Roe vs. Wade II

[k]

I trusted the people here with a part of my life that many people do not know in order to show you that I am not rabidly in favor of abortion.

Your responds is belligerent. That post and others demonstrate difficulty in thinking logically. Or was that just simple mud-slinging? You should be ashamed of your lack of sensitivity as perhaps should other men on this thread who failed to respond to someone who has had personal experience of the dilemna that this thread is all about.

Sensitivity is not usually something found in debate forums, and that is a sad fact. I agree we should all be more sensitive.

I have known women who have had abortions and most of them expressed regret, and some have found forgiveness while others are still struggling.

Also, could it be that the men are not intentionally being insensitive, but that simply by virtue of being a man empathy is completely impossible? Sympathy? Yes, that is something we are all capable of, and I'm not making excuses for anyone, but it is harder for someone to be ignorant of their insensivity whilst being far removed from any given situation.

 

[Asimov]

So, by your reasoning here, abortion should be allowed through the ninth month of the pregnancy. The child is still "inside the woman's body" until moments before birth.
That's how Partial Birth Abortion is defended - so long as the baby's head is still inside the woman's body, it can be aborted.

You forget that "Partial Birth Abortions" are representative of a very small portion of the total number of abortions performed. If I can remember correctly, the highest number are performed before 12 weeks, and of that, most are performed before 8 weeks.

Abortion is a great deal for secular men today! It means that they can have sex with lots of women without needing to necessarily care about them or worry about being held accountable. I know, I was there.

That's a highly obtuse statement.

 

[Woodsy]

You forget that "Partial Birth Abortions" are representative of a very small portion of the total number of abortions performed. If I can remember correctly, the highest number are performed before 12 weeks, and of that, most are performed before 8 weeks.

No, I don't "forget."
The quantity was not my point, the rationale was.

That's a highly obtuse statement.

I am tired of those who are pro-life being accused of being cold or callous, or lacking in empathy. It's just a distraction.
The fact is that I also feel empathy for the unborn child.
I have intimate experience with things that happen to women and choices they have to make. I have wept with more than one woman over things through which they have suffered. I know women who have had abortions and others who came close. I have had Liberal relatives advise me to abort my children.
None of that changes the fact that the child in the womb is a human being deserving the same Constitutional guarantees afforded you and I.

God bless us all.

 

[Asimov]

[/b]No, I don't "forget."
The quantity was not my point, the rationale was.

Well obviously the majority of people do not have that rationale since PBA are not representative of abortions in general...not to mention that they don't even occur at the 9 month period.

I am tired of those who are pro-life being accused of being cold or callous, or lacking in empathy. It's just a distraction.

When did I say that? It's highly obtuse to say that men want women to be able to have abortions so they can have as much sex as they want.

The fact is that I also feel empathy for the unborn child.

Great, so don't have abortions.

I have intimate experience with things that happen to women and choices they have to make. I have wept with more than one woman over things through which they have suffered. I know women who have had abortions and others who came close. I have had Liberal relatives advise me to abort my children.

Great, so don't have abortions.

None of that changes the fact that the child in the womb is a human being...

1: It's not a child.
2: It's not human until it's viable.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

If Roe v Wade is overturned, or if it remains intact, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

 

[nvxplorer]

Abortion is a great deal for secular men today! It means that they can have sex with lots of women without needing to necessarily care about them or worry about being held accountable. I know, I was there.

Not true. If the woman becomes pregnant and gives birth, the man is legally responsible for support.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Nonsense. Abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood have quotas of abortions to be performed each month. If a pregnant woman asks for counselling there, the "counselling" she will receive is for an abortion.

Bull!

source?

 

[blueapplepaste]

Are you seriously going to argue that sexual activity and promiscuity are not up tremendously since Roe v. Wade was decided? Seriously?

Are you suggesting that if Roe is over turned that sexual promiscuity will just plummit?

If Roe is overturned, all that will happen is back alley abortions, women in the hospital for botched back alley abortions, and unwanted children. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.

 

[Asimov]

If Roe v Wade is overturned, or if it remains intact, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

Neither will I, I live in Canada.

 

[Law of Loud]

Plain and simply, I can't support a position such as abortion. I look at the human fetus and from a biological standpoint, it's a human. Many of my friends enjoy drawing an arbitrary line at birth... where until that point it's not a human. But science disagrees quite distinctly on that matter... biologically, the fetus is a human from conception.

To say that simply because it is not "viable" it's not a human being is terribly inconsiderate logic. An individual in a coma isn't "viable", and yet for the most part we maintain life support in hopes that they regain conciousness. A child of one or two years of age clearly isn't viable. If I tossed it out in the backyard and left it there, it would die quickly enough. If I were to birth a baby via caesarean section two weeks before its normal birth date, it would suddenly be considered "viable" by this terminology. If I hadn't done this, it'd be another two weeks before the baby was considered "viable". Biologically, a human fetus is a human... and thus I'd like to see our rights extended to unborn humans.

-----

Unfortunately I don't see a ban on abortions as having a significant effect on something so widespread as abortions are today. Prohibition failed... the War on Drugs is actually as lost as the media made Vietnam out to be... and absolutely nothing suggests to me that a prohibition on abortions would solve this dilemna at all.

The only solution I see working is to provide real alternatives. Support for pregnant mothers, especially so that they can afford their medical care. Solid assurances that there child will be brought up well if they can't do it themselves. Strong birth control programs that try to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Competent counseling about the matter of abortion before they take the procedure.

