It's really simple: IF YOU DO NOT LIKE ABORTION....

[Hepburn]

...DON'T HAVE ONE.

Sheeeeeeesh...

[Cerridwen]

1. K & R

Yep. That simple.

[Hepburn]

2. Thank you....

...I do not understand and simply have never understood the debate on this issue.

[Cerridwen]

3. You're welcome.

I actually do understand why there is a debate. For now I'm just keeping it this simple. :D

[Hepburn]

4. I can understand a "personal" debate a woman could have with herself on this issue...

...but I do not understand why people feel they have any right to stick their noses in someone's womb.

:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

7. Staying with the "keeping it simple theme," I would use one word...

authoritarian(ism).

[bobbolink]

76. How about people sticking their nose in other peoples menus?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6876163

Same process, different content.

Until we begin to look at how WE do this, nothing will ever change.

[MH1]

262. Big difference between banning something completely -

what the forced-birthers want - vs. not subsidizing bad choices.

I don't think anyone's talking about banning carbonated sugar water, except maybe from elementary schools, but there's no reason taxpayers should subsidize its consumption. At any rate, refusing to subsidize something, or even taxing it, is NOT the same as banning it entirely.

[Name removed]

289. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

291. It's simply paranoid to accuse a person of "controlling" by withholding subsidies

which is what the thread you linked to is about.

And you might want to step back and think about the amount of influence you will have with people who you attack and insult.

[Name removed]

293. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

303. Keep name calling. You will win lots of support for your (ostensible) cause that way.

[uppityperson]

307. I didn't know that poster had anyone left they weren't ignoring for challening name calling

congratulations!

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

304. And to add, because apparently I wasn't clear enough

I find it rather offensive for the harm caused by anti-abortion laws, to be compared to the harm that might be caused by making sodas (or any other quasi-food alternative) slightly less accessible.

If someone dies from not having access to soda because food stamps didn't cover it, they had a rather serious other health problem that needed to be dealt with. But people fucking DIE from lack of access to abortion.

Comparing the two isn't cute in the slightest.

[bobbolink]

315. It's cute to be obtuse.

It's the same PROCESS, not the same content.

Surely you can grasp that.

You are as self-righteous about your stand as are the RWers.

[Nederland]

321. They feel they have the right...

...to stick their noses in someone's womb because they believe there is a person with rights in there.

I disagree with them, but that is what they believe, and I don't think it's hard to understand at all.

[Romulox]

351. Same right YOU have to tell people what they can put in their lungs or veins...

When we talk about abortion, we pretend we're not a semi-authoritarian society with the highest rate of incarceration in human history, I guess. :shrug:

[RyboSlybo]

357. Exactly! How many times have a read a post from someone here supporting a total ban of tobacco???

You say it's my body my choice, I agree...

Too bad there are many of you who are total hypocrites when comes to such issues as smoking.

If you don't like tobacco don't smoke or chew... that simple right?

But my 2nd hand smoke kills other lives?

Well what does abortion do, I'm one who believes a child in a womb is a life even though I am pro-choice I'm not that fucking ignorant.

[Warren DeMontague]

366. How many times have I seen someone call for a "total ban" of tobacco? Maybe once.

That is NOT the same as supporting reasonable regulations on smoking in indoor, public spaces.

Oh, yeah, I know, there's NO DIFFERENCE between having to step out of the restaurant, to the sidewalk, to light a cigarette and TOTAL ANTI-CIGARETTE FASCISM! :eyes:

Regulating where people can smoke is not the same thing as a "total ban" on tobacco. You can't get an abortion inside bars and restaurants, either.

[Rebubula]

5. So...

...I guess if I do not like slavery - I should avoid owning slaves?

As much as I support abortion rights (spent many years doing Clinic Defense in Washington DC) - this argument is not effective. To many of the people that abhor abortion, they view abortion as murder. It is a very deep (and misguided in my opinion) and passionate feeling.

[Cerridwen]

9. With the people to whom you refer, no message will be effective.

Why waste energy on them?

Keep it simple for the rest. It tends to be a good starting point.

[Hepburn]

10. Abortion is NOT murder...period.

Slavery on, the other hand, is slavery. Your comparisons are off, IMO.

[Deja Q]

20. Slavery is murder of the soul.

[Chan790]

95. While I agree with you...

that truth is by no means anything that will ever be an accepted universal truth.

Reality is not grounds for objective moral truth, you've still got to prove that the other person's argument based in something other than reality is untrue. (It's all very Through the Looking Glass at times.) That is, you can't say "Abortion is not murder", you've actually got to prove it and I don't mean by legal citation as they don't respect the validity of the underlying law. As well, science is reason and reason is subject to faith, in their eyes. You've got to prove it on their own turf.

As strongly as you and I feel that it is not murder, I have seen the enemy and to him/her/them, abortion is as solidly factually murder as gunning down the paperboy. Hell, condom use, IUDs and contraceptive pills are as solidly factually murder as paperboy homicide to some of them. They'd see the slavery comparison as most astute.

A lesson learned as a parliamentary debater in college: If you cant win an argument on the other person's "facts"...you can't win the argument at all. We are not winning in case you had not noticed. It's because we cloister behind things like arguments that "Abortion is not murder." and never defend those statements because we think they are universally self-evident; they're not...there are at-least 4 and possibly 5 people on the SCOTUS who disagree.

[Scout]

13. if the slaves are in your uterus you can own them, i got no problems with that.

there are NO direct analogies to abortion/forced pregnancy.

[Viking12]

14. Faulty analogy.

If I have to explain why, you probably wouldn't anyway.

[Rebubula]

116. Actually...

...the analogy (to those that are opposed to abortion) is quite apt. You just need to view in the time of slavery.

In the 1800s, slavery was legal and widespread. Millions of people justly fought to outlaw slavery. A slave owner could have also responded - 'Do not like slaves - do not have one'.

Millions of people also fight to outlaw abortion because they believe that is it murder and no brush off response will be effective.

It is a comparable analogy whether you agree or not.

Now...I am fully prochoice and have fought for many years to maintain the freedom and access to all options for pregnant women. I have fought as a clinic defender in DC (keep patients away from protesters like Operation Rescue) and helped found the University of MD Pro-Choice Advocacy back in the late 80s. I have debated with these idiots for years and I know how they think and I know how deeply they believe their bullshit. You cannot expect to win with the 'don't have one' line.

Peace

[Viking12]

132. Just because they believe the analogy doesn't make it logically sound

The better analogy is that if abortions are outlawed, women would be the equivalent of slaves in that neither has control over their own bodies.

[Zoeisright]

138. +1

The slave analogy is completely ridiculous.

[shimmergal]

372. Not so...

Unwilling pregnancy IS involuntary servitude.

Any "pro-lifer" who's working to fund research into an effective uterine replicator (device for bringing a healthy baby to term outside the womb), or method for transplant of a fetus into a willing surrogate mother's uterus, I can respect. The others, who're willing to ignore what illegalizing abortion implies for women's bodily integrity -- not to mention in some cases, their very survival -- just DON'T GET IT.

[Rebubula]

144. We agree...

...just not on my wording.

My analogy is based on the OPs premise and is logical. Your analogy is apt - but not for this conversation.

I have no beef with you or the OP...I am just pointing out that brush off statements do nothing to the debate...and I LOVE debating anti-abortion people. Verbal jousting is one of my favorite past times...especially with people that are using emotion and ancient texts as opposed to logic and fact.

Lastly - logic...one man's logic is another man's lunacy.

Peace

[noiretextatique]

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur

Copyright © September, 2000

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers." (Physician, Australia)

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

"In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the 'antis' by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular 'sidewalk counselor' went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter's situation had caused her to change her mind. 'I don't expect you to understand my daughter's situation!' she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to 'murder their babies.'" (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

[Hepburn]

36. What a shock....

...NOT.

Like I said ~~ if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

[TicketyBoo]

55. My, that article is certainly

a rebuttal of the OP's point of view. It's not quite that simple, unfortunately.

It is a very complex issue, and, as I said in another thread, nobody can put themselves in anyone else's shoes, and, truly, even those who are 100% anti-abortion cannot say for certain what they would do in a given set of circumstances.

That article is just proof of it.

[noiretextatique]

60. it's proof that they are complete hypocrites

that's what it proves.

[TicketyBoo]

91. Very true.

And the only ones who aren't hypocrites are those who are fortunate enough not to have been put in the specific circumstances that make it necessary "just this once."

That is my firm belief.

[barbtries]

93. breathtaking hypocrisy

and it's not limited to this issue by any means.

[rd_kent]

129. Hypocrisy is the norm with these people.

[MichiganVote]

22. its illegal to have slaves. Its not illegal to have an abortion-yet.

Your comparison has a false premise.

[jinto86]

101. So when it was legal to have slaves it was totally alright?

Arguing on the basis of the law doesn't make much sense to me...

[MichiganVote]

193. Yeah...I get the idea that the law doesn't mean much to you.

[jinto86]

195. I get that the law isn't always right

So therefore it follows that legality isn't always a good place to argue from. Are honor killings a moral thing where they are legal?

[MichiganVote]

310. Honor killings are the spawn of the same moralistic thinking that brought on the Pro=Anti Lifers

for anyone but women.

Don't want abortions?

Don't The Fuck Have One...

Because an honor killing and mandating women have babies when they don't want or won't care for ...is based on the same reasoning.

