╌>

When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  5 years ago  •  150 comments


When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense
But, at the time, we didn’t have much understanding of what abortion was. We knew nothing of fetal development. We consistently termed the fetus “a blob of tissue,” and that’s just how we pictured it — an undifferentiated mucous-like blob, not recognizable as human or even as alive. It would be another 15 years of so before pregnant couples could show off sonograms of their unborn babies, shocking us with the obvious humanity of the unborn.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T






January 22, 2016 9:00 AM

A t the time of the  Roe v. Wade  decision, I was a college student — an anti-war, mother-earth, feminist, hippie college student. That particular January I was taking a semester off, living in the D.C. area and volunteering at the feminist “underground newspaper”  Off Our Backs . As you’d guess, I was strongly in favor of legalizing abortion. The bumper sticker on my car read, “Don’t labor under a misconception; legalize abortion.”

The first issue of   Off Our Backs   after the   Roe   decision included one of my movie reviews, and also an essay by another member of the collective criticizing the decision. It didn’t go far enough, she said, because it allowed states to restrict abortion in the third trimester. The Supreme Court should not meddle in what should be decided between the woman and her doctor. She should be able to choose abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

But, at the time, we didn’t have much understanding of what abortion   was . We knew nothing of fetal development. We consistently termed the fetus “a blob of tissue,” and that’s just how we pictured it — an undifferentiated mucous-like blob, not recognizable as human or even as alive. It would be another 15 years of so before pregnant couples could show off sonograms of their unborn babies, shocking us with the obvious humanity of the unborn.

We also thought, back then, that few abortions would ever be done. It’s a grim experience, going through an abortion, and we assumed a woman would choose one only as a last resort. We were fighting for that “last resort.” We had no idea how common the procedure would become; today, one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion.


Nor could we have imagined how high abortion numbers would climb. In the 43 years since Roe v. Wade , there have been 59 million abortions. It’s hard even to grasp a number that big. Twenty years ago, someone told me that, if the names of all those lost babies were inscribed on a wall, like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the wall would have to stretch for 50 miles. It’s 20 years later now, and that wall would have to stretch twice as far. But no names could be written on it; those babies had no names.



We expected that abortion would be rare. What we didn’t realize was that, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around  the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.



Abortion is like a funnel; it promises to solve all the problems at once. So there is significant pressure on a woman to choose abortion, rather than adoption or parenting.
A woman who had had an abortion told me, “Everyone around me was saying they would ‘be there for me’ if I had the abortion, but no one said they’d ‘be there for me’ if I had the baby.” For everyone around the pregnant woman, abortion looks like the sensible choice. A woman who determines instead to continue an unplanned pregnancy looks like she’s being foolishly stubborn. It’s like she’s taken up some unreasonable hobby. People think, If she would only go off and do this one thing, everything would be fine.

But that’s an illusion. Abortion can’t really “turn back the clock.” It can’t push the rewind button on life and make it so she was never pregnant. It can make it easy for everyone   around   the woman to forget the pregnancy, but the woman herself may struggle. When she first sees the positive pregnancy test she may feel, in a panicky way, that she has to get rid of it as fast as possible. But life stretches on after abortion, for months and years — for many long nights — and all her life long she may ponder the irreversible choice she made.


This issue gets presented as if it’s a tug of war between the woman and the baby. We see them as mortal enemies, locked in a fight to the death. But that’s a strange idea, isn’t it? It must be the first time in history when mothers and their own children have been assumed to be at war. We’re supposed to picture the child attacking her, trying to destroy her hopes and plans, and picture the woman grateful for the abortion, since it rescued her from the clutches of her child.


If you were in charge of a nature preserve and you noticed that the pregnant female mammals were trying to miscarry their pregnancies, eating poisonous plants or injuring themselves, what would you do? Would you think of it as a battle between the pregnant female and her unborn and find ways to help those pregnant animals miscarry? No, of course not. You would immediately think, “Something must be really wrong in this environment.” Something is creating intolerable stress, so much so that animals would rather destroy their own offspring than bring them into the world. You would strive to identify and correct whatever factors were causing this stress in the animals.

The same thing goes for the human animal. Abortion gets presented to us as if it’s something women want; both pro-choice and pro-life rhetoric can reinforce that idea. But women do this only if all their other options look worse. It’s supposed to be “her choice,” yet so many women say, “I really didn’t have a choice.”

I changed my opinion on abortion after I read an article in   Esquire   magazine, way back in 1976. I was home from grad school, flipping through my dad’s copy, and came across an article titled “What I Saw at the Abortion.” The author, Richard Selzer, was a surgeon, and he was in favor of abortion, but he’d never seen one. So he asked a colleague whether, next time, he could go along.


Selzer described seeing the patient, 19 weeks pregnant, lying on her back on the table. (That is unusually late; most abortions are done by the tenth or twelfth week.) The doctor performing the procedure inserted a syringe into the woman’s abdomen and injected her womb with a prostaglandin solution, which would bring on contractions and cause a miscarriage. (This method isn’t used anymore, because too often the baby survived the procedure — chemically burned and disfigured, but clinging to life. Newer methods, including those called “partial birth abortion” and “dismemberment abortion,” more reliably ensure death.)


After injecting the hormone into the patient’s womb, the doctor left the syringe standing upright on her belly. Then, Selzer wrote, “I see something other than what I expected here. . . . It is the hub of the needle that is in the woman’s belly that has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wobbles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish.”

He realized he was seeing the fetus’s desperate fight for life. And as he watched, he saw the movement of the syringe slow down and then stop. The child was dead. Whatever else an unborn child does not have, he has one thing: a will to live. He will fight to defend his life.

The last words in Selzer’s essay are, “Whatever else is said in abortion’s defense, the vision of that other defense [i.e., of the child defending its life] will not vanish from my eyes. And it has happened that you cannot reason with me now. For what can language do against the truth of what I saw?”

The truth of what he saw disturbed me deeply. There I was, anti-war, anti–capital punishment, even vegetarian, and a firm believer that social justice cannot be won at the cost of violence. Well, this sure looked like violence. How had I agreed to make this hideous act the centerpiece of my feminism? How could I think it was wrong to execute homicidal criminals, wrong to shoot enemies in wartime, but all right to kill our own sons and daughters?

For that was another disturbing thought: Abortion means killing not strangers but our own children, our own flesh and blood. No matter who the father, every child aborted is that woman’s own son or daughter, just as much as any child she will ever bear.

We had somehow bought the idea that abortion was necessary if women were going to rise in their professions and compete in the marketplace with men. But how had we come to agree that we will sacrifice our children, as the price of getting ahead? When does a man ever have to choose between his career and the life of his child?

Once I recognized the inherent violence of abortion, none of the feminist arguments made sense. Like the claim that a fetus is not really a person because it is so   small . Well, I’m only 5 foot 1. Women, in general, are smaller than men. Do we really want to advance a principle that big people have more value than small people? That if you catch them before they’ve reached a certain size, it’s all right to kill them?

