Reply With Quote
Didn't the Supreme Court just refuse to look at Roe vs Wade?
I believe life begins at conception.
Whats a gagortion?Pro-choice progressives need to reframe the debate on abortion. The question of when life begins has become so murky that it works more for our foes than for us, and arguments about reproductive rights only convince those of us who already believe abortion must be legal.
Most Americans are uncomfortable with abortion, and as long as we permit the debate to stay on vague moralistic or cons utional grounds, we lose.
The weakness in the anti-choice position comes down to one question - who goes to jail? That's what we need to exploit.
Most Americans are uncomfortable with abortion, but they are even more uncomfortable with the idea of sending their wives, sisters, daughters, and doctors to prison or to Death Row.
And the anti-choice forces know this.
From Meet the Press, Oct. 17, with senatorial candidate Jim DeMint:
MR. RUSSERT: I accept that, and respect your views, but if you have a law which says all abortions should be banned, period, who should be prosecuted if they perform an abortion, the woman, the doctor, who?
REP. DeMINT: I think the lawmakers at the state level...
MR. RUSSERT: You want to be a lawmaker.
REP. DeMINT: I do want to be. But we need to...
MR. RUSSERT: You want to be a United States senator. What is your view?
REP. DeMINT: My view is we should protect all human life and that our laws should be set up to protect that life.
MR. RUSSERT: But who would be prosecuted?
REP. DeMINT: We'll just have to decide that. I mean...
MR. RUSSERT: What is your view?
REP. DeMINT: You know, I can't come up with all the laws as we're sitting right here, but the question is are we going to protect human life with our laws?
DeMint can't answer the question because he knows that as soon as he stops blabbering about a 'culture of life' and starts talking about putting women in prison, he loses the vote of every moderate out there.
This is a fatal weakness we can use against the Republican Party on this issue. But we need to be aggressive about challenging Republicans to define how abortion will be prosecuted and punished. Put them on the spot, and do not let them weasel out with nothingburger pla udes about 'life.'
And when they fail to define a position, we need to define one for them.
Here's one - if abortion is murder, then both the woman and doctor must be prosecuted. In our legal system, when two people commit murder, there's no precedent for prosecuting one but not the other. Further, if abortion is murder it can only be premeditated murder - it can't be negligent homicide, or in the heat of passion, or in self-defense. There are no mitigating factors. And in most states, premeditated murder is a capital crime making the woman and the doctor eligible for the death penalty.
We need to pin the anti-choice Republicans on their on rhetoric here - if abortion is murder, then you can't endorse lesser penalties or say one of the parties shouldn't be prosecuted. Murder is murder. Period.
Force the GOP and anti-choice forces to fight on this turf, and their support melts right away
Didn't the Supreme Court just refuse to look at Roe vs Wade?
I believe life begins at conception.
Good points.
From what I understand about the Pro-life movement they would like Roe v Wade to be overturned. That wouldn't outlaw abortion, it would just make it a state's issue, not a Federal one. So each state could enact its own laws and if they make abortion illegal, people could just travel to a state where it was legal.
I know pro-choice people will argue that it makes it harder for poor women because they don't have the funds to travel to another state - but I say - I believe every woman has a choice - the choice whether or not to have sex without contraceptives. If you choose to have sex without contraceptives, then you must live with the consequences of your choice!!!
It is also up to the man to cover his meat when he's in heat!
If he ain't' gonna wrap it, go home and whack it!
When in doubt, cover your spout!
"If you choose to have sex without contraceptives, then you must live with the consequences of your choice!" My God, I've been saying that for years, and all those idiots just laughed at me...
That used to be my line of thinking. But not so much anymore. I can't just call a zygote or even a small fetus a human being capable of life on it's own.
What are your criteria for determining what is a human being?
You beat me to it, Jenn...
Where's the magic line in the sand? What's that point where you can say "yesterday it was only a zygote, but today he/she is a human being"?
I would say that when it is able to survive on it's own without direct biological help from the mother. In otherwords, if it was born today, would it survive?
Can it survive outside of the mothers body?
It's not a dark line, it's a big gray area. But it's all I got at the moment.
Once the child is outside of the mother's body, there are other options for its survival. It can be adopted, for instance, by anyone willing to raise it.
Once we are able to easily and reliably remove an embryo/fetus from the mother's womb and somehow nurse it to full growth, then I think there will be precedent for banning abortions. Right now, however, you've got a perpetual battle between the mother's rights and the fetus' rights... and arguing which one's rights to prioritize is never clear cut.
I am pro-forced pregnancies.
i think a person should always have a right to their own body...
When it is a fetus that you've created your opinion may change.
Really? I doubt it, but I suppose anything is possible.
I already think all abortions are horrible, but I also don't believe I want the government making decisions for me when it's not the governments choice.
A zygote isn't a human, and neither is an early first trimester fetus. Thats my opinion now, and I'm sure I'll hold it when I have children of my own.
However, I don't plan on ever putting myself in a position to have to choose whether or not to advocate an abortion in my own life.
When it's your daughter (or girlfriend) yours may change as well.
But emotional attachment is not very conducive to clear, logical thinking anyway.
Why don't you consider a zygote or first trimester fetus a human?
I can't remember right now but I believe there was going to be a show on PBS about early development in the womb.
I don't know about anybody else but when my wife was pregnant and I could see the small heart beat that was all it took for me.
And yes, it was a very emotional time and it does probably is not very conducive to clear, logical thinking but my heart didn't need it anyways.
I cherish the sonogram pictures of my children.
The line is the womans vagina.
Because it can't survive on it's own if it was "born" then.
I propose that the beginning of "life" is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion, as far as its legality.
I've got a hypothetical...
Let's say that because of a new law, a woman is pulled over for failing to fasten her seat belt and is told that, as punishment, she is required to host a fetus until birth. The original mother had passed away shortly after conception, but doctors managed to save the fetus. However, the fetus needs a host mother (particularly one with this woman's rare blood type) or it will die. The new law requires that any woman caught speeding is required to be a host Mother.
Is this a fair law? These women KNOW what they're risking when they speed... and besides, they don't need to speed. They should be driving the speed limit.
Any thoughts?
Last edited by Spurminator; 02-24-2005 at 11:20 PM.
8 weeks
The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.
Looks human to me.
Manny, your sex life has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with abortion.
I know you know this, but it makes for interesting fodder to ponder why your intentions matter in the least when it comes arguing where to draw the line in the sand.
It's as if you are better than those who resort to abortion.
Gasp! A forced pregnancy!! What could be worse than that!! Dear GOD!! What is this crazy world coming to!!!
Can you imagine? Murdering your unborn son or daughter not an option? What sicko ever thought that up?!
I mean, c'mon! I have sex and get pregnant and I HAVE to give birth to the little brat?! This is an OUTRAGE!!!
For most Republicans, the right to life ends at birth.
Perhaps no other wedge issue other than the gay-marriage issue has been abused more by the Republican leadership. Republicans know that over 60% of the population still strongly support the right to choice, so to come out and actively seek legislation that would infringe on this right would be cutting their own political necks. Instead the adminstration and some state legislators have taken the back-handed approach of helping to appoint Federal judges who are sympathetic toward anti-choice views. So when these crazy 'activist judges' start passing laws such as notification requirements or a State law recently proposed by one 'activist' Judge to show propective abortion recepients pictures of a actual abortion, the WH can just claim they can't be responsible for the actions of the judiciary. Yeah, right.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
