PDA

View Full Version : Will an abortion be murder legaly if Roe v Wade is over turned ?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Tigerlilly
11-05-2004, 01:01 PM
just heard some Bush/Supreme Court/ Roe v Wade discussion on the news today and it got me thinking.

If Bush is successful and gets a Supreme Court judge to overturn R-v-W will a woman who gets an abortion be arrested and tried for murder?

If so-
What if she leaves the country and gets one? Then what?

Emily
11-05-2004, 02:21 PM
Well, Bush has said he wanted to make fetal homicide a crime. http://www.wf-f.org/FetalHomicideBill.html

I'm worried too about these things. I just hope he sticks to what he knows best (creating war and unemployment) and lets me keep my rights.

Jay Zeno
11-05-2004, 02:29 PM
Roe v. Wade was bad law. It was probably a good thing for the country to have some resolution on the issue, but the rights of an embryo/fetus/unborn child are not within the framework of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret and apply the Constitution, not make up new laws on their own. The making of laws is properly with the Legislature. So that's why Roe v. Wade, even though it may have been a good thing, was bad law.

One Supreme Court Justice cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. It takes a majority of the nine Justices sitting, and usually all nine are sitting. It takes 5-4.

Reagan, Nixon, perhaps Ford - I can't remember - and Bush I all had their chances at appointing Supreme Court Justices. Note that seven out of the nine present Justices were appointed by Republicans. Note that Roe v. Wade is still intact.

In order to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would need conservative Justices who would call for "strict construction" of the Constitution, who would see the issue of abortion as outside the broad principles of the Constitution. But there's a flip side to that concept. "Conservative" also generally means that you follow the principles of respect of precedence. In other words, there is law already in place, and the conservative does not try to overturn prevailing law.

So it's hit or miss. There's no guarantee that 1) Bush will appoint an anti-abortion justice; 2) that he could get an anti-abortion justice past the confirmation process (getting "Borked," as they say); 3) that any justice appointed will follow some Presidential leash to some desired outcome. Justices are independent.

The ultimate answer is that should Roe v. Wade be overturned, it would then properly fall to state legislatures to set their own abortion laws. You wouldn't have to leave the country if an abortion was illegal in your home town - you'd go to another state where it's legal.

Melonie
11-05-2004, 02:40 PM
I highly doubt that a woman's right to abortion in the first trimester will ever be struck down. However, there is a lot of contradiction and gray areas in regard to fetal rights (if they exist) which need to be sorted out. It's fairly ridiculous to charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with two murder charges under the Lacey Law if a fetus isn't considered to have rights. On the other hand, if a fetus DOES have rights, then how can an abortion be justified ? The Lacey Law was the first step down a slippery slope, and you can actually blame Democratic congressmen who introduced it without thinking about the potential ramifications for taking that first step.

Tigerlilly
11-05-2004, 02:40 PM
I also wonder if it does become murder to have an abortion, will capital punishment be the prefered sentance under the new Fundy government we now have in place

madmaxine
11-05-2004, 02:43 PM
Thank you Jay for the clarification- I didn't want to touch this thread with a ten-foot pole! Asking for trouble.
Sadly, in some states, it's as if abortion is illegal, it's so hard to obtain for impoverished and poor women.
Proof on Christian conservative dunderheadness...my last vociferously anti-abortion boyfriends were still fucking me outside of wedlock, with not much of a thought to what would happen if they knocked me up. I think I need to stop sleeping with the enemy.....

Lilith
11-05-2004, 02:50 PM
Capital punishment is reliant on murder with aggravating circumstances, ie; murder commited in the process of another crime or to cover up the commision of another crime. Then you have to swing this past a jury of peers.

doc-catfish
11-05-2004, 02:52 PM
I also wonder if it does become murder to have an abortion, will capital punishment be the prefered sentance under the new Fundy government we now have in place
Oh for God's sakes... ::)

If the Fundies even suggested resorting to such ridiculous extremes, the people would most likely get rid of them democratically. If they actually carried such tyrannical justice out, the people would most likely get rid of them the way the Romanians got rid of Ceausescu, and befittingly so.

