We had a topic on this, and about a hour ago they broke out the news: the South Dakota governor has banned abortion is South Dakota, except for mother's life.

Although I'm pretty pro-life, I think it's a shame that there aren't exceptions for rape and incest.  But overall, I'd call it good news, although like I've said I do think abortion should be legal at the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Horrible, horrible news.  We need progress in this country, not regression. 

Horrible, horrible news.  We need progress in this country, not regression. 


Agreed!

Horrible, horrible news.  We need progress in this country, not regression. 
double-dittoes. giving the state control over a woman's body does not have FLAVA.

double-dittoes. giving the state control over a woman's body does not have FLAVA.


I think only women should be allowed to vote on abortion-related issues.  Although I'm generally pro-life, I don't think it's a good reflection of our society that men should be able to decide what women do with their unborn babies.

Bad news, however I think it will be overturned. It could lead to more restrictions on abortion rights though. Just another case of religious beliefs being legislated.

Bad news, however I think it will be overturned. It could lead to more restrictions on abortion rights though. Just another case of religious beliefs being legislated.


Yeah, what a shame.  As soon as you know we'll be required by law to go to church.

Again, I do think abortion needs to regulated, esp. the partial-birth stuff.  But this is overkill.

Yeah, what a shame.  As soon as you know we'll be required by law to go to church.

Again, I do think abortion needs to regulated, esp. the partial-birth stuff.  But this is overkill.


I agree that there needs to be regulation, especially the partial-birth stuff. If anything, they should have included exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. I don't support abortion, I actually believe it should be discouraged in most cases, however I believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself early in the pregnancy.

We need progress in this country, not regression. 


Who gets to define progress?  Peoples' views are different, to some this is progress.

I think about a third of this country wants to pull us back into the 19th century, another third wants to pull us ahead into the 21st, and the other third can't decide.

This law will probably be overturned.

This law will probably be overturned.


Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and the swing vote of Kennedy....it's no sure thing.

The people of South Dakota are the most pro-life population in this country with a pro-life legislature.  It's up to them to decide, not nine robed tyrants.

Another step backwards. What a shame. Too bad people can't learn from the past.




Cat

I can see both sides of this issue... and i personally don't like abortion but I don't see what good banning it will do... it's going to happen either way, and I'd rather it be done in a professional, clean environment with licensed surgeons than underground where the mothers will be put at risk...

I do think adoption should be more heavily promoted, and abortion should be discouraged... but not illegal.

Who gets to define progress?  Peoples' views are different, to some this is progress.



When I'm told what I can do with my reproductive parts and what I can't........and I don't have a choice, I call that regression, not progress.  If you don't like abortions; don't have one.  Don't tell me or any other woman that we can't, if we so choose.


I legitimately don't see how taking choices and options away from people can be called "progress".

Horrible, horrible news.  We need progress in this country, not regression. 


Ah yes, progress.. murder.. no difference  ::)

I legitimately don't see how taking choices and options away from people can be called "progress".


The people who feel that way consider it equal to telling you that you can kill your 3 year old child... to them it's murder regardless of the fact that the baby is unborn.   For those who truly believe an unborn child is a 'life', I can understand why they would be against abortion...

The governor of SD is admittedly trying to test the Supreme Court again...
It's getting kind of old I think, and carries no clout because such a law will mean nothing until (gods forbid) there is a federal ban.

Women who want an abortion will seek one out. Legal or not. Safe or not.
Jebus- Are we going to revert to clothes hangers?
It is very sad that this is even an issue.

The GOvernor and most people in SD know this will be overturned.  They are doing this to try and force a point.

For the last 30 years, a lot of people have been saying "Let The States Decide" on a large number of issues.  And this covers everything from drugs and driving age to abortion, gun control and welfare.  And while many things have been tested this way, Abortion is one that for the most part has not been touched.

So now we will see how it goes, and most people expect it to be overturned.  But the next time somebody thinks that things should be liberalized on a state-by-state basis, think about this.  The shoe sure does pinch when it is worn on the other foot.

And don't forget another important thing: this only affects the people of South Dakota.  Ultimately, it is to the citizens of that state these lawmakers have to answer to.

If the decision is popular with the voters, expect them to remain in office.  If most of the citizens oppose this, expect large changes in the next election.  Myself, I see this as a state issue, and I have no right to butt into the internal affairs of another state.

If you do not like it and you want an abortion, simply do not move to South Dakota.  This has no impact on the other 49 states.

This has no impact on the other 49 states.


yet

yet
My thoughts exactly................

well, i think the trick is that if the supreme court upholds this (which is probably unlikely because of the rape and incest thing, which is REALLY extreme), then they have to do it by overturning roe. then whether it falls to the states or is outlawed altogether depends on what the supremes decide.

If the state of South Dakota is sincere about protecting the "sanctity of life," then I'd like to really see them put their money where their mouth is and ban the death penalty as well. When it comes to abortion and the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned, you can't be for one and against the other without contradicting yourself.

If the state of South Dakota is sincere about protecting the "sanctity of life," then I'd like to really see them put their money where their mouth is and ban the death penalty as well. When it comes to abortion and the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned, you can't be for one and against the other without contradicting yourself.


Don't you think that the American Left and the American Right are generally pro-DP these days?  I think it's largely a myth that American liberals are generally against it, and yes I agree that's it contradictory that many who support abortion are against the DP and vice versa.

If the state of South Dakota is sincere about protecting the "sanctity of life," then I'd like to really see them put their money where their mouth is and ban the death penalty as well. When it comes to abortion and the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned, you can't be for one and against the other without contradicting yourself.


Nuh uh!!

I'm very anti-abortion and very pro-death penalty.

Whole reason I'm anti abortion is that you're killing an innocent. Not so with the Death Penalty.

So again, my point is made.

It is perfectly OK if a state enacts some "Liberal" legislation, but it is wrong if they enact some "Conservative" legislation, even if it only affects people in that state.

