Jail time for women who get abortions?

[George Gervin's Afro]

How Much Jail Time?

Quindlen: How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions?

By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek
Aug. 6, 2007 issue - Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.
"They never connect the dots," says Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa. But her organization urged voters to do just that in the last gubernatorial election, in which the Republican contender believed abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest. "We wanted him to tell the women of Iowa exactly how much time he expected them to serve in jail if they had an abortion," June recalled. Chet Culver, the Democrat who unabashedly favors legal abortion, won that race, proving that choice can be a winning issue if you force people to stop evading the hard facts. "How have we come this far in the debate and been oblivious to the logical ramifications of making abortion illegal?" June says

Perhaps by ignoring or infantilizing women, turning them into "victims" of their own free will. State statutes that propose punishing only a physician suggest the woman was merely some addled bystander who happened to find herself in the wrong stirrups at the wrong time. Such a view seemed to be a vestige of the past until the Supreme Court handed down its most recent abortion decision upholding a federal prohibition on a specific procedure. Justice Anthony Kennedy, obviously feeling excessively paternal, argued that the ban protected women from themselves. "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon," he wrote, "it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."

Even with "no reliable data," he went on to conclude that "severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." (Apparently, no one has told Justice Kennedy about the severe depression and loss of esteem that can follow bearing and raising a baby you can't afford and didn't want.) Luckily, there still remains one justice on the court who has actually been pregnant, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg roared back with a dissent that called Kennedy's caveat about regret an "anti-abortion shibboleth" and his opinion a reflection of "ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited."

Those ancient notions undergird the refusal to confront the logical endpoint of criminalization. Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object? Watch the demonstrators in Libertyville try to worm their way out of the hypocrisy: It's murder, but she'll get her punishment from God. It's murder, but it depends on her state of mind. It's murder, but the penalty should be ... counseling?

The great thing about video is that you can see the mental wheels turning as these people realize that they somehow have overlooked something central while they were slinging certainties. Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.



I would like all anti choice folks to tell us how long a woman should be jailed if she has an abortion if and when they are outlawed?

[DarkReign]

Man, those people are coming across as dumb, but come to think about it, I havent ever considered the punishment either.

Of course, Im pro-choice so what the hell do I care?

[Soul_Patch]

Death Penalty! Its All About The Death Penalty!


God Approves Of This!

[DarkReign]

Death Penalty! Its All About The Death Penalty!


God Approves Of This!
According to the Church, yes, yes He does.

[fyatuk]

I always assumed people who wanted to criminalize abortion were looking at fines for the woman and fines/disaccrediting the doctor. At least that's what the anti-abortion crowd I've seen said.

Also, a big reason a lot of the recent conditional laws focus on the Dr is because the Supreme Court's ruling of a constitutional right to privacy combined with Dr-Patient protections means it's almost impossible to enforce against the woman. You'd basically ending up needing someone the woman had discussed details with to voluntarily turn her in. It's significantly easier to prove a doctor has performed/agreed to perform abortions without violating those protections.

[Soul_Patch]

According to the Republicans, yes, yes He does.


Fixed.




Seriously though, why cant people just stay out of other folks lives...i mean why the hell do you care if i am gay and i marry, or if i have an abortion. You don't know me or my life, or any situations i encounter...leave me out of your fucking moral crusades republicans...not everyone has to be like you, that is why this country is supposedly so much better than the rest, because we tolerate the differences....fuckn hell...

[Soul_Patch]

Just to clarify i really dont like a lot of things democrats have to say or do either...i just find the moral crusaders in the republican party 10000% more despicable than anything the demo's could pull off.

[Extra Stout]

Usually what I've heard is that the doctor who performs the abortion bears the brunt of the punishment, while the woman gets little or nothing.

[smeagol]

Are abortions in the US legal at any time?

8th month abortions are legal too?

[Extra Stout]

Are abortions in the US legal at any time?

8th month abortions are legal too?
The general principle in the US is that abortions are legal until the fetus is viable. There are exceptions and caveats to that principle.

[fyatuk]

Are abortions in the US legal at any time?

8th month abortions are legal too?

Actually yeah, but few doctors will even consider it that late unless it's an emergency.

A type of abortion procedure or two is illegal (based on they are too "cruel" and "barbaric"), but no one has created a successful law putting a restrictive time frame on abortions. Mainly because SCOTUS declared there's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating inferred Constitutional rights to privacy.

[smeagol]

In almost all cases, abortions are inmoral. I guess that is not enough to make them illegal.

[fyatuk]

In almost all cases, abortions are inmoral. I guess that is not enough to make them illegal.

See, I disagree with you. I think the behaviour that led to the need for the abortion in most cases is immoral and/or irresponsible, and later term abortions are immoral as well for me.

But in general the abortion itself is not. We do not need more children being raised as wards of the state. We do not need more children being raised in poverty because the parents couldn't afford to take care of themselves, let alone a child. There are a lot of valid reasons as to why to have an abortion.

Heck, my friend's gf had an abortion. The Dr told her there was a significantly better than 50% chance she'd miscarraige or stillbirth, and that even if she didn't she herself could be seriously harmed. There's nothing wrong with an abortion in that situation, either.

But since it's morality, I have my morals and you have yours, and we can disagree just fine. The beauty of the US is the fact that other than general human laws that have been around in some form for centuries if not millenia, one can not force their morals onto anyone else.

I certainly wouldn't want a Hindi trying to pass laws saying I wasn't allowed to eat beef.

[Nbadan]

I wouldn't ever pretend even want to possess the audacity it takes to tell a woman what to do with her own body...there are a lot of other immoral things in this world among those walking the earth....

[gtownspur]

I wouldn't ever pretend even want to possess the audacity it takes to tell a woman what to do with her own body...there are a lot of other immoral things in this world among those walking the earth....


But just the audacity to tell americans what to do with their money.

[Yonivore]

I wouldn't ever pretend even want to possess the audacity it takes to tell a woman what to do with her own body...there are a lot of other immoral things in this world among those walking the earth....
What about telling a woman what to do with the body of an unborn child completely at her mercy?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What about telling a woman what to do with the body of an unborn child completely at her mercy?


It's her body..end of story

[smeagol]

It's her body..end of story
Even if the kid inside her is 8 and 1/2 old, she is still entitled to do with it whatever she choses?

Okie dokie . . .

[Nbadan]

What about telling a woman what to do with the body of an unborn child completely at her mercy?

'completely at her mercy' - why should possible life be more important than life itself? ...and do human clones, never having been in-womb, have rights like the rest of us? Trying to define 'life' can get very sticky...

[Yonivore]

It's her body..end of story
So, you'd favor a woman's right to an abortion up to the point of birth?

[smeagol]

I wouldn't ever pretend even want to possess the audacity it takes to tell a woman what to do with her own body...there are a lot of other immoral things in this world among those walking the earth....
A chid inside her is not entirely her's.

[Yonivore]

'completely at her mercy' - why should possible life be more important than life itself? ...and do human clones, never having been in-womb, have rights like the rest of us? Trying to define 'life' can get very sticky...
Possible life? So, in your infinite wisdom, at what point does an unborn child go from mere potentiality to reality?

And you make a good argument against cloning.

[smeagol]

See, I disagree with you. I think the behaviour that led to the need for the abortion in most cases is immoral and/or irresponsible, and later term abortions are immoral as well for me.

Killing an unborn child is immoral any way you look at it.

[johnsmith]

It's her body..end of story


Pretty sure if that was the "end of story", then this debate wouldn't still be going on in America now would it?


Or is it that George Gervin's Afro, a made up name on an internet message board dedicated to the San Antonio Spurs has decided that it is indeed the "end of story" and now we must all obey? If so, let me know and I'll be sure to follow you blindly no matter what decision you've made in order to better America and the rest of the world.



Arrogance: See George Gervin's Afro.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, you'd favor a woman's right to an abortion up to the point of birth?


never said that. I am opposed to to late term abortions.. I am pro 1st trimester abortions..