What about the child who is “unwanted”? It was a basic premise of early feminism that women should not base their sense of worth on whether or not a man “wants” them. We are valuable simply because we are members of the human race, regardless of any other person’s approval. Do we really want to say that “unwanted” people might as well be dead? What about a woman who is “wanted” when she’s young and sexy but less so as she gets older? At what point is it all right to terminate her?

The usual justification for abortion is that the unborn is not a “person.” It’s said that “Nobody knows when life begins.” But that’s not true; everybody knows when life — a new individual human life — gets started. It’s when the sperm dissolves in the egg. That new single cell has a brand-new DNA, never before seen in the world. If you examined through a microscope three cells lined up — the newly fertilized ovum, a cell from the father, and a cell from the mother — you would say that, judging from the DNA, the cells came from three different people.

When people say the unborn is “not a person” or “not a life” they mean that it has not yet grown or gained abilities that arrive later in life. But there’s no agreement about which abilities should be determinative. Pro-choice people don’t even agree with each other. Obviously, law cannot be based on such subjective criteria. If it’s a case where the question is “Can I kill this?” the answer must be based on objective medical and scientific data. And the fact is, an unborn child, from the very first moment, is a new human individual. It has the three essential characteristics that make it “a human life”: It’s alive and growing, it is composed entirely of human cells, and it has unique DNA. It’s a person, just like the rest of us.

Abortion indisputably ends a human life. But this loss is usually set against the woman’s need to have an abortion in order to freely direct her own life. It is a particular cruelty to present abortion as something women want, something they demand, they find liberating. Because   nobody   wants this. The procedure itself is painful, humiliating, expensive — no woman “wants” to go through it. But once it’s available, it appears to be the logical, reasonable choice. All the complexities can be shoved down that funnel. Yes, abortion solves all the problems; but it solves them inside the woman’s body. And she is expected to keep that pain inside for a lifetime, and be grateful for the gift of abortion.

Many years ago I wrote something in an essay about abortion, and I was surprised that the line got picked up and frequently quoted. I’ve seen it in both pro-life and pro-choice contexts, so it appears to be something both sides agree on.

I wrote, “No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

Strange, isn’t it, that both pro-choice and pro-life people agree that is true? Abortion is a horrible and harrowing experience. That women choose it so frequently shows how much worse continuing a pregnancy can be. Essentially, we’ve agreed to surgically alter women so that they can get along in a man’s world. And then expect them to be grateful for it.

Nobody wants to have an abortion. And if nobody wants to have an abortion, why are women doing it, 2800 times a day? If women doing something 2,800 times daily that they don’t want to do, this is not liberation we’ve won. We are colluding in a strange new form of oppression.

And so we come around to one more March for Life, like the one last year, like the one next year. Protesters understandably focus on the unborn child, because the danger it faces is the most galvanizing aspect of this struggle. If there are different degrees of injustice, surely violence is the worst manifestation, and killing worst of all. If there are different categories of innocent victim, surely the small and helpless have a higher claim to protection, and tiny babies the highest of all. The minimum purpose of government is to shield the weak from abuse by the strong, and there is no one weaker or more voiceless than unborn children. And so we keep saying that they should be protected, for all the same reasons that newborn babies are protected. Pro-lifers have been doing this for 43 years now, and will continue holding a candle in the darkness for as many more years as it takes.

I understand all the reasons why the movement’s prime attention is focused on the unborn. But we can also say that abortion is no bargain for women, either. It’s destructive and tragic. We shouldn’t listen unthinkingly to the other side of the time-worn script, the one that tells us that women want abortions, that abortion liberates them. Many a post-abortion woman could tell you a different story.
The pro-life cause is perennially unpopular, and pro-lifers get used to being misrepresented and wrongly accused. There are only a limited number of people who are going to be brave enough to stand up on the side of an unpopular cause. But sometimes a cause is so urgent, is so dramatically clear, that it’s worth it. What cause could be more outrageous than violence — fatal violence — against the most helpless members of our human community? If that doesn’t move us, how hard  are our hearts? If that doesn’t move us, what will ever move us?

In time, it’s going to be impossible to deny that abortion is violence against children. Future generations, as they look back, are not necessarily going to go easy on ours. Our bland acceptance of abortion is not going to look like an understandable goof. In fact, the kind of hatred that people now level at Nazis and slave-owners may well fall upon our era. Future generations can accurately say, “It’s not like they didn’t know.” They can say, “After all, they had sonograms.” They may consider this bloodshed to be a form of genocide. They might judge our generation to be monsters.

One day, the tide is going to turn. With that Supreme Court decision 43 years ago, one of the sides in the abortion debate won the day. But sooner or later, that day will end. No generation can rule from the grave. The time is coming when a younger generation will sit in judgment of ours. And they are not obligated to be kind.


page_2014_200_Mathewes-Green2_square-2.j


FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN  — Frederica Mathewes-Green has written for National Review, the Washington Post, Smithsonian, the Los Angeles Times, First Things, Books & Culture, Sojourners, Touchstone, and the Wall Street Journal.








Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

"One day, the tide is going to turn. With that Supreme Court decision 43 years ago, one of the sides in the abortion debate won the day. But sooner or later, that day will end. No generation can rule from the grave. The time is coming when a younger generation will sit in judgment of ours. And they are not obligated to be kind."

I truly believe that. 

Rules of civility will strictly be enforced

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
1.1  Freefaller  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

The ruling will never be changed and like everything else succeeding generations will only become more accepting of social change and civil rights.  The past and growing acceptance of asian people, black people, native people, homosexual people and many others are all examples of this.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freefaller @1.1    5 years ago

An act of congress can't change it?

and like everything else succeeding generations will only become more accepting of social change and civil rights.

Civil rights yes. Infanticide No.  Things don't Inextricably move to the left. It dosen't appear that the pro-Life movement is going to fade away

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.2  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    5 years ago
Civil rights yes. Infanticide No.  Things don't Inextricably move to the left. It dosen't appear that the pro-Life movement is going to fade away

If you need to use hysterics and emotions such as claiming that abortion is infanticide then  you have already lost any rational support for your argument. Younger people are more supportive of abortion, except for the evangelicals who are slowly diminishing in power and number.

Why do you think that your personal beliefs are able to make medical decisions for others?  Why do you care when you will never get pregnant? Do you think that woman are inferior to men and need to seek the approval of men?

What happened to your previous claim of supporting small government and pro-freedom?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.1.2    5 years ago

Did you read the article?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.4  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    5 years ago
Did you read the article?

Most of the article is emotional arguments.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.1.4    5 years ago
Most of the article is emotional arguments.

She was after all a liberal, but her points are well taken.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Simply, that "times are a changin"  (Sorry, fuckin Bob Dylan)

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.6  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    5 years ago
Simply, that "times are a changin"  (Sorry, fuckin Bob Dylan)

These abortion laws are being set aside as they take effect.