If SD had banned handguns, or allowed teen girls to have abortions without parental consent, or one of a hundred other ""causes" in which the "Liberal" side supports, that would be perfectly OK.  But because it enacted something they oppose, it is a threat to everybody in the Nation.

*shakes his head* this is why I stopped expecting consistancy from extreemists.

So again, my point is made.

It is perfectly OK if a state enacts some "Liberal" legislation, but it is wrong if they enact some "Conservative" legislation, even if it only affects people in that state.

If SD had banned handguns, or allowed teen girls to have abortions without parental consent, or one of a hundred other ""causes" in which the "Liberal" side supports, that would be perfectly OK.  But because it enacted something they oppose, it is a threat to everybody in the Nation.

*shakes his head* this is why I stopped expecting consistancy from extreemists.


;D

That's very true.

I'd like to see which side of the fence some people fell when California allowed abortions in Wal-Mart.

I'd like to see which side of the fence some people fell when California allowed abortions in Wal-Mart.


I was living in California when they enacted the legalization of "Medicinal Marijuanna".  And oh how the "Liberals" applauded it!  They called it a "move in the right direction", and when the Feds tried to say it was illegal, they screamed that they were stepping on "States Rights".

Now it is the other way around, and how they are screaming again.  Then people wonder why I could not care less about the screams of radicals.  They scream anytime they do not get their way.  It is all background clutter to me now.

States tried to pass legislation allowing it and the conservatives were up in arms about it, but I don't hear you complaining about that ::) 


I think that's more of a Christian thing... I'm conservative and whether or not gays marry makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.

I think that's more of a Christian thing... I'm conservative and whether or not gays marry makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.


At the same time, I'm rather Conservative but not religious and I am very anti-gay marriage.

At the same time, I'm rather Conservative but not religious and I am very anti-gay marriage.


Why?  Because it's gross?

I'm a Liberal, leaning on Libertarian.

Look at gay marriage.


I have given my view in here many times.  And when I do, I find myself in the unique position of being slammed by both sides.

Why?  Because it's gross?

I'm a Liberal, leaning on Libertarian.


This isn't the right thread to discuss it, but essentially because it isn't marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman who can consecrate that marriage.

This isn't the right thread to discuss it, but essentially because it isn't marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman who can consecrate that marriage.


You know what?  Screw "straight marriage".  The government can only give civil unions, homo or not.

You know what?  Screw "straight marriage".  The government can only give civil unions, homo or not.


*applauds*

I have stated this very fact many times, and both sides tell me I am fracked up.

I am 100% for same sex "Civil Unions".  Just keep the word "Marriage" out of the legal definition.  Informally, call it whatever the heck you want.

I think a union of 2 people (whether it be man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) should be called 1 universal "name".


They do have one universal name. "Miserable". ;)

I was living in California when they enacted the legalization of "Medicinal Marijuanna".  And oh how the "Liberals" applauded it!  They called it a "move in the right direction", and when the Feds tried to say it was illegal, they screamed that they were stepping on "States Rights".

Now it is the other way around, and how they are screaming again.  Then people wonder why I could not care less about the screams of radicals.  They scream anytime they do not get their way.  It is all background clutter to me now.


false analogy.

the new SD law is regressive in that it takes away a right that was previously granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.

what's next??? will the SD governor take away a woman's right to vote?

false analogy.

the new SD law is regressive in that it takes away a right that was previously granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.

what's next??? will the SD governor take away a woman's right to vote?


Next, the SD governor will enact a theocracy, ban all blacks and Jews, legalize torture, and take away the right to vote of all but property-owning men. I think the desperation that causes people to turn to extremism in neglected areas like SD is something that needs to be addressed by both liberals and conservatives...Reagan just made it worse. He said "look, the religious right can occupy you and tell you to vote for us, while you ignore how we're hurting you!" And that's been the modus operandi of the Republican party ever since.

false analogy.

the new SD law is regressive in that it takes away a right that was previously granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.




That is only true if you are considering only the mother's "right".  What about the baby's right?

false analogy.

the new SD law is regressive in that it takes away a right that was previously granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.

what's next??? will the SD governor take away a woman's right to vote?


OK, then how do you justify the banning of handguns and firearms in some places?  This is in the Constitution itself.

I still see this as a state issue.  And Mississippi is looking at enacting a similar law.  Myself, unless you live in a state that has such a law, what right do you have to complain?  Worry about what laws are enacted in your state, not in the other 49.

It is this "butting in" that makes a lot of states (like Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, Texas) go so radical the other way.  YOu challenge their decisions, they will often go extreme, just so that what they wanted in the first place is what they will end up with.

And the analogy was valid.  It was about the reaction by "Liberals".  The reaction is valid, because that is what I was talking about, not the laws themselves.  "Regressive" is simply another word for "something we oppose", and painting on a label to get people to gather around.  I ignore it just like most other political labels.

the new SD law is regressive in that it takes away a right that was previously granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.




.  "Regressive" is simply another word for "something we oppose", and painting on a label to get people to gather around.  I ignore it just like most other political labels.


Well put, Mushroom.  They 'took away the right' to own slaves too.  Was that regressive? ???

"Regressive" is simply another word for "something we oppose"....


Ding ding ding!  We have a winner!

Governor Rounds is obviously a horse's ass of a man, and that legislature is full of dingbats.  I'll wager the law gets suspended due to litigation against it.  It will go to the  Supreme Court, but the Supremes won't be interested in reconsidering Roe v. Wade just yet. The law in SD will be declared unconstitutional and be overturned.  If Mississippi does likewise, they'll get the same result.

Unfortunately, anti-choice states can do a heck of a lot to restrict reproductive choices.  They can and do violate the spirit of Roe v. Wade without violating the letter of Roe v. Wade. 

But make no mistake...Roe v. Wade is going down in the next ten years, oh yes...and only then will the Repugs find out just how many of their constituents will jump ship!
::)

SD = Stupid Decision

The problem with considering the fetus' "rights" is that you would then have to legislate everything that could possibly harm the baby.  Pregnant women would be essentially prisoners with every action under the control of the government and that's not right. 