[johnsmith]

I am pro 1st trimester abortions..


Might want to rephrase that gem.


Fuck it, that's my first sig.

[Yonivore]

never said that. I am opposed to to late term abortions.. I am pro 1st trimester abortions..
Why? What's the difference between the two?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Killing an unborn child is immoral any way you look at it.


and forcing a human being to do somehting to their body because you feel bad is also immoral

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why? What's the difference between the two?


If a baby can survive on their own outside the womb then it's too late.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Pretty sure if that was the "end of story", then this debate wouldn't still be going on in America now would it?


Or is it that George Gervin's Afro, a made up name on an internet message board dedicated to the San Antonio Spurs has decided that it is indeed the "end of story" and now we must all obey? If so, let me know and I'll be sure to follow you blindly no matter what decision you've made in order to better America and the rest of the world.



Arrogance: See George Gervin's Afro.


End of story for my own beliefs. You can believe whatever you want john...

[fyatuk]

Killing an unborn child is immoral any way you look at it.

That's where we differ. I don't even consider a child at the point most abortions are done. Heck, the first trimester it is not biologically differentiable from the vast majority of animals at similar developmental stages.

So to me, at that point it's no different than killing a cow, or a pig.

[Yonivore]

and forcing a human being to do somehting to their body because you feel bad is also immoral
The vast majority of pregnancies in which abortions are sought, result from voluntary sexual intercourse.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The ultimate irony is that the same 'pro-lifers' do their best to gut and defund any social programs dealing with basic healthcare for newborns of the uninsured... but,but,but they are pro-life.. just don't expect them to want to help fund the healthcare of those they desperately want to save..

[johnsmith]

I'm pretty damn near sure that since this argument hasn't been resolved in America over the past 50 years, open-minded folks like the type that post on this board probably aren't going to solve it here.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The vast majority of pregnancies in which abortions are sought, result from voluntary sexual intercourse.


so what?

[Yonivore]

so what?
Well, pro-abortionists act as though the woman had no choice in whether or not to become pregnant. As though pregnancy is something completely beyond their control.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, pro-abortionists act as though the woman had no choice in whether or not to become pregnant. As though pregnancy is something completely beyond their control.


if a woman is a whore and has sex everyday and night she still has the right to have an abortion.. I may not agree with her lifestyle but it's not my place to tell her that she can't live the way she wants to. do you have that right?

[Yonivore]

if a woman is a whore and has sex everyday and night she still has the right to have an abortion.. I may not agree with her lifestyle but it's not my place to tell her that she can't live the way she wants to. do you have that right?
So, why don't we allow them to abort babies right up until the moment they are declared "born?"

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, why don't we allow them to abort babies right up until the moment they are declared "born?"


I would be against that. I have already clarified with you and everyone else on this board that I am against aborting a child if they can survive on their own outside the womb.. at that point they should just induce labor and let the baby be adopted..

[smeagol]

never said that. I am opposed to to late term abortions.. I am pro 1st trimester abortions..
Have you ever seen what a three month baby in a mother's womb looks like?

Check this medical journal of what is going on with an unborn chld in the third month of pregnancy.


10 weeks - The fetus weighs about 1/3 of an ounce. The heart is almost completely developed and very much resembles that of a newborn baby. An opening the atrium of the heart and the presence of a bypass valve divert much of the blood away from the lungs, as the child's blood is oxygenated through the placenta. The eyelids have fused shut and won't open again until week 27. The wrists and ankles have formed and the fingers and toes are clearly visible. Genitals have begun to from, but it is too early to tell the sex of the fetus. By this week of the pregnancy the placenta has developed enough to support most of the critical job of producing hormones .

11 weeks - The vital organs--the liver, kidneys, intestines, brain and lungs--are fully formed and beginning to function, while the the head is almost half the length of the entire body. The fetus is only about 2 inches long and weighs less than a half ounce but it is busy moving and kicking.

12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the baby can and does sometimes cry silently. The brain is fully formed, and the baby can also feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers. The hair is on the head and the fingers and toes have developed soft nails. The kidneys are developed and begin to secrete urine.

[Yonivore]

I would be against that. I have already clarified with you and everyone else on this board that I am against aborting a child if they can survive on their own outside the womb.. at that point they should just induce labor and let the baby be adopted..
So, what do you say to all the dead babies who were aborted -- for convenience -- before science and medicine was advanced enough to ensure their survivability outside the womb? The age of viability has been steadily receding and there are literally millions of dead babies that were aborted in the past that, by your definition could now survive outside the womb.

Since when are human rights defined by medicine's ability to preserve them?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, what do you say to all the dead babies who were aborted -- for convenience -- before science and medicine was advanced enough to ensure their survivability outside the womb? The age of viability has been steadily receding and there are literally millions of dead babies that were aborted in the past that, by your definition could now survive outside the womb.

Since when are human rights defined by medicine's ability to preserve them?


cells in a petrie dish are far different from a human being..

[smeagol]

The ultimate irony is that the same 'pro-lifers' do their best to gut and defund any social programs dealing with basic healthcare for newborns of the uninsured... but,but,but they are pro-life.. just don't expect them to want to help fund the healthcare of those they desperately want to save..
I'm assuming you are not talking about me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Have you ever seen what a three month baby in a mother's womb looks like?

Check this medical journal of what is going on with an unborn chld in the third month of pregnancy.


Yes I have.. I have a child of my own..still doesn't take away from the fact that the child you descride would not survive outside the womb..the woman should have the right to not have a child if she does not want one..

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm assuming you are not talking about me.


Do you moan and complain about social programs for the poor? And then turn around and profess your belief that abortion is wrong?

[Nbadan]

..using science, we can create life now without a momma and a papa, so do these cloned cells have alienable rights too?

[Yonivore]

cells in a petrie dish are far different from a human being..
I'm not talking about a petrie dish.

[smeagol]

That's where we differ. I don't even consider a child at the point most abortions are done. Heck, the first trimester it is not biologically differentiable from the vast majority of animals at similar developmental stages.

So to me, at that point it's no different than killing a cow, or a pig.
So the line is drawn at the end of the third month?

Three month minus one day is ok, thre months plus one day is not.

Do you realize that makes no sense?

[George Gervin's Afro]

..using science, we can create life now without a momma and a papa, so do these cloned cells have alienable rights too?


this is where the 'pro lifers' lose me.. on one hand they don't support using excess embryos for medical research... they say 'you are destroying life' ..when you ask them what happens to these cells if they aren't used? They gleefully say they are destroyed... they are happy that these embryos are destroyed.. I have yet to find anyone to articulate a position that makes sense on this contradiction..

[Yonivore]

So the line is drawn at the end of the third month?

Three month minus one day is ok, thre months plus one day is not.

Do you realize that makes no sense?
No, they don't and they'll spend 35 pages of this thread avoiding that very distinction.

Must be nice to draw such an arbitrary line for a child.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So the line is drawn at the end of the third month?

Three month minus one day is ok, thre months plus one day is not.

Do you realize that makes no sense?


you have to draw the line somwhere.. like for the death penalty.. is 16 yrs old ok to execute? what about someone who commits a crime on the day before their 16th birthday?

[smeagol]

Do you moan and complain about social programs for the poor? And then turn around and profess your belief that abortion is wrong?
Have you ever seen me complain about social programs for the poor?

I support any program funded by Uncle Sam that helps people. Anything is better than the way the US Government is using it's monies now (i.e. Iraq).

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, they don't and they'll spend 35 pages of this thread avoiding that very distinction.

Must be nice to draw such an arbitrary line for a child.


so now your saying that arbitrary lines are just that? or are arbitraty lines bad for this argument alone? there are may things in our society that have arbiitrary distinctions.. one day before or one day afterwards... there has to be a line drawn..

[Yonivore]

you have to draw the line somwhere.. like for the death penalty.. is 16 yrs old ok to execute? what about someone who commits a crime on the day before their 16th birthday?
Okay, comparing innocent unborn life to that of a convicted criminal is not only ludicrous, it's not germane to the conversation.

