Roe v Wade

[Guest bengalrick]

think about it, all overthrowing roe v wade would do, is give the states the ability to allow or not allow abortions for that particular state.... instead of that, we have a federal law that makes it a law for it to be allowed everywhere... if it were at the state level, the senator or governor could be held directly responsible for his decision...

the problem w/ the law in general isn't necessarily b/c i disagree w/ abortions in almost all cases (besides incest, rape, or endangering mother), but b/c i or nobody has any choice at all, in this matter... its bullshit that this law was ever made... it is not what the founders wanted (and obviously is not mentioned in the constitution) b/c they were about states rights... if i had a vote or at least a direct person to hold accountable for thier actions, i could accept allowing what the majority of people want... but i don't get that..

and i mentioned that i don't agree w/ abortion except for certain instances... i found this in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion"]wikepida[/url] entry very interesting:

[i]Women from 27 nations reported the following reasons for seeking an induced abortion: [1]

* 25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% – Want no (more) children
* [b]3.3% – Risk to fetal health[/b]
* [b]2.8% – Risk to mother's health[/b]
* [b]2.1% – Rape, incest, othe[/b]r[/i]

i bolded the 3 reasons that i could see moral imo... i'm sure that the majority of pro-lifers would agree w/ me too... that equals 8.2% of that total... that means that 918% of the would be parents are KILLING THEIR BABIES b/c they either want to wait longer (always got what they want, and it would inconvience them), can't afford it (yeah, thats a great choice... its only a baby), problems w/ their boyfriend or he didn't want them (you can take about half of this percentage away and put it in the "inconvience" category, considering i'm sure the exgirlfriend would be talking for the exboyfriend), would mess up their job (weakest excuse to kill a baby yet), or just simply don't want more children (tubes tied, get the man snipped, birth control, condoms... am i making my point yet?)

thats weak as fuck... you are fighting for 98% of people that have a weak ass reason to KILL THEIR BABY... the only one i guess i could kind of see was the money problem, but its still a weak reason... wouldn't working through a problem and getting buy it (w/ help from friends, gov't, and church) be the way to go, instead of quitting on your babies life? wouldn't the husband or boyfriend be forced to get a second job or work overtime, and wouldn't that help him in the long run in many other aspects? if they are a single mother, that is where my sypathy and understand is... besides that, i don't see it...

more facts from that entry:

[i][b]The United States:[/b] In a January 2006 CBS News poll, which asked, "What is your personal feeling about abortion?", 27% of Americans said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases," 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now," 33% that it should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life," 17% that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life," and 5% that it should "never" be permitted. [37] A November 2005 Pew Research Center poll asked about Roe vs. Wade and found that 29% of want it overturned while 65% do not.[/i]

that would be 27% that agree w/ the current "pro abortion" stance, 15% who are a little further from where i am, but are reasonable about the situation, 33% who think i'm right, and 22% who are more extreme than i am... i believe this is why people are so afraid of roe v wade... they know these stats and know it will come to an end soon....

therefore, i call the "pro-choice" slogan bullshit.... those that are for abortions, are now called "pro-abortion" instead, b/c thats what the fuck you are. period. you are for a law that gives no choice.... am for getting rid of a law and leveling the playing field... but i'll stick w/ pro-life, but i refuse to call anyone in the extreme left pro choice again...

the UK is right on imo, when it comes to abortion, and i bet abortion would be a non-issue if it were like this... [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom"]click here[/url]

[Guest #22]

[quote]21.3% – Cannot afford a baby[/quote]
How is this immoral?

Abortion will never be a non-issue. People have been having Abortions since Athenian Democracy.

[Guest steggyD]

Well, if one cannot afford a baby, then take the steps necessary to not become pregnant in the first place. There are many types of birth control, even a form where no money is needed whatsoever, where the female avoids sex or uses protection on certain days during her cycle. Pregnancy is completely avoidable. Can't afford a child, then do not become pregnant.

I'm not going to preach abstinance, because, hell, sex is great. Just be smarter so that noone has to go killing children afterwards.