I know, and I am pro-choice myself... but I can totally understand the reasoning behind those who aren't, because to those who believe life begins at conception, abortion is murder... and most anti-choice activists are fighting on behalf of the unborn children, not just because they want to take away the rights of women.  Some people don't seem to understand this, they just think it's a right-wing attempt at attacking people's freedom.

The problem with considering the fetus' "rights" is that you would then have to legislate everything that could possibly harm the baby.  Pregnant women would be essentially prisoners with every action under the control of the government and that's not right. 


Hmm, that sounds vaguely familiar:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php/topic,17208.msg809961.html#msg809961

The problem with considering the fetus' "rights" is that you would then have to legislate everything that could possibly harm the baby.  Pregnant women would be essentially prisoners with every action under the control of the government and that's not right. 



What would happen if they started legislating the actions of the father of the fetus.  No smoking around the mother to be.  No drinking because that could lead to behaviours injurious to the mother. Any driving violations while a woman who is expecting is in the auto is a
threat to the fetus, fines doubled.No assertive or agressive behaviour that would upset the mother, which in turn could have an adverse effect on the fetus.  If the mother has cravings caused by the nutritional needs brought on by the fetus the father is legally obligated to see that she has the necessary foods to alleviate those fetal cravings. 

Well put, Mushroom.  They 'took away the right' to own slaves too.  Was that regressive? ???


This is exactly why I remove myself from this web forum.

Whenever people are unable to debate on facts, they throw in some kind of coprolite like this.

Oh yes, you are all so right.  I am the Evil White Male Conservative Republican.  I wish that women were all barefoot and pregnant, and that we all still have slaves again.  I am a reactive, who wants to turn the world back to 1850, and be living on an Alabama Plantation.

And I notice how the points I make are totally ignored.  Whenever a state does something they like, they applaud and say it is the right thing.  But if a state does something they oppose, then it is "full steam ahead - attack attack attack".

I simply ask for consistancy.  But from people who are basically "Fundamentalist Liberals", that is impossible.

I now pretty much laugh at a lot of the topics in here.  We got the one about how "Fundamentalist Christians" are a threat, and it is little more then an atack on Christians.  When I put in a comment on bad experiences with religion, there is nothing said.  Obviously because everybody was so enjoying their "let's bash Christians", my problem with a non-Christian cult had no bearing.  I am sure that if my experience was with the Catholic Church, I would have had a lot of supporters though.

I propose a new topic in here - "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to moral issues?"  Or "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to Clear and Logical Thinking?"

And Odyssey (and everybody else), please do not take this as an attack on you, or anybody else.  I am simply ranting against the mindset that encompases debate here nowadays.  People so locked into a belief, that they will not even consider other points of view.

This is exactly why I remove myself from this web forum.

Whenever people are unable to debate on facts, they throw in some kind of coprolite like this.
C'mon, no need to play the victim here.

Oh yes, you are all so right.  I am the Evil White Male Conservative Republican.  I wish that women were all barefoot and pregnant, and that we all still have slaves again.  I am a reactive, who wants to turn the world back to 1850, and be living on an Alabama Plantation.
You sound frustrated. I don't think you're some kind of a knee-jerk reactionary. You're smarter than this kind of sarcasm.

And I notice how the points I make are totally ignored.  Whenever a state does something they like, they applaud and say it is the right thing.  But if a state does something they oppose, then it is "full steam ahead - attack attack attack".
Sean Hannity-esquel, puhleeeze!

I simply ask for consistancy.  But from people who are basically "Fundamentalist Liberals", that is impossible.

I now pretty much laugh at a lot of the topics in here.  We got the one about how "Fundamentalist Christians" are a threat, and it is little more then an atack on Christians.  When I put in a comment on bad experiences with religion, there is nothing said.  Obviously because everybody was so enjoying their "let's bash Christians", my problem with a non-Christian cult had no bearing.  I am sure that if my experience was with the Catholic Church, I would have had a lot of supporters though.
Maybe if the Fundamentalist Christian rightwing power bloc wasn't in league with corporate lobbyists, police state fascists, and actively pushing for a theocracy, liberals would feel much less antagonistic toward Christian conservatives.

I propose a new topic in here - "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to moral issues?"  Or "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to Clear and Logical Thinking?"
Post it as a new topic.  It'll give you more stuff to feel irritated about.

And Odyssey (and everybody else), please do not take this as an attack on you, or anybody else.  I am simply ranting against the mindset that encompases debate here nowadays.  People so locked into a belief, that they will not even consider other points of view.

Jeez, I hope I'm not one of them!
::)

applause to mushroom for deploying the word "coprolite", though. nicely done!

This is exactly why I remove myself from this web forum.

Whenever people are unable to debate on facts, they throw in some kind of coprolite like this.




er... I was agreeing with you, Mushroom.  My question about "taking away the rights to own slaves" was directed at the person before you who claimed that taking away someone's rights is automatically regressive.   That part of my post was an addition, per se to your thought, not an argument.

Because like I've said many times, it is rare that an issue comes along that is cut and dry "taking away someone's rights."  Nearly every right that is given to someone results in rights being taken away from someone.  The Freedom of the Press takes away rights to privacy and vice versa.  The right to smoke in public takes away the right to breathe clean air, and vice versa.

Abortion: The great American smokescreen.

Abortion: The great American smokescreen.


Yes!  Abortion, gay rights, and the death penalty are just a smokescreen hiding the fact that the human race is at risk.

Yes!  Abortion, gay rights, and the death penalty are just a smokescreen hiding the fact that the human race is at risk.
I think that these issues are more like a way to keep the American people at each other's throats and to keep us fighting each other so the powers-that-be can continue to gut the America industrial base and to try and eliminate the middle class, among other things.
    I have this feeling that we're being set up for something, and it's not good. But that's another subject altogether.