Why do you have to draw a line at all? We're not talking about punishing a convicted fetus.

If you're opposed to killing the baby when it is possible the baby could survive outside the womb, what do you say to the millions of babies who, because viability was defined at a much older gestational age, were sucked from the womb and thrown out with yesterday's garbage?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Have you ever seen me complain about social programs for the poor?

I support any program funded by Uncle Sam that helps people. Anything is better than the way the US Government is using it's monies now (i.e. Iraq).


That was for the folks here who have avoided my comment. The pro lifers who care about babies until their born.. those kids are on their own..

[Yonivore]

so now your saying that arbitrary lines are just that? or are arbitraty lines bad for this argument alone? there are may things in our society that have arbiitrary distinctions.. one day before or one day afterwards... there has to be a line drawn..
Again, why does there have to be a line with abortion? Why can't the practice be outlawed altogether?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Okay, comparing innocent unborn life to that of a convicted criminal is not only ludicrous, it's not germane to the conversation.

Why do you have to draw a line at all? We're not talking about punishing a convicted fetus.

If you're opposed to killing the baby when it is possible the baby could survive outside the womb, what do you say to the millions of babies who, because viability was defined at a much older gestational age, were sucked from the womb and thrown out with yesterday's garbage?


I will say it again I don't agree with aborting babies after they are viable outsode the womb. With that being said it's not my job or right to tell another person what to do with their bodies.. how hard is that to understand?

[fyatuk]

So the line is drawn at the end of the third month?

Three month minus one day is ok, thre months plus one day is not.

Do you realize that makes no sense?

I didn't set an actual mark there. I don't know enough about the science of fetal development to choose any sort of deadline. My point was that except in rare cases of fast development, a fetal human is not biologically different from any other fetal animal through at least the first 3rd of its development, and that I don't see any difference between killing an embryo or fetus that hasn't developed past that point and killing an animal.

I wouldn't try and be the decider on exactly when to cut off abortion rights, but to me it's idiotic to throw such a hissy fit over something so undeveloped you'd have to do a chromosomal analysis to determine its species.

You'll never find a hard cutoff that works for something dependent on development levels, like nbadan's "survive outside the womb" or my recognizably human. The best you could do under those circumstances is an average.

[smeagol]

you have to draw the line somwhere...

Conception


like for the death penalty.. is 16 yrs old ok to execute? what about someone who commits a crime on the day before their 16th birthday?

It is not ok to kill any human being. I thought you leftist were against the death penalty.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Again, why does there have to be a line with abortion? Why can't the practice be outlawed altogether?


Because Yoni it's not my right to tell another human being what to do with their bodies..

[Yonivore]

I didn't set an actual mark there. I don't know enough about the science of fetal development to choose any sort of deadline. My point was that except in rare cases of fast development, a fetal human is not biologically different from any other fetal animal through at least the first 3rd of its development, and that I don't see any difference between killing an embryo or fetus that hasn't developed past that point and killing an animal.
Really? So, there's a chance my Uncle Bill's cow Bessie could develop a human in her womb? Wow! That's amazing!!!


I wouldn't try and be the decider on exactly when to cut off abortion rights, but to me it's idiotic to throw such a hissy fit over something so undeveloped you'd have to do a chromosomal analysis to determine its species.
Again, you're saying there's some question of whether or not a developing fetus, inside the mother's womb, is something other than the species of the mother? That's groundbreaking analysis there.


You'll never find a hard cutoff that works for something dependent on development levels, like nbadan's "survive outside the womb" or my recognizably human. The best you could do under those circumstances is an average.
I'm sure the 49.99999999999% who fall below your average will appreciate the effort you make in trying to noodle out their right to exist.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Conception



It is not ok to kill any human being. I thought you leftist were against the death penalty.


are you talking to me? I am ok with the death penalty. It's real easy for all of you pro-lifers to go around and tell perfect strangers thet they have to live their lives a certain way becuase you feel bad,. I thought you righties were for small govt? keeping govt out of personal ives?


by the way you are taking my comments out of context? are you stupid? or are you doing that on purpose?

[Yonivore]

Because Yoni it's not my right to tell another human being what to do with their bodies..
And, it's a mother's right to destroy the human that had no choice but to be conceived in her body?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And, it's a mother's right to destroy the human that had no choice but to be conceived in her body?


yes Yoni. If that's the way you want to phrase it. the woman has the right to destroy a human that was conceived in her body..

[smeagol]

I will say it again I don't agree with aborting babies after they are viable outsode the womb. With that being said it's not my job or right to tell another person what to do with their bodies.. how hard is that to understand?

It is difficult to understand because you contradict yourself. On the one hand you state you are against abortions if they are not executed in the fist trimester, on the other you say it is not your right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

So if a soon to be mother comes along and tell you she wants to abort her 7 month old unborn child, you say no, or you keep quiet?

[Yonivore]

yes Yoni. If that's the way you want to phrase it. the woman has the right to destroy a human that was conceived in her body..
Why at 3 months and not at 8 and half?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It is difficult to understand because you contradict yourself. On the one hand you state you are against abortions if they are not executed in the fist trimester, on the other you say it is not your right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.



I don't favor people getting late abortions but I respect their right to do so. How hard is that for you to understand?



So if a soon to be mother comes along and tell you she wants to abort her 7 month old unborn child, you say no, or you keep quiet?


I would tell her that she should consider delivering her baby and giving it up for adoption. I have no RIGHT to tell her anything.

[fyatuk]

Really? So, there's a chance my Uncle Bill's cow Bessie could develop a human in her womb? Wow! That's amazing!!!

Nope, I said you'd have to do a genetic analysis to tell the difference between a human fetus and a cow fetus when they are both 33% through development.


Again, you're saying there's some question of whether or not a developing fetus, inside the mother's womb, is something other than the species of the mother? That's groundbreaking analysis there.

Now that's a weird response to me saying you'd have to do a chromosomal analysis to determine it's species. I was closer to saying you'd have to do an in-depth analysis to tell the difference between identical twins (identical twins do have slight differences in their DNA caused by post-separation mutations). You're instituting your own biases into my statements and coming up with some really off interpretations there.



I'm sure the 49.99999999999% who fall below your average will appreciate the effort you make in trying to noodle out their right to exist.

Considering around that time they don't have a functioning brain (IIRC that develops during the second trimester), I don't think they'd mind.

[smeagol]

are you talking to me?

I quoted a statement of yours, didn't I?



I thought you righties were for small govt? keeping govt out of personal ives?

Righties? I'm not considered rightwing, at least not in this country. Ask Yoni if you don't believe me.



by the way you are taking my comments out of context? are you stupid? or are you doing that on purpose?

When did I take you out of concept? No need to insult me at this time, chum.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why at 3 months and not at 8 and half?


can a 3 month old fetus survive outside the womb? no. van an 8 1/2 month baby survive? yes.

If my 15 yr old daughter comes home and tells me she's pregnant I am going to leave it up to her to decide what she wants to do.

[fyatuk]

It is difficult to understand because you contradict yourself. On the one hand you state you are against abortions if they are not executed in the fist trimester, on the other you say it is not your right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.


That's hard to understand? Morally he doesn't agree with with later term abortions. Legally he believes the government doesn't have the right to institute restrictions.

That's not a complicated attitude.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I quoted a statement of yours, didn't I?




Righties? I'm not considered rightwing, at least not in this country. Ask Yoni if you don't believe me.




When did I take you out of concept? No need to insult me at this time, chum.


I was giving an example of an arbitrary line we have created in society for Yoni. You applied that to conception and then made the comment that you thought leftiers were aginst the death penalty. 2 different comments and you apllied them together. taking my quotes out of context. that's fine dude you can cut and past all you want..

[Spurminator]

To me, if you're pro-choice it's an all-or-nothing proposition. If your position is that the woman has a right to her body, that should be the case whether the unborn life inside of her is 1 month old or 3 years old. The pro-choice argument is weakened when you try to rationalize early term abortions vs. late term abortions, because you rely on arbitrary cut-offs and definitions of "life."