Tigerlilly
11-05-2004, 03:10 PM
Well I hope you're right- but whats going on in todays government leads me to think otherwise. But thankfully for now it's just hypothetical discussion. I hope it stays that way.

Casual Observer
11-05-2004, 03:33 PM
^ No, what's happening in American government doesn't lead you to think otherwise; there's no rational basis for that. You think that way because your panties are in a twist over the winner of the election.


Reagan, Nixon, perhaps Ford - I can't remember - and Bush I all had their chances at appointing Supreme Court Justices. Note that seven out of the nine present Justices were appointed by Republicans. Note that Roe v. Wade is still intact.

But, but, but I though those evil corporatist GOPers wanted to destroy Roe V. Wade just to antagonize poor, defenseless women? ::)


In order to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would need conservative Justices who would call for "strict construction" of the Constitution, who would see the issue of abortion as outside the broad principles of the Constitution. But there's a flip side to that concept. "Conservative" also generally means that you follow the principles of respect of precedence. In other words, there is law already in place, and the conservative does not try to overturn prevailing law.

This is why there is no real threat.


So it's hit or miss. There's no guarantee that 1) Bush will appoint an anti-abortion justice; 2) that he could get an anti-abortion justice past the confirmation process (getting "Borked," as they say); 3) that any justice appointed will follow some Presidential leash to some desired outcome. Justices are independent.

Not to mention that if GWB wants to stack the rest of the bench and the Federal jurist system with Federalist judges, the easiest way to do it is by not making abortion a singularly important issue. Hell, by ignoring abortion, he can place a lot more judges with relative freedom and success at the level of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since he still has to deal with Leahy.

[QUOTEThe ultimate answer is that should Roe v. Wade be overturned, it would then properly fall to state legislatures to set their own abortion laws. You wouldn't have to leave the country if an abortion was illegal in your home town - you'd go to another state where it's legal[/QUOTE]

Agreed. There's that whole 10th Amendment thing that people have long since forgotten. Someday that amendment will matter again...

Tigerlilly
11-06-2004, 03:16 PM
^ No, what's happening in American government doesn't lead you to think otherwise; Spoken like a true conservative ::)

wanting to tell someone else what they can think or believe .

So Sorry:neener: but I get to think, feel and believe anything I want, despite what you think is an acceptable or correct point of view for me to have.

Its called free will-- you should try it sometime. LOL!

GnBeret
11-09-2004, 04:40 PM
just heard some Bush/Supreme Court/ Roe v Wade discussion on the news today and it got me thinking.

If Bush is successful and gets a Supreme Court judge to overturn R-v-W will a woman who gets an abortion be arrested and tried for murder?

If so-
What if she leaves the country and gets one? Then what?
If Roe is overturned, women will have lost the Constitutional right to obtain an abortion, which means it will then be up to the States to decide whether or not it will be legal via statutory provisions in their particular State. As for leaving the country and getting one, the general answer is "no," you are not liable for acts defined as crimes in the U.S. when committed overseas. However, that may werll be changing, as there have been several new laws enacted in recent years that putrport to do just that, i.e., make a U.S. citizen liable for an act they engage in while out of the country. None have been tested inj court thus far, so it remains to be seen how far the Court will allow this to go - BUT, the conservative wing of the Court has shown a marked propensity towards extraterritorial jurisdiction over the past decade when presented with somewhat similar issues involving drug-related matters.


Jay - as for Court "making law," they didn't... they were presented with a straightforward question they could no longer duck, i.e., does she have a constitutional right or not. If they cannot answer questions of that nature in the same manner as they dealt with Roe, a good 80% of what they've had to deal with under the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments over the past 50 years would have to be thrown out. All they do is set the baseline yea or nea - everything else is still left to the States to decide.

RedZ28
11-09-2004, 08:41 PM
I don't agree completely with a woman's right to choose but I would hate to think that if it were made illegal, women everywhere would be dying again because of botched "back-alley abortions." The main reason I have problems with it though is that some are using it as a last-ditch method of birth control. There are other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, widely available.

Adina
11-09-2004, 08:55 PM
Yes, there are many methods of birth control, widely available.

But if the only method of birth control being taught in high schools is abstinence, kids are not going to know about these methods, are they?

