<b>andymoon</b>: I'm salivating to poke holes in your retort, but I have to go. Later. I'll be baaack.
Men SHOULD not be able to dictate what a woman can do, but our country is run by men, so they will continue to as long as this is true. This would be a good solution. The woman gets her abortion and some family gets an adoptive son or daughter that the biological mother doesn't have rights to because she chose not to support the fetus to term. The government would give full rights to the adoptive parents since it was the government that ran the lab that brought the child to term. YOU made that choice when you had sex with her, too. You could have used protection, but you were irresponsible and therefore should have to pay child support. You could have exercised your wallet's rights by going out to BUY A CONDOM. I agree that it is selfish, but it is NOT murder. Murder is the killing of a human that is already in this world. Four abortions by 16 IS outrageous and alot of that could be cured by REAL sex education unencumbered by the moral idiocy forced on our schools and educators. That is the exception rather than the rule and should be treated as such. If she knew how to use rubbers and also had them available to her, maybe she wouldn't have gone through that.
1) 'could'? 2) So are we going to go the Inuit way, and leave old people to die on icefloats when they can no longer survuve without being taken care of? And what about new borns? They CANNOT live without the support of somebody or other; do we give up the decision of the newborn's living or dying to whoever it is that is responsible for adapting thier lifestyle to making sure the baby lives? It is, after all, their frigging lifestyle.
If the child can survive once it is taken out of the mother, it is a life. As long as the mother is sustaining that fetus, there are a slew of CHOICES she could make that would impact the fetus and COULD cause it to abort. Since that is the case, We need to mitigate the dangers of those choices and provide a safe way for the woman to abort her fetus rather than having her fly to another country where it is legal, go to a back alley abortionist, take a bunch of drugs to try to abort, or throw herself down a flight of stairs. Of course not, but I still think that it is wrong for ANYONE to be able to tell anyone ELSE what they can or cannot do with their body. I believe in assisted suicide, but obviously not for children. In cases where there is a terminal illness, outrageous incurable pain, and other illnesses, a person should have the right to end their own life. Obviously, children are an exception because they do not have the ability to make a mature decision about things like suicide, drugs (see the Children addicted to drugs thread), voting, etc. If my child, in horrible pain from incurable cancer, came to me to say that he/she was considering euthanasia, I would support her/him 100%. We do not ALLOW kids to have sex? That is one of the most naive statements I have ever heard you make, MacBeth (which is surprising because you strike me as a thinker). Children WILL have sex, the only question is WHEN will they start and will they have the information necessary to mitigate the consequences. I have a HUGE problem with many of the ways we force our "moral priorities" on other people. If you are not harming another (already arrived in this world) person, for the most part, that action shouldn't be prohibited. At most, the action should be regulated to mitigate dangers and social costs. You mean, like adoption? If a parent wants to bear their child, but doesn't want to raise it, they have the right to put it up for adoption. In many states, a parent can drop a child off at the hospital and give up their rights then and there. If a parent thinks they can't handle the responsibility, would you like to force them to? What if the child ends up abused? What if the child ends up into drugs or gangs because of the lack of responsible parenting?
And I believe that my child will respond to the outside stimulus of the Dream Theater concert my wife will be attending. If you do not believe in abortion, DO NOT HAVE ONE, but do not force your morality on others. Nobody HAS to follow your morality, morality is a private thing. Legislating morality is one of the biggest mistakes a society can make. Once the behavior in question impacts someone else (who has been born), THEN we need to legislate.
If her parents would hurt or abuse her as a result of her choice to have an abortion, then this would be right. That is supposed to be the only way to get a judge to override the parental notification provision (at least in the abortion laws in Texas).
Bravo! It is good to see that the court would not take up a case that has been decided for 30 years because the plaintiff whines that she has had a change of heart. A citizen changing their mind is not cause to overturn federal law. She does not EVER have to have another abortion as a result of her changed opinion, but STILL does not have the right to force that opinion of the rest of America.
Amendments take too much support (isn't it 75% of state governments) to pass. Abortion foes make up less than half of the people in this country. It won't happen.
Yes, could. As in, IF the mother decided to bring it to term and bear it. Not once they have to be taken care of necessarily, but once they are in a position where life is not worth it (terminal illness, horrible pain, etc), they should have the ability to CHOOSE life or death. You are just getting into the realm of the ridiculous. Newborns should be given to someone who WANTS the responsibility (like in adoption, if the biological parents want to give it up). That is a life that can exist and flourish without ANY help from the biological mother. Zygotes and fetuses do not fall under this heading.