My personal position is that abortion is a disturbing and ugly practice, but not nearly as disturbing and ugly as a government forcing a woman to finish an unwanted pregnancy against her will. The solution to this, therefore, should first address our society's obsession with sex and its ignorance about safe sex.

[smeagol]

I would tell her that she should consider delivering her baby and giving it up for adoption. I have no RIGHT to tell her anything.
Ok.

I get your point.

Just to be clear: If a woman decides to abort the day before her sechuled c-section in her 40th week of pregnancy, you believe it is her right to do so and what she is killing is not a baby, not a human being . . . just a fetus.

[Yonivore]

can a 3 month old fetus survive outside the womb? no. van an 8 1/2 month baby survive? yes.
10 Years ago, a 5 1/2 month old fetus couldn't survive outside the womb but, now they can. What's your point?


If my 15 yr old daughter comes home and tells me she's pregnant I am going to leave it up to her to decide what she wants to do.
Wow! Talk about throwing your teenager under the bus. Do you advocate her making all life-and-death decisions without the benefit of your wisdom?

[mikejones99]

Bitches should get jail time for NOT gettng an abortion, unless they are married, over 26 and have $100k in the bank. Many more women in prison videos too.

[Spurminator]

Just to be clear: If a woman decides to abort the day before her sechuled c-section in her 40th week of pregnancy, you believe it is her right to do so and what she is killing is not a baby, not a human being . . . just a fetus.

I would question her logic since they would still have to remove a relatively large body from her womb either way.

Anyway, the problem with this debate is that it too often relies on hypotheticals and fantasies about the women having abortions. 99.999% of abortions are nothing like the hypothetical scenarios presented in these arguments.

[Yonivore]

I would question her logic since they would still have to remove a relatively large body from her womb either way.

Anyway, the problem with this debate is that it too often relies on hypotheticals and fantasies about the women having abortions. 99.999% of abortions are nothing like the hypothetical scenarios presented in these arguments.
You're right, 99.999% of abortions are purely for the convenience of the mother.

[smeagol]

Anyway, the problem with this debate is that it too often relies on hypotheticals and fantasies about the women having abortions. 99.999% of abortions are nothing like the hypothetical scenarios presented in these arguments.
I see the problem as cultural. You either see abortion as killing a human being or you don't. It is either right or wrong. I agree with you, for pro-lifers you have to go all the way and say abortion is wrong since conception because it is impossible to draw a line. Especially when you ar dealing with a human life.

I'm amazed that people who have kids, and have gone through the sheer joy of having a baby and watch it grow through those incredible nine months, can still be pro choice.

You guys think abortions don't kill beings that feel what is going on? You think they don't feel the pain? Or you guys think you are simply killing "things"?

Hearing some of you makes me understand better the Culture of Death concept John Paul II talked about.

[Spurminator]

I see the problem as cultural. You either see abortion as killing a human being or you don't.

But I think you can believe that life begins at conception and still be pro-choice.

[Yonivore]

But I think you can believe that life begins at conception and still be pro-choice.
Absolutely, but I think that makes you a murderer.

[Spurminator]

So what's the penalty?

[Yonivore]

So what's the penalty?
The state's unwillingness to prosecute doesn't necessarily mean a crime wasn't committed.

[Spurminator]

But if the state did prosecute?

[smeagol]

If my 15 yr old daughter comes home and tells me she's pregnant I am going to leave it up to her to decide what she wants to do.

According to your other quotes, if she is less than three months pregnant you would tell her it is ok to abort the pregnancy. If she is more than three months, and she really wants to abort, then you will tell her it is not what you reccomend, but she should go ahead because you don't feel to strongly about what the nature of what she carries inside is: is it a person? is it a human being? is it worth the sacrifice? or is it just a life which is all right to kill just because . . . ?

[DarkReign]

My personal position is that abortion is a disturbing and ugly practice, but not nearly as disturbing and ugly as a government forcing a woman to finish an unwanted pregnancy against her will. The solution to this, therefore, should first address our society's obsession with sex and its ignorance about safe sex.

Well, thats a nice way of not making any sort of decision. People are going to have sex, like it or not, out of wedlock, in wedlock, in high school, in junior high, in cars, in parking lots, in public, at all ages.

Making some sort of grandiose statement that we should "address our society's obsession with sex" is delusional.

Its not our society, its our species. Humans like to screw. All over the world. From the really rich, to the really poor, we all like to screw.

Britain has the same problem with abortion, so does Spain, Russia, France, Mexico, etc. People like to screw, especially without protection. Its been that way for centuries, it will continue to be that way for centuries more.

So basically, by addressing this "situation" youre addressing every carnal impulse a human has and trying to re-educate us into what we should be doing? Yeah....good luck with that. Real good luck.

Its either you are "for" or "against". Its either "legal" or "illegal". Go ahead and make it illegal. This wouldnt be the first country to make it a crime, and might not be the last. Backdoor "doctors" with coathangers are looking forward to the outlaw. Its going to be cheap, dirty, violent and prevelant in every major city across the country. There is going to be a weekly (maybe monthly) total deaths due to backdoor abortions. Its going to be great! We, the chosen ones, will be able to comfort ourselves with the thoughts of how those people shouldnt have been getting an abortion anyway, so they got what they deserved.

Only it wont stop. The numbers continue to grow and grow. As the divide between rich and poor widens ever further, and the middle class is slowly but surely eroded away, the numbers will grow and grow, at faster and faster rates.

The ones who can afford it, or are regionally close, will just go to Canada. But the majority of the southern states will just get worse and worse.

But, these are morals, people! We dont compromise them! We do not waver from them! Screw the immoral heathens! Let death release their tainted spirit. Amen.

[Yonivore]

But if the state did prosecute?
Well, if the state did prosecute, I would think the crime would be murder.

What's your point?

[smeagol]

But I think you can believe that life begins at conception and still be pro-choice.
That is an uncomfortable place to be.

Would be interesting to know those guys POV?

[DarkReign]

I see the problem as cultural. You either see abortion as killing a human being or you don't. It is either right or wrong. I agree with you, for pro-lifers you have to go all the way and say abortion is wrong since conception because it is impossible to draw a line. Especially when you ar dealing with a human life.

I'm amazed that people who have kids, and have gone through the sheer joy of having a baby and watch it grow through those incredible nine months, can still be pro choice.

You guys think abortions don't kill beings that feel what is going on? You think they don't feel the pain? Or you guys think you are simply killing "things"?

Hearing some of you makes me understand better the Culture of Death concept John Paul II talked about.

Is abortion legal in Argentina?

[smeagol]

Is abortion legal in Argentina?
To the best of my knowledge, it is illegal. But they are trying to make it legal.

[Spurminator]

Well, if the state did prosecute, I would think the crime would be murder.

What's your point?



The same as the original point of the thread. Thank you for gradually working your way to an answer.

[George Gervin's Afro]

According to your other quotes, if she is less than three months pregnant you would tell her it is ok to abort the pregnancy. If she is more than three months, and she really wants to abort, then you will tell her it is not what you reccomend, but she should go ahead because you don't feel to strongly about what the nature of what she carries inside is: is it a person? is it a human being? is it worth the sacrifice? or is it just a life which is all right to kill just because . . . ?

It's her choice.

[Wild Cobra]

Hot topic, huh…

For those of you who are pro abortion, yet against the death penalty, why? Why do you condone the execution of an innocent before it takes it’s first breath, but protect one who is a cancer on society? Don’t give me that the woman can do with her body as she wishes, that is an evil excuse. Once an embryo starts forming, she is carrying a part of life that is not just her any longer. Nature has placed her in charge to protect this new life.

I saw the question raised about social spending as if requiring women to keep their babies will increase the social program burden. Typical myopic liberals. You look at the economics of this nation being static rather than dynamic. Yes, for a short period, it will cause in increase in social spending if we required women to bear their children rather than execute them. However, the teaching in schools will change. Right now, abortion is taught as a form of birth control. When that changes, and teachers start telling students they well have to bear the burden of birthing, and raising the child or letting it be adopted, the amount of unwanted pregnancies will decrease.

