Roe v. Wade - What's happening now??

[AlphaGamDiva]

Originally posted by ZTAngel
While you believe that life begins at conception, there are other religions (and people) who believe that life does not begin until birth. The term "life" is far too complex.

which is also why i said "my .02".....i realize other ppl think differently about life/abortion/right and wrong/heaven/hell/satan/crack/cocaine/weed/cigarettes/church/repubs/dems all that.....again, i was just stating my reasoning why i can't accept KSig's reasoning concerning roe so i can be a good american thing. i think life begins at conception. and i'm okay with saying that i pray roe v. wade gets booted out the door. to some, they see it as a women's issue, i see it as a life issue. therefore, i'm pro-life.

i have a niece/nephew gone b/c of choice.......while i totally, 100% understand how the logic was formed behind the decision.....no logic in the world makes it right to me.....or to her.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by AlphaGamDiva
which is also why i said "my .02".....i realize other ppl think differently about life/abortion/right and wrong/heaven/hell/satan/crack/cocaine/weed/cigarettes/church/repubs/dems all that.....again, i was just stating my reasoning why i can't accept KSig's reasoning concerning roe so i can be a good american thing. i think life begins at conception. and i'm okay with saying that i pray roe v. wade gets booted out the door. to some, they see it as a women's issue, i see it as a life issue. therefore, i'm pro-life.

i have a niece/nephew gone b/c of choice.......while i totally, 100% understand how the logic was formed behind the decision.....no logic in the world makes it right to me.....or to her.

Here's the thing though:

It's completely cool that you believe in conception as the start of a (legally protected) life. The problem is that this definition does not meet the high standards required in courts (at least under current review).

Rudey introduced a new, potentially problematic concept: the 'potential for life' . . . this also introduces elements that are completely beyond the court's necessary comprehension, things like stillbirth, prenatal disease and birth defect, and even 'DNR'-type quality of life arguments.

So the thing is, we have a hotbutton issue that no one can agree on. The reality is that even science can't tell us when a 'life' begins because we can't agree on a definition, and the best the prevailing religion can say is 'at conception' (which originally meant 'during sex' but now we know it takes hours . . . so when is it? can it be pinpointed?) . . .

In these sorts of cases, we must allow the freedom for individual interpretation. The bottom line, Monica, is that you're saving souls - and we can't legislate on that, at least not in good faith.

[AlphaGamDiva]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Here's the thing though:

In these sorts of cases, we must allow the freedom for individual interpretation. The bottom line, Monica, is that you're saving souls - and we can't legislate on that, at least not in good faith.

which is also why i said i know it's a non-issue.

i know i know i know i know i know. bah!

i'm jussayin that to me, IMO, IMHO, IMFHO, that i personally, me, myself, i cannot justify it as ok. i think it's wrong, i want it to be gone, but it never will. if nothing else, dammit, i can say what i wanna.......yes?

[chideltjen]

Originally posted by AlphaGamDiva
which is also why i said i know it's a non-issue.

i know i know i know i know i know. bah!

i'm jussayin that to me, IMO, IMHO, IMFHO, that i personally, me, myself, i cannot justify it as ok. i think it's wrong, i want it to be gone, but it never will. if nothing else, dammit, i can say what i wanna.......yes?

While I don't agree with you, I do agree with you. (Yeah that makes sense?)

Personally... no... I wouldn't get an abortion. It's a horrible process that affects the mother's health as much as it terminates a life. The only reason I would ever have one is if my life was in jeopardy... which apparently is something that Roe Vs Wade covers, but still would be in tact if it was overturned. (Or so some people have told me...)

But overturning R V W isn't going to make it go away. People will still figure some way (no matter how unhealthy) to terminate a pregnancy. Perhaps I watch too many movies or I'm way too cynical to believe that this will happen. But an example I use to explain myself (perhaps a bad one at that) is that drugs are illegal, underage drinking is illegal... but people still do it. (Don't lecture me on how drugs and "murder" are completely different... I said it was a bad example.) But banning something won't make it stop. So I guess it would be better for this to be regulated by the government in clean facilities rather than in someone's garage. In the latter, you run the risk of losing two lives. (Or at least it's higher than the former.)