Tigerlilly
11-09-2004, 09:02 PM
^ Nope :(

how do we get the hardcore rightwing to understand that ?



As for leaving the country and getting one, the general answer is "no," you are not liable for acts defined as crimes in the U.S. when committed overseas. However, that may werll be changing, as there have been several new laws enacted in recent years that putrport to do just that, i.e., make a U.S. citizen liable for an act they engage in while out of the country. None have been tested inj court thus far, so it remains to be seen how far the Court will allow this to go - BUT, the conservative wing of the Court has shown a marked propensity towards extraterritorial jurisdiction over the past decade when presented with somewhat similar issues involving drug-related matters.

Oh and GrnBeret:thanx: for answering my question !



Knowledge is Power:flower:

Katrine
11-09-2004, 09:44 PM
Just what this country needs, more teenage mothers to be living off the system! :(

GnBeret
11-09-2004, 10:42 PM
I don't agree completely with a woman's right to choose but I would hate to think that if it were made illegal, women everywhere would be dying again because of botched "back-alley abortions." The main reason I have problems with it though is that some are using it as a last-ditch method of birth control. There are other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, widely available.
Yea, and there are less objectionable methods of "after-the-fact" resolution in existence as well too (i.e., RU-486), but government has barred availability of those as well.

I'd have a lot less problem with those working so hard to bar abortion if they were lining up to adopt all the unwanted children and allowing liberal use of preventative measures such as sex education in the schools, dispensation of birth control to teenage girls without parental notification, etc., but when they offer nothing more than "just say no" as an alternative......

Katrine
11-10-2004, 01:44 AM
RU-486. Partial-ban abortion. Stem cell research. They've become political buzzwords thanks to our lovely media. Now these words are used by parties and CNN for sensationalistic speeches instead of actually solving the problem that these words are related to :(

Katrine
11-10-2004, 01:45 AM
Well, stem cell technically has nothing to do with it, but its related as the term has become politicized (sp?) and no one really understands it.

Jay Zeno
11-10-2004, 01:54 AM
Jay - as for Court "making law," they didn't... they were presented with a straightforward question they could no longer duck, i.e., does she have a constitutional right or not. If they cannot answer questions of that nature in the same manner as they dealt with Roe, a good 80% of what they've had to deal with under the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments over the past 50 years would have to be thrown out. All they do is set the baseline yea or nea - everything else is still left to the States to decide. Not exactly. They were presented with whether the Texas abortion criminal statutes were too broad or otherwise unconstitutional. In its tortuous reasoning, the Supreme Court went through ancient Greece, Jewish law, medical tradition, twists of common law, Dorland's Medical Dictionary, various Protestant and Catholic views.

They ultimately felt compelled to address the protection of prenatal life. In doing so, they established a definition of life, divided by trimester, completely apart from any Constitutional foundation.

There is no provision in the Constitution to define life. One could argue it logically falls to the conscience of the people in the various states. The Supreme Court had to invent a class of person and stretch the 14th and other amendments to encompass the mother up until viability, at which point the states could encompass and protect the prenatal child - I think.

I'll let the rest of the Court speak for itself in its findings:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (Translation: 1-3 months, up to mom and doc.)

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (Translation: 4-6 months, states can regulate abortion as it affects mom's health.)

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. (Translation: 7-9 months, states can prohibit abortion except when mom's in danger.)

How they got that out of the Constitution is a real stretch. I'm not saying it's a bad way to go. It certainly gave the country some resolution. I'm saying it's bad law, given the purposes of the Supreme Court, and a bad example of judicial activism.

One final word by the Court: "This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day."

No mention of the U.S. Constitution and following case law. Even the Supreme Court admitted, in so many words, that its decision wasn't Constitutionally based.

Jay Zeno
11-10-2004, 01:57 AM
I'm thinking - please correct me if I'm wrong - that restrictions of RU486 survived the eight years of the Clinton Administration.

GnBeret
11-10-2004, 05:43 AM
Not exactly. They were presented with whether the Texas abortion criminal statutes were too broad or otherwise unconstitutional. In its tortuous reasoning, the Supreme Court went through ancient Greece, Jewish law, medical tradition, twists of common law, Dorland's Medical Dictionary, various Protestant and Catholic views.

