|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 4, 2008 22:52:27 GMT -5
Just for clarification:
If(when)Roe v Wade is overturned by SCOTUS, all abortion laws will return to the states.
Each legislature will pass it's own laws according(ideally)to the wishes of it's citizens.
Just like DMV's, there will be 50 sets of rules regarding abortion. Legislators will face their employers wrath if they do not do their job. No state will ban abortion unless the electorate demands it.
This, of course, is how it should be. Abortion is an issue that Americans have never been given the opportunity upon which to vote. Law was made by the wrong branch in the wrong way, and so far, the people and their representatives have been excluded from the process.
The goal of overturning Roe is not to outlaw abortion, but to finally give the American people the chance to have their say as regards this extremely volatile subject. Americans may differ, but as yet, they have been banned from the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 5, 2008 0:16:47 GMT -5
JMO wrote: "Secondly, I'm always a bit surprised to read posts from people in this forum saying they don't want women to have an abortion option, yet 99% don't want the government to tell them whether or not they have the right own/carry a firearm etc. "
The big controversy on abortion is when does that collection of cells become "a living soul." From one point of view, a fetus is a totally seperate person. Unique genitic code and all that. So, is it really the womans body? Yes, it is growing inside her, that is how humans are engineered, but it is not really a part of her, is it?
The pro-abortion faction (please, not "pro-choice" - choice is which car (or gun) to buy or what you order in a restarurant) complains that the pro-life faction forces its religious views, or wants to anyway, on society by wanting to outlaw abortion on demand. BUT, they are forcing their religious views society by how they define the beginning of life.
Re: firearms. There is no question on that - the Constitution says that the Feds (and in my view that states too) may NOT infringe on the RKBA. Here is a bit I cribbed from an evil, pro-gun website: "Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." Note that the judge says that the 2nd should also apply to the states. And he says that the states or feds attempting to disarm us is " blind pursuit of inordinate power."
On thing that may interest you is that the dicta supporting Roe referenced the RKBA as an example of an individual right. Of course, the Dred Scott decison also referenced the RKBA as an individual right: ""It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Note that last clause: and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Seems like it was a common and accepted thing for citizens to carry arms wherever they went. Hmm....seems like the USSC accepted it without question back then. It is only recently that the collectivist theory cam into vogue.
Now, be so kind as to show us just where in the Constitution the 'right' to an abortion is listed.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 5, 2008 0:36:15 GMT -5
YIKES! The Big Dog is nipping at my heels...
First of all, the age of 16 for consent?! WOW! Impressive, such high standards the young in Alaska. Palin should advocate sex education and it should've started with her own daughter, and now unfortunately she is an example of what NOT to do. Well surprise, surprise. Only 12 states (including California) have the age of consent set by statute at 18. Seven more are 17. The balance, plus Washington DC, it's 16. If you want to really say YIKES take a look at Pennsylvania... the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years of age. Teenagers aged 13, 14 and 15 may legally engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 4 years older. No, not at all. I was responding to what was a borderline broadbrush attack on your part. So what if Roe is reversed? Abortion was legal in California and a lot of other states prior to Roe and it would be still in a post Roe environment. That is the real issue with Roe, and why it is bad law. And it is exactly what the militant pro-choice crowd does not get. You completely ignore the history pre-Roe, except where it suits your argument, hence the coat hangar references by you. What Roe does is completely remove, without firm constitutional ground to stand on, the rights of the states to control their own laws. Yes I am pro-choice. I am also very much pro capital punishment because I believe it is intellectually dishonest to be in favor of one and opposed to the other. But I also believe very much in the law, and I want the law to be right. If you all want abortion on demand to be the law of the land, get the Congress to write a statute to that effect. But having a court legislate a "constitutional right" out of whole cloth, which is what Roe did, is a profound affront to both millions of people and to the law. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 5, 2008 8:53:42 GMT -5
Sorry to say I can't play here to much today. I did find this little tidbit about "back alley" abortions and my concern is if states have the freedom to restrict abortions we will see an increase of botched abortions. To me one state is one state too many! ========================================= According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an unsafe abortion is the termination of an unintended pregnancy either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards, or both. Unsafe abortion is a significant cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in the world. Approximately 95% of unsafe abortions take place in developing countries[citation needed]. Overview: Every year, 100 million induced abortions occur globally (IPAS); and according to the 2000 estimates (WHO), 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year. According to WHO, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), hemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus).(IPAS) According to WHO statistics, one in ten pregnancies ends in an unsafe abortion.[citation needed] The risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths.[citation needed] In order to limit the number of deaths caused by unsafe abortion, WHO recommendations are priority for prevention of unplanned pregnancies, followed by improving the quality of abortion services and post-abortion care (when safe abortion services are not available, services to treat the complications of unsafe abortion can consume up to 50% of hospital resources). A 2007 study published in the The Lancet found that, although the global rate of abortion declined from 45.6 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003, unsafe procedures still accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003. It also concluded that, while the overall incidence of abortion in both developed and developing countries is approximately equal, unsafe abortion occurs more often in less-developed nations.[1] Pro-life critics contend that the results of The Lancet study are flawed, as there are no accurate statistics about abortion from countries without socialized medicine, particularly those in the developing world.[2][3] In a 2005 report, the WHO itself states, “More than a third of the 204 countries or areas examined did not report the number of deaths by sex even once for the period 1995 to 2003. About half did not report deaths by cause, sex and age at least once in the same period. Moreover, from 1975 to 2003 there has been limited progress in the reporting of deaths and their causes.” [4] Unsafe abortion primarily occurs where abortion is illegal, or where abortion is legal, but there is insufficient provision of medical services. Source: Unsafe Abortion: Mortality and Risk Estimates of Death data from WHO press, Geneva, 1997 10,000 women a year die from unsafe abortions in Nigeria.[7] Incidences in the U.S. after 1973: In 2005, the Detroit News reported that a 16-year-old boy beat his pregnant, under-age girlfriend with a bat at her request to abort a fetus. The young couple live in Michigan where parental consent is needed to receive and abortion.[8][9][10] In Indiana, where there are also parental consent laws, a young woman by the name of Becky Bell died from a pack-alley abortion rather than discuss her pregnancy and wish for an abortion with her parents.[11][12] Methods of unsafe abortion include: Trying to break the amniotic sac inside the womb with a sharp stick or wire (for example a clothes hanger).[7] This method can result in infection, and injury to internal organs (for example pulling out the intestines), resulting in death.[7]
Pumping toxic mixtures, such as chili peppers and chemicals like alum, into the body of the woman.[7] This method can cause the woman to go in to toxic shock and die.Back-alley abortion: Soviet poster circa 1925. Title translation: "Abortions performed by either trained or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death."A back-alley abortion (Back-Yard Abortion in the United Kingdom and Australia) is the common slang term for an illegal abortion in the English-speaking world. The wire coat hanger method was a popularly known back alley abortion procedure, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1960 printing of the American Journal of Public Health: "Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind, second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians." Herbal abortions (when done illegally) can also be described as back-alley abortions because they are not induced in a medical facility.[citation needed] Controversy: The back-alley abortion phenomenon received public attention leading up to the legal proceedings of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in America. Since then, it has become a central argument on the part of some prominent legal abortion advocates. The publication in Ms. magazine of a photo of Gerri Santoro, who died of blood loss following a back-alley abortion, was used extensively to illustrate the dangers of illegal abortions. Bernard Nathanson, a pro-life doctor who, by his account, formerly performed thousands of abortions, has denounced statistics of women who allegedly died from back-alley abortions in the United States. He has asserted on numerous occasions that he and several other colleagues, who later became instrumental in abortion's legalization, had fabricated and disseminated many statistics about back-alley abortions for the purpose of leading the public to adhere to their justification for abortion.[13] Yes, I did read this!Source:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-alley_abortion |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 5, 2008 10:38:10 GMT -5
I'm confused. WHO says 100,000,000 abortions per annum. A study in Lancet shows (most recent) 41,600,000 abortions per annum. That is one hell of a spread. And a hell of a lot of abortions. Which one is correct? (I would bet on the one in the Lancet)
Then, per WHO, 68,000 women die each year due to unsafe abortions (I am going to make the assumtion that all of those are 'back alley' abortions or those done by untrained or semi-trained practioncers). How many women world wide die each year from complicaitons arising from safe, legal abortions? It would make for an interesting comparison.
As both Harpman1 and Big Dog have pointed out, if Roe is tossed out it would fall back to the states to say yes or no. Which is as it should be. Most, if not all, states would quickly pass legislation making it legal. There may be some restrictions placed on abortions during the last trimester. Who knows, maybe by reversing Roe the USSC would be doing the pro-abortion side a favor. I can see many states - CA, NY, IL, MA, OR, WA for instance, removing ALL restrictions. And, instead of having a nation wide debate on it and having to pressure the Federal Government the powerful, deep pockets pro-abortion lobby could bring its power to bear on one state at a time if need be.
Here is an interesting bit about the racist, classist founder of Planned Parenthood:
"In her autobiography Sanger wrote:
"Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house
built upon sands...The eugenicists wanted to shift the
birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor
to more children for the rich. We went back of that and
sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit."[6]
To stop this "multiplication," Sanger could be harsh. Her book The Pivot of
Civilization has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts
as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing
facilities to slum mothers." Such programs "facilitate the function of
maternity" when "the absolute necessity is to discourage it." Sanger believed
that a poor woman who died in childbirth gave other poor women more incentive
to visit her conveniently located birth control clinics."