I think that these issues are more like a way to keep the American people at each other's throats and to keep us fighting each other so the powers-that-be can continue to gut the America industrial base and to try and eliminate the middle class, among other things.
    I have this feeling that we're being set up for something, and it's not good. But that's another subject altogether.
hear hear. despite all that rhetoric about uniting not dividing and "the third way" the government loves nothing quite so much as a divided populace. keeps the reformers nipping at each other instead of focusing on really reforming the system.

god help me, i think i'm becoming one of those freaky libertarian types.

But what about mens' rights?

Suit Cites Men's Version of Roe v. Wade
03/08/2006

Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.


The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit - nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men - to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.


"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have - it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich. Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that - because of a physical condition - she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government - literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

Link

That is laughable; anything that might be said from a woman to a man along the lines of "I can't have kids, etc" would not only be hearsay in court but it would also allow any man who wanted to escape child support to say "Well, she said she was sterile, on the pill, etc". It's all he said/she said. Such a thing has no chance of ever becoming a law.

It's my opinion that if you don't want to have kids and also don't want to catch a disease, use a condom. After all, it's a bit of a mood breaker to ask a woman (or man) you don't know that well for HIV results and proof of the inability to have kids when you are about to throw down for the first time.

"Hey, can I see that billing receipt for your Depo-shot?"  ::)



// He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that - because of a physical condition - she could not get pregnant. //



I contend he is an sucker for believing such a thing. Besides, unless she verifies his story, it is he-said/she-said.

We were warned while in the Navy of women who would use this line to lure men to have kids; the military takes IIRC 1/3 of your pay to support a single kid.

One night of unprotected passion will cost this guy 108,000$. He should have used a 1$ condom.

But what about mens' rights?

Suit Cites Men's Version of Roe v. Wade
03/08/2006


Actually, I heard Bill Maher suggest on his show that since women have the right to abortion, men should have the right to opt out of child support and parental responsibility.

Actually, I heard Bill Maher suggest on his show that since women have the right to abortion, men should have the right to opt out of child support and parental responsibility.

I like Bill Mahar. He makes some very salient points. That isn't one of them.
::)

As for the idea that a man should have the legal sway to force a woman to bear his child, sounds kinda Saudi Arabian to me!

That is only true if you are considering only the mother's "right".  What about the baby's right?


a fetus, in the first trimester, is not a baby.

OK, then how do you justify the banning of handguns and firearms in some places?  This is in the Constitution itself.

false analogy. the 2nd amendment refers to a "militia".
if you would like to start a movement to include others, be my guest!!!

I still see this as a state issue.  And Mississippi is looking at enacting a similar law.  Myself, unless you live in a state that has such a law, what right do you have to complain?  Worry about what laws are enacted in your state, not in the other 49.
It is this "butting in" that makes a lot of states (like Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, Texas) go so radical the other way.  YOu challenge their decisions, they will often go extreme, just so that what they wanted in the first place is what they will end up with.
it won't be a "states' issue" for long. it will be argued in front of the Federal benches, then the Supreme Court

And the analogy was valid.  It was about the reaction by "Liberals".  The reaction is valid, because that is what I was talking about, not the laws themselves.  "Regressive" is simply another word for "something we oppose", and painting on a label to get people to gather around.  I ignore it just like most other political labels.


if some butt-munch governor were to take away your rights guaranteed by the 1st Amenment, I would call that regressive too

This is exactly why I remove myself from this web forum.

Whenever people are unable to debate on facts, they throw in some kind of coprolite like this.

Oh yes, you are all so right.  I am the Evil White Male Conservative Republican.  I wish that women were all barefoot and pregnant, and that we all still have slaves again.  I am a reactive, who wants to turn the world back to 1850, and be living on an Alabama Plantation.

And I notice how the points I make are totally ignored.  Whenever a state does something they like, they applaud and say it is the right thing.  But if a state does something they oppose, then it is "full steam ahead - attack attack attack".

I simply ask for consistancy.  But from people who are basically "Fundamentalist Liberals", that is impossible.

I now pretty much laugh at a lot of the topics in here.  We got the one about how "Fundamentalist Christians" are a threat, and it is little more then an atack on Christians.  When I put in a comment on bad experiences with religion, there is nothing said.  Obviously because everybody was so enjoying their "let's bash Christians", my problem with a non-Christian cult had no bearing.  I am sure that if my experience was with the Catholic Church, I would have had a lot of supporters though.

I propose a new topic in here - "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to moral issues?"  Or "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to Clear and Logical Thinking?"

And Odyssey (and everybody else), please do not take this as an attack on you, or anybody else.  I am simply ranting against the mindset that encompases debate here nowadays.  People so locked into a belief, that they will not even consider other points of view.



suck it up, Marine!

I like Bill Mahar. He makes some very salient points. That isn't one of them.
::)

As for the idea that a man should have the legal sway to force a woman to bear his child, sounds kinda Saudi Arabian to me!



I like Bill Maher too, and he makes a good point.  If a woman can sign away parental rights to a child why can't a man?  If the woman wants the baby, doesn't want to abort it and doesn't want to put it up for adoption, and the father doesn't want to be a father and doesn't want to care for the child, why can't he sign over full rights to the mother and just walk away?  If you can't force a woman to be a mother, you shouldn't force a man to be a father. 

I'd rather have one parent that gives a damn and does all they can for the baby than one who does and one who couldn't be bothered.

This is exactly why I remove myself from this web forum.

Whenever people are unable to debate on facts, they throw in some kind of coprolite like this.

Oh yes, you are all so right.  I am the Evil White Male Conservative Republican.  I wish that women were all barefoot and pregnant, and that we all still have slaves again.  I am a reactive, who wants to turn the world back to 1850, and be living on an Alabama Plantation.

And I notice how the points I make are totally ignored.  Whenever a state does something they like, they applaud and say it is the right thing.  But if a state does something they oppose, then it is "full steam ahead - attack attack attack".

I simply ask for consistancy.  But from people who are basically "Fundamentalist Liberals", that is impossible.