They ultimately felt compelled to address the protection of prenatal life. In doing so, they established a definition of life, divided by trimester, completely apart from any Constitutional foundation.

There is no provision in the Constitution to define life. One could argue it logically falls to the conscience of the people in the various states. The Supreme Court had to invent a class of person and stretch the 14th and other amendments to encompass the mother up until viability, at which point the states could encompass and protect the prenatal child - I think.

I'll let the rest of the Court speak for itself in its findings:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (Translation: 1-3 months, up to mom and doc.)

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (Translation: 4-6 months, states can regulate abortion as it affects mom's health.)

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. (Translation: 7-9 months, states can prohibit abortion except when mom's in danger.)

How they got that out of the Constitution is a real stretch. I'm not saying it's a bad way to go. It certainly gave the country some resolution. I'm saying it's bad law, given the purposes of the Supreme Court, and a bad example of judicial activism.

One final word by the Court: "This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day."

No mention of the U.S. Constitution and following case law. Even the Supreme Court admitted, in so many words, that its decision wasn't Constitutionally based.
Unfair. That's neither what they did nor how they did it - and between the pejorative characterizations of their methodology and the failure to even acknowledge their extended explanation of the Constitutional basis for their decision, it paints a wholly inaccurate picture of the Court's decision. While the decision is admittedly not one of their better efforts and, as one Justice recently noted, has ultimately proven to be on a collision course with itself due to advances in medical science, it nevertheless was decided on the basis of a standard due process analysis which balanced the conflicting rights and interests of the individual and the State.

The Court's "tortuous reasoning" began with an examination of the accepted bases of modern law in this country for several reasons - the most compelling being to establish the historical fact that women enjoyed far greater rights in this area at the time of the adoption of the Constitution than they did under the laws of most of the States at the time of the submission of this case for decision, i.e., to refute any assertions re "what did they likely intend when the Constitution was adopted."

The Court then explained the purported bases for States' criminalization of abortion, as well as the asserted bases for the individual's claim of Constitutional protection from any such stautes. In sum, the only valid basis for the States' laws that the Court could devine was protection of the unborn child - but, lacking any basis in either law or medicine for according the unborn child "person" status under the law prior to "viability," could find no "compelling state interest" in the abridgement of the individual's right to make decisions regarding her own body (a Constitutional right falling under the right to privacy, which had previously been recognized in a well-established line of Supreme Court cases) under the due process clause, applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment. As such, the Court recognized the individual's right under the Constitution, BUT, as is the case with most such rights, then further explained that it was not absolute, i.e., at some point (in this case, "viability," albeit on a sliding scale) the State's interests in the unborn child become compelling enough to infringe and, ultimately, all but override same.

And it's only after devoting many pages, replete with case cites and footnotes documenting the bases for their reasoning, that they come full circle and, in effort to make clear that they've looked high and low for arguments and reasons both pro and con, offer the quote you claim demonstrates the lack of any real Constitutional basis for their decision.

All in all, you can disagree with their decision - and I don't disagree with your assertion re the States deciding being a viable alternative - but it's simply not fair to attack the decision as lacking any real basis and/or being an example of the Court "making law."

Jay Zeno
11-10-2004, 11:04 AM
We can agree to disagree, Grn, just like real lawyers do on this decision.

I would describe my characterizations as critical, not pejorative. But that's just me.

I was being too wordy as it was. So I summarized their decision as I interpreted it, and I interpret it as tortuous, particularly within the framework of the Constitution. You interpret it as solidly Constitutional. That's fine. We disagree.

And then I quoted - I thought verbatim - their bottom line and their own attendant paragraph to their own bottom line. I was using their own words, not taken out of context, to make my point.

The bottom line of what I'm saying is that they presented a Constitutional decision based upon definitions, using trimesters and a historical/spiritual/scientific-derived conclusion of protected life, that have no solid Constitutional basis. To me, that's judicial activism. To others, it may be the height of juridical brilliance.

At any rate, it's what the law is, whether one likes the results or not, and there's a great deal to be said for some degree of uniformity - Constitutionally based or not.