[RUgreek]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
That's ridiculous and untrue. Not saying it hasn't happened, but that's not part of Catholic dogma. We like guilt, not fear!

I thought that was just a jewish thing?

[RUgreek]

OK, a serious post...

Abortion is a never ending debate, as you have all shown here.

On the one hand, anti-abortionists are not interested in forcing their beliefs on others (as most people would like to believe) but instead trying to protect the life growing inside the womb. Their theory is simply that the act of sex (if consentual) led to the pregnancy and now an innocent 3rd party is not being given a chance at life. This is hard for me to really agree with (me=pro-choice) but they are giving a point that you cannot argue with.

For the other side, it's a matter of choice, the choice to be free to control a woman's body regardless of it contents. The right to end a pregnancy is a liberty that they believe is based on the principles of our country (see KSig RC's comments). To impose a law against abortion is infringing on their rights to have an abortion.

I'm biased so I follow the pro-choice model because I believe a person is free, and once you place restrictions (any no matter how small or big) then you are hitting a slippery slope that adds religious problems to the law. You wouldn't want someone to make a law that violates your religious beliefs, and this same issue is found in Roe v. Wade.

As far as the protection of an unborn fetus goes, until they breathe air they aren't a citizen with protections yet. The question of viability (when is a fetus able to survive on its own) is very complex and impossible to draw a line until birth. While the thought of killing potential life is morally wrong and has its merits in the anti-abortion cause, we really can table that argument for now. This world has worse atrocities being committed everyday, and we kill people for lesser things. Plus, I just can't get myself to support the hardcore anti-abortionists when they think a rape victim doesn't derserve to abort the fruits of that crime.

Man, where is that euthanasia debate thread now


RUgreek

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by RUgreek
I thought that was just a jewish thing?

We like Jewish people too.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by RUgreek

As far as the protection of an unborn fetus goes, until they breathe air they aren't a citizen with protections yet. The question of viability (when is a fetus able to survive on its own) is very complex and impossible to draw a line until birth. While the thought of killing potential life is morally wrong and has its merits in the anti-abortion cause, we really can table that argument for now.

I promised myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this debate, but...

1) Viability of an unborn child is as low as 20 weeks now, and with continued scientific advances, will probably get lower. At what point do we decide to protect this 20 week child? I have friends in Atlanta whose son was born at 22 weeks, and survived. By the time he was 1 year old, his medical bills were over hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars. What if he had not been wanted? Does that mean that he could have just as easily been tissue in an incinerator? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of saving the one 22 week child, and aborting another, simply because of his or her convenience?

2) We have always legislated morality. We have laws concerning theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc - not one of these has any basis other than morality. And yes, theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc will always happen, whether or not they are legal. Does that make abortion any different - or is it just more popular due to its convenience?

3) Does anyone know a mother who has - or wanted or considered - an abortion? I do - and if you know anyone who was adopted, you probably do, too. Each of these people who I know was almost aborted (well, all but one, to be honest) is one of the nicest, sweetest people I know. If you were adopted yourself, if you love someone who was, aren't you secretly glad that his or her mother decided to be inconvenienced for nine months?

4) It is not easy to admit this, but I've changed my own views on abortion - the more I talked with those who have had one or considered one, the more I realized the devastation it causes. Maybe not at the time of the inconvenience, but the devastation does happen. It can play out in the promotion of anti-abortion campaigns; it can play out in pro-abortion campaigns, but it is and will always be a turning point in the life of the mother. Granted, I am lucky in that I never had to make such a decision, but I ache for those who did.

In summing up, like it or not, most of our laws are based on morality. Until a better argument is discovered, maybe convenience of one person or another should be reconsidered.


(changed a word!)

I agree Honeychile,

First, we're talking about legislating morality. Many of the laws we have today are right along with the 10 Commandments. Should we allow murder and stealing because it's along a religious guideline? I know that's a ridiculous claim, but I mean COME ON.

Second, I don't know one person who is HAPPY that they had an abortion. Everyone I know who has had one is very regretful and hurt by their own actions. One of my best friends can't even watch diaper commercials.