I now pretty much laugh at a lot of the topics in here.  We got the one about how "Fundamentalist Christians" are a threat, and it is little more then an atack on Christians.  When I put in a comment on bad experiences with religion, there is nothing said.  Obviously because everybody was so enjoying their "let's bash Christians", my problem with a non-Christian cult had no bearing.  I am sure that if my experience was with the Catholic Church, I would have had a lot of supporters though.

I propose a new topic in here - "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to moral issues?"  Or "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to Clear and Logical Thinking?"

And Odyssey (and everybody else), please do not take this as an attack on you, or anybody else.  I am simply ranting against the mindset that encompases debate here nowadays.  People so locked into a belief, that they will not even consider other points of view.


BRAVO!

It's one thing to be dedicated to a cause.
It's another to pick and choose when you want to be interested.

I always enjoy finding out that because I'm rather Right Wing I must be some sort of Christian Fundamentalist, HOLY SHIIT REALLY??!!?!  :o
::)

In that case, I suppose anybody leaning toward the left side of the fence must be some sort of Islamic radical cleric  ::) Puhhlease.


a fetus, in the first trimester, is not a baby.


I'd like you to answer a question for me.

Death is defined as the stopping of brain activity. I think we can agree on that. Somebody can be a total vegetable but as long as there is brain activity they are considered alive. Brain activity in a fetus starts a considerable way's before the second trimester. Is it or is it not alive?
If you're going to use Brain activity as the definition for somebody dieing, why not as somebody coming to life?

Death is defined as the stopping of brain activity. I think we can agree on that. Somebody can be a total vegetable but as long as there is brain activity they are considered alive. Brain activity in a fetus starts a considerable way's before the second trimester. Is it or is it not alive?
If you're going to use Brain activity as the definition for somebody dieing, why not as somebody coming to life?



There is also another standard of death, that is when the cardio and/or pulmonary systems irreversably fail. These people may live through being hooked up to machines for a while but unless a transplant is coming they are dead.

I go by viability, and no fetus at 5 months or less can survive outside the mother's womb with any amount of machines. Brain activity is shown at roughly 2 months, so even conceeding for a moment it is a life at that point women should still be able to have early 1st trimester abortions.

There is also another standard of death, that is when the cardio and/or pulmonary systems irreversably fail. These people may live through being hooked up to machines for a while but unless a transplant is coming they are dead.

I go by viability, and no fetus at 5 months or less can survive outside the mother's womb with any amount of machines. Brain activity is shown at roughly 2 months, so even conceeding for a moment it is a life at that point women should still be able to have early 1st trimester abortions.


I say 4-6 months is when they're a valid person.

There is also another standard of death, that is when the cardio and/or pulmonary systems irreversably fail. These people may live through being hooked up to machines for a while but unless a transplant is coming they are dead.

I go by viability, and no fetus at 5 months or less can survive outside the mother's womb with any amount of machines. Brain activity is shown at roughly 2 months, so even conceeding for a moment it is a life at that point women should still be able to have early 1st trimester abortions.


So you would agree that after 8 weeks an abortion is out of the question?

And don't forget another important thing: this only affects the people of South Dakota.  Ultimately, it is to the citizens of that state these lawmakers have to answer to.

If the decision is popular with the voters, expect them to remain in office.  If most of the citizens oppose this, expect large changes in the next election.  Myself, I see this as a state issue, and I have no right to butt into the internal affairs of another state.

If you do not like it and you want an abortion, simply do not move to South Dakota.  This has no impact on the other 49 states.


That is B.S.

Suppose you are a woman who has lived in one state your entire life, all of the people you know and care about live there, etc. and your state decides that abortion is illegal. Should you have to move from your HOME, where you have lived your entire life, to another state to get a right you don't have in your home state? The idea that a person in Alabama cannot enjoy the same freedoms as someone in California undermines the idea of a Republic.

The Republic is meant to uphold the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, and it is meant to keep everyone equal under the law with the same rights. Allowing the states rather than the feds to make these kind of decisions allows the possibility of people in certain states not enjoying the same rights as their fellow citizens who live in other states because their state's legislature decided to take whatever right that is away.

By keeping these decisions up to the Supreme Court, first of all you have a certain amount of non-bias on their decision compared to state governments. Obviously because Supreme Court Justices are appointed not elected, and they don't have to face the public. State legislatures like the one in South Dakota have to face the people they represent, and their decision is influenced by that. Secondly, that insures that equality under the law is upheld.

To elaborate further on the point I made about state legislatures being biased because of public opinions. If the State Legislature in South Dakota decides to pass a ban on abortions, just because the majority of people in South Dakota believe it should be, that does not mean they nor their Legislators have the RIGHT to make it illegal. That is the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, and it's the antithesis to a Republic.  That is DEMOCRACY.  We are a Republic.

Anyway, to answer your question Mushroom I am extremely liberal, and I am consistent on this issue.  States should not have the right to restrict firearms, legalize marijuana, etc.(although I am very pro-legalization) I think any issue pertaining to personal rights needs to be decided on the national level so the same decision applies to everyone.

This is exactly why I remove myself from this web forum.

Whenever people are unable to debate on facts, they throw in some kind of coprolite like this.

Oh yes, you are all so right.  I am the Evil White Male Conservative Republican.  I wish that women were all barefoot and pregnant, and that we all still have slaves again.  I am a reactive, who wants to turn the world back to 1850, and be living on an Alabama Plantation.

And I notice how the points I make are totally ignored.  Whenever a state does something they like, they applaud and say it is the right thing.  But if a state does something they oppose, then it is "full steam ahead - attack attack attack".

I simply ask for consistancy.  But from people who are basically "Fundamentalist Liberals", that is impossible.

I now pretty much laugh at a lot of the topics in here.  We got the one about how "Fundamentalist Christians" are a threat, and it is little more then an atack on Christians.  When I put in a comment on bad experiences with religion, there is nothing said.  Obviously because everybody was so enjoying their "let's bash Christians", my problem with a non-Christian cult had no bearing.  I am sure that if my experience was with the Catholic Church, I would have had a lot of supporters though.