WOW. Such warmth, such concern for the poor and oppressed. And yet the organization that she founded is hailed as a shining light of progressive thought.
Since you had brought up firearms in a previous post, put the subject on the table as it were, I'm going to go off on that tangent a bit. You seem to have no problem with having 50 different sets of laws concerning firearms - from those of VT which basically boil down to don't use a firearm in the commission of a crime, don't shoot in town, if you have a felony conviction or have been judged to be a nut case don't even think about owning a gun. Then we have CA with its list of 'safe' guns, its waiting periods, banning some firearms that are legal in most other states, etc. Heck, CA has 58 different versions of what an 'assault weapon' is since our AG leaves it up to the counties to determine what is legal (note - to allow honest citizens to own variations of the AR and AK series of firearms, some have been developed that follow the letter of the Roos-Roberti Act and avoid all those evil cosmetic features). So we have the rediculous situation of a firearm being legal in, say, Lake or Mendocino county, but illegal in LA or SF or Sonoma. I have seen letters from the CA Dept. of Justice in response to honest citizens asking about these that say 'Well, as far as CA is concerned they are legal, but you need to check with your DA because he might not think so.' And it is up to the citizen to know what is legal where, when even the cops, the DA, and the DOJ don't know the law. Add to that the CA DOJ from time to time sending out letters to people saying 'gee, we screwed up. We just decided that the gun you bought 2 years ago really IS an assault weapon after all. You have 2 weeks to turn it in.' or 'oh, sorry, we know we told you that you could bring in your gun from another state and register it, but darn it, we were wrong. We will send a man out tomorrow to confiscate it.' and varients on those themes.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 5, 2008 18:14:54 GMT -5
The CDC is tracking abortion statistics: Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2003 Lilo T. Strauss, MA, Sonya B. Gamble, MS, Wilda Y. Parker Douglas A. Cook, MBIS, Suzanne B. Zane, DVM, Saeed Hamdan, MD, PhD Division of Reproductive Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Corresponding address: CDC/National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion/Division of Reproductive Health, 1600 Clifton Rd., N.E., MS K-21, Atlanta, GA 30333. E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov. Abstract Problem/Condition: CDC began abortion surveillance in 1969 to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions. Reporting Period Covered: This report summarizes and describes data voluntarily reported to CDC regarding legal induced abortions obtained in the United States in 2003. Description of System: For each year since 1969, CDC has compiled abortion data by state or area of occurrence. During 1973--1997, data were received from or estimated for 52 reporting areas in the United States: 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. In 1998 and 1999, CDC compiled abortion data from 48 reporting areas. Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma did not report, and data for these states were not estimated. During 2000--2002, Oklahoma again reported these data, increasing the number of reporting areas to 49, and for 2003, Alaska again reported and West Virginia did not, maintaining the number of reporting areas at 49. Results: A total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2003 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.7% decline from the 854,122 legal induced abortions reported by 49 reporting areas for 2002. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 241 in 2003, a decrease from the 246 in 2002. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2003, the same as for 2002. For the same 47 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during 1998--2003. During 2001--2002 (the most recent years for which data are available), 15 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. One death was associated with known illegal abortion. The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried (82%), white (55%), and aged <25 years (51%). Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 61% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2002, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation, with a slight decline in 2003. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.2% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. A total of 36 reporting areas submitted data documenting that they performed and enumerated medical (nonsurgical) procedures, making up 8.0% of all known reported procedures from the 45 areas with adequate reporting on type of procedure. Interpretation: During 1990--1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. When the same 47 reporting areas are compared, the number of abortions decreased during 1996--2001, then slightly increased in 2002 and again decreased in 2003. In 2000 and 2001, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly, with a minimal increase in 2002 and a further decrease in 2003. In 2001 and 2002, as in the previous years, deaths related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely. Public Health Action: Abortion surveillance in the United States continues to provide the data necessary for examining trends in numbers and characteristics of women who obtain legal induced abortions and to increase understanding of this pregnancy outcome. Policymakers and program planners use these data to improve the health and well-being of women and infants. Source:www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 5, 2008 18:44:05 GMT -5
Yes, subdjoe you, Harpman, and Big Dog have carefully explained that each state would have say whether or not abortion can be used if Roe vs Wade is reversed, My response to that is ONE state denying women the right is ONE state too many!
We could dig up statistics all day long and still the end result is I am Pro Choice, I believe women have the right to make personal decisions about their bodies.
