| Author | Message | ||
     Threeringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 79 Registered: 1-2006 |
Ken Zeidner, I am partial to allowing states to chart their own course on matters not mentioned in the constitution. I have sometimes wondered why the European countries have not experienced anything like our levels of disagreement since they liberalized their abortion laws. From what little I know, it seems to be because they did it through a political/legislative process, not through the judiciary. Politics always involves compromise and the all-or-nothing advocates on both sides of the abortion issue seem unwilling to acknowledge this. Banning abortion under any circumstances sounes like a hard sell in 2006. But so does enshrining the right to destroy one's offspring from the moment of conception to the moment of birth for any reason whatsoever. Some kind of compromise is inevitable when and if the courts back off. Cheers | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1051 Registered: 10-2005 |
tjohn said- "There is something slightly bizarre about a bunch of mostly older white men in suits signing these bills." So let me get this one straight. It is ok that "mostly older white men" decided that abortion is constitutionally protected back in 1973 but it is NOT ok for "mostly older white men" to sign bills into law placing heavy restrictions on abortion in 2006? What exactly am I missing here? Ken Zeidner for Prez!  | ||
| campbell29 Citizen Username: Campbell29 Post Number: 372 Registered: 4-2002 |
Well, for one thing, a large group of people in the southern section of the country decided that if you were black you were a second class citizen. So I am not one of those who agree that states always make the best laws and are always looking out for the minority of their citizens. If you disagree with abortion, you are not disenfranchised, you have the ability to carry your pregnancy to term. You do not however, yet, have the right to dictate your own moral and religious obligations to those who do not share them, which would in effect, disenfranchise them from the right to control their own body. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2658 Registered: 12-2001  |
If NJ put outlawing abortion up to a vote, how would you vote? I would vote against outlawing it. | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1054 Registered: 10-2005 |
Welcome back Innis! I missed ya! | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1373 Registered: 10-2002  |
cjc - women should have power over their own bodies. Not sure why you think they shouldn't. Do you think that women should be forced to be egg donors for infertile couples too? I mean - since they have the capacity to give life for others who can't, and they choose not to donate their eggs, does that mean it's just about a big power trip for women? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5309 Registered: 8-2003 |
LilLB -- your fallback doesn't address what I'm saying or the arguments of what abortion really is (and isn't) about in my example, and your example of forced egg donors has nothing to do with this. It's much larger than you purposefully phrase it. There's another 'body' involved here that's alive and doesn't threaten yours. | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1056 Registered: 10-2005 |
LilLB- When women start having abortions after artificially inseminating themselves come talk to me.... -SLK | ||
| Ken Zeidner Citizen Username: Blackflag Post Number: 54 Registered: 9-2003 |
To SLK: Thanks for the endorsement for Prez, but I prefer your first offer of Supreme Court justice. To Campbell29: There is a hyge difference between abortion and Jim Crow: the Constitution speaks directly to racial discrimination (the Equal protection Clause of the 14ht Amendment). It is silent as to abortion, which means that I have a say in the matter. I have every right ot attempt to dictate my moral and religious viewpoints on those who disagree--it's called debate and vote. Which leads me to: Innisowen: The question of abortion does pertain to everyone (even men), just as much as, say, incest, beastiality, suicide, drugs, prostitution, etc. You quip that if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Well I can quip back, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex. Just to keep perspective, we States First folks don't want women to be precluded from getting an abortion for medical reasons. It's just that some in this country believe that abortion should not be used as birth control (I didn't say whether I'm one--it's completely irrelevant to the discussion). If so many reasonable minds can differ, why not allow it to be battled out through the legislature. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1450 Registered: 5-2001 |
SLK, I think you misunderstood me. I said that women have the final say, not the only say. Southernor, I'll take that as a no. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1374 Registered: 10-2002 |
SLK - when you can become pregnant, come talk to me. cjc - you're not addressing the woman's rights - that's part of the issue too. What you think you're proposing to woman as an alternative to abortion, isn't possible, so I'm not sure what you think you're proving. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2545 Registered: 5-2004  |