I propose a new topic in here - "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to moral issues?"  Or "Are Fundamentalist Liberals a threat to Clear and Logical Thinking?"

And Odyssey (and everybody else), please do not take this as an attack on you, or anybody else.  I am simply ranting against the mindset that encompases debate here nowadays.  People so locked into a belief, that they will not even consider other points of view.


First of all I wasn't attacking all Christians, maybe I got a little worked up in my message but I only did because Harmonica was irritating me at the time. But the truth is there is a powerful fundamentalist Christian conservative movement that I feel is dangerous. Most Christians are good people, but a lot of the politicians/activists that claim to be Christian and use that to get support/votes from Christians are nothing but a bunch of phonies. In my opinion, Bush is one of them. So is Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bill Frist, in fact most of the GOP leadership is now controlled by this fundamentalist Christian wing. There are some decent republicans like McCain left, but they are definitely the minority in the GOP. This group of people has a lot of mainstream America brainwashed into voting for them because of issues like abortion or the so called Intelligent Design, they know if they oppose abortion, they automatically have most of the Christian mainstream america vote. Really I think they could care less about abortion, and are more worried about protecting their corporate friends, making sure rich people pay as little tax as possible, and cutting most social programs.

So you would agree that after 8 weeks an abortion is out of the question?


Not completely, because there are still cases where the mother's life is at risk.

But, in a world of compromise if I were to agree to what you suggest (with the above exception included), would you agree to any abortion for any reason prior to 2 months?

George W. Bush no more believes in religion than Fidel Castro.  The foot-washin' and bible-thumpin' is a front to get Billy Bob to get out and vote for him.  It's so sad that many of the people reeled in by these wedge issues are the people who REALLY shouldn't vote Republican.  I tell you, it's like chickens voting for Col. Sanders.

  If you can't force a woman to be a mother, you shouldn't force a man to be a father. 



If a man doesn't want to be a father he should not engage in activity that would bring about offspring.  He should take personal responsibility.  If he does engage in activity that could bring about offspring he should be prepared for the consequences.  Women
do have a wider range of choices in this matter, it may not be fair, but life isn't always fair.  The education is now out there for men to
realize this fact, and act accordingly

Not completely, because there are still cases where the mother's life is at risk.

But, in a world of compromise if I were to agree to what you suggest (with the above exception included), would you agree to any abortion for any reason prior to 2 months?


See, this is a tricky one for me.
I think everything possibly should be done so as to not have to do this but yes, If the mother was going to die then I could conceivably agree to an abortion after 2 months.

Justice Scalia on Roe vs. Wade: “Not Yet, Maybe Not Never, but Certainly Not Yet”

FREIBURG, Switzerland, March 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Justice Antonin Scalia, one of nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, told a group attending a fireside discussion that he sees it unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be reversed now, but has hopes that it may be down the road.

As reported by Bureau Audiovisuel Francophone (BAF), Justice Scalia confirmed that the abortion ban passed this week in South Dakota will “ultimately” make its way to the Supreme Court. When questioned by BAF on the timeline for a reversal of Roe v. Wade, Justice Scalia responded, “I have no idea . . . and no idea whether it will be.”

Speaking before academics at the University of Freiburg Wednesday, he explained that, with the current court, there is still a majority who favor abortion. “It is not likely to be overturned with the current court because there are still five justices on our court who voted in favour of Roe v. Wade,” Justice Scalia said. “If I had to guess, I would say, ‘not yet . . . maybe not never, but certainly not yet.’”

http://www.bafweb.com/2006/03/09/5902
Link

Antonin Scalia makes me ashamed to be from Jersey (slightly...not really...)

Crazymom I can't believe you are trying to argue about the nature of a Republic.  And why did you put it in quotations as if to imply America isn't a republic?  We are most definitely a republic. If we can keep it, as they say.

D@mn girl, it doesn't seem like we ever find any common ground does it? ;D

Maybe the governor should consider adopting all the unwanted kids that South Dakota's child services will have to find homes for...
What really gets me about adoption is that most kids who really need loving homes get screwed...AIDS babies, medically fragile, physically challenged, developmentally delayed/disabled, emotionally challenged, older kids, minorities...I know of a family who adopts kids who are disabled, they say they get a lot of love and a sense of fulfillment by giving those kids a home. And yes they are reimbursed for expenses...but this family is not in it for the money, they do it because they love children.

Then what is the purpose of state government?  Who should pick and choose what "rights" get to be decided by the states and what "rights" get to be decided by the government?  There are things that are illegal in Illinois that are legal in some states, and vice versa....heck, even from county to county and city to city there are differences....for example, I can be driving down I-90 towards the city of Chicago talking on my cell phone with no hands-free device and it's perfectly legal until I cross a certain point, then it's illegal.  If the purpose of a "Republic" is to make sure everyone's rights are equal, then having state, county, and city governments is detrimental to the "Republic".


I'm only talking about personal liberties.  Not traffic laws.

Maybe the governor should consider adopting all the unwanted kids that South Dakota's child services will have to find homes for...
What really gets me about adoption is that most kids who really need loving homes get screwed...AIDS babies, medically fragile, physically challenged, developmentally delayed/disabled, emotionally challenged, older kids, minorities...I know of a family who adopts kids who are disabled, they say they get a lot of love and a sense of fulfillment by giving those kids a home. And yes they are reimbursed for expenses...but this family is not in it for the money, they do it because they love children.


Yeah, my mom's hairdresser, Staci, already has two biological kids and is a foster parent and adoptive parent to several black kids who come from drug-addicted parents in Newark and East Orange, and she's Jewish. I really admire her for that, she's a great person...I always get the sense with adoption that alot of people will only adopt Asian and white kids, they would never adopt an American black or Hispanic baby. Only an African one from some funky place like Ethiopia.