[Ben]

I hope they overturn it. I just bought up a shitload of stock in coat hangers!

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='Ben' post='203700' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:26 PM']I hope they overturn it. I just bought up a shitload of stock in coat hangers![/quote]
Well, how about instead of making it OK for anyone to destroy the life within them, how about we empower women to make decisions beforehand. There are so many ways to avoid pregnancy. We should definitely educate the masses of different types of birth control, especially the natural ways. Hormonal birth control is bad on the woman's body, so I disagree with that form.

Education is better than murder.

[Guest #22]

Too much pressure from churches to teach contraceptives

[Jason]

[quote name='Ben' post='203700' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:26 PM']I hope they overturn it. I just bought up a shitload of stock in coat hangers![/quote]

Myth.

Abortion methods were the same before as after.

Besides, there is a waiting list to adopt infants in the US. If every baby that were to be aborted were put up for adoption until no one wanted to adopt, we would never need to do another abortion.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='#22' post='203689' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:13 PM'][quote]21.3% – Cannot afford a baby[/quote]
How is this immoral?

Abortion will never be a non-issue. People have been having Abortions since Athenian Democracy.
[/quote]

i did go into this... i have sympathy, but money issues shouldn't play a part in ending a potential life... there are condoms, birth control, or the woman or man could be made sterolized... there are many ways around it... and don't scream about money, b/c there are clinics that you can get birth control very cheap w/ no insurance...

about being a non issue, your pretty much right... but right now (the middle imo) is lumped in w/ the crazy, hard right side of the argument, while the other side is much too left on the issue... if there was a vote or someone that could be held directly accountable for how they vote, then it is the compromise... roe v wade is a law that hurts your cause as much as it does mine imo...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Ben' post='203700' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:26 PM']I hope they overturn it. I just bought up a shitload of stock in coat hangers![/quote]

i guess you are missing my point, that it would go to the state level instead of being forced down my throat?

[Ben]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='203923' date='Jan 15 2006, 12:59 AM'][quote name='Ben' post='203700' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:26 PM']
I hope they overturn it. I just bought up a shitload of stock in coat hangers![/quote]

i guess you are missing my point, that it would go to the state level instead of being forced down my throat?
[/quote]

Forced down your throat? I thought they did it through the other end.....

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Jason' post='203801' date='Jan 14 2006, 08:45 PM']Myth.

Abortion methods were the same before as after.

[b]Besides, there is a waiting list to adopt infants in the US. If every baby that were to be aborted were put up for adoption until no one wanted to adopt, we would never need to do another abortion.[/b][/quote]

Also a myth

There is a demand on certain infants at adoption agencies. For example healthy white and asian babies
are high in demand but babies who are not white or asian, or babies who may have been born with
birth defects (like missing a foot or hand) etc. for the most part goes unwanted by comparison.

[Lawman]

[quote name='steggyD' post='203707' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:34 PM'][quote name='Ben' post='203700' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:26 PM']
I hope they overturn it. I just bought up a shitload of stock in coat hangers![/quote]
Well, how about instead of making it OK for anyone to destroy the life within them, how about we empower women to make decisions beforehand. There are so many ways to avoid pregnancy. We should definitely educate the masses of different types of birth control, especially the natural ways. Hormonal birth control is bad on the woman's body, so I disagree with that form.

Education is better than murder.
[/quote]

Association of Health Professionals

[url="http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation/onlinebrochures/comparing/index.cfm?ID=279"]http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation/onlin...ndex.cfm?ID=279[/url]

List nine contraceptive measures

[Jason]

[quote name='sneaky' post='204189' date='Jan 15 2006, 06:15 PM'][quote name='Jason' post='203801' date='Jan 14 2006, 08:45 PM']


Myth.

Abortion methods were the same before as after.