I disagree with your legal analysis but I don't want to get into that. In addition, there is a convincing amount of legal scholarship which indicates that, in response to popular issues, the Supreme Court is more likely to follow majoritarian trends rather than establish new ones. Plus, standard right wing rhetoric about "activist" courst really pales in comparison to level of activism by conservative judges today, who are slowly but surely roling back regulatory structures to the level of the 19th century. I agree with you regarding the fact that a constituional amendment probably what it would and.or should take. But that will likely never happen as most people are prochoice, so the prolife crowd will likely continue to resort to the courts.
ORIGINALLY posted by andymoon: Nope, they didn't have it then or else the framers would almost certainly have codified it more closely. Look at the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance. When the framers saw conflicts between the privacy of an individual vs. the needs of the government, they sided with the privacy of the individual. You don't have to take my word for it, READ THE CONSTITUTION. <b>I've read it and I understand your point. The crux of the issue for pro-Lifers is that another Life is being terminated. It's not like we are denying women the Choice of having a rotten tooth removed. We all are cerainly pro-Choice in that matter.</b> Of course there is development before 20 weeks. My point is that the fetus does not have the capacity to live without the mother's support until VERY late in the pregnancy. Once the baby can survive on its own, OUTSIDE the womb, that is the point that it is a viable life (IMO). <b>Why does viability even matter? To top that, my 3 1/2 YO would be dead in a few weeks if someone weren't taking care of her. Do I have a legal choice in that matter?</b> And a woman is not "executing" the fetus, she is choosing not to use her life force and body to support that baby. This choice can be made in a number of ways like through using dangerous drugs; exhibiting risky behavior; going to a back alley abortionist. I would rather that if a woman makes that choice, she is treated like any other patient going in for surgery and has the option of a clean, sterile environment along with sound medical advice along the way. <b>Pure spin. Adults who do that to young children are constantly convicted of child abuse and/or murder.</b> What about the error in judgement YOU could be making. Don't you think it is just as aggregious to summarily remove the right of a woman to control what goes on with her body given the ASSUMPTIONS y'all make (namely, that a fetus is a life AND that abortion is some kind of mortal sin)? <b>Better to err on the side of caution. A child carried to term and then given up for adoption might be a lot to ask of someone but they will just have to get over it. Period. The death of the child is much harder for them to recover from. The one getting pregnant knew the risks of sexual intercourse.</b> You, if you continue to try to force YOUR MORALITY on someone else. Didn't we get enough of that in the Spanish Inquisition? If someone else doesn't follow your morality, you DO NOT have the right to use legislation to force it on them. <b>We force morality on citizens all the time; they're called laws for the most part. </b> Fetuses do not have Fourth Amendment rights as they are still part of their mother. Until that baby can survive ON ITS OWN, it is not a life. <b>That's your opinion. It can change. Just like Roe v. Wade changed things 30 sad years ago-- a period of time representing only 15% of this nation's history.</b> Make no mistake about it, if it were my choice (if I were a pregnant woman) I would not have an abortion. At the same time, I know that I have NO right to force my morality on anyone else (unlike people like you who think it is their duty to force morality on people). All women have (and should continue to have) the right to make that choice for themselves. <b>I wish you had the courage of your convictions.</b>
As long as we are in America, the rights of the individual CANNOT be abrogated based on assumptions. Legally, Roe v. Wade was decided correctly and it is the minority (the anti-abortionists) that has decided to try to force their morality onto the rest of the country (the majority). But your 3.5 yr. old is ALIVE and does not depend on a connection to you via fluid transfer through an umbilical cord. Until a child is born, it is basically a parasite, sucking the energy and life force from the mother (I can speak with some authority on this as my wife has been exhausted lately for the same reason). And if we turn back the clock to the dark ages (pre Roe), we will once again be a country whose women must sneak into back alley abortionists with unclean conditions to have a procedure that should be overseen by the government, just like every surgical procedure. I agree. Better to err on the side of caution and allow the woman to deal with her morality as SHE sees fit. If it truly IS a life and a mortal sin, it is an issue between her and God. And, thankfully, the majority of people do NOT want YOUR morality forced on them. Go back to your perverted interpretation of the bible and thump it in YOUR church. That is where your diatribe belongs, not in the court, as Roe decided 30 years ago. This is what bothers me about the anti-abortionists. They will do ANYTHING, say ANYTHING, and redefine ANYTHING in order to advance their agenda. Republicans everywhere are passing laws trying to get a fetus defined as a "life" legally so that they can try to get Roe overturned. It makes me sick that they would pervert justice and the laws of this country for such a trivial purpose. Do you people know how many REAL injustices there are in this world? Do you know how many people starve and die of AIDS worldwide every year? Do you care that there are people, including children, in this country who will not eat or have shelter tonight? This is not an injustice worthy of this attention. Look at the insignificant number of abortions compared to the number of people living under opressive regimes worldwide and see if you can get some sense of perspective. I do, my wife is pregnant with our first child and I am looking forward to raising her into the best child he can be (too early to tell yet). In addition, I KNOW that I would have no right to tell my wife not to have an abortion if, for some reason, she decided to terminate. It is HER choice, not mine.