Another social spending issue is that if you break it down, most people on government handouts are either irresponsible or lazy. It would help to force responsibility on those who are irresponsible and force able bodies people to work, even if it’s picking berries to replace the shortage of illegal aliens in the fields.

It was pointed out that the baby’s brain is formed and the baby can feel pain at twelve weeks. Know what a typical abortion procedure entails after 12 weeks? The fetus is sometimes cut up for removal. Isn’t that as cruel as hanged, drawn and quartered?

From wiki, Hanged, Drawn and Quartered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged%2C_drawn_and_quartered):


1. Dragged on a hurdle (a wooden frame) to the place of execution. (This is one possible meaning of drawn.)
2. Hanged by the neck for a short time or until almost dead. (hanged).
3. Disembowelled and emasculated, and the genitalia and entrails burned before the condemned's eyes (This is another meaning of drawn. It is often used in cookbooks to denote the disembowelment of chicken or rabbit carcasses before cooking).[2]
4. Beheaded and the body divided into four parts (quartered).

[George Gervin's Afro]

10 Years ago, a 5 1/2 month old fetus couldn't survive outside the womb but, now they can. What's your point?


Wow! Talk about throwing your teenager under the bus. Do you advocate her making all life-and-death decisions without the benefit of your wisdom?


I guess I have 2 options force her to have a baby against her will or force her to have an abortion.

[Spurminator]

Well, thats a nice way of not making any sort of decision. People are going to have sex, like it or not, out of wedlock, in wedlock, in high school, in junior high, in cars, in parking lots, in public, at all ages.

Making some sort of grandiose statement that we should "address our society's obsession with sex" is delusional.

Its not our society, its our species. Humans like to screw. All over the world. From the really rich, to the really poor, we all like to screw.

Britain has the same problem with abortion, so does Spain, Russia, France, Mexico, etc. People like to screw, especially without protection. Its been that way for centuries, it will continue to be that way for centuries more.

So basically, by addressing this "situation" youre addressing every carnal impulse a human has and trying to re-educate us into what we should be doing? Yeah....good luck with that. Real good luck.

Its either you are "for" or "against". Its either "legal" or "illegal". Go ahead and make it illegal. This wouldnt be the first country to make it a crime, and might not be the last. Backdoor "doctors" with coathangers are looking forward to the outlaw. Its going to be cheap, dirty, violent and prevelant in every major city across the country. There is going to be a weekly (maybe monthly) total deaths due to backdoor abortions. Its going to be great! We, the chosen ones, will be able to comfort ourselves with the thoughts of how those people shouldnt have been getting an abortion anyway, so they got what they deserved.

Only it wont stop. The numbers continue to grow and grow. As the divide between rich and poor widens ever further, and the middle class is slowly but surely eroded away, the numbers will grow and grow, at faster and faster rates.

The ones who can afford it, or are regionally close, will just go to Canada. But the majority of the southern states will just get worse and worse.

But, these are morals, people! We dont compromise them! We do not waver from them! Screw the immoral heathens! Let death release their tainted spirit. Amen.



You've mistaken my comment to mean we should try to stop people from having sex.

[Yonivore]

I guess I have 2 options force her to have a baby against her will or force her to have an abortion.
Some of us might see those two options as counseling her to preserve life or forcing her to kill.

Same result.

[Yonivore]

Hot topic, huh…
Search the word "abortion" in this forum.

This isn't the first time we've tackled this topic, ad nauseum, to no avail. It won't be the last.

Enjoy the fray. Nothing will be resolved.

[DarkReign]

You've mistaken my comment to mean we should try to stop people from having sex.

Bah, it wasnt really directed at you. I should have said as much.

What it was directed at is this idea that education will curb the trend. It will not. The education system cant even reach minimal graduation levels, yet its going to be the magic bullet that enlightens all young people to have protected sex?

Interesting theory-world.

[sabar]

Pro-choice people might want to come up with a better argument. I like Peter Singer's logic, which I'll just copy-paste:




Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In his view the central argument against abortion is It is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus. He challenges the second premise, on the grounds that its reference to human beings is ambiguous as between human beings in the zoological sense and persons as rational and self-conscious. There is no sanctity of human life that confers moral protection on human beings in the zoological sense. Until the capacity for pain develops after "18 weeks of gestation", abortion terminates an existence that has no intrinsic value (as opposed to the value it might have in virtue of being valued by the parents or others). As it develops the features of a person, it has moral protections that are comparable to those that should be extended to nonhuman life as well. He also rejects a backup argument against abortion that appeals to potential: It is wrong to kill a potential human being; a human fetus is a potential human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus. The second premise is more plausible, but its first premise is less plausible, and Singer denies that what is potentially an X should have the same value or moral rights as what is already an X. Against those who stress the continuity of our existence from conception to adulthood, he poses the example of an embryo in a dish on a laboratory bench, which he calls Mary. Now if it divides into two identical embryos, there is no way to answer the question whether Mary dies, or continues to exist, or is replaced by Jane and Susan. These are absurd questions, he thinks, and their absurdity casts doubt on the view that the embryo is a human being in the morally significant sense.

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Given his consequentialist approach, the difference between active and passive euthanasia is not morally significant, for the required act/omission doctrine is untenable; killing and letting die are on a moral par when their consequences are the same. Voluntary euthanasia, undertaken with the consent of the subject, is supported by the autonomy of persons and their freedom to waive their rights, especially against a legal background such as the guidelines developed by the courts in the Netherlands. Non-voluntary euthanasia at the beginning or end of life's journey, when the capacity to reason about what is at stake is undeveloped or lost, is justified when swift and painless killing is the only alternative to suffering for the subject.

In essence, if you support abortion logically, it should be at any time and you should also support infanticide. How many people here would say that though? 0. People base what time abortion is OK on absurd and pointless principles, they make no sense logically. Why is it OK to abort a 5 month fetus and wrong to euthanize a 1 year old infant? Neither has any intristic value, they are both unwanted, they both have so little sentience they are hardly aware of their existence and they have no plans to live on to another day.

I'll answer why, because infanticide is taboo and the lefty's siding on that would be social suicide, even if the logic is flawless.

As for me, I believe Singer has a critical flaw in giving potential no value. If the potential life will not complicate the life of the host, then it is immoral to kill it.

Now for a thinking game.

You walk into a hospital fully aware that there is a chance that you'll be drugged, but you gain immense pleasure from it. You do it anyways. You wake up finding yourself hooked up to a machine keeping a world-famous violinist alive. The condition: stay hooked up for 9 months, then you're unhooked and both of you are free to go. You can also unhook yourself from the machine at the cost of the violinist's life. The violinist is a full human being but he has no family and is in a coma, hence he has no outlook on life. He has no value insofar as if you killed him, no one would personally care.

Is it moral to unhook yourself from the machine? What if the violinist was instead a mentally disabled child not even aware of his own existence, moving around while conscious. Is it moral to unhook yourself then? What if the violinist was a dog with no problems but needs to be connected for 9 months?

Fact is, logically, the dog==child==violinist==fetus==infant. If you kill one, there is no reason to kill the rest. Likewise, if you value the life of the infant but have no problem in killing the dog (who by the way has more sentience than the infant), then there is another problem.

Assume no religious arguments as they are not fun. It's always religion's way or nothing, so keep it to logic.

[spurster]

How much jail time for the woman who had an abortion? If you think abortion is murder, are you willing to impose the same penalties?

[George Gervin's Afro]

How much jail time for the woman who had an abortion? If you think abortion is murder, are you willing to impose the same penalties?


death penalty for 13 yr olds.... !!!

[Yonivore]

death penalty for 13 yr olds.... !!!
We don't sentence 13 year olds to death for murder now. Why would we start?

