Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on July 04, 2005, 10:17:15 PM
-
What then?
Obviously, with Day-O steppin' down, this is gonna be the apex of the vortex of the hub of the fight.
No doubt we're gonna be talkin' all up and down about the fight itself, but what of the possible result?
Is it "Well gee, that happened. Abortion is criminalized. Anyways, how was your day?"
Seriously... what do y'all actually envision when you envision the overturning of this law? What do you think is going to happen? What are the political consequences? Do Republican politicians even want this to happen?
Roe v. Wade has made for good battle fodder. But does anyone actually want to win it?
-
We will have no income tax before RVW falls.
-
Fair enough. But what of it? The consequences.
For example, Ed Kilgore writes:
"This appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago. Social conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments, refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally due, and if Bush doesn't pay up, they'll foreclose their entire alliance with the Republican Party."
He's not far off the mark, it seems, as Focus on the Family's position is:
"President Bush must nominate someone whose judicial philosophy is crystal clear. And no one has been clearer about this than the President himself, who said during his campaign that he would appoint justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. We have full confidence that he will carry out that pledge."
Red State chimes in with:
"Let's get it out there: how many here think that if the President nominates Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court it would manifest itself as an unmitigated disaster for the President, the GOP, and conservatives? And if so, how will you react?
I do. And if it happens, I'm taking up golf. I'm not going to give any money to any Republican party organization, nor any incumbent."
Priests for Life say:
"At the moment, one of the most important concerns of the pro-life movement is the appointment of Federal Judges, and eventually Supreme Court Justices, who will respect life and will respect the Constitution rather than invent "rights" that have nothing to do with it. The US Senate, in particular, is faced with the challenge of confirming the right kind of men and women for this task. Therefore we are asking you to pray that this process may be free from all obstruction and anti-life bias."
Operation Rescue:
"Upon the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, Operation Rescue calls upon President George W. Bush to live up to his pro-life commitment to voters in the last election by appointing a justice to the nation’s highest court who will uphold the Right to Life for all pre-born Americans...
“Now it is time to make good on those campaign promises, Mr. President,” said Operation Rescue president Troy Newman. “You have been given a mandate to end abortion in our nation by the American people who cast their votes for you. You have been placed in power for such a time as this. Now it is time to fulfill your obligation to God and to those who elected you, and appoint a staunchly pro-life judge to the Supreme Court. The lives of millions of children yet to be conceived are depending on you for their very lives. ”
Southern Baptist's Faith and Value:
"Justice O’Connor’s retirement opens the door for the opportunity that tens of millions of Americans have been praying for for more than a decade. "
...............and it just goes on and on and on.
They aint takin' no for an answer.
So okay, maybe the law doesn't get overturned. That in itself is something.
Basically I'm asking about the consequences if or if it does not get overturned.
-
Dream about winning the lottery~it has just as much chance for success and much more relevance to your personal life.
-
Actually Liz... I'm not too far removed from the subject here. Not that I've personally had an abortion, mind you. :)
One time we had to drive to the great state of Montana... coupla scared 16 year-olds. But that's a long story.
Fact is - this aint as "lottery" and out of touch as yer implying. If the impact of abortion is a big deal to one group of people, it is only because it is a big deal to a lot of people.
This post is just about thinking that through. "Lottery" dismissal doesn't work here.
-
I think it's so remote a chance that it's not worth worrying about.
-
R v W is very likely to be overturned. If anyone thinks Bush is going to put a moderate or liberal on the SCOTUS they are sorely mistaken. He knows this is chance to change the balance of the SCOTUS and put his mark on legislation for years after his Presidency.
An overly conservative and devisive SCOTUS is going to be a fact. I fear the resurgence of religious PAC's and their demagoguery like we saw in the late 70's early 80's that will try to take advantage. (Anyone seen The People vs Larry Flint?) God does not vote. He holds his court later.
-
"I think it's so remote a chance that it's not worth worrying about." - SOB
Okay yeah.... I get that.