SLK, first you wrote: "Women having the final say is part of the problem that need some tweaking." [emphasis mine] Then you wrote: "I won't force a woman to carry my baby of she wishes not to, but I should have some say in the matter, especially if she chooses to keep it." There is a big difference between some say in the matter, and the final say. If the woman you're with decides to have an abortion without talking to you about it first, that says something about your relationship. And if the relationship is that bad, then I don't see why you should have a say, All this stuff about legislating whether the father can have a say in whether a woman can have an abortion is, to me, ridiculous. If you have a good relationship with the woman, you will have a say, though she will always have the final say. if you don't have a good relationship with her, then you should not have any say. And you won't. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5310 Registered: 8-2003 |
LilLB -- Here's the issue. You ask a woman to give up an unwanted child for adoption, and the retort is "you're forcing me to go through a pregnancy." Then you position it that a pregnancy and resulting legal and financial responsibility aren't required, and they STILL want to be able to kill the child. That's quite a right you're interested in protecting. And the only way you get to keep that right today is by legally declaring that which you're killing to not be a 'life.' The reason a partial birth abortion is allowed is that if you withdraw the child completely and then kill it, you're guilty of murder. That particular difference comes down to about 6 inches and some daylight. And it's not medically necessary for the life of the mother to boot. And the rejoinder to this argument is "It's my right." Not very convincing or persuasive. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2546 Registered: 5-2004 |
cjc, the big difference that you're missing (and that most on the Left are missing), is this - Those who oppose abortion believe that the fetus is a life, and thus deserves protection. Those who believe in the right to choose typically do not think of the fetus as a child, but as a part of the pregnant woman, thus enabling her to make the decision about her own body. As for your comment about the reply you're given, you've set up a strawman,and knocked it down. Well done. Regarding partial birth abortions, can you cite a single instance that you are aware of (without Googling) where a partial birth abortion was not for the mother's life or because of a severely deformed fetus? | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1376 Registered: 10-2002 |
cjc - Perhaps in the impossible scenario you are proposing, women don't trust your assertion that whatever "environment" ended up with the child that would result from their "pregnancy" that you've "removed" somehow wouldn't find a way to make them legally or financially responsible in the future. Or, that once the child is old enough, they will try to find their biological parents as many adopted children do. And, clearly, no one in power is interested in women's rights, so they're pretty sure that they wouldn't be offered any legal protection and would just have to suck it up and deal with whatever consequences came their way as a result. When you have a reasonable and actually possible scenario for women to consider, maybe they'll consider it. But, considering your impossible scenario doesn't really help someone who's actually pregnant with an unwanted fetus. | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1058 Registered: 10-2005 |
LilLb-the last time I checked it took two to tango.... When you finally accept this notion, let me know... | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1377 Registered: 10-2002 |
SLK - You can't possibly be asserting that women and men share the same consequence when the egg and sperm successfully tango... When men actually face the same consequence as women when the tango is over, let me know... | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1452 Registered: 5-2001 |
LilLB, forgive SLK. His nipples are terribly sore from nursing these last few months. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5312 Registered: 8-2003 |
LilLB -- they didn't go those areas. I'm not aware of an adopted child suing their biological parents, are you? The women pretty much immediately echoed what was the primary basis of your last two responses to me of "women's rights." | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1378 Registered: 10-2002 |
dave23 -  | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1379 Registered: 10-2002 |
cjc - I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this, as you don't think that a woman has rights in this issue and I do. I wasn't asserting that a biological mother would be sued by the child, but that they'd simply be "found" by the child and have to deal with those issues without ever having wanted the child in the first place. I would expect that many parents who ended up with the "pregnancy" may come back with legal or financial issues to the original mother, not the children that may be born as a result of giving away the fetus. You seem to think that you've offered this perfect viable scenario to women instead of abortion, but it has so many loopholes, and it's just not possible. Women would like to have a choice over what happens to their own bodies. You clearly don't think they should have a choice. I do. | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1061 Registered: 10-2005 |