What is it about abortion that you think that you have a say in another person's body? Why should women give a damn about what a man thinks when he will never get pregnant? Is there something in the XY chromosome that we should give a damn about?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.1.6    5 years ago

Don't make it personal!

It's what the people, as a matter of fact, most women want:

Over 80 percent of women say they would ban late-term abortion and restrict abortion to the first three months of pregnancy, a new survey finds.

According to a new Marist poll commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, 81 percent of Americans — including 82 percent of women and 66 percent of abortion supporters — say abortion should be banned after the first trimester of a pregnancy.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.8  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    5 years ago

There is no elective late term abortion now, so there is nothing to ban!

 The KofC is a catholic fraternal group so any statement from them is already very biased. My father was a 4th degree KofC so I am extremely aware of their conservative beliefs. It was the KofC that was instrumental in putting "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.1.8    5 years ago
It was the KofC that was instrumental in putting "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s.

Oh wow!  What a catastrophe!/sar

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.10  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    5 years ago
Oh wow!  What a catastrophe!/sar

Religion and the state are to be kept separate, so that should be removed.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    5 years ago
She was after all a liberal, 

Bullshit. 

but her points are well taken.

She's been spewing the same bullshit for decades. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    5 years ago
She's been spewing the same bullshit for decades. 

When you get right down to it, all that BS are just appeals to emotion. But then, that seems to be the basis for every pro-life argument too.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.12    5 years ago

What's becoming clear is that they're not 'pro-life' they are pro birth. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @1.1.13    5 years ago

And anti choice

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.12    5 years ago
When you get right down to it, all that BS are just appeals to emotion.

It's not clear what emotion you are referring to in the author, nor is it clear why your emotions are any more valid.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.4    5 years ago
Most of the article is emotional arguments.

If by that, you mean "human life has value" is an emotional argument, that's fine, but why is that a bad argument? What's the opposing argument? A woman right to choose to end a pregnancy has value? If so, that sounds emotional, too. Why is one better than another? And if the pro-choice argument isn't emotional, then what is it?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.17  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.16    5 years ago
If by that, you mean "human life has value" is an emotional argument, that's fine, but why is that a bad argument? What's the opposing argument? A woman right to choose to end a pregnancy has value? If so, that sounds emotional, too. Why is one better than another? And if the pro-choice argument isn't emotional, then what is it?

A fetus isn't a human life, but the mother obviously is. You cannot take rights away from a person and give it to something that isn't yet alive and cannot make choices for itself. The mother cannot be made to be a prisoner to a parasite in her own body because of your conservative religious beliefs.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.18  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.15    5 years ago
It's not clear what emotion you are referring to in the author, nor is it clear why your emotions are any more valid.

The idea that a fetus is a person deserving of equal rights is an emotional argument.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.17    5 years ago
A fetus isn't a human life

I think that's factually not true. It may not be fully developed or born, but any analysis of the DNA of the fetus will reveal it to be both life and human. In fact, it will be a completely unique strand of DNA, identifying it as a specific individual.

You cannot take rights away from a person and give it to something that isn't yet alive

But we're talking about different rights that we typically give different weight. One is a right to choose. The other is a right to live. We give up rights to choice all day long (e.g. choosing to pollute the environment or driving while intoxicated) to preserve the lives of people around us who could be impacted by choices we might make.

The mother cannot be made to be a prisoner to a parasite in her own body because of your conservative religious beliefs.

My religious beliefs didn't get her pregnant. She did that without my help. 

I hope I only have to say this once: My religious beliefs - conservative or otherwise - do not enter into the discussion beyond my tendency to place a value on a human life. Unless it is your position that only a religious person could value human life. Is that what you are claiming?

My perception that a developing fetus is a valuable human life has nothing to do with religious teaching. It's something I learned watching science shows on TV and in public school classrooms. I don't think I have ever even seen abortion mentioned in a church.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.18    5 years ago
The idea that a fetus is a person deserving of equal rights is an emotional argument.

OK, but that doesn't explain why it's wrong.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.21  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.20    5 years ago
OK, but that doesn't explain why it's wrong.

Emotional arguments are not based on facts but instead of beliefs and in this case a religious belief.

 Why do you feel that your conservative beliefs get to intrude on my autonomy and my medical decisions? Is there something in the XY chromosome or are you just protecting proper social order by tramping the inherent rights of women? 

 It would seem that conservative men think that we surrender our autonomous rights to the man and his religion when we have sex, but you could not be more wrong.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.21    5 years ago
in this case a religious belief.

I don't know what religious belief you are referring to. I certainly haven't mentioned one.

you think that your beliefs override her autonomy and her right to privacy

You really are being emotional. You keep referencing arguments I haven't made. I have not said one word about your autonomy.

Is there something in the XY chromosome or are you just protecting proper social order by tramping the inherent rights of women?

Again, you are being very emotional and assuming all sorts of things I haven't mentioned.

It would seem

These things that "seem" to you certainly aren't coming from me. So far, everything you are saying is very emotional, so I think it's strange that you fault others for making emotional arguments.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago
I truly believe that.

You can believe whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.

An act of congress can't change it?

Not without resulting legal challenges and probable SCOTUS intervention.

Civil rights yes.

Abortion is considered a

Infanticide No.

Infanticide isn't the issue nor is it accepted.

 It dosen't appear that the pro-Life movement is going to fade away

Neither is the pro-choice side.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2    5 years ago
You can believe whatever you want.

I'm so glad to hear you say that.


Not without resulting legal challenges and probable SCOTUS intervention.

No Gordy!  If congress enacts a 28th Amendment outlawing abortion the SCOTUS will have to support it!


Abortion is considered a

I know the argument and as I always say -it was wrongly decided


Infanticide isn't the issue nor is it accepted.

Science will determine if it is or not



Neither is the pro-choice side.

Thus, that last well stated paragraph:

"With that Supreme Court decision 43 years ago, one of the sides in the abortion debate won the day."

"But sooner or later, that day will end. No generation can rule from the grave. The time is coming when a younger generation will sit in judgment of ours. And they are not obligated to be kind."


 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    5 years ago

Not gonna happen

The article is a bunch of claptrap

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    5 years ago

It's already happening. Six states only have 1 abortion clinic

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.2.4  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    5 years ago
It's already happening. Six states only have 1 abortion clinic

And the judges are coming to their defense. Abortion isn't going away because nobody is being forced to have an abortion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.2.4    5 years ago
And the judges are coming to their defense.

You mean Obama judges. The SCOTUS has yet to take one of those cases, when they do it will be one that recognizes another right.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    5 years ago

What is this nonsense with Obama judges?

You say that in regards to the 'president' regarding injunctions against him and now with these other judges regarding women's rights.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.2.7  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    5 years ago
You mean Obama judges. The SCOTUS has yet to take one of those cases, when they do it will be one that recognizes another right.

Roe has been revisited more than 3 times. Its settled law, so get over it.

What supposed possible new right are you referring to?

Why are so obsessed with abortion?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.2.8  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    5 years ago

Banning abortion will never be the 28th amendment. People would not support it.