[xrayzebra]

Just my two cents worth. How come we have so many
children killed by the youth of today? And why do we
prosecute them? Could it be that these young folks think
there isn't much difference between the unborn and the
born? I personally think that is the problem. Women do
use abortion as a means of birth control. And that is a fact.
Why I have no idea. But human life has become cheap
in one lifetime. What a shame.

[sabar]

How much jail time for the woman who had an abortion? If you think abortion is murder, are you willing to impose the same penalties?It would obviously be handled as murder, no different if I ran into a hospital and gunned down a newborn baby, which for some reason has more rights than the fetus 7 days before it.

Waiting for logic on why it's OK to terminate 3 month fetuses but not 11 month fetuses or 5 day old infants or any aged person with the same sentience and self-awareness of said 3 month fetus.

[Jekka]

Could it be that these young folks think
there isn't much difference between the unborn and the
born? I personally think that is the problem. Women do
use abortion as a means of birth control. And that is a fact.
Why I have no idea. But human life has become cheap
in one lifetime. What a shame.
Do you really think that abortion as a means of birth control is something new to this lifetime? What about all of the abortions that happened before things like hormonal birth control were invented? Herbally induced abortions have been happening for thousands of years, and I have a hard time thinking that life is thought of as cheaper today than it was in times past. Do you really think that human nature has changed all that much? The main difference between abortion in times past and now is that now it is safer and more accessible. Had you given women in most other points in history the same choice that women today have, the likelihood is that they would be making similar choices to today's women.

There is a reason that we can have classic literature and philosophy that has been consistently relevant for hundreds of years, and that is because it addresses perpetual human nature. Human nature doesn't change, our perceptions of it do as we acquire experience and age, which is why we should not be so narrow-minded as to think that the world can only be how we think of it.

Pick up a couple of history books and consider the fact that very little of what we face is actually "new". Every generation thinks that the next generation is going to ruin the world, when either it's been ruined all along or has yet to become so. The world is startlingly consistent, and human life is as cheap as it has always been.

[xrayzebra]

Do you really think that abortion as a means of birth control is something new to this lifetime? What about all of the abortions that happened before things like hormonal birth control were invented? Herbally induced abortions have been happening for thousands of years, and I have a hard time thinking that life is thought of as cheaper today than it was in times past. Do you really think that human nature has changed all that much? The main difference between abortion in times past and now is that now it is safer and more accessible. Had you given women in most other points in history the same choice that women today have, the likelihood is that they would be making similar choices to today's women.

There is a reason that we can have classic literature and philosophy that has been consistently relevant for hundreds of years, and that is because it addresses perpetual human nature. Human nature doesn't change, our perceptions of it do as we acquire experience and age, which is why we should not be so narrow-minded as to think that the world can only be how we think of it.

Pick up a couple of history books and consider the fact that very little of what we face is actually "new". Every generation thinks that the next generation is going to ruin the world, when either it's been ruined all along or has yet to become so. The world is startlingly consistent, and human life is as cheap as it has always been.

The difference being there was a stigma attached in the
past. It was not condoned. It is now and there is no
stigma attached. Like having children out of wedlock is
no longer consider out of the ordinary.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The difference being there was a stigma attached in the
past. It was not condoned. It is now and there is no
stigma attached. Like having children out of wedlock is
no longer consider out of the ordinary.


stigma or not birth control has always been a realization ray. and yes by definiton abortion is birth control however to attirbute all women who get them is because they are whores who like to have irresponsible sex is small minded.

[xrayzebra]

stigma or not birth control has always been a realization ray. and yes by definiton abortion is birth control however to attirbute all women who get them is because they are whores who like to have irresponsible sex is small minded.

I think your small mind is showing. I have never made
the statement that all who get abortions are "whores".
And God only knows that many women become
pregnant for other reasons other than irresponsible sex.

My statement was why I thought life has become
cheap. In just the last day, two stories have been
published about women and multiple deaths of
children found in trash bags. Daily, you read about
young people who kill kids. And I still maintain that
many young folks see little difference between doing
away with a child before birth or after birth.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think your small mind is showing. I have never made
the statement that all who get abortions are "whores".
And God only knows that many women become
pregnant for other reasons other than irresponsible sex.

My statement was why I thought life has become
cheap. In just the last day, two stories have been
published about women and multiple deaths of
children found in trash bags. Daily, you read about
young people who kill kids. And I still maintain that
many young folks see little difference between doing
away with a child before birth or after birth.


You won't find me disagreeing with you that life has becomed cheapened but I don't think you can claim abortion is the basis for this. We have teenagers killing other teens because they looked at them wrong. people killing eachother over 5.00... I certainly don't agree with your notion that young folks not knowing the difference between abortion and infanticide (sp?) is somehow connected.

[DarkReign]

I think your small mind is showing. I have never made
the statement that all who get abortions are "whores".
And God only knows that many women become
pregnant for other reasons other than irresponsible sex.

My statement was why I thought life has become
cheap. In just the last day, two stories have been
published about women and multiple deaths of
children found in trash bags. Daily, you read about
young people who kill kids. And I still maintain that
many young folks see little difference between doing
away with a child before birth or after birth.

If youre saying life has slowly become more cheap than in the past, I would argue that statement to the very end.

Life is at an all-time premium high in comparison to times of yore. Comparison between now and ancient times (Rome, Feudal Japan, etc.)? Does this even require a response?

Middle Ages? Pleeeeeeease.

Comparison to early colonial times (Spain into LatAm, early colonies of America, etc)? Does this need an answer?

Comparison to early century 20th century? This does require an answer. The early 20th century is romanticized for its simpler time. When in fact, some of the highest death total due to war, famine, disease and hunger ravaged all over the world, even the lowly non-superpower USA has the inlfuenza outbreak, WW1 and WW2, Hitler, Muslim expansion into Africa. It could possibly be described as the bloodiest period of human history for no other reason than our technological advances allowed us to kill each other on a much wider scale.

Our society, our world, our value of human life is at an ALL-TIME high. Its not really up for debate. Because you may feel abortion should be illegal, does not mean we as a society have devalued life. Its quite the opposite when compared to not only our national history, but human history. Its not even close.

[DarkReign]

You won't find me disagreeing with you that life has becomed cheapened but I don't think you can claim abortion is the basis for this. We have teenagers killing other teens because they looked at them wrong. people killing eachother over 5.00... I certainly don't agree with your notion that young folks not knowing the difference between abortion and infanticide (sp?) is somehow connected.

See my last post. This isnt even a debate if youre asking about how much value human life has now in comparison to times past.

[xrayzebra]

You won't find me disagreeing with you that life has becomed cheapened but I don't think you can claim abortion is the basis for this. We have teenagers killing other teens because they looked at them wrong. people killing eachother over 5.00... I certainly don't agree with your notion that young folks not knowing the difference between abortion and infanticide (sp?) is somehow connected.

Exactly what I am talking GGA. Life has been cheapened
in just my lifetime. When I was young, believe it or not,
but in my home county, here in Texas. We had one
person commit murder and it wasn't in my home county,
but in the adjoining county in a robbery of a gas station.
They caught the guy the next day. And you know the
the rest of the story. Justice was taken care of in
short order. Old sparky was put to good use.

Killing was just not an option. Kicking butt was not
un-heard of, but not really the way things went either.
Normally, things were settled in so other fashion.
I might add lawyers were not really in great demand
either.

[SRJ]

"WHO ARE WE TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES!!?"

Well, we have laws against drug use, don't we? Isn't that telling people what they may not do with their bodies?

We have laws against prostitution in most of the country. Isn't that telling people what they may not do with their bodies?

If you attempt suicide and live through it, you might be prosecuted. Isn't that telling people what to do with their bodies?

Now, if your position on these matters is a purely libertarian position and you believe that the state should never be involved in matters like these, well then congrats on consistency. Just don't try to argue that there is no precedent for the law to limit what one is able to do with their bodies, because that precedent certainly exists.