LilLB- OK, then I have an idea-if a woman can't live with the consequences of her actions then maybe she shouldn't engage in the tango? -SLK | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5313 Registered: 8-2003 |
LilLB -- Pregnant women (save cases of rape and incest) have made choices already, but every life should have a choice and not have life denied without due process. You can point to 'loopholes' if you want to now, but the basis of your argument echoes others with that blanket 'rights' fallback statement that supercedes everything even if the fears and injustices you put forward are addressed. If a scenario was ever offered to spare the life of the child and relieve you of any inconvenience I think you wouldn't take it. I understand that, and I know where it comes from. Thanks for the back and forth. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1381 Registered: 10-2002 |
cjc - with all due respect, I think you're wrong about the choices women would make if there actually could be the choice you are proposing. Unfortunately for all of us, there isn't that choice. I think that when a woman makes a choice to have an abortion, it is with a very heavy heart. If there were an alternative, like the one you propose, there would be many takers, but women now respond "no" because it's simply not possible and they can't trust that their rights will be preserved (or even recognized in the first place). SLK - great idea - that is a great solution! Let's also throw more federal funding into abstinence only programs that don't work. | ||
| pseudonymous Citizen Username: Berry_festival Post Number: 236 Registered: 9-2003 |
SLK -- the same goes for the other party in the tango. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1454 Registered: 5-2001 |
SLK, abortion is a consequence. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5315 Registered: 8-2003 |
No it isn't, dave23. It's a right to be celebrated. It's freedom. It's birth control. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 899 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc - you're right. Its all of those things and what dave23 said. | ||
| campbell29 Citizen Username: Campbell29 Post Number: 373 Registered: 4-2002 |
I can't imagine what would happen if each and everyone of us had to take the "maximum" consequence every time we had unprotected sex, maybe drove after one too many, didn't carefully watch our child's every move, or take a smoke of that wacky weed. Most of us have dodged the consequences of at least one foolish act. Having to get an abortion IS dealing with the consequence of your actions. It seems you suggest that being pregnant, undergoing labor and delivery, and raising a child is some sort of punishment should be used a punishment for "bad girls". Having a child a wonderful priviledge - it shouldn't be used as a club over a woman to get her to conform to male society's archaic ideal of feminine chastity. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 751 Registered: 3-2005 |
I believe life begins at conception. I wonder when the pro choice people here think it begins? Should there be any limits on abortion? Abortion the day before birth? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1456 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm pro-choice and I think life began billions of years ago. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12829 Registered: 1-2003  |
dougw, do you really want to have that conversation? Do you have any hope it will go better this time than the previous million times? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1723 Registered: 7-2004  |
doug: most pro-choice people believe life doesn't really begin until age 3, so anytime before that is fair game. Sorry, offering a ridiculous response to your ridiculous question. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 752 Registered: 3-2005 |
Why is the question so controversial to the left? | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2659 Registered: 12-2001 |
Good night. Never seen so much stupidity thrown around. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 902 Registered: 10-2004 |
dougw - you have every right to believe that life begins at conception. I have every right to believe that it doesnt. The vast majority of abortions occur before the 12th week and few are done after the 16th week, except where the health of the woman is at stake. It is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one. Therefore it should be left up to the individuals best judgement. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1646 Registered: 8-2004  |
themp, One last bit of stupidity.  | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1724 Registered: 7-2004 |
Republicans = Love the fetus, hate the child. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12830 Registered: 1-2003 |
I didn't say it's controversial, though it is. That's not the problem. My point is that it's not likely that you'll find such a discussion satisfying. So why bother? | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1632 Registered: 3-2004 |
Scrotey: Thanks for the welcome back. I wish I could say that I missed you too, but that would send the wrong message. Awesome business trip combined with vacation days, and I want more of that. I see no one has cured the political ills of this country in my absence so I will have to bring my innate radical socialist (strange thing for a banker) views to bear. |