These I can see winning a war on abortion... prohibition has a track record of failure.

 

[Asimov]

Biologically, a human fetus is a human... and thus I'd like to see our rights extended to unborn humans.

There are rights for fetuses. Unfortunately, since the facts show that most abortions occur before the fetus stage, your point is relatively moot since it is not representative of abortion in general.

 

[burrow_owl]

As I noted earlier, fetii don't have rights, they have protections (just like my cat - he has no rights, since rights accrue only to legal persons. He is protected from being killed, however, by animal cruelty statutes).

Re: fetii & the 14th amendment: never happen. Liberals won't agree to it, and conservatives are prevented from recognizing fetii as people by their originalist method (abortion was allowed when the 14th was passed; ergo, the authors of the 14th clearly didn't intend fetii to be counted among legal persons).

 

[nvxplorer]

As I noted earlier, fetii don't have rights, they have protections (just like my cat - he has no rights, since rights accrue only to legal persons. He is protected from being killed, however, by animal cruelty statutes).

Re: fetii & the 14th amendment: never happen. Liberals won't agree to it, and conservatives are prevented from recognizing fetii as people by their originalist method (abortion was allowed when the 14th was passed; ergo, the authors of the 14th clearly didn't intend fetii to be counted among legal persons).

These are excellent points, and they have been overlooked so far. Generally, if Roe is overturned, abortion law will return to the states. This could not happen if the unborn were constitutionally recognized as persons. Indeed, if the unborn were afforded the same rights as persons, there would be no need for abortion law. The action would be considered homocide. All existing law would pertain to the unborn as well.

It is the procedure of abortion that is being addressed by this and other anti-abortion laws, not the recognition of the unborn as fully protected persons.

 

[Prawnik]

An interesting point, Burrow Owl - and your overall conclusion is probably correct. However many conservatives, such as A. Scalia, have held that, in interpreting the Constitution, the only source that should be used is the Constitution itself. According to this school of thought, outside sources, for instance The Federalist Papers, are of at best limited value in constitutional analysis. This is something like when reading a contract, one tries to only use the words of the contract itself or those outside materials directly referenced int he contract.

Regardless, I know of no appreciable conservative base that argues that the 1789 (or 1868) understanding of the law as may have applied to personhood is forever binding, especially not in light of modern understanding of human biology and development.

 

[burrow_owl]

Generally, if Roe is overturned, abortion law will return to the states.

Not so much. Abortion law falls within the Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. In other words, if the feds wanna ban abortion, lock, stock & barrel, they can. If sued on federalism grounds, the decision upholding a federal ban writes itself: just take Raich (upholding a federal ban on medical marijuana from federalist objection) and substitute “abortion” for “drugs.”

However many conservatives, such as A. Scalia, have held that, in interpreting the Constitution, the only source that should be used is the Constitution itself.

Not so much. Scalia looks at the text, then if that isn’t clear he looks at original intent and all that good stuff. Since the text patently isn’t clear, he looks at the understanding of the term “citizen” at the time the 14th was passed. Since it’s quite clear that fetii weren’t considered legal people w/ rights at the time, he’s foreclosed from applying the amendment to fetii. By the same token, Scalia doesn't think the 14th bans gender discrimination, since there plenty of laws back then that discriminated based on gender. (if you think that’s a screwy method, join the club)

 

[angela 2]

Sensitivity is not usually something found in debate forums, and that is a sad fact. I agree we should all be more sensitive.

I have known women who have had abortions and most of them expressed regret, and some have found forgiveness while others are still struggling.

Also, could it be that the men are not intentionally being insensitive, but that simply by virtue of being a man empathy is completely impossible? Sympathy? Yes, that is something we are all capable of, and I'm not making excuses for anyone, but it is harder for someone to be ignorant of their insensivity whilst being far removed from any given situation.

I think the lack of responses stems from the male pride in linear, logical thinking. Under that set of rules, my post was neither linear nor sufficiently objective to be logical as men understand logic.

So even when I demonstrate that I can do male thinking just as well as any man, there is still no recognition of a woman's story or a woman's way of thinking. That's unfortunate because many men today advocate web thinking and the value of the story.

I have a story to tell that no one else here can tell. Yet it is ignored.

 

[arnegrim]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/06/fetal.html

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), which would create a separate penalty for anyone convicted of harming a fetus during commission of a federal crime. UVVA would give separate legal status to any fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, even if the woman is unaware that she is pregnant.

http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2001/fetalrights.html

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/keypointsuvva.html

 

[Asimov]

Re: fetii & the 14th amendment: never happen. Liberals won't agree to it, and conservatives are prevented from recognizing fetii as people by their originalist method (abortion was allowed when the 14th was passed; ergo, the authors of the 14th clearly didn't intend fetii to be counted among legal persons).

They aren't legal persons.

 

[k]

I think the lack of responses stems from the male pride in linear, logical thinking. Under that set of rules, my post was neither linear nor sufficiently objective to be logical as men understand logic.

So even when I demonstrate that I can do male thinking just as well as any man, there is still no recognition of a woman's story or a woman's way of thinking. That's unfortunate because many men today advocate web thinking and the value of the story.

I have a story to tell that no one else here can tell. Yet it is ignored.

All of that may be true, I am not sure one way or the other. Is it possible many men are really really uncomfortable talking about it empirically w/ a woman they do not know?

 

[k]

I'm burning ALL of my BRAS!!!