Yeah, my mom's hairdresser, Staci, already has two biological kids and is a foster parent and adoptive parent to several black kids who come from drug-addicted parents in Newark and East Orange, and she's Jewish. I really admire her for that, she's a great person...I always get the sense with adoption that alot of people will only adopt Asian and white kids, they would never adopt an American black or Hispanic baby. Only an African one from some funky place like Ethiopia.
It's sad that some adoptive parents will only take Caucasian or Asian kids, or non-disabled kids...Kids that others think are 'flawed' are left in foster care. That's horrible. Sometimes I wish I was put on the adoption list when I was young...but the reality is I might not have gotten a permanent home. Yeah, it still makes me sad I don't really belong or have a family. But I have friends, and a rather normal life I would not have, had I been allowed to stay with my mom. I'd end up taking care of her....all the things some people feel they have to do to 'rescue' the alcoholic...so they don't have to face their problem and get help.

I always get the sense with adoption that alot of people will only adopt Asian and white kids, they would never adopt an American black or Hispanic baby.


White guilt?

I always get the sense with adoption that alot of people will only adopt Asian and white kids, they would never adopt an American black or Hispanic baby.


Perfectly understandable. If I were to adopt I would want the child to look like me, this makes perfect sense.

Perfectly understandable. If I were to adopt I would want the child to look like me, this makes perfect sense.
Why? Don't you have any caring for those who are not like you? The same family I know that adopts disabled kids also takes in African-American and Hispanic kids without homes. And they have no problem with it. Those kids are accepted in their neighborhood too. I know what you are saying, but all kids need parents...

Why? Don't you have any caring for those who are not like you? The same family I know that adopts disabled kids also takes in African-American and Hispanic kids without homes. And they have no problem with it. Those kids are accepted in their neighborhood too. I know what you are saying, but all kids need parents...


I agree all kids need parents.

But I'm not going to sit and give lip service to something. See, I don't like to say one thing and do another. If I were to adopt, I would adopt a child that looked like me.

It's a travesty that there are so many kids awaiting adoption, thankfully it seems that a lot of couples are considering adoption nowadays.

http://kimrichards.net/Kim/vidcaps/TuffTurf/gc-TuffTurf-107.jpg

OK, now it is time for me to put in my 2 cents worth again.

In another topic in here, I had a blast playing "Devil's Advocate".  It was about another situation, where the Federal GOvernment was trying to take away a state's right to enforce it's own laws.

In this topic, I took the stance that the Federal overrules everything, and that the State does not have a right to enforce it's wown laws.  After all, is not having a uniform set of rules better then each state having it's own rules and laws?

And I laughed as a lot of people basically told me I was wrong.  That the State has every right to have it's own laws, and that those are not to be ignored.

So for all of you who were saying that, why does a state in this situation not have the right to have it's own laws?

Well, other then the fact that you so strongly believe in this right, that consistancy no longer matters.  How can somebody honestly say "State overrules everything", and then turn right around and say "But the state needs to follow Federal Guidelines"?

OK, now it is time for me to put in my 2 cents worth again.

In another topic in here, I had a blast playing "Devil's Advocate".  It was about another situation, where the Federal GOvernment was trying to take away a state's right to enforce it's own laws.

In this topic, I took the stance that the Federal overrules everything, and that the State does not have a right to enforce it's wown laws.  After all, is not having a uniform set of rules better then each state having it's own rules and laws?

And I laughed as a lot of people basically told me I was wrong.  That the State has every right to have it's own laws, and that those are not to be ignored.

So for all of you who were saying that, why does a state in this situation not have the right to have it's own laws?

Well, other then the fact that you so strongly believe in this right, that consistancy no longer matters.  How can somebody honestly say "State overrules everything", and then turn right around and say "But the state needs to follow Federal Guidelines"?
well, i think there's a big difference between, say, whether you have a 5% or 6% sales tax, and whether you take away a woman's constitutional right to control her own body. it's sorta like, why not let individual states decide whether or not to legalize rape? certain things are of a different order, you know? and therefore shouldn't just be left up to the states.

well, i think there's a big difference between, say, whether you have a 5% or 6% sales tax, and whether you take away a woman's constitutional right to control her own body.


If you can show me where Abortion is listed as a "Constitutional Right" in the Constitution, then I will support you 100%.

But it is not listed in the Constitution at all.  It is no more a "Constitutional Right" then the right to drive, or the right own a computer.

If you can show me where Abortion is listed as a "Constitutional Right" in the Constitution, then I will support you 100%.

But it is not listed in the Constitution at all.  It is no more a "Constitutional Right" then the right to drive, or the right own a computer.
i happen to be of the opinion that when the state forces a woman to carry a foetus to term, they're seizing her person in violation of the 4th amendment.

i happen to be of the opinion that when the state forces a woman to carry a fetus to term, they're seizing her person in violation of the 4th amendment.


Emphasis is mine

And that is exactly the point.  It is not a Constitutional Right, it is an Opinion.  Your right to consume alcohol is a right, your right to own a firearm is a right, your right to practice your religion unmolested is a right.  Abortion, driving, and owning a computer is not a right.

And I am confused, how does not allowing an abortion apply to unwarranted search and seizure?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Emphasis is mine

And that is exactly the point.  It is not a Constitutional Right, it is an Opinion.  Your right to consume alcohol is a right, your right to own a firearm is a right, your right to practice your religion unmolested is a right.  Abortion, driving, and owning a computer is not a right.

And I am confused, how does not allowing an abortion apply to unwarranted search and seizure?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
well, unless you believe that strict constructionist drivel, the constitution is open to interpretation. so, i'm interpreting it. when the government tells you what to do with your body, yes, i feel that violates exactly the text above. it amounts to a seizure of a woman's body. but we can agree to disagree.

anyway, the funny part is, the pro-life crowd thinks that abortion is murder. so they're no more okay on ideological grounds with leaving abortion up to the states than the pro-choice crowd would be. are they really saying the states should be in charge of deciding whether it's okay to commit murder? of course not.

the pro-lifers are seizing on this state's rights thing as a tactic to undermine roe v. wade, and it's really quite obvious. it could backfire, though, because it makes the right-wingers seem not as big on state's rights as they appear to be, if they're willing to cynicallly use it as a ploy like this.