I DO NOT support late term abortion unless major health problems are a factor. Personally, I think the an abortion should be done no later than 7-8 weeks after fertilization. And to add honestly I don't like the idea of abortion AT ALL! I think it is taking away life, but I cannot govern the lives of others.
Another annoying aspect of abortion restriction and this political stuff is I don't like that the religious right feels they can impose their belief system onto the rest of the country and make law from it (in this case anyway).
I've said before if some states do get the opportunity to control whether abortion is legalized or not, they should then either have care for mothers who choose to giver their babies up for adoption and make it EASY for people to adopt them, or help support those babies until the mother can care for them. One way or the other a negative consequence will come from forcing women to have babies they don't want without a net to catch them.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 5, 2008 18:47:09 GMT -5
By the way Big Dog, I support capitol punishment especially if it is PROVEN that the creep has taken another's life away. I also support the right to own a firearm so long as the person isn't a nut-job/creep!
(To add: I do not think we should be supporting those that have illegally entered our country. I think ICE should ramp up the raids, and I would love to see a huge crack down on those who choose to break our immigration laws, bankrupt our system, and welcome their gang banger friends into respectable neighborhoods. For anyone in any country who would like to be here legally, and respectfully I welcome them and wish them the best! Whew! I didn't want to be labeled as a crazy liberal ;D)
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 5, 2008 21:22:35 GMT -5
OK, thanks JMO. I'm going to ask you - If even one state infringes on the expressed, enumerated right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is that "one state too many?" If not, why not? And, of course I'm not saying that everyone MUST own a gun, or that felons or those found to be mentally incomeptent should be allowed to own them. NOTE - part of me feels that someone who has done all the time, made restitution, is no longer being supervised, etc. should be able to get back full citizenship - vote, firearms, etc. Another part of me says that any violent felon should be prevented from every voting or owning firearms again. and,yes, I know it is a contradiction.
JMO wrote: "Personally, I think the latest an abortion should be done is between 7-8 weeks after fertilization. And to add honestly I don't like the idea of abortion AT ALL! I think it is taking away life, but I cannot govern the lives of others." So, you support murder in some situations, then? (note - I;m not talking about justified defense of self or others). If you really believe that it is the taking of a(n) (innocent) life, then how can you justify it?
I used to be in favor of keeping it legal, but I've been doing more reading of stuff from both sides, and am becoming more and more convinced that it is an immoral act. If the life of the mother is in more danger from carrying to term than from an abortion, or in cases of rape or incest, then I feel it is, or may be justified. On the other hand, it should be a private matter between a woman, her God, and her doctor.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 5, 2008 21:27:21 GMT -5
subdjoe, I guess I would support murder if someone were to threaten to kill me, or anyone else for that matter. In self defense yes, and I am not talking about absurdities like the Joe Horn case.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 5, 2008 22:24:26 GMT -5
Self defense isn't murder, JMO, it is justifiable homicide.
Joe Horn showed bad judgement, but if more honest citizens were willing to do what he did, we would have a lot less crime. I can't really fault him too much for getting fed up and doing his civic duty to keep the peace. Historically this is how things were done. The professional police force as we know it is pretty recent. Up to the late 1800 and the first decades of the 1900s (maybe even later) the average honest citizen was expected to deal with things like that. And city police were expected to call on armed honest citizens to help in the capture of suspects. Heck, in many states if you see a cop having problems with a suspect you are required to give him whatever aid you are capable of. It is a crime not to do it. I asked on one LEO forum about when and how to assist. The best response I got was "If I'm getting stomped, by all means, wade in. If I'm holding my own, ask. If I'm doing the stopming, stay back." Which was pretty much the consensus.
I know, it isnt the wild west anymore. More't the pity. In many ways the "wild west" - the way it really was, not the hollywood version- was a lot more civilized than we are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Sept 6, 2008 9:59:12 GMT -5
Self defense, give me a break What of the "Born Alive Aborted Infants" that are too young or frail to defend themselves? Our good buddy Sen. Obama killed a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have protected these infants. He only gave vague and confusing reasons why he shelved a bill drafted after the Federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act Here's is his official statement of lies and ommisions that exonerate him while painting a very cloudy picture of his reasons why he defeated this bill. The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ''Born Alive'' Legislation August 19, 2008 STATEMENT "Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions. But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them." ____________________________ Wow, what honey coated words of denial that have a hollow ring to them. To counter to his defense, the National Right to Life White Paper: Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion. August 28, 2008 Senator Barack Obama and his campaign staff have made many conflicting claims in an attempt to "explain" his opposition in 2001, 2002, and 2003, while an Illinois state senator, to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, legislation to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions. The language of the Illinois bills was very similar to the language of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), which was first introduced in Congress in 2000 and enacted into law in 2002. This document provides short rebuttals to a number of the often-shifting Obama claims. Full Text: www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html |
|
