Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach...

[Wotan]

Udie theres a film maker (forget his name) that filmed a fetus from a point when you could just see it form till is born (film session once a week through out). Pretty powerfull stuff.

Especially when you see the result of late term abortion where they crush the "fetus's" skull and cut off the arms and legs to get it out.

You all wanna dance around it well lets get too it. at 4 weeks you could tell in detail that it was a human fetus. The fetus will respond to cold and heat and at later stages sound and light.

I have no kids of my own but I have 9 nephews and 2 nieces. What the descion ultimately comes down to is whats best for "me" without regard to responsibility. Fathers whether they want the child or should pay to bring up that child if not then society picks up his bill.

The chatholic pope a few years ago made a speech about the "Culture of Death". You dont just write human beings off as surplus population. You should join together to see to it life remains "special". Not inconveniences.

I am nether religious nor rightwing but choosing to kill  then be burdened by doing what is right or shuck off your responsibility to me is wrong.

To clarify I as much anti-abortion as I am anti death penalty.

[Udie at Work]

Originally posted by Wotan
Udie theres a film maker (forget his name) that filmed a fetus from a point when you could just see it form till is born (film session once a week through out). Pretty powerfull stuff.

Especially when you see the result of late term abortion where they crush the "fetus's" skull and cut off the arms and legs to get it out.

You all wanna dance around it well lets get too it. at 4 weeks you could tell in detail that it was a human fetus. The fetus will respond to cold and heat and at later stages sound and light.

I have no kids of my own but I have 9 nephews and 2 nieces. What the descion ultimately comes down to is whats best for "me" without regard to responsibility. Fathers whether they want the child or should pay to bring up that child if not then society picks up his bill.

The chatholic pope a few years ago made a speech about the "Culture of Death". You dont just write human beings off as surplus population. You should join together to see to it life remains "special". Not inconveniences.

I am nether religious nor rightwing but choosing to kill  then be burdened by doing what is right or shuck off your responsibility to me is wrong.

To clarify I as much anti-abortion as I am anti death penalty.

 WOW! I seriously thought that I was one of the only people that is against both abortion and the death penalty.  (Osama has made me a bit hypocritical on the death penalty)  


S!

[Wotan]

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entireity of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

I can fill this thread with quotes from the descision but I'll post a link
Roe v Wade

you can read it your self......

I am correct in my assertion that abortion is protected under the "right to privacy".

[aknimitz]

Wotan, I have read it, many times And you are not correct.  In order for abortions to be legal, and a woman to be entitled to them as a matter of right, the Court had to find somwhere to stick them.  So, the stuck them under privacy.  It has nothing to do with Doctors and Patients per se, it has to do with the fact that its the womans body, and what she does with it is, to a certain extent, her business, and within her right of privacy.  Go read the case yourself and you'll see that this is clear.

Nim

[Wotan]

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.


On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).


We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Edited miss read your last point granted its not patient  doctor confidentiality that needed to be proctected. but the right of the individual. My mistake


but abortions are protected under the right to privacy not as a seperate act no matter where the court "stuck it"

[aknimitz]

Wotan, before you start insulting people, read that excerpt, and the rest of the case, and tell me where it says that a woman is entitled to an abortion because of the doctor/patient priviledge.  She is entitled to it as a matter if her right to privacy.  The Court has decided to throw this subject matter into the realm of privacy.  Doctor/Patient priviledge is something entirely different.

Nim

[Wotan]

misread your reply was in the process of editing when you posted my apologies...........

[aknimitz]

No worries mate.

Nim

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Wotan
miko dont pressume to judge me this a game called Aces High not a political forum. This thread is a troll to get a reponse not a commentary. Read the words and phrases of the originally post. Looks like an invitation to a civil discussion about abortion ey.......

piss off

 I see a pretty long thread in which many people discuss quite meaningfull issues - quite a lot of content.
 I see your post (the very first one) that there is no content to the thread. So either every other participant is an idiot or you are mistaken to it's nature.
 Especially since you are posting voluminous messages right in the same thread as a part of a discussion. Did you change your opinion? It's not a troll anymore? Then why continue saying so?
 All I did was point out your own inconcistency so that you could discretely edit your reply.
 If someone pointed such stupidity to me, I would consider it a favor and hastened to correct it.