Why are you so obsessed with abortion?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.6    5 years ago
You say that in regards to the 'president' regarding injunctions against him and now with these other judges regarding women's rights.

That is correct. Your'e getting it!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.2.8    5 years ago
Banning abortion will never be the 28th amendment. People would not support it.

Not everyone thinks like you

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    5 years ago

Not everyone thinks like you 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.2.8    5 years ago
Why are you so obsessed with abortion?

I was about to ask you the same question?

But let me answer yours. I long for the day when I can sit here like a liberal and say "It's the law of the land"

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.2.13  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    5 years ago
Not everyone thinks like you

Abortion is settled law in the eyes of the majority. If you don't like one then don't do it, but you have nothing to say about the medical choices of women.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.2.13    5 years ago
Abortion is settled law in the eyes of the majority.

I don't know about that. Had the decision been based on the Constitution, liberals wouldn't be facing all this now.

 If you don't like one then don't do it, but you have nothing to say about the medical choices of women.

Pro-Life people would differ, They would say the unborn has rights!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.2.15  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.14    5 years ago
I don't know about that. Had the decision been based on the Constitution, liberals wouldn't be facing all this now.

It was based on the Constitution. We have the inherent right to act unless there is a compelling reason by the state that we cannot. That is the basic concept of freedom. If we didn't have the right to privacy there would be no need for the 4th amendment to define when the state can violate that privacy and the need for a search warrant.

Pro-Life people would differ, They would say the unborn has rights!

The courts differ from their emotional claims because they fetus cannot survive on its own so it cannot have rights when it is a biological parasite depends on another for survival.

 The Bible says that it is not a person until it breathes air. Genesis 2.7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    5 years ago
I'm so glad to hear you say that.

Happy to be of service.

No Gordy! If congress enacts a 28th Amendment outlawing abortion the SCOTUS will have to support it!

Not likely to happen. Passing a Constitutional Amendment is no easy task. 

I know the argument and as I always say -it was wrongly decided

And that is just your opinion.

Science will determine if it is or not

Science already has: an embryo/fetus is not scientifically (or legally) considered an infant. Neither does medical science (or the law) deem abortion to be murder or infanticide itself.

With that Supreme Court decision 43 years ago, one of the sides in the abortion debate won the day."

No, women's rights and autonomy won the day.

"But sooner or later, that day will end. No generation can rule from the grave. The time is coming when a younger generation will sit in judgment of ours. And they are not obligated to be kind."

Emotional rhetoric. 

Not everyone thinks like you

Only the rational ones do.

I don't know about that. Had the decision been based on the Constitution, liberals wouldn't be facing all this now

It was based on the Constitution. The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution (as is their job) and determined laws banning abortion were unconstitutional.

Pro-Life people would differ, They would say the unborn has rights!

There is no legal basis for the unborn to have rights. Nor is there a way to grant any such rights without infringing on the established rights of the woman in question. Pro-life people seem to think a woman should not have certain rights.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.16    5 years ago
Passing a Constitutional Amendment is no easy task. 

Well, they managed to do it 27 times. It's not impossible

Science already has: an embryo/fetus is not scientifically (or legally) considered an infant.

An infant?  That would be a young child. Science has yet to tell us when life begins. We haven't been interested either. It was never considered in the horrendous Roe decision.

No, women's rights and autonomy won the day.

As Justice Brennan used to say "just give me 5 judges"

Emotional rhetoric. 

Social change, coming from a different direction.

It was based on the Constitution. 

False. They legislated via Judicial fiat.

The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution (as is their job) and determined laws banning abortion were unconstitutional.

They misinterpreted it and couldn't explain it

There is no legal basis for the unborn to have rights.

I just hope I live to see it!

Nor is there a way to grant any such rights without infringing on the established rights of the woman in question.

Life & death are not hers to decide

Pro-life people seem to think a woman should not have certain rights.

Pro-Life people are for extending rights, just like the left.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.17    5 years ago
Well, they managed to do it 27 times. It's not impossible

If a 28th Amendment is passed, it may not be the one you are counting on.

An infant? That would be a young child.

Which is different than an embryo/fetus.

Science has yet to tell us when life begins.

Life is technically a continuation. But when it begins is irrelevant.

We haven't been interested either. It was never considered in the horrendous Roe decision.

Good. Because it is not the crux of the argument.

As Justice Brennan used to say "just give me 5 judges"

We already have 9.

Social change, coming from a different direction.

Social change has only been more progressive over the decades, despite resistance from those afraid of change.

False. They legislated via Judicial fiat.

What did they legislate? Cite the law!

They misinterpreted it and couldn't explain it

What makes you more qualified to interpret the Constitution than a SCOTUS Justice?

I just hope I live to see it!

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Life & death are not hers to decide

It's her body, it's her decision.

Pro-Life people are for extending rights,

No, they're interested in taking rights away from people who already exist and are living in favor of something that's not even born.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
1.2.19  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.17    5 years ago

For the last time, believe what you want and let the rest of us believe what we want.  You are NOT the moral arbiter of this topic!  WTF makes you think your beliefs should be forced on WOMEN?  You aren't for extending rights, you want to subvert women's rights to a clump of cells.  The same clump of cells conservatives don't care about as soon as they are out of the uterus.   Again, why should christian sharia be forced on women?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    5 years ago

If those women could afford to leave those backwards states, they would, in droves.

Why do they hate women?

The war on women is on

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    5 years ago

The Senate is taking up the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after five months of pregnancy — the point when overwhelming medical evidence shows   babies in the womb   can feel the agonizing pain of a late-term abortion.

To the majority of Americans, this doesn’t seem like it should be a heavy lift for the Senate. Polling by  Huffington Post NBC News/Wall Street Journal the polling company/ WomanTrend , and others have found that most Americans, especially women and millennials, support prohibiting abortions after five months. Today, the United States is   one of only seven countries   in the world that allow pre-born children to be killed for virtually any reason up through the ninth month. That sickening statistic puts us in the company of human-rights violators like China and North Korea.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    5 years ago

Are you aware that the current limit for election abortion is already less than 5 months?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    5 years ago

"Forty-three states currently have laws prohibiting later term abortions, but many of these restrictions have been struck down by the courts, either because they don't contain any health provisions for the mother (or those they do contain aren't sufficient) or they don't allow a doctor to make the call on whether terminating the pregnancy is medically necessary."



BTW there are democratic candidates who favor no limits

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    5 years ago
"Forty-three states currently have laws prohibiting later term abortions, but many of these restrictions have been struck down by the courts, either because they don't contain any health provisions for the mother (or those they do contain aren't sufficient) or they don't allow a doctor to make the call on whether terminating the pregnancy is medically necessary."

The current limit of elective abortion is between 22 and 24 weeks at the age of fetal viability. There is no elective late term abortion. The only abortions that happen after that are for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    5 years ago
The current limit of elective abortion is between 22 and 24 weeks at the age of fetal viability.