If you support the Bush Administration, you don't support the United States Constitution.

The right to abortion lies in the premise that while the fetus is in the womb and not able to function on its own outside of the
body(not viable) then it is still a part of the womans body.  The framers of the Constitution lived at a time when abortion was
legal and may not have forseen the fact that the right would be taken away.  The right to abortion was reversed after the Civil
War as a way of shoring up the population.

I am pro-choice because I know where some of those unwanted infants end up....in dumpsters, trash cans, and abandoned on someone else's doorstep sometimes...to say that all unwanted kids end up safe in foster homes is a fairytale. And some who are put in foster care or adopted are abused by those who are supposed to care for them. I was one of the lucky ones in all honesty...I know a few people who ended up abusing drugs, booze, or ended up killing themselves to get away from the emotional torment they were put through. It got better for me but it never leaves me, what was done to me. I do my best to deal with it.

I read this "blog" and it nearly made me wanna puke.  How could anyone in their right mind feel okay doing this?


http://www.mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-women-of-south-dakota-abortion.html

I read this "blog" and it nearly made me wanna puke.  How could anyone in their right mind feel okay doing this?


http://www.mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-women-of-south-dakota-abortion.html


I think the author means to make a statement by posting this.  I don't think the point is to actually teach people how to do this.  The point of the author here is that if abortions do become illegal, it will lead to people trying to perform their own.

I read this "blog" and it nearly made me wanna puke.  How could anyone in their right mind feel okay doing this?


http://www.mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-women-of-south-dakota-abortion.html



Like El_Duderino said, the posting of that was merely to make a point.  A lot of medical procedures are squeamish and disgusting and if people knew what really was going on, they probably wouldn't have them done.  Look at liposuction, any kind of reconstructive surgery.....the list goes on. 

How could anyone in their right mind feel okay doing this?  Well, Botox is the botulism virus and botulism is essentially food poisoning, causing cramps, diarrhea, bloody stool.....and women inject this into their face.  How can anyone in their right mind do that?  If you want to do something, you'll do it, no matter how disgusting it is. 

How could anyone in their right mind feel okay doing this? 


Getting an abortion?

Well neither you or me has been in that position, so it's hard for us to say.

Like El_Duderino said, the posting of that was merely to make a point.  A lot of medical procedures are squeamish and disgusting and if people knew what really was going on, they probably wouldn't have them done.  Look at liposuction, any kind of reconstructive surgery.....the list goes on. 

How could anyone in their right mind feel okay doing this?  Well, Botox is the botulism virus and botulism is essentially food poisoning, causing cramps, diarrhea, bloody stool.....and women inject this into their face.  How can anyone in their right mind do that?  If you want to do something, you'll do it, no matter how disgusting it is. 



clearly 2 different types of procedures, IMO. And perhaps the author was merely trying to "make a point"....but do you think that some pregnant teen who wants that abortion is just going to see this as only someone making a "point".....or out of their desperation, will they attempt this on their own and possibly die due to a botched abortion.... by following instructions by someone who is clearly not a doctor, but more so, a nutjob. ::)

Getting an abortion?

Well neither you or me has been in that position, so it's hard for us to say.



getting an abortion and following instructions on a make-shift abortion by someone who clearly is NOT a doctor....are 2 different things. 

clearly 2 different types of procedures, IMO. And perhaps the author was merely trying to "make a point"....but do you think that some pregnant teen who wants that abortion is just going to see this as only someone making a "point".....or out of their desperation, will they attempt this on their own and possibly die due to a botched abortion.... by following instructions by someone who is clearly not a doctor, but more so, a nutjob. ::)


I don't think this person is a nut job.  This person was making a VERY valid point.  If you don't want teenage girls trying to do this,  I think you should be more concerned about Roe Vs. Wade being upheld than an obscure article on a blog. 



getting an abortion and following instructions on a make-shift abortion by someone who clearly is NOT a doctor....are 2 different things. 


Well clearly so.  But I don't know if she was referring to backalley abortions or abortions in general.

This is talking about the procedure that used to be used back in the 1960s and 1970s before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. It is very disgusting, many medical procedures are, just imagine if Roe is overturned and some women actually attempt to do something like this because they are unable to obtain a safe modern abortion.

This is talking about the procedure that used to be used back in the 1960s and 1970s before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. It is very disgusting, many medical procedures are, just imagine if Roe is overturned and some women actually attempt to do something like this because they are unable to obtain a safe modern abortion.



I don't agree with abortions...however, I would not want to see something like this author suggests happen.  In a perfect world...people would use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, rape and incest wouldn't happen, and all of the babies that are created, would be WANTED....but I realize that nothing is perfect and will never happen.  I understand people's reasoning with thinking that they need to have one...I just don't necessarily agree with it.....I just find it unsettling to see a "DIY" abortion blog...that's all I was trying to emphasize.

This is talking about the procedure that used to be used back in the 1960s and 1970s before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. It is very disgusting, many medical procedures are, just imagine if Roe is overturned and some women actually attempt to do something like this because they are unable to obtain a safe modern abortion.


Like Clinton said, abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

clearly 2 different types of procedures, IMO. And perhaps the author was merely trying to "make a point"....but do you think that some pregnant teen who wants that abortion is just going to see this as only someone making a "point".....or out of their desperation, will they attempt this on their own and possibly die due to a botched abortion.... by following instructions by someone who is clearly not a doctor, but more so, a nutjob. ::)



I didn't say that posting it was smart.  It was dangerous and can lead to situations just like you described.  However, asking how anyone could ever have an abortion after knowing what happens.......most people who have abortions know what they're getting into, so they are fully apprised of what will be going on.  I can't imagine going into any medical procedure blind and uninformed.  If after knowing what will happen, they still choose to have one, that's their choice.