http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/22/abortion.anniversary.ap/index.html

Quote :

"33 years after Supreme Court ruling, abortion debate continues SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Thousands of abortion opponents shouldering signs with slogans such as "Peace Begins in the Womb" marched in protest of the 33-year-old Roe v. Wade decision, while abortion rights supporters along the march route waved clothes hangers and shouted "Bigots go home.""

"Now, now. Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything"
Farnsworth

Quote :

"The dueling protests -- marking Sunday's anniversary of the Supreme Court decision -- reflected growing tension at a time the makeup of the high court is about to change, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. "It's a crucial time," said abortion rights supporter Carol Norris, 43, who joined the protest in San Francisco, California, Saturday. "We have (Judge Samuel) Alito poised to be on the Supreme Court, and he's clearly an anti-choice person." ... The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, and abortion has been legal in the United States ever since. But efforts to restrict or outlaw the procedure have been just as enduring; 34 states have passed laws requiring parents either to be notified or to give consent when their underage daughters seek abortions. "Abortion rights have been slowly whittled away while we haven't even been looking," said Kitty Striker, 22, who decorated her hair with small coat hanger replicas for the protest. "That's what's so shocking and so scary to me." Many abortion opponents said they were heartened by President Bush's choice of Alito to replace O'Connor, a moderate who was often the court's swing vote. Alito's refusal during his confirmation hearings to agree with assertions by Democrats that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" upset abortion rights activists. "

How much should be decided by states, and whats Alito going to do?

[Edited on January 22, 2006 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2006 11:48:25 PM

and whats the meaning of life?

1/23/2006 12:17:18 AM

42

1/23/2006 12:26:20 AM

^get out now

1/23/2006 12:54:39 AM

I'm not particularly well versed in the arguments surrounding Roe vs Wade, but I don't see why it shouldn't be a state's rights issue.

1/23/2006 1:17:07 AM

saying something is "states' rights" does inherently protect any fundamental right. states' rights in the 60s was code for segregation.

roe v wade is based on an interpretation of the right to privacy which I find very desirable. plus sex without consequences is cool

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:33 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/23/2006 1:32:23 AM

Pro-choice or not, waving fucking clothes hangers around in this debate is detestable.

1/23/2006 1:37:09 AM

^um, how so?

you dont think backalley abortions will occur if they overturn roe v. wade?

1/23/2006 1:38:38 AM

back-alley abortions have been occurring for as long as women could get preggers

1/23/2006 1:40:08 AM

HOW DARE THEY EXPOSE PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH

1/23/2006 2:10:00 AM

Sure, keep abortion legal. People ought to be able to kill their unborn in doctor's offices like
civilized people. The mother should have the right to murder her child if it inconveniences her, why stop at birth... old people are inconvenient to...

1/23/2006 2:20:47 AM

Quote :

"you dont think backalley abortions will occur if they overturn roe v. wade?"

Sure, they will, but they will be fucking crimes.

When there's a death penalty rally from either side going on, you don't see people waving around guns, knives, and other alternatives.

1/23/2006 2:52:36 AM

Backalley abortions are already crimes aren't they?

What's not a crime is excessive drinking and smoking while pregnant, which can cause a stillbirth/miscarriage (a "natural" abortion).

And partial birth abortion (second and third trimesters) is already illegal too.

I don't know what else people want...

1/23/2006 3:04:42 AM

Quote :

"Peace Begins in the Womb"

I guess that going by that logic, war begins there too.

1/23/2006 7:59:46 AM

Quote :

""Abortion rights have been slowly whittled away while we haven't even been looking," said Kitty Striker, 22, who decorated her hair with small coat hanger replicas for the protest. "That's what's so shocking and so scary to me.""

So thats MORE scary and shocking than ripping unborn babys into little peices with a vacuum cleaner?