(hrmph - my bad - I'm just not asking the question right).
There are gonna be consequences if the law gets overturned. I don't think we have ever really explored what they would be, and it would be interesting to do that, I think.
However....
I am also asking what the consequences would be if they weren't overturned, due to a pro-choice nomination.
One is a social question - one is a political question. Both of them are going to be faced.
Essentially coat hangers and a ballooning welfare state vs damnation and political alienation.
Everyone is laying a bit low here, but when the nomination gets announced it's going to be mayhem... from one side or the other - it has no choice but to happen. We're just gonna beat them to the punch.
-
Even if they get the "right" justices in there, they will need somebody to pass a law banning abortion. Is Congress ready to do that? What about states?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Even if they get the "right" justices in there, they will need somebody to pass a law banning abortion. Is Congress ready to do that?
Yeah - good question.
Is Congress ready to pass a law banning abortion?
"Kenneth L. Connor, former head of the Family Research Council who helped engineer congressional efforts this year to intervene in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case, says that many Republican politicians had no desire to see Roe go away.
"The current situation allows them to furrow their brow, ring their hands, gnash their teeth but not do a dadgum thing about it," he said. "If the court were to put the decision in their hands, they would be mortified."
Ann Stone, chairman of Republicans for Choice, said the best evidence of all that the GOP establishment benefited from maintaining Roe was the lack of any push by the party's majority leadership in Congress for a constitutional ban on abortion.
"If they thought it was a winning issue, they would have had a vote," she said. "This could wind up being a case of getting what you wish for and then regretting it."
So it would seem that politically, this is just not very workable. Or they would have done it. Yet the people whose votes they rely on say:
"Now it is time to make good on those campaign promises, Mr. President. You have been given a mandate to end abortion in our nation by the American people who cast their votes for you. You have been placed in power for such a time as this. Now it is time to fulfill your obligation to God and to those who elected you, and appoint a staunchly pro-life judge to the Supreme Court. The lives of millions of children yet to be conceived are depending on you for their very lives. ”
Tough spot.
-
what then?
how about the end to legal murder & mutilation of fetuses in this country ....
OMG!!! NO !!! NOT THAT!!!! The Horrorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what then?
how about the end to legal murder & mutilation of fetuses in this country ....
OMG!!! NO !!! NOT THAT!!!! The Horrorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!
lol, ok Nash, you hooked him, are you happy now?
-
Abortion is a personal problem. No one's forcing any one to abort.
This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4636121.stm) however; is a much more pertinent and potentialy frightening human presumption of Godhead.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
lol, ok Nash, you hooked him, are you happy now?
glad to see you can laugh about such things...after all it's nothing really right?? just the morning after birth control...
-
liz is correct... the whole RvW is a smokescreen by the left to justify not allowing strict constituitionalists on the SC.
There are about 300 things more likely to change for the worst if we allow some liberal socialist "constitutition as a quaint document" judge on.
That is the reason I voted for Bush. Not abortion... I don't care about abortion or gay unions or.. if I do... they are so far down on the list that they are insignificant.
and nash... don't be dishonest... Of course you can "have an abortion"... the baby is half yu and... it is dishonest in the extreme to pretend that we are (as men) interested only in the "womens rights" aspect of it..... we want the ***** to get rid of the brat and let us keep screwing and not make us be responsible for it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
liz is correct... the whole RvW is a smokescreen by the left to justify not allowing strict constituitionalists on the SC.
There are about 300 things more likely to change for the worst if we allow some liberal socialist "constitutition as a quaint document" judge on.
That is the reason I voted for Bush. Not abortion... I don't care about abortion or gay unions or.. if I do... they are so far down on the list that they are insignificant.
lazs
I'm in "goose step" with you Lazs.
-
R v W is in more jeopardy than the 2nd amendment.
-
as well it should be... since there is no constitutional gurarantee for abortion.
If you feel that all laws are just fads that need to be changed on a whim then how can you expect R v W to fare any better? An Amendment should never be in danger by the SC.. They have no power to change an amendment.