For now, it is the law. Women can seek abortions. Deal with it.

[Roland99]

34. If I don't like war, don't wage it.

If I don't like guns, don't buy one.


Similar logic at work there, too.


The OP is faulty logic. The "pro-life" people are fighting for something more fundamental to their belief system. Much like we're against waging war for imperialistic purposes (but they're for it). It's not a matter of simply "opting out" in their eyes.

[Hepburn]

37. The only faulty logic around here is YOURS.

Duh.....:eyes:

[Roland99]

50. Wow...what a well thought out rebuttal.

NOT.

[Hepburn]

103. Hint....

...you got what you deserved. Guess I aimed it low enough for you to get?

:eyes:

[Cassandra]

39. Where in their belief system is anything written...

about abortion?
This is a relatively recent "official belief".

[Roland99]

51. Say what? Conservatives have been against abortion since before Roe v. Wade

Why do think Roe v. Wade was such a hard-fought case??

[Cassandra]

54. How much before?

2000 years? I didn't think so.
I meant "relatively recent" in the context of scripture.

[Roland99]

61. I wasn't aware there were conservatives in the U.S. 2000 years ago.

I guess some Native Americans might have been considered "conservative" in accordance to their own culture but, uh, I'm also willing to guess that there weren't much in the way of abortion laws in Native American culture.

As for the U.S., women have been prosecuted for abortions for about 350 years.

[Cassandra]

63. I'm trying to point out that it's a misogynist viewpoint...

rather than a belief actually written in the Bible. Also, it is my understanding that abortion was technically legal in the early years of the USA but was banned because abortion was considered too dangerous (and doctors may have wanted any business going their way).

[Roland99]

64. There are plenty of conservative women (dare I say all?) that are anti-abortion

Conservative males don't have a monopoly on that issue.

[Cassandra]

66. And their pastors/priests...

are all male.

[Roland99]

67. Which means what exactly? I seem to have not read something into the OP that you did.

[Cassandra]

68. I wasn't responding to the OP, originally...

but to your post where you spoke about abortion being against people's beliefs. What is the foundation of that belief, exactly?

[Roland99]

69. A fundamental belief that life is sacred.

You'd have to ask them how they justify it but it's plain as day that they use that as a fundamental part of their beliefs. Look at the Schiavo case even.

[Cassandra]

72. Life starting when?

It varies even within a religion. Catholics didn't always believe that the soul entered the body at conception, for example.

[bobbolink]

79. ?

You really don't know there are women conservative pastors?

And women conservative Episcopal priests?

[Shell Beau]

111. No, actually I know many women who are conservative, but this is

where they part ways with the republican party.

[D23MIURG23]

99. Just because freedom is against their religion doesn't mean we have to condone thier point of view.

[Roland99]

358. Never said you did. Was merely pointing out the logic fault in the OP.

It's just not as simple as the OP would like it to be.

[Zoeisright]

141. The issue is privacy.

That's what 'pro-life' people don't understand.

The OP is not faulty logic. It's nobody's business what a woman chooses to do with her body, what medical procedures she wants or needs to undergo, and how she wants to live her life.

All of those other 'comparisons' you state involve actual people who are outside the womb. That's why YOUR comparisons are false.

[Roland99]

359. Again, it's not as simple as that.

What if the father in the situation wants to keep the baby? The woman wins out every time? What if the female is a minor? The parents would have to be notified given that it's a medical procedure, right?

It's just not such a black-and-white issue in this case.


But, again, the OP was using faulty logic in her criticism of opponents of abortion. It's not that simple for opponents to just not have one and be fine with it. It's something much more fundamental to their beliefs and ideology.

[TicketyBoo]

367. In my opinion

the father has no say. It is the woman's body. It is her womb, and her decision.

If the father wanted a say, he should have found a woman to impregnate who was willing to carry to term so that it was a mutual decision.

No mutual decision prior to conception, then no say.

[Roland99]

369. Which you may find fine and dandy but flip it around...

The man wants nothing to do with the baby, wants the woman to abort it, but she doesn't and eventually sues for child support (for 18 years).


The man has no say, eh?


Not quite.

[TicketyBoo]

370. Right.

If he didn't want a child and the responsibility thereof, he should have gone elsewhere for sex.

Once a man opts to have sex with a woman, he is responsible for the child of a resulting pregnancy, but he has no right to tell her what to do with her own body, whichever way she decides.

So, act responsibly if you're worried about this particular situation. Don't get her pregnant in the first place.

I have a son in his early 20s, so don't think I haven't thought about this a lot. (We've had a few talks about it, too.)

[Roland99]

371. I knew your answer was going there. You want your cake and to eat it, too

Doesn't work that way.

[TicketyBoo]

374. Where else would it go?

The day men can have babies, that's when they can decide what to do with their bodies as far as carrying a baby to term is concerned. Meanwhile, don't be trying to tell a woman what she can (or cannot) do with hers.

Right now, the say men do have is what to do (or not do) with their sperm. Don't be casting it about if you don't intend to become a father.

[Roland99]

375. That's just it!! You're not listening!

What if the man wants to be a father but the woman changes her mind?

Or what if the woman says she's on birth control or had a tubal ligation or had a hysterectomy and winds up pregnant after all?

The courts have taken all this into consideration as well.

Yes, it's a woman's body, but it's not just a simple matter of black-and-white like you want it to be.

[TicketyBoo]

380. Yes, it is.

Woman's body; woman's right.

Don't expect to have sex with no repercussions. (The same advice goes to women, by the way.)

If a woman misleads a man into a pregnancy, that is too bad for the man, but it's still her decision (but still his responsibility; it takes two to tango).

Sex isn't a ride on a merry-go-round. It doesn't necessarily stop when the ride is over.

[superduperfarleft]

41. I agree. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Personally, I see no need to accept their POV on that

Granting their position, and then trying to argue around the edges accomplishes their purpose, and leaves too many women in a precarious position, health-wise.

They're free to feel whatever they like about abortion. As a matter of public policy, however, they should never be free to interfere in a woman's personal, private decision about her own medical needs and treatment.

[HughMoran]

48. Like you said - it's misguided

...thus making your analogy irrelevant.

[NYC Liberal]

105. Abortion does not harm another person

Slavery does.

And if they argue that a fetus is a person, they are wrong. Point blank.

[jinto86]

112. "They are wrong" won't work

Like I said before what if I believe a 2 week old isn't a person... I mean after all a dog is smarter, does that make me right? It all comes down to what you believe.

[NYC Liberal]

191. Sure it does.

It might not work as well as a persuasive argument with a person who believes in banning abortion with absolutely no exceptions.

It will, however, work with the majority of anti-choicers who think abortion is murder and want to ban it, but support exceptions for things like rape and incest. Then, the question arises as to why, if abortion is murder, it is alright in the case of rape. A fetus is a fetus, a baby is a baby. The fact that it was conceived through forced as opposed to consensual sex doesn't change the biology of it. Why then is "murder" ok in that case?

[cark]

118. Helping You Buy A Slave

I think abortion is wrong(especially late term) and would never choose to have one and would hope no other person would either. The problem is that the government would be taking my money to do something I find abhorant and immoral. It is equal (morally IMO) to asking me to help you buy a slave.

[Lars39]

120. The vast majority of late term abortions are done for medical reasons

that are frankly none of your or my business.

[cark]

121. None of my business

Then don't ask me to pick up the tab.

[Lars39]

122. Do we get the say over whether or not you get heart stents?

No,because it is a medical procedure. And by the way, if you have health insurance right now you are probably "picking up the tab" for abortions, too. Probably also paying for someone else's drug rehab program. And the biggie? You're taxes are going for the biggest war machine the world has ever seen....also killing babies.

[jinto86]

123. When abortion is about a woman's body its a cosmetic procedure

So you can feel free not to pay for my (theortical) face lift too.

[uppityperson]

226. Damn those uppity women for not wanting to rot in the ground! "cosmetic" indeed!

If she really didn't care about how she looked, she wouldn't mind dying and letting worms eat her face!

Yes, abortion is about a woman's body. If she lives or dies is the structure of vast majority of late term abortions.

[jinto86]

228. Okay then women should be able to get abortions if their life is at stake

Thats what a few % of abortions.

[Zoeisright]

143. LOL!!!

Wow, what a stunning grasp of logic!

NOT.

[uppityperson]

223. Don't ask you to chip in to save a woman's life? OK.

[jinto86]

225. What % of abortions are done to save a womans life?

[jinto86]

124. Like aborting Down's kids?

Being on the autism spectrum and knowing how close they are to a prenatal test there, or at least claim to be... I hate the thought of eugenics... can that be my business then? Or is a genocide still none of my business?

[Lars39]

125. If that's the pregnant woman's choice, yes, it's none of your business.

[jinto86]

128. Killing a viable human life because its disabled...

Is none of my business... nice.

[Lars39]

130. Her choice.

Are you going to wave your magic wand and take the risk of pregnancy and childbirth away for her? Raise the special needs child for her?

[jinto86]

131. I actually plan to adopt a special needs kid (or more) when I get to a fincial place I can

Though I agree if the womans life is on the line abortion can be a viable alternative, though really what is the risk of a normal pregnancy compared to a late trimester abortion? Is it really that much riskier in general? I have a friend who homebirthed two special needs kids... doesn't seem to be that risky to me.