[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 8:37 AM. Reason : hmm]

1/23/2006 8:30:41 AM

OH BOY, I LOVE SEMANTICS

1/23/2006 9:27:44 AM

Quote :

"who decorated her hair with small coat hanger replicas for the protest"

1/23/2006 9:28:02 AM

If it gets overturned backalley abortions will skyrocket, no doubt.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 10:48:56 AM

we're the only advanced nation that still has this debate

all the others just let people do as they please in accordance with their morals, while people over here are borderline hysteric over the issue.

i mean, i personally think its a fucking brutal action, but i dont really care what one does with it. society isnt going to collapse b/c you up and decided one day you dont want a baby.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 11:00:07 AM

we're killin dem babies whether you like it or not. at least let them fetuses have some semblence of dignity when they die.

1/23/2006 11:00:47 AM

Quote :

"Judith Jarvis Thomson (born 1929) is an American moral philosopher and metaphysician. She is well-known for creative and enduring thought experiments. She attended Hunter College High School in New York City. One thought experiment for which she is especially well-known: Imagine waking up tomorrow to find that, while you were sleeping, a surgeon (unbeknownst to you) has surgically attached you to a famous violinist. You are now his only means of life support. How do you react? The case is meant to be analogous to pregnancy and is often taken to be support for the permissibility of abortion. However the argument she gives in favor of permitting abortion given in "A Defense of Abortion" (1971) is based on the premise that obligations arise only through contract, and thus a fetus has no rights unless the mother has agreed to those rights. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Jarvis_Thomson


Bah... I'll have to finish this post later... English test soon and me still don't does it right, do me? ~Meatwad

1/23/2006 11:06:16 AM

Quote :

"If it gets overturned backalley abortions will skyrocket, no doubt."

Not at all. If it gets overturned, bus ticket sales will skyrocket.
Live in Alabama and abortion is illegal? Why not drive to Florida? I'm sure "women's choice" organizations will organize transportation for those unable to afford the trip themselves.

1/23/2006 11:11:30 AM

^aha, but remember last time we tried busing people around the country to take care of something dealing with a very sensitive issue?

i wouldnt put it past western sc to bomb some "abortion riders".

1/23/2006 12:49:05 PM

Judith Thomson is a dumb cunt, not to put too fine a point on it.

Going to sleep does not carry with it the reasonable consequence of having someone attached to you. Having sex, however, does carry the reasonable consequence of pregnancy.

1/23/2006 1:02:40 PM

WE'RE GONNA SOLVE THIS ABORTION ISSUE ON THIS THREAD!

JUST YOU WAIT!

1/23/2006 1:08:13 PM

^^Define "reasonable consequence".

1/23/2006 1:18:22 PM

Judith gives a pretty good argument imo for thinking that if someone was attached to you unwittingly, that it wouldn't be immoral to unplug them. And I'll even buy that obligations come from contracts... but I think actions can sometimes constitute a contract (such as shaking hands).

A contract without informed consent is nothing though. I certainly wouldn’t hold a mentally incapable person in a morally irresponsible light for getting pregnant and having an abortion. Does consensual sex imply consent to the consequences?

"roe v wade is based on an interpretation of the right to privacy which I find very desirable."

Its been a while since I've looked at text relating to roe v wade... can someone lay out the privacy argument?

1/23/2006 1:28:41 PM

If you knew a baby could be a result of sex, then yes, the results were lawfully agreed upon.

A better metaphore:
a doctor offers to make you pretty and feel really good, but in doing so he might end up grafting another human being to you for 9-months. You agree to the procedure, for whatever reason, then get angry at the world because you lost the gamble.

I am in favor of abortion rights, BTW. I just don't see any ground for arguing the baby was forced upon the women without contractual consent.

1/23/2006 2:01:15 PM

Im assuming all of the pro-life arguments on this page are not considering a girl getting raped...

I wonder one thing: If you are pro-life, than you most likely feel that an abortion is murder. So by that theory, a mother that is willing to have an abortion is now a murderer, or at least a would be murderer if allowed. So essentially one is advocating that children should be born to parents that will probably neither be good parents, nor want their children.

1/23/2006 2:44:46 PM

Are you just realizing that?

Secondly, it must be pointed out, that pro-life people are also in favor of existing abandonment laws. I was at the hospital recently and read a sign proclaiming that "any mother can lawfully abandon their baby to any adult until seven days after delivery." It was phrased differently, but we joked that all babies born in North Carolina come with a seven day return policy.

