from England. Therefore, states followed the law as it existed in England. (Exactly what this was could vary depending on when the state is said to have "received" the common law.) As states and territories slowly began to opt for statutory criminal law over common law, abortion laws were inevitably included. Most of these took after the English scheme of 1803. Connecticut was the first, in 1821, passing a law making post-quickening abortion a felony. New York followed in 1828 with a statute making a felony of post-quickening abortion and a misdemeanor of pre-quickening abortion. Through the 1830's, 40's and 50's this process continued. In the mid 19th Century, a movement began to tighten abortion regulation. Spearheaded by the medical community, by the late 1860's this movement had succeeded in establishing uniform abortion prohibition in England and throughout most of the United States. Outside of necessity to preserve the life of the mother, abortion was prohibited. These laws, or similar successor provisions, would remain in place in all fifty states until the 1960's. During the 1960's and early 70's many states liberalized their abortion laws to some degree. Generally, this meant allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest, or for various health reasons. This was largely due to the influence of the 1962, Model Penal Code. Its inclusion of "liberalized" features was a watershed for the loosening of abortion regulations, which had, until this time, usually banned all abortions but those to save the mother's life. (However, Roe v. Wade would ultimately strike down these MPC-style laws in 1973.) In 1967, Colorado was the first such state to adopt an MPC-type statutory scheme. In 1970, New York (followed by Alaska, Hawaii and Washington) introduced the first laws to allow abortion "on demand." New York's modification of Penal Law §125.00 made elective abortions performed by a licensed physician completely legal for the first 24 weeks and homicide thereafter. The state has also added reporting and live-birth regulations in Article 41 of the Public Health Law. This statute's constitutionality was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals (5-2) in Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 194, 286 N.Y.2d 194 (1972). In 1973, Roe v. Wade struck down the abortion laws of most states. Under Roe, no state could regulate abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Regulations directly related to maternal health would be allowed during the second trimester. Post-viability abortions, if regulated, would be subject to the mental and physical health exceptions set out in Doe v. Bolton.
Challenging constitional ideals fundamentally goes STRAIGHT to the heart of what America means. Without the Constitution, we have nothing. Challenging abortion is something ALL countries face. That is NOT inherently an American issue. So I feel pretty confident in saying that if you don't believe in the Constitution, then perhaps this isn't the right country for you. Prohibition is a GREAT example since it was ultimately repealed. 3/5s rule was also repealed. No LASTING ammendment has ever limited Americans...it only preserves freedoms. Of course the Constitution doesn't speak about abortion...it tries to avoid specifics. Generally speaking, Americans have the freedom of choice on all matters. Within our government, if each state voted independantly to outlaw abortion, then I would have to support that. I'd hate it because I don't agree but I'd support it. Checking freedom and outright preventing something are two different balls of wax. I support checking abortion in the form of some restrictions but I don't support an outright ban. I didn't fully read your last comment because somebody is waiting on me so sorry if I didn't directly address your questions this time.
1. Of course Prohibition was ultimately repealed. Of course! That's my point. The Constitution isn't static. It changes. What is seen as fine today, is seen prohibited tomorrow...and then the next day it might be fine again. The Constitution is NOT explicit on abortion. This nation is divided pretty evenly on the issue. Are you seriously suggesting that those who disagree with the Supreme Court are not Americans?? Or should go elsewhere?? 2. Americans do not have freedom of choice on all matters, generally. And we sure don't have absolute freedoms when human life is or might be at stake.
And the only changes made have granted NEW freedoms...except the ones that were ultimately over-turned. So yes, I concede that things change but the principals have been maintained...except in two instances...both of which have now been corrected. As W said himself recently on the topic of stem-cell-research (another topic), you can't save lives by jeapordizing other lives. [size=-1](Of course he is a study on contradiction because he pushed the Iraq war on the basis of preserving freedom and justice over saving lives - another topic.[/size] Point being, you also can't sacrifice the rights of women by preserving the rights of the unborn. You have to approach it differently...such as...drum roll please...preventing unwanted pregnancies and streghthening existing restrictions. Give me an example where Ameriacns do NOT have freedom. We may not have absolute freedom, as you say, but some essence of freedom IS preserved. It may come with consequences but if we chose to do so, we could. I am even free to murder a full grown adult if I so pleased...as long as I am willing to sacrifice my own freedom and/or life...I COULD commit murder anytime like. But under no circumstances could I have an abortion...the choice to do so would be 100% removed. That is fundamentally wrong.
I don't think you are reading carefully what Madmax is saying, and you are contradicting yourself. "I COULD commit murder anytime like. But under no circumstances could I have an abortion...the choice to do so would be 100% removed." That is a fundemental contradiction. Please re phrase.
On the first point...my argument stands. The Constitution is not static. On the second point...huh??? You can murder someone and you're free to do so?? What? But you can't provide an abortion? How are they different? Right now if you murder someone..and you're convicted...you are punished by the state. Assume some legislation is upheld that penalizes doctors for providing abortions, whether absolutely or even just after a period of time in the pregnancy. The doctor, if convicted, is also punished by the state...only if he carries out an abortion outside of the law. I do not understand your last paragraph at all. Go scream "fire" in a movie theater, and tell me if you have an absolute right to free speech. Join a religion/cult that sacrifices dogs and see if you have an absolute freedom of religion. Every right is checked to the extent it intrudes on another. The question is whether or not the right for a woman to have an abortion intrudes on the right of another; namely, the life growing inside her.
Yes, it IS static. The principals are static. They have NEVER changed. Please show me one thing that EVER has changed which contradicted with "Life, Liberty and Justice For All?" Amendments that were later repealed don't count. EDIT: ...changed in the Constitution... Is isn't about doctors providing abortions. Its about a woman's receiving an abortion. If a total ban on abortions pass, there is virtually NO doctor in America that would still be willing to provide the procedure. Therefore, even IF the woman were interested in abortion with the threat of facing punishment, she still couldn't do it. But if she wanted to buy a gun and shoot somebody, nobody is preventing her. It is her choice. If she does it, she'll face penalty but that is HER choice. As an adult, we are all allowed to make our own decisions and face whatever penalties come thereafter. But if abortions are banned, we are essentially treating adults like children and saying we don't even trust you with yourself. Yup, after the fact...not before the fact. You can't presume guilt and enact a premtive law restricting freedom. Again, it isn't about preventing doctors. By preventing doctors, you circumvent any decision making ability by the woman. Are woman too stupid to make up their own mind on the subject? I'm not talking about granting absolute rights. I'm talking about the absolute removal of rights. That's right. You cannot deny a womans rights by granting rights to a fetus. ...particularly since the status of that fetus is based on opinion. In this country, we try to work with fact and not opinion particuarly when doing so eliminates fundamental rights for women. As W said this week, we can't justify saving lives by destroying others. Similarly, we can't justify granting rights to a fetus by destroying the rights of women.