[Jekka]

Exactly what I am talking GGA. Life has been cheapened
in just my lifetime. When I was young, believe it or not,
but in my home county, here in Texas. We had one
person commit murder and it wasn't in my home county,
but in the adjoining county in a robbery of a gas station.
They caught the guy the next day. And you know the
the rest of the story. Justice was taken care of in
short order. Old sparky was put to good use.

Killing was just not an option. Kicking butt was not
un-heard of, but not really the way things went either.
Normally, things were settled in so other fashion.
I might add lawyers were not really in great demand
either.
More population = more crime, and if you are as old as you allude yourself to be then perhaps you and a few Native Americans were the only folks in said county back in the day...

Are you seriously saying that life is cheaper now than it was when slavery was openly tolerated? When stolen Africans worked the salt flats in the Caribbean until they died because it was cheaper to buy new slaves than to take good enough care of them until they could reproduce? Life is cheaper now than it was when soldiers were giving Indians blankets intentionally laced with smallpox and killing the buffalo with the express purpose of starving the natives out? These are all things that are part of our history, of your history, in the Americas.

Perhaps you only learned to read ten years ago, or have been living in Nell's cabin, it's the only explanation for the obliviousness of your opinion.

Abortion is a form of birth control, any way you look at it, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. The number of women for whom it as their sole method is a MUCH smaller percentage in reality than it seems to be in your mind. Most women who do not want children in their immediate future try to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place, and the ones who do not have other forms of birth control are usually either uneducated about them (an argument in favor of comprehensive sex education in school) or those who find other methods unavailable to them (because they are in an abusive situation or any other myriad reasons). That being said, while I cannot speak for every woman, the women I know who have not used it as their sole method do not consider life cheap.


The difference being there was a stigma attached in the
past. It was not condoned. It is now and there is no
stigma attached. Like having children out of wedlock is
no longer consider out of the ordinary.

No stigma attached? Are you blind/deaf/retarded?

[George Gervin's Afro]

More population = more crime, and if you are as old as you allude yourself to be then perhaps you and a few Native Americans were the only folks in said county back in the day...

Are you seriously saying that life is cheaper now than it was when slavery was openly tolerated? When stolen Africans worked the salt flats in the Caribbean until they died because it was cheaper to buy new slaves than to take good enough care of them until they could reproduce? Life is cheaper now than it was when soldiers were giving Indians blankets intentionally laced with smallpox and killing the buffalo with the express purpose of starving the natives out? These are all things that are part of our history, of your history, in the Americas.

Perhaps you only learned to read ten years ago, or have been living in Nell's cabin, it's the only explanation for the obliviousness of your opinion.

Abortion is a form of birth control, any way you look at it, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. The number of women for whom it as their sole method is a MUCH smaller percentage in reality than it seems to be in your mind. Most women who do not want children in their immediate future try to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place, and the ones who do not have other forms of birth control are usually either uneducated about them (an argument in favor of comprehensive sex education in school) or those who find other methods unavailable to them (because they are in an abusive situation or any other myriad reasons). That being said, while I cannot speak for every woman, the women I know who have not used it as their sole method do not consider life cheap.



No stigma attached? Are you blind/deaf/retarded?


Ray is 94

[Holt's Cat]

He must be 294 if his lifetime encompasses when slavery was legal and Native Americans were being exterminated.

[101A]

I will say it again I don't agree with aborting babies after they are viable outsode the womb. With that being said it's not my job or right to tell another person what to do with their bodies.. how hard is that to understand?

Define viable.

20 years ago a baby at 28 weeks gestation wouldn't make it; now it has a 95% chance.

Can we hook it up to a machine, or does it have to breathe on its own?

What about children who go full term, but can't make it without intervention? Can the momma just say, "nevermind, let it die, I'll try for a better one?"

You are on a slippery slope.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Define viable.

20 years ago a baby at 28 weeks gestation wouldn't make it; now it has a 95% chance.

Can we hook it up to a machine, or does it have to breathe on its own?

What about children who go full term, but can't make it without intervention? Can the momma just say, "nevermind, let it die, I'll try for a better one?"

You are on a slippery slope.


If I am forced to define what I mean by viable is when a baby can survive outside the womb...
the reason I say this is because if the baby is viable then the woman would not have to abort. they could deliver the baby and put him/her up for adoption... in the end I just feel it should be the women's choice to carry the child. I am not in favor of late term procedures rather I would prefer everything taken care in the first 9 to 12 weeks.

[Yonivore]

If I am forced to define what I mean by viable is when a baby can survive outside the womb...
the reason I say this is because if the baby is viable then the woman would not have to abort. they could deliver the baby and put him/her up for adoption... in the end I just feel it should be the women's choice to carry the child. I am not in favor of late term procedures rather I would prefer everything taken care in the first 9 to 12 weeks.
So, tell me this, GGA; why should the fate of an unborn child hinge on what you, or anyone else for that matter, is or is not in favor of?

How 'bout a definitive definition of when human life begins and is, therefore, endowed with the fundamental and constitutionally protected rights afforded all people?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, tell me this, GGA; why should the fate of an unborn child hinge on what you, or anyone else for that matter, is or is not in favor of?

How 'bout a definitive definition of when human life begins and is, therefore, endowed with the fundamental and constitutionally protected rights afforded all people?


why should a women be forced to carry a child that she may not want or be able to rear and raise..because you feel bad?

I have what I feel the best way to decide this issue..

Allow only women to vote on this once and for all... I think that the people who are most affected by pregnancy and everything that goes along with should decide. people like you and me don't have standing on the issue since we will not have to face making this decision...so we should not have a vote..if a majority of women want to make abortion illegal I will support the law.. if the majority of women decide to keep their choice then you would have to live with it.. I think the only fair way to decide this issue to leave men out of it.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Killing an unborn child is immoral any way you look at it.

in your opinion.

if my wife's life was ever in danger do to her pregnancy i would never have wanted to have a child, and i don't give a shit if you think that's immoral because you are never going to get pregnant

[Yonivore]

why should a women be forced to carry a child that she may not want or be able to rear and raise..because you feel bad?
I think you're phrasing that question all wrong. Aside from rape, resulting in pregnancy, no one is forcing a woman to carry a child. She voluntarily engaged in a practice known to cause pregnancy and, therefore, my question is, why should a woman be allowed to casually create and destroy human life?


I have what I feel the best way to decide this issue..

Allow only women to vote on this once and for all... I think that the people who are most affected by pregnancy and everything that goes along with should decide. people like you and me don't have standing on the issue since we will not have to face making this decision...so we should not have a vote..if a majority of women want to make abortion illegal I will support the law.. if the majority of women decide to keep their choice then you would have to live with it.. I think the only fair way to decide this issue to leave men out of it.
See, you once again miss the point of the anti-abortion argument. The person most affected by this decision is in the womb. What you propose, to me anyway, is akin to allowing a murderer to decide if murder should be legal.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think you're phrasing that question all wrong. Aside from rape, resulting in pregnancy, no one is forcing a woman to carry a child. She voluntarily engaged in a practice known to cause pregnancy and, therefore, my question is, why should a woman be allowed to casually create and destroy human life?


See, you once again miss the point of the anti-abortion argument. The person most affected by this decision is in the womb. What you propose, to me anyway, is akin to allowing a murderer to decide if murder should be legal.

I don't see it as murder.

I have another question for you.

If using embryonic stem cells for research is murdering a baby then what is throwing them away? Wouldn't that be 'killing' the exact same cells that you don't want to use for research?

[Holt's Cat]

Abortion on demand is another step for liberating women from men and it helps keep the minority population in check. All in all, it's very useful.

[xrayzebra]

No stigma attached? Are you blind/deaf/retarded?

No, I am not as described above. And history as I have
described it, is in my lifetime. And the history as you have
described it exist in this time and age. So maybe you
should just calm down a bit. We are talking about NOW
in the United States.

There is very little stigma attached to having an abortion
in this day and time. That is a fact. As a matter of fact
on the the "radical" Christians, as some describe them,
are the only ones who do publicly attach a stigma.