[Lars39]

134. The vast majority of late term abortions are done for medical reasons.

It's not women who go 7-8 months and say to hell with this! There are medical reasons. These reasons are none of our business. All pregnancy and childbirth carry the risks of permenent injury or death. Every single one.

[jinto86]

137. What % are done for eugenic purposes?

[Lars39]

139. I don't know...don't care.

It is the woman's choice.

[jinto86]

142. LOL Sounds like your afraid

Isn't one group of people (neurotypicals for example) preventing births of another group of people (disabled for example) technically genocide? :Checks the genocide convention: looks like it.

[Zoeisright]

145. These aren't 'groups' of people preventing births.

It's one woman making a decision about HER body. That is none of your business.

And it's spelled 'you're', not 'your'.

[Lars39]

146. An individual woman is not a group.

[jinto86]

147. So if its one person doing it, it is okay

If 100 do it, it is evil. But who cares anyway... its not a human life is it?

[Lars39]

149. You really don't care one way or the other...you just want a chance

to accuse any woman making the choice to abort as being a murderer. Couching it in terms of eugenics is very disingenuous.

[jinto86]

150. I just want kids like me to have a chance to live

considering the rate of aborting Down's kids and even spina bifida kids... I don't see it happening.

[Lars39]

153. Pregnancy has to be voluntary because of the risks involved and bodily changes.

[jinto86]

155. Then can we at least get rid of prenatal testing?

A lot less eugenic abortions then.

[Lars39]

156. You do want the woman and her medical team to be fully informed, yes?

[jinto86]

157. Not if it leads to eugenics and genocide like conditions

Like I said I want kids like me to have a shot at life... I consider that more worthy then any other danger at stake here.

[Lars39]

159. You don't really see women as thinking, breathing entities with their

own hopes, dreams and rights, then, ie fully human.

[jinto86]

161. I consider a viable baby the exact same way... I don't think one person has a right to kill another

[Lars39]

165. Viable does not always equal a live birth, though.

The rights of the mother should still take precedence. She is the host. For the pregnancy to continue, she must be willing.

[jinto86]

166. I guess I just hate eugenics too much...

Too bad I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Lars39]

168. You're conflating the choices of individual women, making them

comparable to an organized group of people....you need to educate yourself a bit more on the subject.

[jinto86]

172. Its still eugenics even if it just one person

And when its 90+% of people doing it, its even scarier.

[Lars39]

173. Er, no. It is a woman making a choice of how she wants to live her life.

[jinto86]

176. So killing a human because its disabled is okay?

Thats sick... almost makes me want to say "Seig Heil"... but I am too nice anymore... damnit.

[Lars39]

178. Forced pregnancies are so nice. Seig Heil my ass,mister.

[jinto86]

180. Your the one arguing that its okay to kill a viable human life because its disabled

Is it too much to ask that if you want to abort your baby you do it in the first 6 months?

[Lars39]

182. Viable does not always mean even rudimentary quality of life.

I'm guessing you're a male....'bout 20 years old, if that.

[jinto86]

184. Neither does born

Does that mean we can start killing off kids that are less then 3 weeks old. I mean a dog has as much capacity as they do.

[noiretextatique]

171. you will never have to make the decision to have an abortion or not, right?

why do you think your beliefs should determine whether a woman has an abortion or not, given that you will never have to make that decision?

[jinto86]

175. I believe a fetus in the last trimester is a human life

At least just as much as I believe a 2 week old is, I don't care if its disabled or not.

[noiretextatique]

183. if the fetus in the last trimester is endangering the mother's life

and if the doctor of the actual, viable woman who is carrying the fetus recommends an abortion, TO SAVE HER LIFE, do you think your "beliefs" should determine whether she lives or dies?

[jinto86]

185. I already said that if its the moms life at stake I am totally okay with abortions

But when its not that case I don't believe that abortions of viable babies should be allowed. Being autistic I think I should get some say, just knowing the rates of abortions for disabled kids.

[noiretextatique]

186. you have never had an abortion, and never will have to face that decision

your beliefs are therefore irrelevant. but, you should think about why you feel that your beliefs should determine what other people are allowed to do. that's not a liberal position, and of course, this is a liberal site.

[jinto86]

188. My believes on eugenics are irrelevant

Nice to know. I think caring for the rights of disabled people to live and exist is far more liberal then any other cause being discussed here.

[PeaceNikki]

253. Your belief that abortion = eugenics is IMAGINARY.

[jinto86]

256. Aborting a disabled kid... because they are disabled... is textbook eugenics...

[PeaceNikki]

275. What percentage of abortions performed is due to disability?

[jinto86]

278. No clue, and any stat I find you would consider faulty

Planned Parenthood doesn't care about the why.

[PeaceNikki]

347. No. Eugenics is collectivist. You're accusing women of a massive conspiracy to weed out the disabled

That's quite a leap there, Spartacus.

[Warren DeMontague]

326. You do get "some say". Next time you're pregnant, it's your call.

If the pregnancy isn't inside YOUR body, however, it's not any of your god-damn business.

Period. End of story.

[uppityperson]

229. "kids like me". THAT explains a lot. Thank you for letting us know.

[jinto86]

231. Yea disabled kids, the kind that get aborted majority of the time its known about.

[uppityperson]

243. Reputable link to prove that.

[jinto86]

246. Hard to know again what you would consider reputable

But lets try this article out. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/65500197/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Talked about in the wiki page of Down's if you want to know about it. Says 92% of the time Down's kids are aborted... nice...

[uppityperson]

249. How about a link that works, not a "cookie error" link?

[PeaceNikki]

255. Did you read the sources behind that United Kingdom stat?

[jinto86]

258. Well Planned Parenthood doesn't want to know

So they don't do much research. Tell you what find a rate less they what they found and I will go with that.

[PeaceNikki]

260. You're full of shit.

[PeaceNikki]

264. Here you go. Read what you post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6875989&mesg_id=6886246

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/12/changing_attitudes.html
Since the documentary was broadcast these questions have become a matter of fierce debate, with some of the medical experts and statisticians as well as some journalists challenging these hypotheses. One issue they have raised is that there has been an increase in the number of older mothers with a higher risk factor for Down's Syndrome during this period. They argue that the rising trend is therefore predictable and without prenatal screening it would be significantly higher. They also state that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.

To shed more light on this, we need to look at the data in more detail. Bear with me because things are about to get more complex.
The figures are published annually by the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register run by Joan Morris who is Professor of Medical Statistics at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London. Follow this link and look at Table 7 on Page 8 of the latest report for 2006. The table shows that in 1989 there were 1033 diagnoses of Down's Syndrome in total, of which only 30% approximately (318) were prenatal. There were 717 live births and 290 terminations that year. In 2006 there were 1877 diagnoses, of which approximately 60% or 1132 were prenatal, leading to 749 live births and 767 terminations.

So: in 1989 there were 318 prenatal diagnoses and 290 terminations; in 2006 there were 1132 prenatal diagnoses and 767 terminations. On the face of it, the proportion for those choosing to terminate after a prenatal diagnosis in 2006 doesn't look anything like the 92% figure.
But - and it is an important but - the 2006 figures also reveal that in that year there were 293 cases of "Unknown Outcome" - a figure that has also been rising over the years. If a high proportion of these were in fact terminations then the 92% figure starts to look accurate.

Last week I contacted Professor Morris to ask about this. She said: "To obtain the true proportion of women who decide to terminate their pregnancy we had to analyse a subset of the data from cytogenetic laboratories for whom we had excellent follow-up (in other words areas of the country in which we had extremely few unknown outcomes). In these laboratories we found that 92% of prenatal diagnoses were terminated." A footnote to the published tables also states that: "A large proportion of the missing outcomes are from one single large private cytogenetic laboratory in London, which analyses samples from women throughout the South East of England."
So: there is little evidence here, according to Professor Morris, for a shift in social attitudes leading more parents to continue with a pregnancy after Down's Syndrome has been diagnosed prenatally. Some have argued that the consistency of the 92% figure over this period isn't in itself very surprising: the diagnostic tests (such as amniocentesis) carry a small risk of miscarriage and the argument is that most parents who go ahead with them are likely to be decided on termination already if a positive diagnosis is received.

[PeaceNikki]

259. You are full of 100% shit

A) You've cited UK stats - you know, where they have full health care with reproductive services
B) That 92% number you cite is specific to women who are tested. They are tested EXPLICITLY BECAUSE they are older "at-risk" pregnancies

Those stats don't mean shit. Most women AREN'T tested, dolt. Before or after they decide to terminate the pregnancy. Nice try at pulling the heart strings of us bleeding liberals with your bullshit stats.

[jinto86]

263. Then find your own rates

I will go with whatever you find.

[PeaceNikki]

266. No, this is your bullshit crusade, not mine.

Go spew your bullshit elsewhere.

[Name removed]

267. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

268. Are you a Democrat?

[jinto86]

271. Independant but I voted for Obama

I think neither party has a good handle on most issues, they are all too full of themselves to start caring what their actions will result in. For example I am for single-payer healthcare (good) but I want to see those same principles established to education (BAD!). So I don't know if that makes me okay here or not... so far so good I suppose. I am pro-choice in the first trimester (good), a little less sure in the second trimester (ummm okay), and think abortions in the third trimester that don't effect the womans life are evil (BAD!)...

[Name removed]

272. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jinto86]

274. What makes you think I am lying?

I am against third trimester abortions in general... yes thats true. But I am against them especcially because a lot of them result in disabled kids getting aborted... and know it won't be long until kids like me are on the list. That scares me... it just does.

