Ugggg. I was hoping to stay away form the BBS for the duration of law school and maybe forever. As usual, it draws you back in. And a thread like this? Sheesh. Where to start? Did anyone besides durvsa read or even care to comment on the article? George is addressing it mainly to pro-life folks who are swinging their votes towards Obama based on his social policies because they are basically throwing up their hands and saying the abortion war is lost. In particular there are some prominent pro-life folks in the Notre Dame staff and I think the dean of Pepperdine's law school have both thrown their support behind Obama. I think the article is very good, and it represents the main reason I don't support Obama. But when did DD turn into this gigantic cheerleading liberal? Hilarious. I know he'll get on here and try to defend why he's not a liberal but give me a break. His views represent nothing of what the abortion debate is really about. Brief Abortion history. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are decided at the same time, 1973. Roe establishes that abortion is ok (defined as a fundamental right and is somehow filtered out of the 14th amendment) in the first trimester for any reason and there can be laws regulating it afterwards, but that after the first trimester it can only be done if there is a health risk to the mother. Roe does not define what a health risk is. Doe, then establishes that anything is really a health risk, which essentially makes abortion legal for all 9 months of pregnancy. Do not delude yourself, these are the most liberal abortion laws in the entire world. Fast Forward to 1992 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court essentially gets rid of the fundamental right to an abortion in the first trimester and instead switches to the health provision as the main factor for what constitutes a right to an abortion. They also uphold that parental notification, 24 hour waiting period, and reporting and record keeping of abortions were constitutional while telling a spouse was unconstitutional and presented an undue burden. So essentially PP v. Casey was seen as a compromise case, in which abortion was not overturned, but where some restrictions could be made. Brings us to the Carhart cases of these the oughts. The first Carhart case was decided 5-4, and state laws against partial birth abortions were declared unconstitutional because they did not provide provisions for health of the mother (which as was seen before, means anything and is the source of us having the most liberal abortion laws in the world). The second is in response to Federal Ban on Partial Birth Abortions, which had a pretty large amount of bipartisan support, also left out the health of the mother criteria. The swing vote in this was Stephens, who was gave the impression that he had been hoodwinked in the prior case. The court basically said that there is never a health reason (a hypothetical could be thought of but had never once in the history of medicine happened) for this procedure, and therefore there was no need for a health provision in this bill. Now, to Obama. He's talking out of his ass when he says things he wants to reduce abortions done by faulty health reasons (i.e. mental duress, etc.). How can we make a reasonable determination that this is the case? Let's think, first, health provision is defined by the SCOTUS. I don't really see how he's going to be able to overturn that definition without undoing a lot of abortion laws, even Roe v. Wade. And he's not a Supreme Court Justice. Second, his intent on signing into legislation the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), would undue all legislation and court history since Casey. Whereas putting restrictions on abortion laws has lessened abortions by a lot. He signs that act and the numbers are going to take a drastic rise. So does he really want to lessen abortions? No, he wants to make them as available as possible, trump all state laws that have put any restrictions on abortion, as well as sign a bill where civil action can be brought against conscientious objectors (talk about forcing your effing morality on people), and is vague, but include action against people protesting outside of abortion clinics. Here's the wording of the bill: What the bonkers is going on here?!?!? In one fell swoop this legislation is going to be the first thing to get passed by Obama. That takes my tax dollars and starts spending them on abortion. Not forcing morality?! Seriously?! Lawsuits against conscientious objectors and anyone else who discriminates against a women's right to choose? Not legislating and forcing morality?! Who's morality, conservatives?! No we just legislate liberal morality here on CF.net. Give me a break if you believe that, I have some prime Florida Swampland for you. This takes what had been 30 years of legislative and judicial compromise on the issue and just throws it out the window. I guess you can call that change. Fourth, I won't even address DaDa's inane arguments that its the women's body and she can do what she wants with it, and that we shouldn't legislate morality. Umm. Dada, take a look at the vast majority of legislation. It's mostly morality. Ever heard of felony murder? We thought it unjust to kill one another. Same with larceny, robbery, carjacking, etc. You obviously haven't done any research on the topic to know that that isn't really the debate that's going on in the pro-life/pro-choice discussion. The discussion is of when life begins. Biology books say technical life begins at conception. Pro-choice people have tried to (and been succesful) in getting the legal definition moved back to 9 months post conception. Forget all the arguments about the soul, (because those are most often brought up in the discourse of pro-choice arguments, but instead of soul they use the words sentient). All you have is a redefinition of what life is, one that is based on as much of a theoretical and philosophical basis as you believe ours to be based on. Think about it a little bit harder. We are willing to slice open embryonic stem cells because they contain all of the building blocks of life and will help cure disease and help people dance better. Yet, you are unwilling to view that as a person, capable of being killed. Why create the fiction of sentience? Just call it murder and say we are ok with murdering pretty much the weakest of us all. Well that would lose a lot of votes. But it is what's happening. Any honest person has to be able to realize that. So play the sentimental card about poor mothers and food stamps to defend your beliefs. And continue to play the card that all conservative are heartless and want poor people to have as many babies as they can so we can continue to oppress them with our outrageous morality. But know this. Your candidate has created a fiction such where he won't vote for a Born Alive Act because he feels that it will give rights to a child 2 seconds before it is outside of the mother that would disrupt abortion. Think about that for a second, as children from botched abortions were left in closets to die, because your man could not have his fiction disrupted. Think about how your candidate supports a bill that will defund Crisis pregnancy centers that help women in tough situations and offer pro life counseling without forcing women to make up their minds one way or the other.