1/23/2006 3:41:51 PM

Im not just realizing it, I just haven't ever heard a really decent argument against it...

1/23/2006 3:53:28 PM

Quote :

"Im assuming all of the pro-life arguments on this page are not considering a girl getting raped..."

First, we should keep in mind this accounts for at most 1% of all abortions in the US.

Can't speak for everybody, but I certainly do not consider rape an exemption. Why should the baby be held responsible for the evil act of his father? Of course it is extremely sad that this might happen to some woman, but it is even worse to turn around and say that the innocent child should die simply because he/she is the result of an evil act.

Only in the case where the mother's life is in jeapordy do I consider it an option, and even then
it ought to be an absolute last resort. Anyway, abortion has always been legal in this case, even
before Roe vs. Wade, at the present these make up around 1% of all abortions. By in large people
have abortion because they view having the child as inconvenient.

Quote :

"I wonder one thing: If you are pro-life, than you most likely feel that an abortion is murder. So by that theory, a mother that is willing to have an abortion is now a murderer, or at least a would be murderer if allowed. So essentially one is advocating that children should be born to parents that will probably neither be good parents, nor want their children."

Of course we think it is murder, that is and has been the point all along. Now is it the case that
a parent(s) would would seek to abort their child is likely not a good parent? Of course (although I'm sure some sufficiently militant feminists would disagree). So let's understand the logic here,

1. the child will have a bad life because of the unfit parents.
2. we should kill it.

Again, by this type of reasoning I can argue that many of the old, mentally retarded,... should
be killed because their quality of life is not good. Clearly this is morally repugnant.

Anyway, we are not arguing that children should have bad-parents, we're arguing that the children should get the chance to live at all. If the parents are unwilling to raise the child then they ought to
give it up for adoption.

Finally, as a last point this should be an issue decided by the states. It is hillarious to hear
social liberals claiming that reversing Roe vs. Wade is now somehow activist. It is Roe. vs. Wade which was activist, it effectively legislated what could likely never have been passed by public approval. I hope that the supreme court will finally give back some of the power is has stolen
from the states.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 8:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 8:14:26 PM

hey, can you buy things in china?

1/23/2006 8:48:29 PM

Quote :

"It is Roe. vs. WadeBrown vs. Board of Education which was activist, it effectively legislated what could likely never have been passed by public approval. I hope that the supreme court will finally give back some of the power is has stolen from the states."

1/23/2006 8:51:13 PM

Quote :

"When there's a death penalty rally from either side going on, you don't see people waving around guns, knives, and other alternatives."

thats a great idea! im bringing my rifle to the next one of those protests i see!

1/23/2006 9:17:50 PM

will someone more versed in religious text comment on the fate of a baby born of rape, premarital sex, or some other sins? or is there any?

1/23/2006 9:21:22 PM

The problem I have is that government funds are used to pay for abortions. Let Roe/Wade stand, but cut the funding for the clinics/procedures. I cannot understand why anyone would oppose that. If women want the right to choose, let them pay for it.

1/23/2006 9:40:35 PM

i don't know the reasons, but i can atleast imagine some justifications. if a fetus is considered morally insignificant, then it could just be gov aid for expensive medical operations. maybe its a buffer zone, with the idea that abortion opponents will fight through the easier to fight through stuff before they can take down abortion itself. maybe its a numbers game, where prevention beforehand costs less than treatment afterhand. maybe its a balancing issue, the government gives money for prostate cancer research here, so they give womens issue aid there. maybe its a sympathy issue, a women is already going through a tough time if they are dealing with this, maybe gov can help out its people. maybe its an issue that can earn democrats votes, and there is enough push for it that it was democratically voted on to spend gov money in this way.

i don't know the exact reason, but i can understand that there might be legitimate and compelling reasons why the government funds a medical procedure they deem legal.