I thought you said less than 5 months?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    5 years ago

BTW NY State allows abortion right up until the day of delivery!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    5 years ago

Nonsense, there are no dems who favor no limits on abortion.   

I repeat,  nonsense 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    5 years ago

More nonsense

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.6    5 years ago
Nonsense, there are no dems who favor no limits on abortion.    I repeat,  nonsense 

So if I prove otherwise, you'll apologize for making that random statement?

"Governors in New York and Virginia have touched off an outcry in recent weeks over their support for late-term abortion bills as state Democrats seek to pass sweeping pro-choice legislation as a bulwark against potential pro-life rulings from judges appointed by President Trump.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam appeared to endorse infanticide when he suggested in a Jan. 30 interview that a baby delivered alive after a botched abortion would be resuscitated “if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue.”



“If a mother is in labor … the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother…”  

— Americans United for Life (@AUL)  February 1, 2019



I'm waiting

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.9  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    5 years ago
I thought you said less than 5 months?

22-24 weeks is less than 5 months (25 weeks)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.9    5 years ago

4 times 5 was 20 when I went to school.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.11  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    5 years ago
BTW NY State allows abortion right up until the day of delivery!

No, it does  not allow late term abortion, despite the conservative hyperbole.

What the law says

The RHA  permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.12  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    5 years ago

5x5 =25.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.11    5 years ago

The problem is:

"New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”  Which means it's up to an interpretation. A woman could be "pissed off" if she dosen't get it done and that might be considered as affecting her "health".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.12    5 years ago
5x5 =25.

There are only 4 weeks in a month!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.15  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.14    5 years ago

30 days per month average is more than 4 weeks because 4x7 is only 28.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.16  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.13    5 years ago
The problem is:"New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”  Which means it's up to an interpretation. A woman could be "pissed off" if she dosen't get it done and that might be considered as affecting her "health".

The Dr makes the final decision. He isn't going to risk his medical license.

Most abortions happen before 20 weeks, so she isn't going to wait until the 7th month to have an elective abortion.  Wed already have stretch marks by then

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.15    5 years ago
who is it feeding from?

average works both ways. More & less

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @2.1.16    5 years ago
Most abortions happen before 20 weeks

Most do but we were promised by the Roe Court that they would be restricted. Were we not?


so she isn't going to wait until the 7th month to have an elective abortion.

She isn't?  With birth control we didn't think we would be seeing 59 million abortions either. So people don't always do as expected or use reason.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.19  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.18    5 years ago
She isn't?  With birth control we didn't think we would be seeing 59 million abortions either. So people don't always do as expected or use reason.

Why would you carry a fetus for 7 months and then get an abortion if it wasn't for a serious health problem or the fetus wasn't viable?

Do you think women just have abortions because they are lazy, selfish, sluts who should be home with their hubby instead?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    5 years ago
BTW NY State allows abortion right up until the day of delivery!

Wrong! NY Law does not allow that.

"New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.” Which means it's up to an interpretation. A woman could be "pissed off" if she dosen't get it done and that might be considered as affecting her "health".

It's up to the interpretation of a doctor. Medical and health issues is within physician purview.

Most do but we were promised by the Roe Court that they would be restricted. Were we not?

They are restricted. Elective abortions is not performed after the point of viability.

She isn't?

Who's getting elective abortions at 7 months?

With birth control we didn't think we would be seeing 59 million abortions either. So people don't always do as expected or use reason.

And birth control doesn't always work either. But what difference does that make? If a woman wants an abortion, she can (and should be able to) have one.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.21  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    5 years ago
BTW there are democratic candidates who favor no limits

I've never heard of any.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
2.1.22  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.18    5 years ago

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is on par with all the men who pass these invasive anti-woman laws, and I don't mean to be personally insulting, but its obvious you don't know jack about pregnancy and all that goes with it.  Which is the damn reason we all just want everybody to butt the hell out of our business.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    5 years ago

Why would any woman have an abortion at that point unless her life was in danger or the fetus was not viable?  They wouldnt.

What does your comment have to do with what I said?

A woman doesn't abort her 'child' for 'virtually any reason up to 9 months'

That 'pre born children' term is more claptrap 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3    5 years ago
They wouldnt.

You have a lot of faith in them. I don't think you read the article:

"We also thought, back then, that few abortions would ever be done. It’s a grim experience, going through an abortion, and we assumed a woman would choose one only as a last resort. We were fighting for that “last resort.” We had no idea how common the procedure would become; today, one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion.

Nor could we have imagined how high abortion numbers would climb. In the 43 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been 59 million abortions. It’s hard even to grasp a number that big. Twenty years ago, someone told me that, if the names of all those lost babies were inscribed on a wall, like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the wall would have to stretch for 50 miles. It’s 20 years later now, and that wall would have to stretch twice as far. But no names could be written on it; those babies had no names."

So much for them being rare!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.1  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 years ago

A fetus is is not a baby, despite the emotional hyperbole and scientific ignorance.

Do you want to name the miscarriages and the fertilized zygotes that failed to implant in the uterine wall?  More than 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, before we ever known that we are pregnant.

How many human embryos die between fertilisation and birth under natural conditions? It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.1    5 years ago
A fetus is is not a baby,

What scientist has made that determination?

 despite the emotional hyperbole and scientific ignorance.

Despite liberal hate!  I told you to be careful here!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.3  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    5 years ago
What scientist has made that determination?

It is a scientific fact.

What is a fetus?

After the embryonic period has ended at the end of the 10th week of pregnancy, the embryo is now considered a fetus. A fetus is a developing baby beginning in the 11th week of pregnancy.
 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.4  charger 383  replied to  epistte @3.1.3    5 years ago

and where is the fetus getting it's nutrition, who is it feeding from?

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.3    5 years ago

Oh so it's the 11th week?  We have to tell everyone!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.6  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.5    5 years ago
Oh so it's the 11th week?  We have to tell everyone!

Most people understood this from high school sex ed class.  The internet makes research shockingly easy from the dark ages of the 1970s-1980s of spending hours in the library chasing books and microfilm

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.6    5 years ago
The internet makes research shockingly easy from the dark ages of the 1970s-1980s of spending hours in the library chasing books and microfilm

It sure does

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @3.1.4    5 years ago
and where is the fetus getting it's nutrition, who is it feeding from?  

A fetus getting nutrition would indicate life. The feeding is from a woman who partially created it along with a man!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.9  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    5 years ago
A fetus getting nutrition would indicate life. The feeding is from a woman who partially created it along with a man!

That fetus is a biological parasite because it could not survive on its own.

Should the man have a say in whether she can have an abortion? Why should he get to say about our medical choices? Are men superior to women?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    5 years ago
What scientist has made that determination?

Are you a scientist? Who are you to make the scientific determinations and definitions of a fetus, baby, embryo, ect.?

So much for them being rare!

Who cares? It's still a woman's choice and right.

Oh so it's the 11th week? We have to tell everyone!

As long as it's before 23 weeks, it can be aborted if a woman so chooses.