[b]Besides, there is a waiting list to adopt infants in the US. If every baby that were to be aborted were put up for adoption until no one wanted to adopt, we would never need to do another abortion.[/b][/quote]

Also a myth

There is a demand on certain infants at adoption agencies. For example healthy white and asian babies
are high in demand but babies who are not white or asian, or babies who may have been born with
birth defects (like missing a foot or hand) etc. for the most part goes unwanted by comparison.
[/quote]

Even so, there are enough families waiting to adopt that we could all but eliminate abortion.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Jason' post='204207' date='Jan 15 2006, 07:33 PM'][quote name='sneaky' post='204189' date='Jan 15 2006, 06:15 PM']
[quote name='Jason' post='203801' date='Jan 14 2006, 08:45 PM']


Myth.

Abortion methods were the same before as after.

[b]Besides, there is a waiting list to adopt infants in the US. If every baby that were to be aborted were put up for adoption until no one wanted to adopt, we would never need to do another abortion.[/b][/quote]

Also a myth

There is a demand on certain infants at adoption agencies. For example healthy white and asian babies
are high in demand but babies who are not white or asian, or babies who may have been born with
birth defects (like missing a foot or hand) etc. for the most part goes unwanted by comparison.
[/quote]

Even so, there are enough families waiting to adopt that we could all but eliminate abortion.
[/quote]

No not really.

If there were enough families willing to adopt children reguardless of the child's race or physical or mental
condition.......maybe

but if the waiting list is only for a specific kind of child.......no.

Truth is, there are lots of children who are homeless and unwanted in this country.
IMO, those who are "pro-life" would be better served trying to change the way adoption
agencies and foster care is handled in this country. The day when virtually every child in
this country has a home, food, proper health care, and education, more will join the "pro-life"
cause. If energy and effort is spent on the children already here maybe we can save those
who are on the way.

[Guest steggyD]

I can agree with that sneaky. My new approach to battling abortion is to create a world in which people would be willing to bring their children into it. Otherwise, I would like to see people practice a little more self-control and protect themselves when they are sexually active.

[Ben]

[quote name='steggyD' post='204235' date='Jan 15 2006, 08:17 PM']I can agree with that sneaky. My new approach to battling abortion is to create a world in which people would be willing to bring their children into it. Otherwise, I would like to see people practice a little more self-control and protect themselves when they are sexually active.[/quote]

We need to come up w/ a procedure at birth that will stop people from being able to concieve.. Then have a procedure to reverse it later!!

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]people have been having abortions since the begining of time .... in fact Nature causes many of them .... they are called miscarriages.

The reason why it shouldn't be up to the states is the same reason it is not up to the states on whether or not they can own black (Alabama is still pissed about this one). A womans sole ownership of her vagina is an inalienable right .... not one that is up to the states. She owns her vagina.... and her body .... thus if she wants to extract anything out of her vagina then she is allowed to. If upon being extracted it is dead then so be it.... it was not yet a person.


I don't favor abortion.... I favor vaginal extraction ..... You should not be allowed to stick scissors in it's head.... only remove it ..... if it is not a physiologically existing human being yet then it is not yet a person.[/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][i]"If men could have abortions, you could get them at vending machines"[/i]

[b]--- Bill Maher[/b][/center]

[Jason]

[quote name='sneaky' post='204234' date='Jan 15 2006, 07:15 PM'][quote name='Jason' post='204207' date='Jan 15 2006, 07:33 PM']
[quote name='sneaky' post='204189' date='Jan 15 2006, 06:15 PM']
[quote name='Jason' post='203801' date='Jan 14 2006, 08:45 PM']


Myth.

Abortion methods were the same before as after.

[b]Besides, there is a waiting list to adopt infants in the US. If every baby that were to be aborted were put up for adoption until no one wanted to adopt, we would never need to do another abortion.[/b][/quote]

Also a myth

There is a demand on certain infants at adoption agencies. For example healthy white and asian babies
are high in demand but babies who are not white or asian, or babies who may have been born with
birth defects (like missing a foot or hand) etc. for the most part goes unwanted by comparison.
[/quote]

Even so, there are enough families waiting to adopt that we could all but eliminate abortion.
[/quote]

No not really.