[Name removed]

280. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jinto86]

281. THEN FIND YOUR OWN STATS, I WILL GO WITH THEM

I found mine, you can find yours. Though just a quick FYI, I think 5% is way too high of a rate...

[PeaceNikki]

283. You're the one claiming that abortion is eugenics. You pulled it straight out of your ass.

I know because 87% of statistics posted on the internet are bullshit.

[jinto86]

286. I am claiming that abortions can be done for eugenical reasons...

Are you really going to try telling me that no Down's kids are ever aborted because they have Down's?

[PeaceNikki]

290. The reasons women and their doctors choose to terminate are private between the woman and her doctor

It's none of my business and none of yours.

[jinto86]

292. Like I said... I think third trimester abortions are pretty inherientally evil

when not done to save the moms life. It being for eugenical purposes just makes it more evil IMHO.

[Name removed]

294. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jinto86]

296. Once again, aborting a disabled kid because they are disabled is eugenics to me

With that I will leave before I get tombstoned... judging by how well some people handle dissenting opinions on other threads I have been in I am suprised it hasn't happened already.

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jinto86]

298. Real quick

I love women, I mostly hang out with women, I get along really well with women, so "misogyny" doesn't really apply to me. I just don't agree with killing someone because they are different from you. I would imagine that MANY women would agree with me. It is a shame that you don't.

[PeaceNikki]

299. "I'm not racist... I have black friends"

uh huh.

[jinto86]

301. So basically to you anyone who disagrees with aborting disabled kids hates women?

If thats all your argument boils down to, why do I even bother with you...

[PeaceNikki]

302. How can I miss you when you won't go away?

Your argument that women and doctors are participating in eugenics is misogynistic.

[Warren DeMontague]

338. "I will leave before I get tombstoned"

:nopity:

You know, door, ass, all that.

[jinto86]

340. Its been several hours

I really don't think its going to happen. Especcially considering I am one of the only ones being civil here.

[Warren DeMontague]

343. You brought it up.

:shrug:

[Rebubula]

163. No.

My body...my laws.

Not yours....can't haz....

[Warren DeMontague]

325. What are you, a whiny toddler? Who the fuck is "We"?

"Then can we at least get rid of prenatal testing"?

Are you pregnant?

Do you not want prenatal testing?

Fine. Don't fucking have it.

But how DARE you tell other people; other women; how to run their lives. Get it? IT'S NOT YOUR FUCKING DECISION TO MAKE, SPARKY.


Get it through your friggin' cabeza.

[jinto86]

329. Once again.... yaaaaaaaaaaa for eugenics! :)

[Warren DeMontague]

335. Have you ever actually been pregnant?

No, I'm willing to bet not.

In fact, I'm willing to bet you're physically incapable of ever pushing a baby out of any orifice on your body.

Your ability to talk out of your ass, OTOH, is impressive. :applause:

[jinto86]

336. I do what I can sweetie

Have you ever been a soldier? No? So then you can't have an opinion on wars. That is the exact same logic to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

337. That is an idiotic fucking analogy. Wars are decisions made by states, not individuals.

As a member of the state making the war, one ought to have a say in the war-making conduct of that state, presuming the state has some form of representative government.

Above and beyond that, I am against the draft, because I am against government forcing people into the military against their will. I am pro-choice because, among other things, I am against the government forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

See, if it's not your body that is pregnant, it is not your call, and it is the height of fucking arrogance to presume that it should be.

Other than that, kiddo, when you actually grow up and consider having kids of your own, if some total fucking stranger with an agenda up his ass decides to suggest to you that it should be against the law for your wife (because, let's be honest, you're clearly a dude) to get pre-natal testing, your reaction will most likely be "Fuck Off, and who the fuck do you think you are, anyway?".

As well it should be.

[jinto86]

339. I plan to adopt special needs kids...

The kind that your saying its okay to abort. Funny isn't it.

[Warren DeMontague]

341. I planned to do a lot of things, when I was young and completely drunk on my own bs.

One, get back to me when you actually go ahead and do it- not just "plan" to do it.

Two, I have special needs kids in my own immediate family. I don't have to read about what it's like on rapture ready or modern Christian or whatever the fuck, I know already. What you don't get is, the decision- the final decision- the ONLY decision- needs to be up to the woman who is pregnant. That's not saying anyone "should" or "shouldn't" abort, that's saying that it needs to be the woman's decision.

And fucking A' women should have the right to be fully informed throughout their pregnancies, as much as medical science makes available. It's ridiculous, it's patronizing, it's offensive, to suggest that women 'shouldn't know' because of what they 'might do'. Get it? It's NOT YOUR DECISION, only mountains of anti-choice propaganda have even brought you close to a point where you might even consider that somehow it should be your decision, or your business.

[jinto86]

342. To me eugenics is just sick... I am sorry its not to you.

Like they always say, disablility rights is the final frontier of the civil rights movement.

[Warren DeMontague]

344. And to me, tobacco chewing is just sick.. but that's not relevant to the topic, either.

Women making their own fully informed decisions isn't "eugenics", nor is it "genocide", nor is it "Naziism". It is women making their own damn decisions about their own damn lives. If you're not getting pregnant, sorry, it's not your decision to make.

As for what "they" always say, I doubt whoever "they" are, they're not talking about granting citizenship and "rights" to fertilized human eggs... unless they're anti-choice nutbags.

[jinto86]

345. Wait... did you just compare tobacco chewing to eugenics

And killing a viable human life because its disabled is eugenics, I don't care if its in the third trimester or was born 2 weeks ago... its all the same too me.

[Warren DeMontague]

348. And your opinion on it extends all the way to the end of your body and no further

because the only time you get a say in the matter is when the pregnancy is inside YOUR body.

[deek]

346. oh my warren

Excellent response. Now go pour yourself some wine and slice up some fruit and cheese. Seriously. You deserve it for putting up with this nonsense for so long.

[lukasahero]

349. LOL - no kidding!

You made me laugh.

But Warren has made me cheer!

[PeaceNikki]

252. What is this rate of which you speak?

[Name removed]

376. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lars39]

379. Newborn baby is outside of the woman at that point.

[Name removed]

382. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MellowDem]

316. Don't worry jinto...

I agree with you that aborting a perfectly viable fetus because of a perceived disability is eugenics pure and simple, and you'll only get guffawing and accusations of hating women in response, but you'll notice no argument that actually argues it is not eugenics. Perhaps the greatest test of how far "privacy" goes in society is whether it's ok to abort a perfectly viable fetus because of its gender. It's happened quite often in certain places, China, for example, and has quite an impact on society believe it or not when done by enough individuals.

And it does raise the question of the value of human beings in a society that have a disablity when they are aborted as a matter of convenience. Much like the value of women in China.

It's hilarious to see some of these people try to defend abortions based on eugenics EXCEPT for when it is for gender, etc. etc.

And it's also hilarious for them to cite that the number of those abortions are really low, as if that is the point of the argument at all.

[jinto86]

317. Nice to know I am not alone

I really can't believe that I was being attacked as a women hater for thinking its wrong to abort due to disability. Then when I get told that I have no say in the matter, when its people like me that are next on the chopping block... its really scary. Especcially when you consider people have been outcasted before because they decided to do the unnatural act of giving birth to a kid they knew would be disabled... I really don't get this world anymore, part of me things I don't really want to.

Edited to add: Perhaps whats sickest about this whole thing is the concept of "wrongful life" suits... no one is being aborted because they are disabled... but if you help give birth to a disabled kid... you can get your @$$ sued... I don't it.

[shimmergal]

373. ARE they close to a prenatal test

for autism? It's news to me, and I do try to keep reasonably informed on such matters.

If this is true, please post some links to reputable info. about it.

[PeaceNikki]

378. He can't post a'tall anymore.

[Zoeisright]

136. False comparison!

Logic 101: http://www.ddj.com/embedded/193500817

[billh58]

270. Slavery is illegal --

aborting a pregnancy is not.

[jinto86]

279. Once again appeal to legality isn't a good place to start from, the law can be wrong

[billh58]

300. Yep, I agree

but the slavery vs. abortion comparison is also "wrong," and is an apples-to-oranges non-starter. The argument alleging that laws allowing the termination of a pregnancy, and a woman's unalienable right to make choices regardng her own body and health could somehow be viewed as wrong is faulty: the current laws are NOT wrong, and in fact are the result of correcting a long-standing injustice.

Slavery, and the laws permitting it, were unjust to an entire class of people (the slaves). The practice of outlawing the basic freedom of a woman to make a choice about her own body, and dictating its use as a mere vessel, was just another form of slavery, and was unjust to an entire class of people (women). It is also worthwhile noting that these "anti-abortion" laws were made (and enforced) by men.

Our court system finally got around to righting both "wrongs," along with affirming other basic civil rights for ALL citizens who have already been born. A live birth includes the basic right-to-life regardless of what neoconservative Republicans and Libertarians believe.

[Realityhack]

360. +1 This argument avoids actually interacting with the other side...

and thus does nothing to further the discussion.

[Barack_America]

6. Pretty much.

I just don't see much point in working myself into a lather about how other people choose to live their lives.

That goes for abortion, religion, sexuality...everything.

[Hepburn]

11. I agree...

...as long as there is no offensive impact on me ~~ such as loud noise from hard rock music ~~ I could not care less in regard to what the hell choices people make with their personal lives.