Wwanderer
11-10-2004, 12:18 PM
Fwiiw, I remember the situation re abortion before Roe v Wade (before 1973). Abortion laws varied widely from state-to-state, but I don't recall that any defined abortion as murder at that time. As a practical matter, wealthy and/or appropriately educated women traveled as needed to obtain medical abortions when they wanted them, but poor or ignorant women plus adolescent girls afraid to let their parents or others know that they were pregnant often sufferred unsafe illegal abortions or endured pregnancies that they did not want.

Times were also tougher for women then because birth control options were fewer and, in some states, less easily available than they are now.

Anyway, my guess is that abortion would not become murder in at least the vast majority of states if Roe v Wade were overturned, but a constitutional ammendment defining a fetus as a human being with legal rights is another matter entirely.

-Ww

Pamela
11-10-2004, 12:36 PM
Big discussion at the hospital i work. Try as they may, they can not stop abortion. Being first trimester or second, it will be shot down.

Pamela

GnBeret
11-11-2004, 12:23 AM
Big discussion at the hospital i work. Try as they may, they can not stop abortion. Being first trimester or second, it will be shot down.

Pamela
??? Sorry, but you lost me here... mind explaining? Thx.

GB

Lexi
11-11-2004, 09:56 AM
RU486 is not available anymore? When did that happen?

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 10:23 AM
I don't agree completely with a woman's right to choose but I would hate to think that if it were made illegal, women everywhere would be dying again because of botched "back-alley abortions." The main reason I have problems with it though is that some are using it as a last-ditch method of birth control. There are other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, widely available.ummmm abortion IS birth control.

If abortions are made illegal,and considered murder.Back alley abortions would have at least 3 players.Kinda like a back alley mugging or killing.
The murderer
the accompliss
the victom

Why would you show pity for anyone other then the person who is killed?

Just a question.
As a man in America,do you know what your rights are to your children,born and unborn??

It stuns me when i see a man who is pro choice.

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 10:30 AM
Yes, there are many methods of birth control, widely available.

But if the only method of birth control being taught in high schools is abstinence, kids are not going to know about these methods, are they?

^ Nope :(

how do we get the hardcore rightwing to understand that ?
wouldnt it be cheaper,and solve alot more problems,if we could get the kids to understand ABSTINENCE????
telling kids NOT to do something,BUT IF YA DO,hears what your gonna need to properly do what we just told ya not to do.And if that fails,we got a failsafe for ya called abortion.
But remember,dont do it.

No wonder the teens today are so friggin confused.
:O

GnBeret
11-11-2004, 10:39 AM
BigGrnM&M: Just out of curiousity, if abortion were no longer legal, would you make an exception for victims of rape who become pregnant? And/or for cases where the life of the mother is seriously endangered? If so, why??? I've never understood the rationale for that - if abortion is murder, why is it OK to commit murder when the child is the result of a rape? Same re chance the mother might die - why is it OK to commit murder when there's no certainty re the outcome if she's forced to bear the child full term? Thx.

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 10:49 AM
dispensation of birth control to teenage girls without parental notification..What about the boys??

Much respect for your opinions and your information posted on the forum.

Not meaning to get personal,but do you have any kids,to be exact,do you have any daughters??

This opinion suggest you dont IMO,so until you do,and some teacher at school hands her a few condoms for the weekend,you wont really know for sure if your for or against this suggestion.

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 11:10 AM
BigGrnM&M: Just out of curiousity, if abortion were no longer legal, would you make an exception for victims of rape who become pregnant?
No way.Heres why.

To begin with,cases of rape are less then 1% of abortions done.
This is what alot of PC people harp on alot though,its also what scares alot of people away from the debate.
You want to chase most men away from the debate,toss the rape card at him,it works in most cases.
1% isnt justifacation to the rest IMO.
IF abortions were kept legal for the cases of rape..
Do you think false charges of rape would increase or decrease??
IMO alot of innocent men and teenage boys will be in jail.

Yes i feel sorry for the woman who is raped,i have daughters for kripes sake,so dont anyone turn this into the femi nazi ploy of bashing me for not showing pity for the raped.I do.

But its 1% of what the overall picture is that we are talking about.



And/or for cases where the life of the mother is seriously endangered? If so, why???
The host must be saved imo.If you want to call that an abortion,fine,i call it a lifesaving operation.
Nobody is saying stand around and watch a mother die from a tubal pregnancy.