If there were enough families willing to adopt children reguardless of the child's race or physical or mental
condition.......maybe

but if the waiting list is only for a specific kind of child.......no.

Truth is, there are lots of children who are homeless and unwanted in this country.
IMO, those who are "pro-life" would be better served trying to change the way adoption
agencies and foster care is handled in this country. The day when virtually every child in
this country has a home, food, proper health care, and education, more will join the "pro-life"
cause. If energy and effort is spent on the children already here maybe we can save those
who are on the way.
[/quote]

Of the 1.2 million abortions every year, the vast majority are healthy babies. The number of abortions of babies with birth defects is about 3%.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='steggyD' post='204438' date='Jan 15 2006, 11:58 PM']Well, you see, BJ. I just don't look at it that way. In one way or another, each and every one of us depend on something to keep us alive. An unborn child depends on the mother for food, just for a short term. Then you are born and still dependant on the mother/father for life. A young baby cannot survive without help from older people still, once born. So, according to your logic, even born children are not really "alive" yet. Therefore we should just allow them to rot, right?[/quote]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Ben' post='204133' date='Jan 15 2006, 05:27 PM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='203923' date='Jan 15 2006, 12:59 AM']
[quote name='Ben' post='203700' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:26 PM']
I hope they overturn it. I just bought up a shitload of stock in coat hangers![/quote]

i guess you are missing my point, that it would go to the state level instead of being forced down my throat?
[/quote]

Forced down your throat? I thought they did it through the other end.....
[/quote]

who can i hold responsible for the roe v wade ruling? better yet, in the 70's when this was going down, who could the people that feel the way i do, hold accountable? the supreme court? thats a joke... they are purposely kept out of political issues... or at least that is the way the framers invisioned it... that way, political desisions where there could be political backfall are decided by people that are voted into office... judges are appointed by who we vote, which doesn't make me feel like they are held accountable...

and bj, comparing abortion to slavery is hillarious... the baby, before it is conceived, is actually part of two people, remember? therefore, it is in the womans body, but is part of two people... yet one person gets the overriding decision of whether another person all together should live or not...

look, i don't necessary dispise early term abortions... i don't agree w/ them, but i wouldn't be so admament about it... but late term abortions, teens not telling their parents (i doubt highly many kids at all are seriously in danger by telling their parents), and especially partial birth abortions (where you are LITERALLY killing a human being, any way you slice it)... the problem is, these questions are meaningless w/ roe v wade in place, b/c of the reasons i've mentioned...

[Guest steggyD]

Well, you see, BJ. I just don't look at it that way. In one way or another, each and every one of us depend on something to keep us alive. An unborn child depends on the mother for food, just for a short term. Then you are born and still dependant on the mother/father for life. A young baby cannot survive without help from older people still, once born. So, according to your logic, even born children are not really "alive" yet. Therefore we should just allow them to rot, right?

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

IMO, if Roe vs. Wade ever gets reversed and abortion was made illegal, it would create an undergorund abortion market the likes that you would never believe. Or US citizens wanting them would start taking conveniently timed holidays to other countries like Canada or the EU.

While the comparison here is a bit strange, think about what happened with prohibition. Did people stop drinking? No. Did it create an underground economy to ensure that demands were met. Yes. The same thing would happen in this case. There will always be demand for abortions. There always has been throughout history. Banning them will just take them underground and imo potentially make them more dangerous for women.

When my family was posted in the Middle East back in the 80s, you could get secret abortions there. Think about it, these are places where it was illegal by Islamic law, and if you as a doctor got busted doing them, you could lose your life. But the demand for the abortions was such a steady factor, that doctors were offering them, albeit secretly.