We are all different and we all have different views...

[cark]

127. None My Business? I'm paying for it.

If you are taking government money to fund these abortions, it is my business.

[billh58]

285. I take it then

that Social Security payments, Medicare payments, GI Bill educational assistance, and the myriad of other government programs that "you pay for," also require your personal approval?

Just fyi, Bubba, we ALL pay for government services, and none of us has the right to tell someone else how to exercise their legal rights while using that assistance under established guidelines. Your self-righteous faux-moral opinion is just that: an opinion.

[mdmc]

8. or (imho)

work with women that would have the child if their situation was different.

A friend's teenage daughter became pregnant. She wanted to have an abortion because the father of the child was a jerk and she didn't have the resources to care for the kid.

Me and my girlfriend My girlfriend and I offered to take the child for her. We agreed that she would retain custody, that we would give her back her child if and when she felt ready to become a full time mom. We agreed that she would always be "mom", and we would always support her in raising her child.

She didn't take us up on it. But we tried.

[mdmc]

151. kick?

[KamaAina]

12. And if you don't like same-sex marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex.

DUH!

[Hepburn]

15. Yep....

...exactly. :hi:

[bobbolink]

80. Well, now you're just getting RADICAL.

:applause:

On the other hand, it's still very "liberal: to prescribe what poor people shall eat and drink.

Does that count?

[knixphan]

218. quite simple.

[closeupready]

16. Yeah, but, will I have to get a gay marriage instead?

See? You guys always play this from both sides of the deck. :sarcasm:

:rofl:

[Seeking Serenity]

17. And if you dont like sodas or fast food,

DON'T CONSUME THEM.

[noiretextatique]

18. exactly...it really is that simple

very simple.

[Lucy Goosey]

19. Agree completely - it really is that simple.

[regnaD kciN]

21. And here's something else that's "really that simple"...

If you don't like child prostitution, don't hire a child prostitute.

[Sinistrous]

24. Apples vs. Oranges

[Lucy Goosey]

30. Not a great analogy.

Banning abortion = the government telling me that I don't have sovereignty over my own body.

Banning child prostitution = the government protecting minors from exploitation.

[rd_kent]

133. WTF? That has got to be the STUPIDEST response yet.

Although, you are correct.

[The Straight Story]

23. If you don't like smoking, don't go to a bar that allows it

Sheeeeesh....

Your body, your choice.

[rd_kent]

135. ANOTHER stupid analogy.

If it was a SMOKING room, then your point would be valid. Bars are for DRINKING.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Agreed. And if you want one, don't expect taxpayers to pay for it

[Starry Messenger]

26. I don't like freeways.

I will cease paying taxes for those at once. Thank you!

[Cerridwen]

28. My house is not on fire at this moment,

close the fire houses!

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Many freeways are being turned into toll roads

[Cerridwen]

27. What other legal health care procedures of a non-cosmetic nature

should we deny?


edit for icky grammar

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Viagra

[Kansas Wyatt]

35. Isn't that a BLUE pill?

:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

221. Procedure - not pill.

Unless you're "going after" birth-control pills now.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. elective full body scans

In fact, I think MOST elective procedures, medical or otherwise, should not be covered to the extent of necessary proceedures.

[Cerridwen]

216. You think abortion is "elective"?

Interesting.

Perhaps in a very strict sense of "elective." For many women, abortion is most definitely a necessary procedure.

The tone of your response has a faint tinge of "women having recreational abortions" about it.

[jinto86]

119. Ummm if this is about a womans body

Isn't it of a "cosmetic nature"?

[Cerridwen]

217. I've seen your posts in the rest of this thread. (edited)

This is all the response your intellectual acumen deserves.

eta: I stand corrected. I've searched your other posts since Sept. You weren't even worth this reply. Still got a problem because your profs made you think about how you benefited from being white, I see.

[jinto86]

222. Why thank you for thinking I deserve some response

That was very sweet of you.

[uppityperson]

235. Ummmmm no. If a man gets cardiac bypass, then that must be of a "cosmetic nature" too then?

or is it only women who get cosmetics done?

[jinto86]

236. But its not about a womans life, its about her body.

[uppityperson]

242. If she dies, it is not only her body but her life. Or are you saying the sould is more important

than a woman's body?

[jinto86]

247. So when its the womans life at risk it is medical

when its her body at risk its cosmetic... couldn't agree more.

[uppityperson]

250. Are you seriously saying you believe the only reason women get abortions is for cosmetic reasons?

except for those few whose life (but not body, though not sure how that could be) is in danger?

[jinto86]

261. Of course not, but then again I am not the one who's saying woman's body every other post.

[uppityperson]

306. bs

"but when its the womans life at risk it is medical when its her body at risk its cosmetic"
All your posts in this subthread say woman's body. You can't find statistics to back up your opinions (since PP somehow has managed to squelch every single relevant study). Now you lie.

No backing up opinions. Conspiracy theorist. Liar. Huh. And you wonder why you will get ts'd.

[Warren DeMontague]

327. Haven't you heard? Women run around pregnant for 8 months, then "demand" 'em cuz they "look fat".

Rush even said so! :crazy:

[uppityperson]

350. And all this time I thought it was because they didn't want

to have stretched out nether regions from giving birth. I mean, REALLY! How WOULD someone live with themselves!

[Name removed]

377. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hepburn]

33. Why not?

It's a medical procedure. PERIOD.

[JonQ]

52. I would agree on general principles, except

I would say that in the long run that simple procedure saves us more money than it costs.

Consider the pregnant woman is probably a pretty good judge if she'll be a bad mother. And if she thinks so (for whatever reason) we should likely listen to her. And as bad parenting can be traced to many of our problems then eliminating that one issue would likely reduce a great many others.

[donheld]

62. I don't use schools can I stop paying for them?

[noiretextatique]

167. same is true for you if you need a medical procedure

let some rw asshole decided if you should have the procedure.

[jinto86]

181. Ummm wasn't it Obama that said that doctors are eager to take kids tounsils out?

[Cerridwen]

32. Did you notice?

On a thread about women's rights, several posters (all but one has a profile stating "male") have introduced:

same sex marriage
dietary choices
child prostitution
slavery
smoking
and the health care debate and its funding

On a "liberal" board, a message for and about women, is used to catapult someone else's agenda.

And now the guy with the DSL splitter is here! WooHoo!

[Iggo]

38. delete

:eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

40. Dumb oversimplification.

You are arguing with people who believe that a clump of cells has the same rights as a fully-formed human being. They believe, just like with the faulty logic of "if you don't like slaves don't have one" or "if you don't like cannibalism don't eat humans," that it is society's role to protect this clump of cells.

Why not argue the right of a woman to have sovereignty over her own body and medical decisions, instead of putting forth ridiculous arguments through which even the most illiterate of the mouthbreathers on the anti-choice side can poke holes?

[Hepburn]

42. Dumb reply.

Woooooooosh....

[superduperfarleft]

43. I certainly hope you aren't trying to convince people of anything

Seeing as you are completely incapable of explaining yourself.

[Hepburn]

106. And privacy needs an explanation because....

...sheesh.

Are you so full of yourself you expect one to explain to you, for example, why bathrooms have doors?

:eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

192. Great, try this explanation when you're up before the Supreme Court defending the repeal of

Roe v. Wade. You know, since it's so airtight and everything.

Sorry, I didn't realize you just wanted a circle-jerk. I thought you wanted actual discussion.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Exactly. And I have to note that once again, we have Tweety

talking abortion policy with...

two other men. The three guys. No women.

Easy to be anti-choice when you don't own a uterus.

[Lugnut]

45. Agreed!

Thank you. :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Only That Simple For The Simple Minded.

The intelligent amongst us know the issue is far more complex than such idiocy and mindless bumpersticker tripe.

[Hepburn]

107. It's aimed at the RWs....

...and you wish to use intelligence on them??

:rofl:

Try again ~~ to recover from your massive fail.

[jinto86]

113. Ummm never underestimate your enemy

Remember Bush and company fooled people like Kerry, Biden, Clinton (both), Pelosi, etc.; it takes some intelligence to do that... somewhere.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

314. Who It's Aimed At Is Irrelevant. It's Still A Moronic And Simple Minded Position.

And there was no fail on my part, but a huge one on yours. You have shown from your response that you are incapable of even beginning to understand this topic and only have the ability to drop empty and childish sarcastic nonsense.

[jinto86]

318. Yea, talk down to people

Thats sure to work!

[VMI Dem]

49. And if you don't like guns don't buy one.

I like it!

[and-justice-for-all]

53. Some people just can not mind their own damn business..

Don't want gay marriage, then don't have one!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. So, "If you really like abortion... have one." ?

What if some people cannot have an abortion?
That kind of takes the wind out of their sails.

[ZombieHorde]

58. I feel the same way about necrophilia, if you do not like sex with sexy corpses,

DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SEXY CORPSES. K&R

[dysfunctional press]

59. the problem is, some people view it as murder.

and feel that it is their duty as human beings to try to stop it.

i'm pro-choice. being a vasectomized male with no children(i hope)- it's definitely not my issue, although i always support candidates who are pro-choice- not that it's the deciding issue for me, just that it's generally a part of the overall package.