A fetus getting nutrition would indicate life.

It would also indicated parasitic activity.

The feeding is from a woman who partially created it along with a man!

The woman is not obligated to keep feeding it if she does not want to.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.9    5 years ago
That fetus is a biological parasite because it could not survive on its own.

Your'e verifying the seeded article!  That's what some have come to view a fetus

Should the man have a say in whether she can have an abortion? 

Of course. He helped create it!

Are men superior to women?

No. Do you hate men?  and Christians?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.10    5 years ago
Are you a scientist? Who are you to make the scientific determinations and definitions of a fetus, baby, embryo, ect.?

I'm not a scientist and I didn't make the determination. The same goes for you.  

Who cares? It's still a woman's choice and right.

Why should she determine life & death?

As long as it's before 23 weeks, it can be aborted if a woman so chooses.

Right now. Like I say, Gordy, I look forward to the day when I can say "It's the law of the land".

It would also indicated parasitic activity.

What a terrible thing to say! With all the birth control devices why would a woman who didn't want children allow a pregnancy to even begin?  What's the excuse now? that birth control is only 98% effective, or that she forgot, or the man should have taken precautions or she was such a pig that she didn't even consider it?


 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    5 years ago
That's what some have come to view a fetus

When you get down to it, that is essentially what a fetus is.

Of course. He helped create it!

So? He's not carrying it. He doesn't have to deal with health issues associated with pregnancy. Neither does he have to endure child birth. It's not his body being used. So why should he have any say at all?

No. Do you hate men? and Christians?

Do you hate women?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.13    5 years ago
So? He's not carrying it.

Same answer, So what?

So why should he have any say at all?

He deserves 50% say

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.15  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    5 years ago
or she was such a pig that she didn't even consider it?

Your sexism is showing.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.16  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.14    5 years ago
He deserves 50% say

Why does he deserve any say? I am not his pawn or his pet!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.14    5 years ago
Same answer, So what?

He is not the one carrying or dealing with it.

He deserves 50% say

Why? A woman is not his property. 

I'm not a scientist and I didn't make the determination. The same goes for you.

At least I understand the scientific definitions.

Why should she determine life & death?

Her body, her autonomy, her right, her choice! That's why!

Right now.

And not likely to change anytime soon. Nearly 50 years of precedent supports that.

Like I say, Gordy, I look forward to the day when I can say "It's the law of the land".

Like I say, prepare to be disappointed.

What a terrible thing to say!

Not at all. Just an accurate assessment.

With all the birth control devices why would a woman who didn't want children allow a pregnancy to even begin?

As I also said, BC is not 100% effective. And if she doesn't want children, why should she be forced to have one?

What's the excuse now? that birth control is only 98% effective, or that she forgot, or the man should have taken precautions

Who cares? A woman's reasons for wanting an abortion is hers and hers alone She needs not justify those reason to you nor anyone else! Neither is it any of your business!

or she was such a pig that she didn't even consider it?

Wow, what a sexist and hateful statement. You're showing your true feelings regarding women! It's also funny how you think a man has 50% say in the issue, but you don't seem to direct such vitriol towards the man.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.18  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    5 years ago

  would indicate life

It is drawing on resources of another, they need to consent to the draw . If they want it that is good and mother gets a child she wants.   Same principal when they built a house next to mine I allowed them to plug into my electric outlet and hook their hose to my faucet.

The fluids the fetus draws come from the mother and belong to her.  How can you make someone supply something if they don't want to?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @3.1.18    5 years ago
The fluids the fetus draws come from the mother and belong to her.  How can you make someone supply something if they don't want to?  

If a woman is required to gestate a fetus against her will, when will people be required to donate blood or organs for another? Same principle really.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.20  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.14    5 years ago
He deserves 50% say

OK, If he says abort it, then that is what happens? 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.21  charger 383  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.19    5 years ago

they are going to open doors they don't want opened and some they have not thought about 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
3.1.22  Raven Wing  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.19    5 years ago
If a woman is required to gestate a fetus against her will, when will people be required to donate blood or organs for another? Same principle really.

Also, when will the government require women to breed so that new hearts and other organs can be harvested for others? Especially, for the wealthy and elite. 

At this point, I would not do doubt that would be in the works at some point. 

I am in hopes that our government, and those who make up our governments, will come to their senses and play by the constitution, not just use it to make up their own rules and biases.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @3.1.21    5 years ago

Well, they always seemed tunnel visioned in their views.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @3.1.3    5 years ago
A fetus is a developing baby

So a fetus is a baby. It's just that it's still developing and still in the womb. So, the difference is level of development (basically time) and location. I don't see why either factor should figure prominently in the determination of whether or not it's worth keeping alive.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.25  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.24    5 years ago
So a fetus is a baby. It's just that it's still developing and still in the womb. So, the difference is level of development (basically time) and location. I don't see why either factor should figure prominently in the determination of whether or not it's worth keeping alive.

It is the mother's choice whether the fetus stays alive and continues to develop, culminating into a baby at birth. It is her body that is the incubator and her choice.

 Stop trying to inject your beliefs into the body of another against their will. This is the problem because you think that your beliefs override her autonomy and her right to privacy.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.26  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    5 years ago
No. Do you hate men?  and Christians?

I love men more than I should perhaps, but only men who understand that I am an equal and not a subject of theirs. People who try to use their religious beliefs as a weapon I will fight back against as long as I breathe air.  Maybe you should pray about my militant independence and my feminist beliefs.

Is refusing to give them control over our bodies an act of hatred?  If that is true then I hate conservative men and conservative Christians.  Your conservative beliefs do not override my medical decisions or my autonomy as a person.

 I'll respect your right not to have an abortion if you respect mine. Is that fair for you?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1.27  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @3.1.25    5 years ago
It is the mother's choice whether the fetus stays alive and continues to develop, culminating into a baby at birth.

No, that is an automatic process that happens with or without the will of the mother. As long as she does not intervene to end the pregnancy, the child - barring some abnormality - will develop into a normal healthy person.

Stop trying to inject your beliefs into the body of another against their will.

I haven't tried to do anything like that. I was only responding to your definition of a fetus as a baby under development and how that conflicts with your previous (and I think we both can see) inaccurate claim that a fetus is not a baby. There's nothing in that about my beliefs or injections into someone else's body.

you think that your beliefs override her autonomy and her right to privacy

You like to accuse people of being emotional, but you are the one doing that here. I haven't said anything about my beliefs, overriding anyone's autonomy, or anyone's right to privacy. All I have done here is reveal the nature of a developing fetus. I haven't said anything about what to do about that fact but you are getting all upset about it.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4  charger 383    5 years ago

Vic, what are you going to do with the population increase you are going to cause?

We can't take care of our citizens as it is

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4    5 years ago
Vic, what are you going to do with the population increase you are going to cause?

I thought Americans weren't reproducing fast enough, thus the need for Illegals?  I'm confused.