GnBeret
11-11-2004, 11:23 AM
What about the boys??

Much respect for your opinions and your information posted on the forum.

Not meaning to get personal,but do you have any kids,to be exact,do you have any daughters??

This opinion suggest you dont IMO,so until you do,and some teacher at school hands her a few condoms for the weekend,you wont really know for sure if your for or against this suggestion.
Ha ha ha... Touche! No daughters, only sons. That said, I can assure you that if I had a daughter I'd have long since made such things as birth control and condoms freely available to her without her having to go through me by the time the teacher got around to giving them to her.

And FYI, my mom taught biology in an all girls Catholic school, where she was specifically prohibited from getting into anything which might be construed as "sex education," and specifically required to parrot the party line re "abstinence." She said that lasted all of about ten minutes when she got to the reproduction part of the biology class, 'cause after meeting the first few questions from the girls with the abstinence response, one of them raised their hand and said "Well, there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant, you know." To which, out of sheer curiousity, she replied "Oh?" And the girl says "Yea, everybody knows you just put some Saran wrap on his penis." My mom said her first thought was "Now I know why we have 5 Seniors pregnant in a class of less than 150!" ... and her second thought was "This is insane... these girls are going to have sex with their boyfriends regardless of what I, or anyone else tells them, so they damned well ought to know what they're doing, how to keep from becoming pregnant, and how to avoid catching STD's." And from that point on, she'd block out some days at the start of the year every year, post a "guard" by the door, and tell them the whole truth, top to bottom. And yep, you guessed it, no more Senior class pregnancies for the next 8 years in that school... care to hazard a guess as to why?

Knowledge is always a good thing. How about we teach the kids to make intelligent decisions based on hard information, and then rely upon the parents to have instilled whatever morality and hopefully good judgment in them by that point in life such that they CHOOSE to do, or not do things on the basis of real knowledge, as opposed to complete ignorance and fear?;)

Tigerlilly
11-11-2004, 11:33 AM
Trying to make kids abstain has been tried since the dawn of time- it doesnt work most of the time.

GnBeret
11-11-2004, 11:39 AM
No way.Heres why.

To begin with,cases of rape are less then 1% of abortions done.
This is what alot of PC people harp on alot though,its also what scares alot of people away from the debate.
You want to chase most men away from the debate,toss the rape card at him,it works in most cases.
1% isnt justifacation to the rest IMO.
IF abortions were kept legal for the cases of rape..
Do you think false charges of rape would increase or decrease??
IMO alot of innocent men and teenage boys will be in jail.

Yes i feel sorry for the woman who is raped,i have daughters for kripes sake,so dont anyone turn this into the femi nazi ploy of bashing me for not showing pity for the raped.I do.

But its 1% of what the overall picture is that we are talking about.


The host must be saved imo.If you want to call that an abortion,fine,i call it a lifesaving operation.
Nobody is saying stand around and watch a mother die from a tubal pregnancy.
Thanks for the explanation - while we obviously disagree over the fundamental question, at least I can follow the logic of your position re rape... I've just always had a hard time with the concept of designating the procedure a "murder" and then making exceptions for this, that or whatever - has nothing to do with it, is either murder or it isn't.

Tigerlilly
11-11-2004, 11:46 AM
It stuns me when i see a man who is pro choice.
It stuns me everytime I read or hear or encounter a man, who is a complete stranger to me, who think he has the right to tell me what to do with the most intimate parts of my body and soul. I would sooner kill myself than let someone like BigGrn tell me when I am ALLOWED to bring life into this world or not>:(

All the men out there think they should get to make my life's choices for me can shove that little worthless opinion right up where the sun don't shine because none of you have any right to tell me or any woman what do with with our reproductive abilites. The only person you have the right to make those choices for is yourself.

A_Guy
11-11-2004, 11:49 AM
Just a question.
As a man in America,do you know what your rights are to your children,born and unborn??