HOWEVER-
i can understand, and even respect the views(NOT the actions) of those people who view it as murder and object to it in ALL cases.

i have absolutely NO RESPECT for the FUCKING HYPOCRITES who say that it's murder, but make exceptions for cases of rape or incest...if it's MURDER, then why would the circumstances of the conception make any difference whatsoever? either the fetus is a human life, or it isn't. the only ones in the debate who are "playing god" are the ones who decide that it's allowable in some cases- but not others.

[JVS]

65. Does this go for pop too?

[Last Stand]

70. What if...

you believe that life begins at conception and aborting a fetus would, by implication, essentially be murder? Under that pretense, it's hard to argue that it's everyone's own personal decision. It's just a question that a very liberal Liberal like myself has trouble answering. I don't go to church, vote Republican or hate women. I'm horribly conflicted about the abortion issue, having read about the positive impacts it has on the economy, society, the mother and other elements of the equation. Those are valid and important considerations, but how do you trump the idea that you are ending a life if you believe all lives start at conception? In the end, I consider the issue independent of neither the fetus or the mother, so I don't think the answer to this is to just "not have one" if *you* don't believe in it. Plus, it's hard for me to see such a serious and complex issue boiled down to a simple bumper sticker response.

Frankly, I am intimidated in writing this, but I don't see many others offering this kind of response to the question. I respect the opinions of those who differ with mine, so please be nice if you care to offer up any constructive input on my dilemma.

[PeaceNikki]

71. Other people's decisions aren't your "dilemma".

You point out that some think life begins at conception and that ending it is tantamount to murder, but many don't look at fetal development and pregnancy as simplistically. So, how does your belief trump mine or anyone else's? Why are you the moral authority on this matter? Should the government or some public opinion get in the way of medical decisions between a woman and her doctor?

[Last Stand]

77. I've asked myself that question.

The answer I come up with is that if it's an unjust termination of life for one fetus, then it's the same for all. Just like we don't allow individual justifications for "typical" homicides in all but the most extreme (self-defense) situations, we can't let everyone establish their own standards for abortions or scores of other controversial issues. Our "moral authority" is what has become our criminal justice system, a reflection of common values. That sets the standards and the laws--not what happens between mother and doctor. To be fair, the collective "moral value" is that abortion is accepted and I understand that. I guess it's just that out of the myriad of complicated issues within this issue, the clearest thing I come back to is that life begins at conception. And if you accept that like I do, it takes the decision out of the mother/doctor discussion.

In a strange sort of way, I want to hear the argument that will make me understand this issue in the way that most of my liberal counterparts do, but I haven't heard it yet. It's an awkward position for me to be in, but it is what it is. It's not an issue that I grandstand about to change others' minds. These are my first posts on the topic.

[PeaceNikki]

78. Well, then you probably never will understand it as most of your liberal counterparts do.

And I respect that you are interested in discussing it and understanding it.

It is a complex issue wrought with emotion and passion on both sides, of that there's no doubt. I don't know if anyone can really get you to understand the issue from the other side, but I think it's admirable that you WANT to understand. I do fundamentally understand why, if you feel this conception = life thing, you'd be against abortion. But I believe in choice. Full and unrestricted choice. Decisions 100% between a woman and her doctor taking her medical needs and life as the only factors.

Further, I wish more people who felt the way you do would focus on reducing abortions through social programs and contraception and fight for health coverage and child-care assistance and increases to the minimum wage so people can take COMFORT in bringing a child into this world, not become paraylzed with fear at the thought.

[Last Stand]

82. I can roll with that.

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

[jinto86]

214. My problem is "medical needs and life" aren't the only factors

Prenatal testing comes into play too... and that just isn't right...

[newtothegame]

84. -1. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

86. My heart is broken that you "-1" me.

:eyes:

[tekisui]

75. It doesn't really matter when life starts. Set you definition wherever you want.

But, the rights of he mother outweigh any that the fetus may have. Until the day it is born, it is still part of the mother, and she has the right to do choose.

If you don't have a womb, you really don't have standing on the argument.

[newtothegame]

85. What are your thoughts on some of the ideas floating around out there...

about creating an ability for the father to choose to abort the relationship with the fetus at the same time the mother chooses whether or not to terminate the pregnancy?

[tekisui]

90. Interesting.

I'll have to chew that over. I think that just as the baby acquires greatly expanded rights at birth, the father has added responsibilities. As for the father's relationship with fetus, that is an interesting question. The rights of the mother are obvious and clear, as it is her body. I don't think the father has any rights over her body(no standing to force abortion or delivery). But, as for the relationship...I have never heard it posed that way, and will have to give it some consideration. Thanks for new layer.

[Cid_B]

97. I've never understood that logic...

That means if you aren't in the military you can't have an opinion about war... not a parent you cant have an opinion on child protective laws... etc.. etc..

[tekisui]

215. Not quite.

How does a woman's abortion have ANY effect on you?

[jinto86]

219. How does a murder halfway across the country effect you?

Abortions do effect people that aren't getting them. Siblings, the father, etc.; especcially in a family that believes it was a human life.

[tekisui]

230. So, do those siblings, that father or that family want to

restrict the decision the woman is making? Do you think they have a right to?

I certainly do not.

[jinto86]

232. But it does effect them doesn't it.

[tekisui]

234. Effect does not equate to right to limit another's rights.

[jinto86]

239. Okay fine, but don't say it doesn't effect anyone else like you did before.

[tekisui]

257. I don't think I said that.

"If you don't have a womb, you really don't have standing on the argument."

I said that ^

[jinto86]

265. LOL look at the post that I initially responded too

"How does a woman's abortion have ANY effect on you?" Don't lie when its that easy to catch you on.

[tekisui]

295. lol.

I thought it sounded like something I might say. I looked through the thread and missed it. I stand corrected.

[uppityperson]

311. "Don't lie when its that easy to catch you on." bwahahahahaha

[Greyhound]

94. The key to the position you've taken is the word, "belief".

What you or anyone believes is irrelevant, you have no right to impose those beliefs on another.

The very idea that a person should be forced to surrender their personal sovereignty to satisfy a religious imperative is obscene.

[jinto86]

102. There is no evidence either way

So its hard to say life begins at birth... thats just a belief too. What if I believe life begins at the age of 2 weeks, does that make infanticide legal?

[Greyhound]

174. Life is. There is no question about that, both the sperm and the ovum were alive.

But, that is beside the point. The issue is whether the individual or the state has sovereignty over a woman's body.

The only answer that doesn't lead to a nightmare scenario beyond Orwell's imagination is that it is none of our business, that this is an entirely private and personal matter beyond the purview of government.

[jinto86]

190. So the state never rules about if what you can do with your body?

[Greyhound]

330. That is not what I said.

The state has the ultimate power over people, that is why it's scope must be severely restricted. This particular issue is one in which the larger society has no right to interfere. As we have seen, once the line is crossed everything is vulnerable.

[Hepburn]

108. If one believes that...then one should apply that to one's own actions....

...no one is FORCING an abortion on someone who believes it is murder. So, why should that "murder" belief prevent another who does not believe the same from exercising rights over her body and having any and all abortions as desired?

It's simple: If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

[jinto86]

115. Ummm so basically "if you don't like murder don't kill anyone"

Doesn't sound right... you have to disprove that a fetus is a human life to reason with these people... thats the only way you can get through.

[JerseygirlCT]

140. Here's the thing

it IS an incredibly difficult topic. There is no simple answer. But BECAUSE it's so complex and personal, there is only one person qualified to make that decision: the woman involved.

And it comes down to trusting women to make the best judgement about their own body and their own situation.

[WhiteTara]

73. exactly my same thought...same with being

gay or lesbian...not my business. Good luck, sex always fucks things up :evilgrin:

[bobbolink]

74. Here's the thing... ... we rage at this controlling behavior of the RW, but we celebrate

the controlling behavior of "liberals" when they try to legislate for poor folk "for their own good".

Sometimes we really need to look into the mirror....

[Vattel]

81. Maybe you should read

some of the relevant literature on the topic. The abortion issue is anything but simple.

[Hepburn]

109. Why then have we allowed the anti-choicers to make it other than simple, to wit...

...a personal decision in which no others than the woman and her healthcare provider are involved.

It IS simple ~~ tell me about other medical decisions that involved other than the patient and the provider if the patient is competent to act (mentally sound, etc).

[superduperfarleft]

205. Bloodletting, trepanation, etc. n/t

[newtothegame]

83. Raise your hand if you "like abortion." n/t

[PeaceNikki]

87. I "like abortion".

Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jinto86]

154. Only if you return the favor :).

Edit to say: you are aware that the founder of Planned Parenthood believed strongly in eugenics aren't you.

[PeaceNikki]

170. Cite your source on that.

[jinto86]

177. Is wikipedia good enough for you, there aren't many who would deny it

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

[Lars39]

179. *anybody* can edit wikipedia...it is not considered a legitimate source.

[jinto86]

187. Well then what would you consider a legitimate source

Most people talking about her past are conservatives and pro-life... so I doubt you consider their sites legitimate... and pro-choice people totally ignore it. So I don't know what you want me to post. Just do a yahoo search for "Margaret Sanger eugenics" and you will find a lot.

[superduperfarleft]

194. FWIW, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics.

Regardless, this fact doesn't make the pro-choice position any less reasonable. Much like Hitler being a vegetarian doesn't make vegetarianism evil, and Stalin being an atheist doesn't make atheism evil.