There is evidence of life. It is <b>your assumption</b> which re-categorizes it as second-class life. In doing that you are describing the wonderful creature growing in your wife's womb right this minute. And it took <b>legal maneuvering</b> on the pro-Choice side to accomplish the change in the law since 1972, so please don't lecture about imposing morality. It's just plain hypocritical to pronounce it diffently when the other side takes up the cause. A child in utero is likewise <b>alive</b> and it does depend on me via a different type of connection. What's wrong with an umbilical connection? It works very well. Your parasitic analogy leaves me cold. What other "parasite" loves you back like you will see in those few months when your child is born. I've done it four times. The 1960s were not the dark ages. No one has to sneak into any alleys if they just will live up to their responsibilities-- excluding medical/life-threatening situations. We can't just pick on with our morality and act on it whenever we want. People would die for petty reasons-- career interruption is one such petty reason. I never initiated the word "morality" or "sin" into this conversation. I never cited or thumped the Bible. You've projected them onto my arguments. Leave my arguments alone, please. And you want to rant about Republican (another quality which is meaningless to this discussion). I can't believe that you call wanting to save lives a "trivial purpose" -- even if you don't agree with my point of view. You should be decent enough to show more respect for an opposing point of view. You don't have the courage of your convictions. That's your child as well. If you wouldn't step in to defend its life, you just plainly don't have the courage of your convictions. You are just deluding yourself.
The only legal maneuvering necessary was to bring an abortion case to the Supreme Court so that they could rule on the legal issues, which they did. In a few months, I will enjoy that parasite's love for me! At the same time, I will sleep easy knowing that I am not on a misguided crusade to take away other people's rights. No one will have to sneak into any alleys if the government continues its DUTY to oversee every medical procedure performed in this country, even the ones for which there is organized opposition. Career interruption? What is the relevance? We can pick our morality, this is why some people believe that war is an acceptable evil and others protest against it. People DO die for petty reasons every day. When it comes down to it, just about every death is for petty reasons if we don't take into account God's divine plan. You are trying to use your arguments to force the government to stop overseeing a medical procedure. EVERY medical procedure needs to be performed under the supervision of some responsible agency. Besides, your entire argument is based on this "life" that you claim you are trying to save. With the energy y'all (the anti-abortion movement) spend on this, you could actually save hundreds or thousands of lives rather than trying to pass a law that WILL endanger the lives of women in this country. It has been proven that prohibition does not work. It was that way in the 50s and 60s when women WERE forced into back alley abortionists by the same forced morality you are trying to afflict upon the rest of us. Once again, EVERY medical procedure needs to be performed under the supervision of some responsible agency. You are trying to FORCE a woman to bring to term and bear a child that she does not want. What kind of life will the child have? Besides, there are plenty of people who are alive today who will not be alive tomorrow and could have been saved if the anti-abortionists had used their massive resources and boundless energy to try to have a POSITIVE impact on the world. I DO have the courage of my convictions, are you daft? I am so sure of my convictions that I would allow my wife to make the choice to terminate with no input from me at all if that is what she wanted to do. Now if she solicited my input, I would tell her that if it were me, I would not terminate the pregnancy, but the ultimate decision would be hers.
Hear hear! If y'all had any empathy at all, you could see how hard it is to make such a choice and would work to help these women recover and move on rather than treating them like children who shouldn't have a say in what happens to their bodies.