SRJ said what is very apparent to many. We tell people
all the time what they can do with their bodies. Like
buckle up, Smoking is bad, trans-fat is bad. And now,
New York City is telling people they should breast feed.
Get the kids off the bottle. There are many laws passed
the tell you what you can and cant do that has to do
with your body. Reach back into history as you wish,
but you damn sure better be prepared to look to the
present when you do. History to most, including me,
starts when you are born. The rest is just words in a
book, and we have learned, those can be changed with
time and outlook....

[xrayzebra]

Abortion on demand is another step for liberating women from men and it helps keep the minority population in check. All in all, it's very useful.

Minority in check. Don't think so. There has been about
the same number of abortions in the US as we have
illegals in the US. Maybe we should have just kept the
legals. Except...........

[RobinsontoDuncan]

i'd like to see a pro-lifer roll call.

how many of you dumb fuckers are men?

[Holt's Cat]

My my, someone's grumpy.

[SRJ]

i'd like to see a pro-lifer roll call.

how many of you dumb fuckers are men?

Nice tolerance. Bigot.

[Yonivore]

I don't see it as murder.
That's obvious.


I have another question for you.

If using embryonic stem cells for research is murdering a baby then what is throwing them away? Wouldn't that be 'killing' the exact same cells that you don't want to use for research?
I don't see the destruction of embryonic stem cells as murder but, I do see the destruction of life created through some process applied to embryonic stem cells as murder.

But, you're getting into a discussion not germane to the discussion on abortion.

We know the embryo that exists in a woman's uterus is the product of a sperm fertilizing an egg and, therefore, constitutes a complete product capable of growing into a baby. An embryonic stem cell is not the product of any fertilization but, instead, a cell from some part of an embryo.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Nice tolerance. Bigot.

A bigot eh? well, im not sure if pro-lifers are necessarily an ethnic group, but it certainly is an ideology, and i assure you there have been far worse things said about liberals on this forum than that.

why should i tolerate this kind of holier than thou hypocrisy anyway? essentially you have a large group of old school patriarch's attempting to reign in the reproductive rights of american women, which i find disgusting. 77% of pro-life leaders are men, and I highly doubt there was a single female pro-lifer in this thread.

i think if you're going to spout out patriarchal rhetoric you ought to own up to your status as a patriarch.

so getting back to the question at hand, how many of you pro-lifers are men?

[Jekka]

There is very little stigma attached to having an abortion
in this day and time. That is a fact. As a matter of fact
on the the "radical" Christians, as some describe them,
are the only ones who do publicly attach a stigma.
That is NOT a fact, that is your opinion (and an ill-founded one at that) and your inability to tell the difference makes the rest of your arguments that much weaker. Do you know someone who has had an abortion recently? Does she run around telling everyone without judgment? If so, she is in such an extreme minority it's barely even noteworthy.


History to most, including me,
starts when you are born. The rest is just words in a
book, and we have learned, those can be changed with
time and outlook....
And this is what makes you weakest of all, because at the essence of our humanity is our ability to see mistakes, learn from them, and correct them. It's what makes the human experience worthwhile and meaningful. If we are unwilling to see our mistakes, then how can we be expected to make progress?

[Holt's Cat]

How could anyone possibly disagree with R2D2 and Jekky?

[SRJ]

A bigot eh? well, im not sure if pro-lifers are necessarily an ethnic group, but it certainly is an ideology, and i assure you there have been far worse things said about liberals on this forum than that.

Typical of liberals to go straight to the victim card. See, liberals can label people with the worst labels: racist, sexist, homophobe...because liberals are right. :rolleyes

Just point it out when they're being intolerant and look what happens.


why should i tolerate this kind of holier than thou hypocrisy anyway? essentially you have a large group of old school patriarch's attempting to reign in the reproductive rights of american women, which i find disgusting. 77% of pro-life leaders are men, and I highly doubt there was a single female pro-lifer in this thread.

Why should I tolerate motherfucking murder? And what is hypocritical about a pro-life stance, exactly? Do you think about words before you say them? Of course not, you're a stimulus-response liberal.


i think if you're going to spout out patriarchal rhetoric you ought to own up to your status as a patriarch.

I love how you've pulled all of these cool buzzwords from feminist dogma rags.


so getting back to the question at hand, how many of you pro-lifers are men?

I'm a man. Big fucking deal. Are you a woman? I'd like to know who I'm enslaving when the patriarchal master plan prevails.

[Yonivore]

Well...this conversation has certainly maintained its sobriety.

[possessed]

Of course, Im pro-choice so what the hell do I care?
How effeminate of you.

Why do you care, do you have a womb?

[xrayzebra]

Has anyone ever ask the baby how they felt? While being
sucked out with a vacuum tube. Or having their head punctured
and brains vacuumed out.

Ever see a baby 8 weeks after conception?


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/abortion0801_1.jpg

[smeagol]

in your opinion.

if my wife's life was ever in danger do to her pregnancy i would never have wanted to have a child,

Way to miss the point, dude.

Of course if the woman's life is in danger, there is a very good point to abort.

As a % of total abortions, how many times does that happen?

Do the research and come back to me.


and i don't give a shit if you think that's immoral because you are never going to get pregnant

Great fist post on this thread.

Keep the good work up!

[sabar]

Way to miss the point, dude.

Of course if the woman's life is in danger, there is a very good point to abort.

As a % of total abortions, how many times does that happen?

Do the research and come back to me. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/clap.gif

Funny, when did the pro-lifers say that abortions in the case of saving life were bad? It is pretty much an irrefutable fact that the life of a person with experiences, memories, and an "intristic" value is worth more than one without in a situation in which only one can live.

People use abortion overwhelmingly for birth control, not saving mothers lives.

[Nbadan]

Ohio is going abortion crazy...


New proposed legislation in Ohio would make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion without a man's permission, according to the Record-Courier.

Not knowing who the father of the fetus is couldn't be used as an excuse under the new law. Women would have to provide a list of potential fathers who would then be required to submit themselves to paternity testing until a father is found. It would also make it illegal for a man who isn't the father to provide the permission.

What about rape or incest? A woman seeking an abortion would have to provide "reasonable cause" for the doctor to believe the rape of incest occurred, which, in our estimation, would probably mean police reports and charges filed.

Linky (http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2327981)

Yes, let's give rapist and molesters more rights than women too....

[sabar]

Essentially you have a large group of old school patriarch's attempting to reign in the reproductive rights of american women, which i find disgusting. 77% of pro-life leaders are men, and I highly doubt there was a single female pro-lifer in this thread.And 23% are women. I guess they just hate themselves and lay down the oppression? Or perhaps they care about, gasp, life over murder as birth control?

[Nbadan]

George Carlin on abortion and conservatives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU) <--- great bit

[smeagol]

why should i tolerate this kind of holier than thou hypocrisy anyway?

Trying to save a life is vey hypocritical. You go boy!


essentially you have a large group of old school patriarch's attempting to reign in the reproductive rights of american women, which i find disgusting.

What a load of horse shit!

Sure, RtD, those old school patriatch's take the pro-life position for fun. All they want to do is pester the women who practice abortions. Good point!


77% of pro-life leaders are men, and I highly doubt there was a single female pro-lifer in this thread.

Do you consider the fetus in a woman's womb a human life? If you do, it matters not if you are a man or a woman.


i think if you're going to spout out patriarchal rhetoric you ought to own up to your status as a patriarch.

Very relevant indeed.


so getting back to the question at hand, how many of you pro-lifers are men?

I'm a man who believes life is precious.

[DarkReign]

How effeminate of you.

Why do you care, do you have a womb?

What? I was referring to the thread topic, not the direction of the thread since.

"What should be the punishment for women if abortion were illegal?"

"Im pro-choice so what the hell do I care?"

Effeminate? Thats effeminate? You have a very low standard of feminism if thats the case. Try again troll.

[SAtoDallas]

Has anyone seen the National Geographic special In The Womb? It shows from a scientific point of view that life begins at conception. You can rent this at Blockbuster.