[jinto86]

196. Hitler wasn't the leader of a vegetarianism movement

Stalin wasn't a leader... well I suppose it might work there but only if you want to claim him as a leader, most wouldn't.

[superduperfarleft]

197. It doesn't matter if Margaret Sanger was a racist, sexist, homophobic puppy killer.

The mission of an organization that provides healthcare services to tons of women is in no way sullied by the extra-curricular activities of the person that founded it practically a century ago.

[jinto86]

199. Even if they name an award after the person?

[superduperfarleft]

200. Sure.

:shrug:

Unless you're a big fan of ad hominems.

[jinto86]

207. See heres the thing... there are many abortions for the purpose of eugenics today...

So I would say times haven't changed too much.

[superduperfarleft]

208. Sorry, I thought you were going to actually respond to what I said.

My mistake.

[jinto86]

212. What do you mean

Was I suppose to respond to say it was okay for an organization celebrating someone who believes I should have never existed (I was born poor and disabled)? Where is the ad homenim there.

[superduperfarleft]

220. No, you were supposed to understand that the mission of the organization is

completely independent of whatever fucked up views its founder had.

And I don't really care what your personal situation supposedly is. I could claim anything on the internet as well. It doesn't mean one bit of difference to the fact that women deserve readily available access to safe and legal reproductive care, abortions included. I don't care if they're aborting a fetus because it's disabled, blonde haired, or eyes are too far apart, as long as the fetus is sucking the life out of the mother, pregnancy is nothing more than a medical condition that is between her and her doctor and no one else.

[jinto86]

224. Then the organization should stop celebrating the leader if they don't want to be compared with her.

[superduperfarleft]

237. Write a letter then. n/t

[jinto86]

240. They wouldn't read it, so talking about it here gets just as much done.

[uppityperson]

241. DAMN that woman for saying people could use contraceptives! DAMN her INDEED!!1111111

I'm SERIES!!!!111

You miss the point of what she was doing. Totally.

[jinto86]

244. Got a nice quote here for ya.

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence."

I especcially love the "these things" part of it.

[uppityperson]

245. Reputable source to that. Damn those women for wanting to be able to afford a child!

How DARE they use contraception to avoid pregnancy until they are financially secure enough!

[jinto86]

248. LOL guess its true that denial isn't just a river in Europe.

[uppityperson]

251. No source, just a one liner. Gotcha.

ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance

[uppityperson]

254. chirp chirp chirp go the crickets as his keyboard burns, looking, looking, looking

[jinto86]

269. No proof is good enough for you, because Planned Parenthood doesn't want to admit this...

So what can I do?

[uppityperson]

305. You have no proof. Got it. You can post no proof of your nasty assertions beyond imagination.

That's the end of anyone taking you seriously.

[jinto86]

319. If I tried to post "proof" you would say its not legimate because its too right winged...

[uppityperson]

322. If you use a right wing source, yes. Post a legitimate reputable source. NewsMax is rw, by the way

[jinto86]

323. I think to you, Hufftington Post is too RW

[uppityperson]

324. Rather than spending time back and forth, trying to read my mind, just post them

seriously. unless you are getting off on this, which is always a possibility.

[jinto86]

331. What is it you want proof of again?

Its been a few hours, can you remind me?

[uppityperson]

332. You are a Master Baiter. eom

[jinto86]

333. LOL well you are the one trying to tell me that no one ever has an abortion for eugenical reason

Despite the existance of "wrongful birth" legislation in many states... I am sure in your mind theres no connection there.

[uppityperson]

238. You mean things like plan when you want to have children, using birth control?

well, yeah. duh. What part of family PLANNING don't you understand? Rather than getting pregnant when it happens, you can use condoms, OC, other such things to help PLAN when you want to have a child, giving not only women but family units more control about their lives. Have a child when you can afford it and are ready for it? No problem.

[LeftyMom]

164. I like any health care that improves the lives of women.

Abortion included.

[old mark]

88. I believe in freedon of choice in most things in life, and I believe in others

minding their own business.
Thanks for the post.
Rec.

mark

[Brickbat]

89. Meh. I'm totally pro-choice and I think this is a lazy argument.

I don't think the only people who have abortions are those who "like" it. It doesn't address the argument that some people believe an embryo has the same rights as a person. It's OK for a bumpersticker or a sign, I guess, but I always roll my eyes when I see it.

[Hepburn]

110. It IS that simple and we have IMO been co-opted by the anti-choicers and forced birthers.

What other medical procedure is subject to instrusions/attempted instrusions by third parties? It is simply a matter of privacy and personal choice. IMO: Do not by-into the bullshit. Privacy is a right ~~ and, yes, it is that simple.

[Brickbat]

158. But your phrase up top doesn't address that argument at all. The argument you're talking about here

makes a lot more sense.

[knixphan]

227. Agreed. Very simple.

[barbtries]

92. i doubt anyone "likes" abortion

even those who have them. the issue is the freedom to choose.

[PeaceNikki]

96. Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.

I like it.

[hughee99]

277. Do people get pregnant just to have abortions...

or is abortion just sometimes the best option available for someone once they're pregnant?

[D23MIURG23]

98. k&R

[glinda]

100. same goes for same sex marriages, etc.... funny how they don't want people to have choice yet

progressive leaning people say "go ahead and choose". Totally different mentalities.

[kenny blankenship]

104. Or at least take a no thank you portion.

It's just good manners.

[Paper Roses]

114. Simple as that!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

117. BUMPER STICKERS ARE FUN!!!!!!

:eyes:

[rd_kent]

126. I wish everyone could understand that.

The principle works well for just about EVERY topic.....

[Nederland]

320. What principle would that be?

The principle that says if you don't like some activity, you shouldn't engage in it?

That is a good principle. However, I think the OP means to imply that if you don't like some activity, not only should you not engage in it but you shouldn't try to stop other people from engaging in it either. That principle doesn't work for a wide range of topics.

[alp227]

160. If you don't like something, disregard it!

Have the Parents Television Council and National Right to Life Committee ever learned this slogan?

[jinto86]

162. Couldn't one say the same thing about the Iraq War...

[alp227]

198. Really?

In war, there's much more money and lives at risk. Compared with abortion and harmful TV shows.

[jinto86]

202. From a pro-life persons point of view

Abortions kill a million people every year. I suppose you might have a point with money.

[Taverner]

169. EX-ACT-A-FUCKING-MUNDO!

[bridgit]

189. yep, simple enough

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[knixphan]

206. goodbye.

[superduperfarleft]

209. Wow. Worst troll ever. n/t

[jinto86]

210. This guy hasn't been tombstoned yet

But a guy says that all kids deserve school choice on one of my posts and he gets tombstoned after one... I don't get it.

[superduperfarleft]

211. The mods can't be everywhere at once, you know. n/t

[jinto86]

213. This is true, I suppose.

[muriel_volestrangler]

273. FWIW, this poster was tombstoned 3 minutes after posting that

and 3 minutes before you posted your reply.

[jinto86]

276. I don't think so...

I checked right before I made my post...

[muriel_volestrangler]

282. I can see the timestamps for it, trust me

you may be thinking of whether that particular post was still there at the moment you posted. In this case, we tombstoned the user first (it was posting that in several forums, so it was worth stopping the flow) and then cleaned up what it had already posted.

[jinto86]

284. No I checked his profile, no tombstone... but it doesn't really matter either way...

I still don't agree with some of what you do...

[muriel_volestrangler]

288. The timestamps say:

Post #201: :01 minutes past the hour (whatever time zone you're in)
user tombstoned: :04 minutes past the hour
your post #210: :07 minutes past the hour

[UndertheOcean]

203. Yeah , and if you don't like murder , don't kill.

I am pro-abortion , btw ... just objecting your simplistic argument

[knixphan]

204. Kick

[Hosnon]

233. I hope this argument isn't intended to be anything other than "preaching to the choir".

Because, as arguments go, it is pretty horrible.

[SteelPenguin]

287. Anyone who hasn't had to actually decide...

...whether or not to get an abortion, should keep their traps shut too.

People who haven't been in the position of "Do we abort." and had to sit there crying themselves to sleep, if they could sleep, for a week as they roll it over in their brain, and decide what to do...Should shut the fuck up about it because they have no fucking clue how brutal a choice it actually is.

If you don't like abortion don't have one. Fuck that. Who likes abortion? You think it was easy to say "Oh my baby has no skull and is gonna die the minute he's born? Well fuck abort it, can we do it later today?"

Gimme a fucking break.

If you haven't had to make that decision yourself, you shouldn't open your goddamned yap about it, because you have no idea what kind of pain it is to make it, OR how important it is to have that right to choose.

Just my humble opinion.

[Maru Kitteh]

308. + 1000

[busybl]

312. my thoughts exactly

[Blue-Jay]

313. I promise that I will not have an abortion.

[Warren DeMontague]

328. A lot of people don't like to be told not to tell other people what to do.

That's what it boils down to. You'll get all kinds of pretzel logic and poo-flinging around of nasty, filthy words like "libertarian", but the short and long end of the stick is, being a nosy, controlling busybody is apparently deeply ingrained into the human DNA-- and so many people are doing a dandy fine job of running their own lives, how dare you suggest they not be in charge of running everyone else's, too!

[benny05]

334. May I ask?

Why this is on the rec'd list? I'm not disagreeing with the point, but I don't see any substance of an argument, or are we just pissed off liberals or the poster is well known to many? Is that the point?

Jeesh...