We can't take care of our citizens as it is

Assume that you are right on that. There are still two arguments - a legal one and a moral one.  First that the Court had no legal basis for the Roe decision. Second, nobody can tell us where life begins. What about those complaints?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    5 years ago

US population is too high and past what can be supported.  Overpopulation makes every problem worse.  We need to lower our birth rate and my position on foreigners is they need to stay in their country, but let's worry about them in an other discussion.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.2  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    5 years ago

Assume that you are right on that. There are still two arguments - a legal one and a moral one. First that the Court had no legal basis for the Roe decision. Second, nobody can tell us where life begins. What about those complaints? 

Starting with your second point, there is something in the bible about first breath and something about a month

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.1    5 years ago
US population is too high and past what can be supported. 

"The birthrate fell for nearly every group of women of reproductive age in the U.S. in 2017, reflecting a sharp drop that saw the fewest newborns since 1987, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were 3,853,472 births in the U.S. in 2017 — "down 2 percent from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years," the CDC said.

The general fertility rate sank to a record low of 60.2 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 — a 3 percent drop from 2016, the CDC said in its tally of provisional data for the year.

The results put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate – the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.2    5 years ago
Starting with your second point, there is something in the bible about first breath and something about a month

These feminists will tell you the Bible is not science!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.5  charger 383  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.2    5 years ago

Now about the legal point,  As a male, I have right to get a haircut, trim my toe nails, have medical procedures, ect ,ect.   Why the is one thing my that sister can do that I can't restricted?  That ain't fair

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.6  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    5 years ago

I will tell you that too.  But many that are opposed to abortion believe in the bible

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.7  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.6    5 years ago

Yes, and a majority of US Christians support women's right to choose...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    5 years ago
I'm confused.

You said it, we didn't.

There are still two arguments - a legal one and a moral one.

Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.

First that the Court had no legal basis for the Roe decision.

Actually, it did and has explained that in its opinions.

Second, nobody can tell us where life begins. What about those complaints?

They're irrelevant. When life begins is not the basis of the abortion argument. But George Carlin addressed the issue best, especially on the point about where "life begins."

These feminists will tell you the Bible is not science!

They would be correct too.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.8    5 years ago
Actually, it did and has explained that in its opinions.

It's been trying to explain it to this very day and as I recall even you couldn't show me this privacy right in the Constitution

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.9    5 years ago
It's been trying to explain it to this very day and as I recall even you couldn't show me this privacy right in the Constitution

Do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.10    5 years ago
Do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

Yes I do. We support 9 Judges for that purpose

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2  epistte  replied to  charger 383 @4    5 years ago
Vic, what are you going to do with the population increase you are going to cause? We can't take care of our citizens as it is

They never answer this or how they are going to care for these babies that they force a women to carry and give birth to. That reality is not part of their emotional arguments because their concern ends when the baby is born. This argument is all about controlling women.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @4.2    5 years ago
They never answer this or how they are going to care for these babies that they force a women to carry and give birth to. Its not part of their emotional arguments because their concern ends when the baby is born.

Was that the reason for the Roe decision?

 This argument is all abort controlling women.

I think it's about radical feminism defying decent women!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.2  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    5 years ago
Was that the reason for the Roe decision?

The freedom to do with our bodies as we wish as per privacy rights.

I think it's about radical feminism defying decent women!

Nobody is being defied because nobody is forced to have an abortion. Your emotional views do not make my medical decisions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @4.2.2    5 years ago
The freedom to do with our bodies as we wish as per privacy rights.

That's what they claimed. They still can't show us the right of privacy

Your emotional views do not make my medical decisions.

Don't make it personal!!!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.4  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    5 years ago
Don't make it personal!!!

Stop trying to legislate your opinions as my medical decisions. You can decide not to have an abortion any time you want and I won't object.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.2.5  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    5 years ago

    "decent women!"

could you give some description of what you think "decent women" are?    

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @4.2.4    5 years ago
Stop trying to legislate your opinions as my medical decisions.

Stop trying to end a life.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.2.5    5 years ago
could you give some description of what you think "decent women" are?    

You know, women with feminine qualities like loving & caring. The opposite of "feminist"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.7    5 years ago

Why isn't a feminist a loving and caring woman. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.9  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.6    5 years ago
Stop trying to end a life.

I want an apology.

I am supporting the freedom of autonomy.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.2.10  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    5 years ago

    show us the right of privacy

It is up inside her, you can't get much more private than that  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.11  epistte  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.8    5 years ago
Why isn't a feminist a loving and caring woman. 

I'd also like to know this answer because I am a feminist.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.6    5 years ago
Stop trying to end a life.

Stop with the emotional hyperbole. Do you say the same thing when people take antibiotics to "end a life?"

You know, women with feminine qualities like loving & caring. The opposite of "feminist"

Both a sweeping generalization and an ad hom attack. 

That's what they claimed. They still can't show us the right of privacy

Then you do not understand their decision or how they reached it.

Was that the reason for the Roe decision?

Not at all. But that "reason" is also a legitimate concern.

I think it's about radical feminism defying decent women!

More opinion and nothing more.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.13  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    5 years ago
They still can't show us the right of privacy

The right to privacy is understood because you cannot have freedom without it. Do we also have the right to breathe and have sex without government consent because those aren't mentioned either. Griswold v. Connecticut came before Roe v. Wade and it was also decided on the right to privacy. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.2.14  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    5 years ago
decent women
They still can't show us the right of privacy

It's difficult to find an appropriate circumstance where the phrase 'offensive nit-wit' is applicable.  I must say, however, that you wear it well.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.14    5 years ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.16  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.14    5 years ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

Very apropos...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.2.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    5 years ago
I think it's about radical feminism defying decent women!

I find that offensive Vic. I think I am a decent woman, and I don't think of myself as a feminist. But I do believe I have the right over my body within common sense limits. To imply that makes anyone less than decent is very unfair. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.18  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.17    5 years ago
To imply that makes anyone less than decent is very unfair

Not only unfair, but, totally chauvinist and misogynistic. And it is not only offensive, but, highly insulting.

Denigrating and demeaning women one does not agree with for their own self aggrandizement seems to be a habit with some here.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
4.2.19  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.17    5 years ago

 I do believe I have the right over my body within common sense limits.

You have autonomy over your life AND your body, there's no limits to that !

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    5 years ago

Does it ever occur to the far rightwing radical fringe forced birthers that outlawing abortions will do absolutely nothing at all to decrease women's demand for termination services? Only averting unwanted pregnancies wiil accomplish that...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5    5 years ago
Does it ever occur to the far rightwing radical fringe forced birthers that outlawing abortions will do absolutely nothing at all to decrease women's demand for termination services?

I understand that argument.

Does it ever occur to that the radical lunatics on the far left that abortion law should have been legislated via the Congress?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago
Does it ever occur to that the radical lunatics on the far left that abortion law should have been legislated via the Congress?