 Also, this is a political (among other things) forum, not a game Aces High. Aces High game is where you fly simulated airplanes, not talk politics...
 People here post messages to get responce or commentary (however you separate one from the other).

 It is funny that  you are the one asking not a judge - since your reply is the first in this thread and it is pure unadulterated judgment without any justifications, arguments or content - in other words, pure troll.

 BTW, why the heck do you care if I judge you or not? It's not like I have any influence over you.

 And what's that about original post? How do I see it? And if it is an invitation to discuss abortion, what is wrong with that?
 As for being civil, it's not a requirement for any posters, but funny that you are the one mentioning it...

 miko

[capt. apathy]

WOW! I seriously thought that I was one of the only people that is against both abortion and the death penalty. (Osama has made me a bit hypocritical on the death penalty)

nah you're not alone here's another.

[miko2d]

View of abortion is deeply based on the culture. In Russia average woman used to have about a dozen abortion because that was pretty much the only method of birth control.

 A lot of much worse stuff goes on in many contries - some of them geographically closer to US states then other US states. We do not seem to care much what is going on there.

 A huge difference between US cultural landscape and other countries is that in US there are many completely separate cultures coexisting without ever mixing up.

 There is usualy no reason for individual of one culture to worry much about self-directed actions of a person from another culture regardless whether that individual lives in the same country or not.

 Or he/she may have a clear but pretty limited reason - like I do not care if certain ethnic group is having abortions but I do not want my tax money paying for it (actually some do - they think it cheaper to pay for abortion then for welfare and jail). So I would vote to stop state subcidies but not outlaw abortions.

 The clearest example are religious jews in US. Those are as anti-abortion as they come. All strive to have as many children as they can and would never think of aborting one. At the same time they consistently vote Democratic, despite the abortion issue?
 Why? It is quite logical. The abortion does not affect them in any way. No one can force them to have the abortion and as for preventing someone else - why would they interfere in someone else's affairs that do not concern any outsiders?

 Why is all that uproat about the abortion then? Here is my theory. Among many peacefully coexistant cultures residing in US (amish, hindu, muslim, capitalist, altruist, etc...) there are a couple fundamentalist ones that hold it as one of their main tenets that they are the one true culture and must interfere with everyone else for their own benefit.
 Kind like Talban or medieval catholics burning people for their own benefit and out of best intentions.
 
 Personally, I don't give a damn about abortions because it does not exist for me or my relatives other then as a word in a dictionary. Why would you care?
 Is it possible to be "pro-life" and "pro-choice" at the same time?

 miko

[Thrawn]

You should see the polls for pro-life vs pro-choice in the US.  Looks like, for at least the past five years anyway, pro-choice has been beating pro-life, has down.

If I was pro-life I would not want this to go to a referendum right now.

[Udie at Work]

just a thought I've always had.....


 Why is it when pro-life protesters walk around with signs that have pictures of aborted featus' on them they are hated called gross or disgusting?  Not the nutcases who shoot the doctors, but the protesters.  Do people not like what remains after an abortion?  Is it guilty consciences?  I'm not trying to piss anybody off I really want to know.  Why is it gross or disgusting if it wasn't a "life" yet?  Carrying that logic out wouldn't it just be biological matter?


 This is really sad  How many millions of babies have been killed in the womb since it was made legal?  


 I just don't understand

[Fatty]

Because they are wackos, Udie.  Its a shallow attempt to sway opinion through shock value images.  No different than running around throwing animal blood on people wearing fur coats.

Or, say, if I was a hardcore christian scientest opposed to amputations I ran around with a sack of severed gangrenous feet.  Or if I thought neutering pets was a sin against nature I ran around with a pale full of feline testicles.

[Udie at Work]

Originally posted by Fatty
Because they are wackos, Udie.  Its a shallow attempt to sway opinion through shock value images.  No different than running around throwing animal blood on people wearing fur coats.

Or, say, if I was a hardcore christian scientest opposed to amputations I ran around with a sack of severed gangrenous feet.  Or if I thought neutering pets was a sin against nature I ran around with a pale full of feline testicles.

 oh toejam I get your point  though it would have some humorous value seeing a bunch of people running around with bags of rotted feet  what a stench though.


 waddaya doin fer lunch tomarow or thursday?  I just got paid today   You guys drinking this weekend?  I may go to Houston, but I'm looking for a reason to get out of the drive