You want laws to be flexible and hip.... unless it is your ox that is being gored of course..
lazs
-
Forgive me. I Ass-u-me'd that at least a few of the 300 things you mentioned had something to do with firearms.
-
The best description I've heard of a good balance is the suggestion that abortion should be:
Safe, legal, and rare.
This seems like a good setup. The burden falls on society to do its work to keep people from WANTING to seek abortion but offers a safety valve for those that fall between the cracks.
One possible reason why conservative politicians have been relatively quiet on the issue is that it's a strategic decision to limit the window of comment. Why pre-announce your intentions years in advance and risk someone turning society against you when you can present a fait accompli? This applies to any issue, which makes me distrust the motives or competence of any politician that trial balloons real hot-button issues before they have the support to ram it through. It's a real risk.
-
Actually, Roe was overturned in all but name by Planned Parenthood v. Casey--thats where the real fight is right now. After Roe state restricitons on abortion were severly limited up to 16 weeks. However, after Casey, the octigenarian lawyers said that states could restrict the so-called constitutional right even before the 16 week threshold as long as it does not impose an "undue burden" on the right. Go figure what "undue burden" means.
What a shame we burn so much time and resources on this silly issue. If people were so inflammed about it they should write a real constitutional amendment either guaranteeing it, or banning it. I doubt, however this would ever happen. I suspect that the "right-wing" has just as much invested in seeing abortion legal as the"left." Meaning, if abortion became regulated by the states the conservative would lose one of their major donor issues. They would also lose one of their social high ground issues as well. Niether side would benefit, politically, from moving the debate from the status quo. Fear mongering over this issue has, unfortunely, susbtituted for reasonable, responsible debate.
-
This is such a stupid issue.
The right to be an irresponisble moron.
Anyone who bases their politics on this is sad.
I am pro the right to murder unborn children. (thats what it is, if you have to sugar coat it with this right to chose BS, well maybe you should wonder what else you have to sugar coat in your life to justify)
Christians should just sit back and relax, their god will punish these people when the time comes, its not their job. They should mind their own buisness.
Roe V wade is not going to change.
-
If Roe is overturned -- which I don't think will happen soon -- the issue will revert back to the states. Some will ban all abortions, some won't, and most will have some restrictions.
One other thing...they will never admit it, but Roe is the best thing to happen to the GOP in years.
-
I've been through it before...
I honestly can say that the life of my fiancée was more important to me than the life of my unborn daughter. I'd take the chance of having my fiancée survive than the both of them die...
THat, gentlemen, is my stance on it...
-
Originally posted by texace
I've been through it before...
I honestly can say that the life of my fiancée was more important to me than the life of my unborn daughter. I'd take the chance of having my fiancée survive than the both of them die...
THat, gentlemen, is my stance on it...
The wacos won't see it that way tex, they say if both die than it is God's will. Some must make difficult decisions, and living in America, we can make that decision ourselves, not have someone else make it for us.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The wacos won't see it that way tex, they say if both die than it is God's will. Some must make difficult decisions, and living in America, we can make that decision ourselves, not have someone else make it for us.
texace situation is not the main purpose of abortion as it is used today ... it is birth control . the would-be momma don't want the stretch mark, the rugrat or the change in her lifestyle ... clear and simple
texace would have had the same choice if RvW did not exist. no doc in his right mind would allow the mother to die due to complications at birth or during pregancy. But keep justifying it ...
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
This is such a stupid issue.
The right to be an irresponisble moron.
Anyone who bases their politics on this is sad.
I am pro the right to murder unborn children. (thats what it is, if you have to sugar coat it with this right to chose BS, well maybe you should wonder what else you have to sugar coat in your life to justify)
Christians should just sit back and relax, their god will punish these people when the time comes, its not their job. They should mind their own buisness.
Roe V wade is not going to change.
Well I think it is actually the right to control everything inside your skin.