1/23/2006 10:06:33 PM

if roe v wade is overturned, the next president will be democratic

you can just butcher the republicans for screwing with women's healthcare

1/23/2006 10:13:42 PM

Why should I (the taxpayer) be forced to pay for a woman's choice? Why can't she pay for it herself?

1/24/2006 12:31:02 AM

why should bill gates pay for the nations defense, when he could probably defend himself without paying to defend others.

1/24/2006 12:35:31 AM

The military benefits everyone (as it protects everyone). How does the public paying for a woman's choice benefit anyone? And why should I be forced to foot the bill for someone else's poor decisionmaking?

1/24/2006 12:43:57 AM

health care protects everyone... only specific military or policemen are the actual ones that do you any good.

womens health care, and protostar prostate care might only help men, but healthcare as a whole protects everyone. (and prevention might be cheaper than treatment, so it could save money)

1/24/2006 12:49:12 AM

Prostate cancer isn't preventable. Pregnancy is. Pregnancy results from an act. We all know what that act is. Why should I (the taxpayer) be forced to pay for someone else's poor decision making (because having sex is a decision on the part of the woman). Furthermore, healthcare is not a RIGHT and I should not be forced to pay for someone elses living expenses. Healthcare does benefit those, who can afford it. If you can't afford it, then you don't get it. You don't go stealing from others in the form of taxes.

1/24/2006 12:54:26 AM

well i certainly see lots of commercials saying get your prostate checked as preventive care.

but it seems like its all judgements calls. a rich person pays alot of your defense, for your public education, for your roads... why should they be forced to pay for your stuff? whether you wanna throw healthcare in there or not is a judgement call.

(i'm just imagining arguments off the top of my head, not defending my own positions... but before I carry own when you say "RIGHT" do you mean in a legal sense or a moral sense?)

1/24/2006 1:03:18 AM

Quote :

"Im assuming all of the pro-life arguments on this page are not considering a girl getting raped..."

what a fucking tool. really, we should make legislation for the common case based on the extreme case. why havent you heard a decent argument against it? because no one with any intelligence is fucking stupid enough to raise that as a valid argument. Show me numbers of billions of women getting raped and pregnant and "needing abortions," and then we'll talk about rape and abortion in the same fucking sentence

1/25/2006 2:45:32 AM

1) Abortions will continue to happen whether or not it's legal
2) It's her body, it should be her choice. I don't see anywhere in the bible where it says "Thou shalt not abort thy fetus". not to be mean... but there are plenty of reasons it should be legal... but more importantly it's the reasons we can't think of yet that it's there for.
3) Alito i believe will do a fair job. I don't see him reversing the decision.

1/25/2006 8:06:14 AM

well if life begins at conception, thou shall not kill covers it.

1/25/2006 8:51:00 AM

I've never understood the rape exception: if you think abortion is murder why would you think it is not immoral to kill a rapist's future child?

1/25/2006 9:37:30 AM

Quote :

""Judith Jarvis Thomson (born 1929) is an American moral philosopher and metaphysician. She is well-known for creative and enduring thought experiments. She attended Hunter College High School in New York City. One thought experiment for which she is especially well-known: Imagine waking up tomorrow to find that, while you were sleeping, a surgeon (unbeknownst to you) has surgically attached you to a famous violinist. You are now his only means of life support. How do you react? The case is meant to be analogous to pregnancy and is often taken to be support for the permissibility of abortion. However the argument she gives in favor of permitting abortion given in "A Defense of Abortion" (1971) is based on the premise that obligations arise only through contract, and thus a fetus has no rights unless the mother has agreed to those rights. "

I don't know how well her argument holds for voluntary sexual interaction because that may constitute a contract through action, but I think she makes a pretty good case for not having to keep someone attached in involuntary situations.

Removing someone who needs you to live that you agreed to keep there would be more like murder, where as removing someone that you had no contract with & no fault in their being there is more like not sending your paycheck to feed a starving kid you saw on a commercial.

In both cases the death is sad, but only in one case could you have a high obligation to the specific child where depravation would be murder.

Or atleast I think thats how a exception-for-rape believing person would put it.

[Edited on January 25, 2006 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

1/25/2006 10:12:45 AM