It stuns me when i see a man who is pro choice.
Well, I'm definitely pro choice - if my sister, girlfriend, friend, family member, were pregnant and endanger of losing her life, I sure as hell would want her to go to a doctor rather than lose her life to produce another or perform a back-alley, coat hanger self-surgery.. What purpose does that serve? All the people I just listed are gentle, caring, intelligent and productive people that would lose their life over pro-life restrictions. I for one will not sentence a mother to death via support of pro-life advocates. It's discrimination against the mother if you ask me.

Also, what about rape? God forbid if my girlfriend was raped, but if she was, I would be 100% supportive if she did not want to mother the son/daughter of a rapist.

- just my opinion.

Tigerlilly
11-11-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally Posted by GnBeret

" BigGrnM&M: Just out of curiousity, if abortion were no longer legal, would you make an exception for victims of rape who become pregnant? "


No way.Revolting ! Cruel ! imo anyway

So if you agree that abortion ( if illegal) would be murder - what is the just punishment, in your opinion ?

let me guess -- the electric chair.... right ?


The host must be saved imo.If you want to call that an abortion,fine,i call it a lifesaving operation.
Nobody is saying stand around and watch a mother die from a tubal pregnancy.Well thats surprising , I'd have figured you for a save the baby not the mother type- especially with the use of the word "host" :O

GnBeret
11-11-2004, 11:57 AM
It stuns me everytime I read or hear or encounter a man, who is a complete stranger to me, who think he has the right to tell me what to do with the most intimate parts of my body and soul. I would sooner kill myself than let someone like BigGrn tell me when I am ALLOWED to bring life into this world or not>:(

All the men out there think they should get to make my life's choices for me can shove that little worthless opinion right up where the sun don't shine because none of you have any right to tell me or any woman what do with with our reproductive abilites. The only person you have the right to make those choices for is yourself.
You go girl! I don't want anybody telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body, and I'm not interested in telling anybody else what they can or cannot do with theirs. Start down that path and those that currently advocate the contrary position will someday find themselves on the wrong end of the "telling."

Tigerlilly
11-11-2004, 12:01 PM
Start down that path and those that currently advocate the contrary position will someday find themselves on the wrong end of the "telling."
Exactly !!!!!!!!!!!!!

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 12:01 PM
Knowledge is always a good thing. How about we teach the kids to make intelligent decisions based on hard information, and then rely upon the parents to have instilled whatever morality and hopefully good judgment in them by that point in life such that they CHOOSE to do, or not do things on the basis of real knowledge, as opposed to complete ignorance and fear?;)I agree 100%.

Now lets talk at what age is ok with you.
should it be elementary,middle school,highschool,or collage??( I say highschool is ok,jr year to be exact)

Teaching a kid about sex is one thing.handing them condoms on request is another thing.

Btw...
Is your sons school pro choice or pro life??
Do they mirror your views???
Is the sex ed teacher pro choice or pro life??
Does she follow school guidelines??
does she mirror your views on the topic?
will she reenforce your home teaching on the topic with her teachings or will she teach the opposite of what your telling your kids at home?

What about the substitute teacher??

Im all for sex ed,i just think it differs when you get past the mechanics of sex and stray into topics such as abortions and handing out birth control.

can a child be taught by a pro life teacher on the details of abortion or vise versa??

To many gray areas,and i dont like putting my "kids"into those gray area situations.

Its a debate between parents that is being faught in the schools of our children.

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 12:08 PM
^ typical Bush voter point of view- stick to a plan that isnt working::)


Trying to make kids abstain has been tried since the dawn of time- it doesnt work most of the time.
lol
It isnt working???
Teen pregnancy isnt down??

Most kids dont get pregnant.
Most teens do not get abortions.

Im sorry you dont see something working when its working.

Most horses that you lead to water will drink,some wont.

Chani_Fremen
11-11-2004, 12:15 PM
I think sex should honestly start to be taught in elementary school. Girls can start having their periods as young as 8 years old. Also, the more a kid knows about sex and anatomy the less likely they are to be molested.

Chani_Fremen
11-11-2004, 12:18 PM
And yes teen pregnancy is down but STD rates are up (and so are abortion rates) so I would highly refrain from saying that it is due to abstainance.