I want that right. Maybe you dont.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
texace situation is not the main purpose of abortion as it is used today ... it is birth control . the would-be momma don't want the stretch mark, the rugrat or the change in her lifestyle ... clear and simple
texace would have had the same choice if RvW did not exist. no doc in his right mind would allow the mother to die due to complications at birth or during pregancy. But keep justifying it ...
Again; I see all the blame being put on Women.
Why isn't an offense to have unprotected sex if the product of unprotected sex is so problematic?
Why isn't there a male birth pill?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Abortion is a personal problem. No one's forcing any one to abort.
This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4636121.stm) however; is a much more pertinent and potentialy frightening human presumption of Godhead.
Seeker what are the real chances for success? It is very interesting.
Like the zombie dogs:)
I think some of the zombie dogs have been posting on these boards:)
SCIENTISTS have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines after
several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended animation
for humans.
US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of
clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.
Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a
technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an
ice-cold salt solution.
The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and
have no heartbeat or brain activity.
But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are
brought back to life with an electric shock.
Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year,
according to the Safar Centre.
However rather than sending people to sleep for years, then bringing them
back to life to benefit from medical advances, the boffins would be happy to
keep people in this state for just a few hours,
But even this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield casualties
and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have suffered huge blood
loss.
Advertisement:
During the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few degrees
above zero. The dogs' body temperature drops to only 7C, compared with the
usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before death.
Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are
perfectly preserved.
Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The dogs
are brought back to life by returning the blood to their bodies,giving them
100 per cent oxygen and applying electric shocks to restart their hearts.
Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage.
"The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent
death in a certain segment of those using this technology," said one US
battlefield doctor.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Again; I see all the blame being put on Women.
Why isn't an offense to have unprotected sex if the product of unprotected sex is so problematic?
Why isn't there a male birth pill?
Because men are in charge you big dork:)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
texace situation is not the main purpose of abortion as it is used today ... it is birth control . the would-be momma don't want the stretch mark, the rugrat or the change in her lifestyle ... clear and simple
Oh, I didn't know you were involved in everyone's decision, you must lead a busy life. You must be GOD, knowing everything and all
texace would have had the same choice if RvW did not exist.
You know this too? Wow that is incredible. My guess is he would have so much gov red tape to go through he would not have the choice. Then, even if he did get through it, Jeb Bush would step in on behalf of the fetus
-
Originally posted by Silat
Well I think it is actually the right to control everything inside your skin.
I want that right. Maybe you dont.
I said I was pro on the issue. Maybe try reading the post, I just dont sugar coat it. It's killing a baby.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It's killing a baby.
Or saving your wife
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Or saving your wife
Yeah exactly.
I amn pro abortion jeez. There are many legitimate reasons for it. AS are their many that are sleezy.
I KNOW several women who used it as birth control.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Or saving your wife
or killing a baby.
-
Access to abortion must always be made available to those unfortunate enough to require it. The only way to make abortion unnecessary is to live your life with high moral values and to raise your children to believe that killing the unborn must only be pursued under the most dire of circumstances. Teach your kids to be better at life than you, always a good goal.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What then?
They can just head north to a state run hospital in Canada.
I would never vote for anyone who wraps his platform around a single issue like abortion. I really don't want a SCJ to be named based on abortion either. That being said it is interesting how the same people who cried that the O’Connor and the radical right wing court appointed Bush. Are now the ones screaming that Bush better pick a justice just like her.
Bush should nominate Bork just to see the veins on Ted Kennedy's neck pop.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Seeker what are the real chances for success? It is very interesting.
Like the zombie dogs:)
I think some of the zombie dogs have been posting on these boards:)
Lots of ways to take this; for example:
The experiment "prooves" that live is not a physical entity. That where ever or what ever life is; we can only note it's absence; we don't know where it comes from; where it goes; or, as in this case, where it hides.
In this context, "life" is analagous to "soul". And as such; we're not presuming to take the place of God in this experiment; we're merely tinkering with it's housing.