States already tried to legislate abortion and the Court found it unconstitutional.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.2  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago

I don't care how it happened, I support the results and I don't care how it happens I support things that protect Second Amendment rights and there are some other things I don't care how it happens but the results will make me happy and it will be somehow legal 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
5.1.3  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago
Does it ever occur to that the radical lunatics on the far left that abortion law should have been legislated via the Congress?

Why shouldn't the SCOTUS make this decision? Constitutional interpretation is their role in the federal government. How could Congress have decided the Roe case where there was a very mixed situation of abortion laws in the 50 states?  The Roe decision made one law nationwide.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.1    5 years ago
States already tried to legislate abortion and the Court found it unconstitutional

And other states are going to the other extreme like New York.  You don't think the SCOTUS isn't going to take one of these cases? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.2    5 years ago
I don't care how it happened, I support the results and I don't care how it happens

You are at least honest!  The Court wasn't.  If you like the result, wouldn't you at least want it done right?  If the Congress passed a law legalizing abortion, there wouldn't be this controversy now!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    5 years ago
And other states are going to the other extreme like New York. 

What extreme? NY has not allowed elective abortions past viability. That coincides with SCOTUS ruling.

You don't think the SCOTUS isn't going to take one of these cases? 

Possible. But not necessary. There is already plenty of past precedent to look upon.

If the Congress passed a law legalizing abortion, there wouldn't be this controversy now!

Oh sure there would be. Pro-lifers/anti-choicers would be up in arms about it, much like they are now.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @5.1.3    5 years ago
Constitutional interpretation is their role in the federal government.

Interpretation and legislation are two different things.


 How could Congress have decided the Roe case where there was a very mixed situation of abortion laws in the 50 states? 

Then they can't, but that's the way it's supposed to work. We elect representatives to make the laws and if they are afraid, or stalemated or bought out by lobbyists, it STILL DOSEN"T GIVE THE COURT THE RIGHT TO STEP IN AND MAKE THE CALL!

The SCOTUS interprets.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.6    5 years ago
Pro-lifers/anti-choicers would be up in arms about it, much like they are now.

No.  They would have no argument. Their elected representatives passed a law.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
5.1.9  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    5 years ago
And other states are going to the other extreme like New York.  You don't think the SCOTUS isn't going to take one of these cases? 

The NY law is not extreme, despite your claims. How many times do I need to post the fact checker statement before you stop making wild claims?

What the law says

The RHA  permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
5.1.10  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    5 years ago
No.  They would have no argument. Their elected representatives passed a law.

The states cannot pass laws that violate previous settled law. This is the basis of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. A state cannot ban what the federal government/US Constitution allows.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
5.1.11  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    5 years ago
Then they can't, but that's the way it's supposed to work. We elect representatives to make the laws and if they are afraid, or stalemated or bought out by lobbyists, it STILL DOSEN"T GIVE THE COURT THE RIGHT TO STEP IN AND MAKE THE CALL!The SCOTUS interprets.

Typing in capital letters doesn't help your claim.

The federal appeals courts up to the SCOTUS interpretations become federal law. The judicial branch would have no power to act as a check and balance to the other branches and the 50 states if they were not law. Those decisions are not suggestions. 

 This is a basic concept of US political law. You should have learned this by 8th grade history class.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    5 years ago
No.  They would have no argument. Their elected representatives passed a law.

Any law passed can be challenged and go before judicial review, up to and including the SCOTUS.

Interpretation and legislation are two different things.

States legislated bans against abortion. The Courts interpreted those laws to be unconstitutional. The system works.

Then they can't, but that's the way it's supposed to work. We elect representatives to make the laws and if they are afraid, or stalemated or bought out by lobbyists, it STILL DOSEN"T GIVE THE COURT THE RIGHT TO STEP IN AND MAKE THE CALL!

See first statement. I'm bbeginning to wonder if you ever took high school civics.

The SCOTUS interprets.

And that's what it did when it deemed laws banning abortion unconstitutional.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
5.1.13  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago
Does it ever occur to that the radical lunatics on the far left that abortion law should have been legislated via the Congress?

Hell NO, why would women want a bunch of ignorant men making laws restricting what they can to with their person?  None of these laws are even based on medicine or science, its a bunch of misogynists making sure they keep women slut shamed and incubating.  The fact you think your opinion and belief system should be forced on all women is infuriating.  Fuckers making these laws aren't medical people and don't care about women or children, so stay out of our business.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @5.1.11    5 years ago
You should have learned this by 8th grade history class.

I'm sorry I didn't have Angela Davis

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 years ago

I hate articles like this. It distorts the truth. We have understood fetal development for over 100 years. This is not new with the advent of the 3D ultrasound, people can see a fetus and equate what they see with being fully human. Granted, there is a point, where the fetus becomes a feeling being. But there is about a 15 week period (give or take a week), and though it looks like a baby, it is not alive, in the sense that it has a full neurological system. Without that, there is no person. It would be the equal of saying that someone who is brain dead is still a person because their heart beats. They are not. 

To read this as a fight between mother and child is an emotional falsehood. To have that fight, there has to be a baby, and there is none until that neurological system is there. In fact, even at that point, the fetus can't survive without the mother, but I weigh in on "Do no harm", and so unless the mother's life is in danger, the decision for an abortion should be done with after that point. 

But even to those who feel it's wrong. 

  1. You might feel it's wrong. Then don't do it. 
  2. If it's your religious beliefs than fine, don't do it. It's not mine
  3. Going back to making abortion illegal will never stop the procedure. What will happen is that women will go back to back ally abortions, coat hangers, and knitting needles and poison. If harm is bad, is better for an alive person to die?
  4. Women have rights over their bodies. If the court decides anything else, then they are saying that women have less control then men do. That means women are not equal under the law to their counterparts. It is more insulting when these states pass laws saying that a man can rape a woman and she must now be forced to carry to term? Talk about total lack of justice. 

There are few issues that upset me like this one. I am honestly tired of other people trying to making such a personal decision for women. 

btw, this is an embryo at 6 weeks, which is when there is heartbeat:

I'm sorry, but that is not a person.
 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    5 years ago
I'm sorry, but that is not a person.

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.2  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    5 years ago

Not a person indeed. Looks more like a piece of uncooked shrimp. plus there's no true heart to "beat." There are cardiac cells which generate an electrical impulse, the so called "heartbeat." 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    5 years ago
“Everyone around me was saying they would ‘be there for me’ if I had the abortion, but no one said they’d ‘be there for me’ if I had the baby.”

And this is a core part of the problem that needs an effort from everyone else or we aren't going to resolve this. Contraception needs to be as easy and reliable as taking a vitamin or wearing a hat. It's getting better, but we aren't quite there yet.

And if pregnancy does occur, carrying that baby to term and either raising it or giving it up for adoption need to be choices that result in the kind of support and encouragement that make every woman glad she made that choice.

Until the alternatives to abortion are so preferable as to be irresistible, we aren't going to be able to say we won't allow anymore abortions.

 
 

Who is online


Greg Jones
Kavika
CB
Sparty On
Ed-NavDoc


57 visitors