:bounce:

[Romulox]

352. Is it worth pointing out at this late date that is indeed considerably more complicated than that?

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

353. No, actually, when you get right down to it, it isn't.

Because the fact of the matter is, anyone who tries to make this decision for someone else- without being the person who is pregnant- is WAY out of line.

[Romulox]

354. While I symphatize with your rhetoric, this is not now (nor has it ever been) the law.

"Because the fact of the matter is, anyone who tries to make this decision for someone else- without being the person who is pregnant- is WAY out of line."

We make decisions about what people can do with their own bodies all the time (we have the highest incarceration rate in human history, for example, and most of these for drug crimes,) so there is no real weight to an absolutist "I can do what I want with my own body!" argument. It doesn't work that way in our society (even if I wish I did!)

But more to the point, the current law on the subject makes it clear that the state has a compelling interest in interfering with abortion after viability. In addition, there is currently a debate regarding whether any public health plan should include funding for abortion.

Hence the question is MUCH more complex than the OP would have it.

[Warren DeMontague]

355. Your example of the drug war perfectly proves my point.

Certainly, many of our laws have their roots in the old Judeo-Christian idea that our bodies belong to "God" and, by extension, the state.

But I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about a bedrock philosophical idea; the only person well positioned to make a moral determination about a pregnancy is the woman in whom the pregnancy is taking place. Other people are taking it upon themselves that they "know better" when they presume that they are positioned to make those decision for the woman in her place.

I understand that Roe v. Wade makes distinctions about how far along a pregnancy is; so do most people- I recognize there are shades of gray on this- so do most people. The extremists tend to be the anti-choicers who want to call a fertilized egg (under the law, even) a "baby".

That said, there is a place for simplifying arguments. I don't believe the OP is saying that this should be the entirety of the pro-choice case, only that it's a simple and effective way to remind people that they really ought to worry about their own bid'niz, and not everyone else's.

Yes, the "debate" is complex- and in many ways has been made needlessly so. Stripped down to its essentials, much of it (like the debate about the drug war, too) really boils down to questions like "Who owns our bodies- us, or the government?"

[Romulox]

356. I think we essentially agree on all points then! nt

[billh58]

361. In reality, we

as a society make decisions about other people's actions when they harm, or have the potential to harm, other living members of society. Examples are drinking alcohol and violence, drug use and violence, and all of the other anti-social behavior that produces "the highest incarceration rate in human history."

Most of what you have cited regarding "what people can do with their own bodies," basically involves the ingestion of a chemical substance. Before RvW women were, by law, essentially forced into a form of slavery for nine months after being impregnated by a man either consensually, or by force. The religious belief that "life begins at conception" is a man-made belief (like all religious beliefs), and has never been fully accepted by law.

From Roe vs Wade:

A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense" and thus fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Later_judicial_decisions

RvW has been the law in the USA for the past 36 years (and later reaffirmed by Casey in 1992) and there have been several failed attempts by various States to circumvent the decision. The law has worked well, as evidenced by its longevity, and set American women free from an unjust and forced use of their bodies as a predominantly male-imposed form of a life support system. The "compelling interest" argument you cite was also settled by RvW, in that the Court held that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability, except in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

There remains, however, a dedicated anti-abortion, anti-choice, segment of society (mainly the religious-right) who will stop at nothing to return this country to its former state of un-enlightenment and oppression of women (see the Dubya-inspired case of Carhart in 2007). We Liberals can not allow that to happen, and must keep working toward the prevention of unwanted pregnancy while preserving a woman's right to choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

362. I agree with all of that. But I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about a baseline philosophical

principle.

Yes, my freedom ends where your nose begins. And society has a legitimate interest in regulating behavior by one that harms another. And I understand that the sticking point with anti-choicers is that they consider anything from a fertilized egg on to be "another", the fact that said 'citizen' requires the body of another for 9 months notwithstanding.

Yes, yes, yes.

But it's not "anti-social" behavior that produces that high incarceration rate. If you look at the stats, how many of the millions in prison are there for non-violent drug offenses? Note the use of the words, "non-violent". The drug war isn't about locking up people who commit violent crimes or robberies- we already have laws against that. The Billions we spend on the drug war; including the $13.5 Billion we could save (as per Newsweek) if we stopped criminalizing marijuana alone--- is purely about telling people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. If you call that 'anti-social' behavior, then that's your opinion. But I think one is hard pressed to say that ingestion of chemical substances absent any other forms of violence, neglect, or crime against others-- constitutes a direct, immediate and provable "harm" to other members of society.

And that bedrock philosophical principle doesn't just apply to the drug war- it applies to consenting sex between adults of the same or different genders, it applies to the right of people to read or watch what they want, it applies to the right of adults to buy sex toys (even in Alabama, where you can buy a gun but not a vibrator) it applies to the right to use contraception (as first outlined in Griswold, which an astute legal scholar such as yourself surely knows is the real target of the anti-choice agenda) and yes, it applies to the right of self-determination vis a vis a pregnancy.

[billh58]

363. I am in total

agreement with all that you have said, and I did not mean to imply that "non-violent" drug use constitutes anti-social behavior. On the other side of that coin, however, is the fact that some (many?) who are incarcerated have plea-bargained down from potential felonies associated with the sale and distribution of "prohibited substances" to mere possession charges. And, AFAIK, there has been no RvW equivalent which pertains to the socially "acceptable" conditions pertaining to the sale and distribution of prohibited drugs.

In my personal experience, drug users who do not drive under the influence, or do otherwise stupid shit and flaunt their use of illegal drugs, have little to fear from the law. I grew up on Maui in the 60s, and have never once even been approached by anyone from law enforcement about drug use. FWIW, most of my friends who are in the law enforcement field agree that the "war on drugs" is not only asinine, but the main driver of the violence associated with the sale and distribution of drugs.

I was under the impression that this discussion was about a woman's right to choose, and while it was once "illegal" to have an abortion for any reason, RvW settled the matter while also defining a few legal boundaries. That assumption was the basis for my previous post, which was not meant as a defense of anything but the legality, and morality, of a woman's right to choice.

[Romulox]

364. No, that isn't so. Harm to others is certainly not the basis of marijuana prohibition, e.g.

Bottom line: there is no absolute "right to do what one will with one's own body," nor has such a right ever existed. Further, when this issue is pointed out, the debate is most often shifted to "the right to do important things with one's own body"--since it's trivial to demonstrate that no such right exists.

"RvW has been the law in the USA for the past 36 years (and later reaffirmed by Casey in 1992)"

RvW wasn't affirmed by Casey--it was supplanted by it; Casey threw out the entire trimester framework and replaced it with a newly crafted viability standard.

And you must be clear on this: the central holding of Casey is that the state may indeed prevent post-viability abortions (song long as there is an exception for the health of the mother.)

So, to sum up, there is not now, nor has there ever been a right "to do with one's body what one wants", nor would people who enjoy "ingest(ing) chemical substances" be less entitled to do with their own bodies what they would, if such a right actually were to exist. Finally, the controlling law on the matter, Casey, explicitly acknowledges the states rights to regulate (and even prohibit) abortion--post viability, and with the caveat above. :hi:

[billh58]

365. As in my response to

another poster above, I agree with almost everything you say. Mea culpa for using the term "affirmed," incorrectly, and I stand thoroughly corrected. I thought that I was clear in stating that RvW allowed the various States to restrict post-viability abortions as long as they made provisions for the health of the mother. I don't believe that Casey unduly harmed the basic framework of RvW to any major extent, and that the "trimester framework" was somewhat unwieldy in any event.

As for the argument that ingesting chemical substances should not be restricted by society, I agree with that statement as far as it goes. I believe that Marijuana is the herbal equivalent to alcohol, and comes with its own responsibilities and opportunities for abuse. I will say, however, that my own personal experience with the use of chrystal meth (ice) by my son, has convinced me that not all drugs are created equal. A stated elsewhere I grew up on Maui in the 60s, and have "experimented" extensively...;-)

What society has actually done to itself, however, is to legislate morality to their own detriment by creating an atmosphere of violent crime stemming from the commerce associated with that "illegal substance." You would think that, as a nation, we would have learned the lessons of attempting to legislate morality from the fiasco that was Prohibition.

Philosophically, however, I believe that the comparison of drug use and abortion is disingenuous at best. While they both deal with personal choice, one is primarily recreational and pleasure-inducing, and the other is, for the most part, the exact opposite.

P.S. I also find it ironic that we are three males engaged in a "moral" discussion over women's rights.

[Shell Beau]

368. I don't think anyone "likes" abortion. To me it is all

about the woman's choice. I don't like abortion. I would most likely never have one. Of course I haven't been in a situation where I was conflicted about it either. I had a very hard time getting pregnant. My 1 year old was my fifth pregnancy. 2 ectopics, 2 miscarriages and some surgeries later (removal of a bad tube), my little miracle arrived. BUT I am pro-choice because a woman has the right to choose what goes on with her body. I don't think abortions should be taken lightly, and for the most part, I don't think they are at all. I did know a gal who used it as birth control. Her boyfriend refused to wear a condom, she refused to get on the pill, and she had 3 abortions because of it. That is the exception, I know. Most women think it through very hard. But everyone has and will always have an opinion on this. I know some republicans who split with their party on abortion, and I also know some democrats who split with their party on it. It is a woman's right though, at least up until a certain point, IMO.

[TicketyBoo]

381. That is the way

I think about it, too.