In the case of the link in my above post; however; we are indeed presuming to take the place of God; firstly by creating/inculcating or redirecting life; and in the second by presuming that we can "create" at all. Historicaly; this is the blackest of magic; the production of homunculi.
Where as abortion is merely killing; something that the Bible encourages (although only for non hebraic races; of course).
;.)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I said I was pro on the issue. Maybe try reading the post, I just dont sugar coat it. It's killing a baby.
I read your post:)
I saw you were pro choice.
Sorry if we miscommunicated.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Lots of ways to take this; for example:
The experiment "prooves" that live is not a physical entity. That where ever or what ever life is; we can only note it's absence; we don't know where it comes from; where it goes; or, as in this case, where it hides.
In this context, "life" is analagous to "soul". And as such; we're not presuming to take the place of God in this experiment; we're merely tinkering with it's housing.
In the case of the link in my above post; however; we are indeed presuming to take the place of God; firstly by creating/inculcating or redirecting life; and in the second by presuming that we can "create" at all. Historicaly; this is the blackest of magic; the production of homunculi.
Where as abortion is merely killing; something that the Bible encourages (although only for non hebraic races; of course).
;.)
Soon we will be arguing as to when the "SOUL" actually leaves the body. Ive got my "SOUL" clockwatch at the ready:)
you wrote:"Where as abortion is merely killing; something that the Bible encourages (although only for non hebraic races; of course)."
And my answer is: Well the Jews are the chosen people after all:)
I finally rank #1 at last:)
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by lazs2
See Rule #4
Well, if you can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus then that logically sums it up. Unfortunately, our courts aren't logical at the moment.
-
Actually, you are pretty close with one exception. Back in your day, the male got off easy. Those roles are reversed today, and for nine months of discomfort, a woman get's a child to raise (not an easy task, mind you), and the male gets financial and legal encumbrances for the child. DNA don't lie, though both males and females will.
Any young man that has the ability to take brith control and doesn't is worse than stupid, he is bordering on criminally insane.
-
And my answer is: Well the Jews are the chosen people after all:)
I finally rank #1 at last:) [/B]
You're quite welcome to the number one spot if it means the rest of us get to keep our unmentionables intact. No kingdom of heaven's worth letting some nutter with dreadlocks and a cowboy hat near me todger with a scalpel!
:)
-
Doh! Wrong thread, carry on.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Access to abortion must always be made available to those unfortunate enough to require it. The only way to make abortion unnecessary is to live your life with high moral values and to raise your children to believe that killing the unborn must only be pursued under the most dire of circumstances. Teach your kids to be better at life than you, always a good goal.
:aok The biggest problem is, since the Peace, Love Dope generation, its tough to even get parents to THINK about their kids during their busy lives and bring them up with good morals.(With or without religion)
-
It's not easy to make the choice of whether or not to go through with a proceedure like this. It's wrong to assume it is. Abortion is not and never will be birth control...it is not God's "White Out." It doesn't just make the "problem" go away.
I did what I had to do after exhausting all availible options. There wasn't anywhere else to go. If makes me a murderer, then I guess that's what I'll be.
I live in regret every day over that. I on;y speak about my situaiton because it's the only experience I have with it. It took me three weeks to stop crying myself to sleep. It's not an easy doing, no matter how you put it.
Abortion, killing a baby, it makes no difference how you put it...it's not an easy choice. I chose what I thought would be the best option, considering I love my fiancée and I know that we can try again after she gets better. It wasn't fair to my daughter, but I guess life isn't fair sometimes. Had they both died, we'd still be in the same situation, but with one less person.
It's the lesser of two evils...:(
-
Hi Nash,
Ok, the following is merely an unscientific ramble, just answering your "what happens" question with opinions. (apologies in advance, I'm not in the best of moods).