In economic terms, abortions as very inelastic in it's nature. E.g. demand for them will not be dependent on price or availability. There will always be demand for them. In that sense they are similar to the two most famous goods always quoted when examing inelastic scenarios...alcohol and booze. Throughout history, any attempt by those in power to ban access to them, has never dented the market, rather just moved it underground and potentially made it more dangerous. I think the same scenario would happen here.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='204647' date='Jan 16 2006, 10:11 AM']IMO, if Roe vs. Wade ever gets reversed and abortion was made illegal, it would create an undergorund abortion market the likes that you would never believe. Or US citizens wanting them would start taking conveniently timed holidays to other countries like Canada or the EU.

While the comparison here is a bit strange, think about what happened with prohibition. Did people stop drinking? No. Did it create an underground economy to ensure that demands were met. Yes. The same thing would happen in this case. There will always be demand for abortions. There always has been throughout history. Banning them will just take them underground and imo potentially make them more dangerous for women.[/quote]

backing out roe v wade wouldn't ban abortions first of all...

second of all, there is a HUGE difference imo if this happened compared to prohibition... for one, alcohol is addicting... abortions are not... true, i see the comparison b/c there would still be a demand, but not nearly as much as prohibition... nobody could grow like they did in prohibition, so the black market wouldn't be very big for it... i honestly don't think its a fair comparison...

i am not even advocating for a total ban on abortion, though i think that should be the case.... i am willing to compromise... UK's model is the model i think is most sound...

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom"]wikipedia[/url]
[i]
The Abortion Act of 1967 sought to clarify the law. Introduced by David Steel and subject to heated debate it allowed for legal abortion on a number of grounds, with the added protection of free provision through the National Health Service. The Act was passed on October 27, 1967 and came into effect on April 27, 1968.

The Act allowed a woman to receive an abortion on any of the follow grounds:

* To save the woman's life
* To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health
* Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman
* Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren)
* If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped
[b]
The Act required that the procedure must be certified by two doctors before being performed[/b].[/i]

the laws in our country are so fucked up, its not funny... first of all, why didn't our founding fathers define a life? damn, could they have helped everyone out a bunch if they would do it? i'll tell you why, they didn't want to debate this shit then either... no other reasonable explaination for it... if they tried, i have a feeling the constitution would either not exist from that convention or would be different... but that is the KEY to this whole discussion... and if we can't define it (throughout all laws) then we are going to get some cases that we don't agree w/ (on both sides of the political aisle)... i just heard the case where someone tried to call their child another passenger and claimed that allowed her to be in the car pool lane...... wellllll..... NO!!!! but still, the fact that she had a chance at winning that case is messed up.... how scott peterson or other situations where someone kills the mother and infant... that is considered two people, right? why not in abortion... it should be the same acrossed the board, with the exceptions that the british use...

the problem that most people don't think about w/ this debate is this... pro-abortion people are for the rights of the woman, which is great to have but realistically, it gives very little benefits anybody... it allows them to kill the life inside of them... in other words, its not embolding and its not something to be proud of or (you would think) not to fight so hard for... my side of the aisle is fighting to save a life... reguardless of what YOU think about it, I think it is a life that is killed, even at early periods in the pregnancy... so you can tell me "no its not" but you don't realize, i don't give a fuck what you think... i care what i do... and i feel it is killing someone...

come on people, be reasonable... give the vote to the states... the only reason you wouldn't want that, is b/c your agraid to lose that right... if you think about freedom and democracy, that is one fucked up way of looking at keeping a right that YOU feel is ok, when more than half of everyone else doesn't... [b]if there were a vote or someone held accountable, i would be ok w/ it, and keep my feelings to myself...[/b] but its not

[Guest steggyD]

Well, you people look at the issue all wrong. Drinking and drug use harms the person doing it. Yeah, sometimes others are affected, but not directly. Abortion not only harms, but completely destroys another living being. That's why I say we should forget about the Catholics, and completely push education in pregnancy prevention. More education about how to not get pregnant in the first place, and maybe we can eliminate abortion in the long term. The excuse that you're not ready yet or cannot afford a child is bullshit. Then don't get pregnant. It's easy. If you want to have sex during a certain five day period of your cycle, then use protection, maybe twice the protection. The rest of the month is wide open to unprotected sex, that is, if you want to risk disease.