Typical, an attack without all the facts plus an appeal to emotion. Here is the full convoluted story of the "born alive act" covered by the Chicago Tribune with full sources. http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html And about legislating morality. We legislate murder because nearly everyone believes that murder is wrong. There is not nearly enough consensus for abortions. At best you'll get about 50% of people to say that. There are plenty of people that believe that a fetus is a human being at conception. There are also plenty of other people that believe that a clump of cells like an early stage fetus could not possibly be equal to a human. After all, we do not give mice or insects that protections that we give a human, even if it is life. Thus the Supreme Court decided on the compromise that is Roe and Casey. An honest person would know that there are many other people that disagree with him/her, and not intend to force his/her beliefs on others. If you would never get an abortion/pregnant, fine. If you want to argue, fine. If you want to try to change other's minds, fine. But do not presume that other who disagree with you are not honest about their beliefs or are less honest than you are.
Any pro-choice people want to comment on this? As a pro-choice person myself I find myself conflicted more now than I was when I was younger.
Where do you get the idea that I think adults don't have souls? I'm just saying that a soul is ever-present in a human life. People use some preferred benchmark (i.e. brain activity) to justify that an abortion is okay because that "thing" is not a human being yet. That's a self-serving arbitrary reach that can lead to the termination of a pregnancy; at least my self-serving reach saves a life.
TW, My entire argument is that it is none of our business what a woman does with her body, and I don't believe a fetus can be considered a baby until at least late in the 2nd trimester. Nothing more. Forcing a woman to bring a baby to term because she is pregnant is simply wrong, if she wants to abort the baby, who are you to tell her no? You aren't going to support her, you aren't going to raise that baby, you aren't going to make sure it has a roof over it's head and is supported in a loving way. Therefore, you have no say... That is my point..... As for being a liberal, I have been called worse, but I fall across the board, fiscal conservative, socially moderate....if that makes me a liberal in your eyes...ok...but, you have no say there either. DD
For the sake of argument, DaDa, let's say I accept your premise that it's a woman's body and a woman's choice solely. I can still feel free to disagree with that, can't I? But can you accept my premise that that is a human life in utero and stll disagree with a pro-Life position? You either limit the argument in order to take considerations of the child out of play or you try to define the child out of existence, i.e. it's not a human... yet. Isn't this just a complication of law turned loophole so that some get what they want?
Ditto....legislate from the womb to the tomb. I have a lot of respect for people loving life and babies. I just want less government in our day to day lives. And to attempt to force a woman into carrying a baby she doesn't want is just wrong. I understand people's disdain for it, but IMO, it is none of their business. DD
DD, what is the fetus before the second trimester? And if its a baby after the 2nd trimester, as you propose, do you then support the murder of that baby? And do you support legislation that will wipe out any restrictions that have been set up by states and approved by SCOTUS for abortion laws? And will hold doctor's who don't perform abortions liable for discrimination charges? Do you support felony murder laws? Why not for the unborn, or 2nd trimester unborn since you consider them babies? Did you even read my post?
Yes, I read your post, and I think any legislation regarding this issue would be flawed and untenable...therefore worthless. Look, I do not favor killing a baby, nor a fetus, but I do favor a woman being able to make that choice......and since it is her responsibility, it should be her choice. DD
Actually I was disgusted by your post to DD, full of leading questions based in pure emotion lacking any rational basis of fact, so I mocked you. Mock mock mock. So when did you stop beating your wife?
Mocking usually has a tinge of humor in it. What was so leading about my questions, since I just took his own words and asked him to work through his thoughts. How disgusting is that. When someone is prepared to answer my questions and follow up questions we'll have an intelligent debate. Until then you're just playing internet tough guy telling some guy you've never met that he beats his wife. Stay classy bro.
Care to put forth an argument? You support doctors who won't perform abortions to be subject to lawsuits? That's not an emotional argument. It's what the bill says.
So, this is your view of a classy, intelligent discussion? Well of course that is the crux of the matter, and this is why I say any law is untennable, because there is no clear definition of when life begins. Is it when the egg becomes fertilized, or is it when the baby can breathe on it's own, or somewhere in the middle? Seriously, there is no way to define it to the satisfaction of everyone, and my point is that everyone should not have a say, it is soley the choice of the female and her body, does she want to carry the baby or not, if she says no, and gets an abortion, who are we to judge her? Less government is always my choice....in most matters. And if you want a classy intelligent conversation, you should stick to those rules yourself. DD
Why not err on the side of what might be and will certainly become Life? Why is the mother exempt from that responsibility? Isn't it the baby's body, too? Who's "judging" her; my interest is in saving a Life. This "less government" argument is bogus. It has nothing to do with the issue. Are you ready to throw out all laws?