As many have already pointed out, if Roe is overturned, the issue would immediately become one for the people to decide via their legislatures. This of course is not what pro-abortion forces like NOW want to see happen, especially since statistically speaking fewer Americans are in favor of legalized abortion now than they were at the time of Roe. Interestingly enough, ultrasounds, and the advance of medical technology have probably done more to bring that about than the opposition of religious groups.
At this point, only the bluest of the blue states don't want some sorts of limits to be applied on abortion, most people feel that aborting an unborn child in the second and third trimesters is not a legitimate form of birth control.
As to the coat hangers and back-alleys scenarios; obviously fleeing to the blue-blue states which wasn't really an option at the time of Roe will prevent a lot of that, but even so the figures there were inflated, and surely pale in comparison to the figure of 35 million, which is the number of legal abortions that have occurred in the USA since the RvW decision.
My completely unscientific assessment though Nash? The fillibuster, and the fact that he just isn't that socially conservative, will effectively prevent Bush from naming someone who would vote against the cherished "abortion penumbra of the mythical right to privacy" in the case of RvW.
Bush will probably nominate a mildly conservative legal positivist like Gonzales who happens to be pro-choice (further alienating his base which seems to be his objective in the second term), and which will end up working against all of us.
What we desperately need at this point is not yet another judicial oligarch, a politician in a black robe deciding law based on personal (and changing - O'Connor showed how that worked) preferences. What we desperately need is a lawyer who will seek simply to interpret and apply the constitution as it was written. That is the only way we have a hope of avoiding an endless string of eminent domain style positive law debacles.
Just my worthless opinions...
- SEAGOON
-
-
My condolences, Texace, it is not an easy thing.
I think abortions are a necessary evil. I think they prevent more heartache than they create, but I also think that as birth control and testinghave improved, then it re-enforces the responsability of the "parents". There is literally no excuse for a pregnancy, and if there is a pregnancy, of an early test to make the decision at an early stage.
Killing a lump of tissue is one thing, killing a self cognizant being is another. In the case of the latter, it has to be a personal choice, but that choice should bear the concequences of that choice.
In short, there is no excuse to get pregnant other than by a crime committed. There is no excuse other than by a crime committed not to confirm a preganancy at an early stage. There is no excuse to abort a legal pregnancy past a certain stage, if known.
It is, and should be, a womans choice to break any of those rules, but if they do, they should accept the legal consequences of murder.
-
Hi Seagoon,
The "coat hangers and back-alleys scenarios" aspect really does interest me, because it's interesting to look past the political and theological arguments and see through to the impact of it.
Because it's one thing to say "Abortion is murder in the eyes of God", and a whole different ball of wax to deal with the consequences should they get their way.
(That is if the consequences are of any consequence when one holds such an unflinching stance.)
I looked into it a bit just now, and it's widely believed that 30 states would flip to criminilization of abortion should Roe v. Wade get struck down. Many of those already have laws on the books that would automatically go back into effect. Some have so-called trigger laws which would put new criminalization law into effect the minute that decision gets made.
I also found that 1.3 million abortions are performed per year in the United States.
Now, doing sloppy math here (the only kind I know), that means 60% of the country outlaws abortion, meaninng that 780,000 women who otherwise would have gotten an abortion, can't.
That has to be mitigated by the number of women who would travel out of state (the farther south you are, the farther you gotta go). Now I suppose the money and travel aren't going to be a problem to some of these women. To the poor, well they're just going to be out of luck. 'Cuz it's not going to be cheap.
So then, how many of those 780,000 Red State women who had abortions last year won't be able to? Half? More than half? Less than half? Lets just say half, for the sake of argument.
390,000 unwanted pregnancies every year in the United States to impoverished women. That's what that means.
But there's something else to consider which would whittle that number down a little. Those "smokey back room" abortions and the "do-it-yourselfers". So out of those stuck 390,000 women, how many are going to attempt one those? Half? More than half? Less than half? It's probably waaaay less. Lets say 5%.
So now we've got 370,500 unwanted pregnancies, and 19,500 black market or home styled abortions.