VADEN
11-11-2004, 12:22 PM
Wow, after reading everyone's post's, the only thing I have to say is, I agree with Tigerlilly 100%!;)

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 12:23 PM
It stuns me everytime I read or hear or encounter a man, who is a complete stranger to me, who think he has the right to tell me what to do with the most intimate parts of my body and soul. I would sooner kill myself than let someone like BigGrn tell me when I am ALLOWED to bring life into this world or not>:(

With the current situation,even the man who knocked you up is considered a stranger.You know,the FATHER of the child your pregnant with.

Im sorry if you dont see men as caring parents.parents that consider their children to be the most intimate part of their life,and without a doubt,part of their very soul.
Kinda like what the mother thinks about their children.
Odd huh???

Even if your married to the man,he has no say in what happens to his children under laws that are around for now.
If the wife wants to keep it,he has no say.
If the wife wants to kill it,he has no choice,she can legally kill thier kid.

You can marry a die hard pro lifer,but when she gets pregnant,she can change her mind,legally and without consent from the husband.(as females have been known to do)

And females are complaining about equal rights in marriage???
HA!!!!

Once they outline what is considered a marriage in this country,i wonder why anyone would want to get married.From the males point of view,they have no rights in the most important reasons for getting married,the kids.

Chani_Fremen
11-11-2004, 12:29 PM
BigGrnMn. So a woman should be forced to go to term and gestate? One word: Romania.

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 12:38 PM
Well, I'm definitely pro choice - if my sister, girlfriend, friend, family member, were pregnant and endanger of losing her life, I sure as hell would want her to go to a doctor rather than lose her life to produce another or perform a back-alley, coat hanger self-surgery.. What purpose does that serve? All the people I just listed are gentle, caring, intelligent and productive people that would lose their life over pro-life restrictions. I for one will not sentence a mother to death via support of pro-life advocates. It's discrimination against the mother if you ask me.
a medical operation to save the mother isnt an issue,even if roe wade was overturned it would not stop medical life saving operations.


Also, what about rape? God forbid if my girlfriend was raped, but if she was, I would be 100% supportive if she did not want to mother the son/daughter of a rapist.
Rape is 1% of abortions.
Maybe when the roe wade decision is overturned,there will be provisions for cases of PROVED rape.Im open to listen to suggestions as to what they would be,with the bottom line ending being a rapest in jail.
Again i would ask,if its only allowed in cases of rape,do you think alot of men and boys will be falsely charged with rape just so the woman can get an abortion??

How would you feel,if your girlfriend got pregnant,and decided to keep it??
How would you feel,if your girlfriend got pregnant,and decided to abort??

How you feel is what you get,because you dont get a say in whatever she decides to do with your unborn child.

Ever have a one night stand??
If your one night stand got preggers,would she cry rape when she got pregnant,just to have an abortion, if that was the only way to get one??

When a man and woman drop their pants TOGETHER,only one has rights to anything that happens.
That aint equal.

Emily
11-11-2004, 12:43 PM
wow, this is extreme

I rarely see someone put a fetus' rights over those of a self-sustaining human being.

I'm thinking by reading this thread that BigGreen is concerned by how few rights men have as fathers, but taking it to such an extreme level simply because it will hurt women just as he feels men have been hurt. Take one away from women, thereby giving one more to men, right

The problem with this is that you're essentially punishing women by taking away our rights to satisfy your need to even the score. Perhaps you should concentrate on giving men back some of their rights, which would also have the same effect.

BigGreenMnM
11-11-2004, 12:48 PM
Revolting ! Cruel ! imo anyway
sorry sweety,i knew you were gonna say something like this.
The rape card only works on guys who dont know about the issue.
Even implying that i condone rape is whats revolting.But dont worry,its a tactic that is used on men all the time so i forgive your PC guilt trip.


So if you agree that abortion ( if illegal) would be murder - what is the just punishment, in your opinion ?

let me guess -- the electric chair.... right ?
i dont decide what the fate is for people who are convicted of murder,i only go along with how the courts decide to eliminate them,with the exception of the gas chamber and hanging.If the electric chair has many more mishaps,then i would vote to remove that as an option.

Maybe we can build a huge shop vac and suck them thru while stabbing them to death with coat hangers??

Your wanting me to show pity for someone who is a murderer??

If they are convictted by the laws of the land,they deserve to pay the price,however the courts see fit.