Of the later, those 19,500 women, what percentage of those abortions are going to be botched, resulting in requiring proper medical treatment from a hospital, and what percentage are going to result in death?
Lets say 60% of them go off without a hitch, 30% require further treatment, and 10% result in death.
It's rough - admittedly. But based on those numbers, what are we left with?
390,000 women flee their state for an abortion.
370,500 have their unwanted pregnancies.
11,700 get successful illegal abortions.
5,850 face criminal prosecution (for murder?).
1,950 die.
Every year.
-
I'd rather be thrown in jail than to watch my fiancée or wife die in the materety ward...
How many other men would think like that? How many women would take their chances faced with certain death?
We can go round and round with this, but the fact remains that it'll never come ot a conclusion. Even is Roe v. Wade falls, abortions will still happen. Jail time won't stop some people...it certainly wouldn't have stopped me.
We've all got our opinions on it...mine are just a bit more jaded due to my situation. I can honestly say it wasn't out of fear or because I wanted out of a family. No court in the land would care, though...
I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. Sob stories aside, I'm kinda on the fence about this. Not rally sure which way to go...
-
texace... I don't think anyone is against abortion when the mothers life is in danger... A choice must be made.
nash.. are you saying that if abortion were made more rare that the rate of births would go up exactly that amount? say for example... if 40,000 women get abortions now at 6 months into their pregnancy... that if we made the cutoff at 5 months... we would have 40,000 extra births a year?
As for male birth control... liz... you are not talking about the little gangbangers and in and out of jail fathers that are making all the babies.... they don't ever pay for getting women pregnant... they can't even if they wanted to. Many of them have multiple children in between jail times.... they can't even get a tailight fixed to keep fom getting pulled over and having the warrant for their arrest happen... Them taking birth control pills??? you make me laugh.
law abiding men and some metrosexuals somewhere may take em.. Not enough tho that women should trust in that. Men are allready punished to the max if they get a woman pregnant... what more are you gonna do to em if they did it cause they lied about taking the pill? make em pay for the child the rest of their life?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
texace... I don't think anyone is against abortion when the mothers life is in danger... A choice must be made.
Incorrect. There are MANY people in the anti-abortion movement who have _exactly_ that opinion. Not everybody, but certainly many of the drivers behind anti-abortion legislation feel that way.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Incorrect. There are MANY people in the anti-abortion movement who have _exactly_ that opinion. Not everybody, but certainly many of the drivers behind anti-abortion legislation feel that way.
I disagree completely
-
well... lets not get all carried away by what a few people may think. If there is a choice (which by the way is EXTREMELY rare)... then it is murder in either case... or... the word "murder" does not apply.
A choice must be made. Every anti abortion bill I have ever seen allows for the killing of the child to save the mothers life.
this is a silly arguement in any case... What kind of situation puts the mothers life in forfiet if a baby is born live? As I said... very rare and sensible people would allow the doctor to make that decision.
The mothers life in danger arguement is touted out like we will be stacking up dead mothers like cordwood if R v W is even weakened a tiny bit... If we can't bash their little brains out while they are hooked up to the umbilical cord we will cause the deaths of untold thousands of poor mothers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Incorrect. There are MANY people in the anti-abortion movement who have _exactly_ that opinion. Not everybody, but certainly many of the drivers behind anti-abortion legislation feel that way.
They are the fringe nuts, just like the people on the left that want abortions for any reason right to 9 months.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
They are the fringe nuts, just like the people on the left that want abortions for any reason right to 9 months.
That's fine, but you explicitly said "I don't think anyone is against abortion when the mothers life is in danger". That's just not correct. It's not even anywhere NEAR Correctville, USA.
In addition to the folks that loudly profess the above belief, there are also plenty of stealthers who won't cop to it unless pressed, because they know that their fanaticism will alienate critical swing-voters. The agenda is driven by the extremists, this is true for any issue. The goal of the successful extremist when creating legislation that bans something is to hold the crazy talk in check long enough to get the law passed, then they can throttle up.
-
Deleted
Rule #7