Third, the whole adoption point. My mom got pregnant with me when she was 16 and my father WANTED her to have an abortion, but she refused. I thank God every day that she didn't have some idiot pressuring her to choose an abortion. (I bet some of you now wish she had, but THAT is another story) I have had 2 very good friends who were adopted and I thank God that their parents made the same choice.

Finally, you can argue until you're blue in the face that life doesn't begin until birth, but the fact is that you can hear a heartbeat, see a tiny little face and fingers and toes WAY BEFORE 9 months rolls around.

Anyway, JMO, I don't expect anyone to jump on my bandwagon after reading a couple of my highly opinionated posts. You know what they say about opinions..........they're like butts, everyone has one and they usually stink. That's just me...........

[RUgreek]

Originally posted by honeychile
I promised myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this debate, but...

1) Viability of an unborn child is as low as 20 weeks now, and with continued scientific advances, will probably get lower. At what point do we decide to protect this 20 week child? I have friends in Atlanta whose son was born at 22 weeks, and survived. By the time he was 1 year old, his medical bills were over hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars. What if he had not been wanted? Does that mean that he could have just as easily been tissue in an incinerator? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of saving the one 22 week child, and aborting another, simply because of his or her convenience?

2) We have always legislated morality. We have laws concerning theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc - not one of these has any basis other than morality. And yes, theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc will always happen, whether or not they are legal. Does that make abortion any different - or is it just more popular due to its convenience?

3) Does anyone know a mother who has - or wanted or considered - an abortion? I do - and if you know anyone who was adopted, you probably do, too. Each of these people who I know was almost aborted (well, all but one, to be honest) is one of the nicest, sweetest people I know. If you were adopted yourself, if you love someone who was, aren't you secretly glad that his or her mother decided to be inconvenienced for nine months?

4) It is not easy to admit this, but I've changed my own views on abortion - the more I talked with those who have had one or considered one, the more I realized the devastation it causes. Maybe not at the time of the inconvenience, but the devastation does happen. It can play out in the promotion of anti-abortion campaigns; it can play out in pro-abortion campaigns, but it is and will always be a turning point in the life of the mother. Granted, I am lucky in that I never had to make such a decision, and I ache for those who did.

In summing up, like it or not, most of our laws are based on morality. Until a better argument is discovered, maybe convenience of one person or another should be reconsidered.

I don't know, I have a hard time debating abortion rights being a guy but I see lots of great arguments for both sides. It just feels right to me to allow the choice for abortion to continue. I don't think killing is a good thing, but it is necessary under certain circumstances. That's just my feeling, and I know it's not a popular one.

See, the whole thing with helping a premature birth-child with life support and tax dollars seems unfair to me. I feel for the child, but like you said that's thousands of tax dollars being used. I'm not going to sit here and state that I know what's best for everyone, but if there was a choice between the infant's life and mother's, I would choose the latter. Hey, it's not always a happy ending when you make a difficult choice, but that's the world we live in.

Also I can't compare theft to abortion. Obviously it's easier to compare murder and abortion since that is what most anti-abortionists believe it is. Yes it is morally wrong to kill someone, but when I think of a fetus I think they are more related to a mother's property than an individual person. Until they are born, they are subject to a 9 month trial period where the mother is in control of their access to life. If she miscarriages, nobody complains because that's a "natural abortion."

I know no matter what there will be people on both sides of this issue, and rightfully so. I just believe the choice isn't about convenience, but really fairness. Is it fair to make a mother or family suffer for a mistake? If a fetus is determined to have terrible disabilities and low probability of life, or a life of pain, is it so bad to reject the birth and suffering? These are choices that you can yes or no to. And that's why the choice should be there to me.


RUgreek

[LexiKD]

I think this is a hard topic too.
Abortion may not the nicest thing to talk about but it has been going on long before this case and will go on under unsafe conditions if it were illegal.
There are some cases that I think it is understandable, if in the first three months. If I were raped, or in medical danger, or maybe PG b/c of insest...it would be something to think about.
What about drug addicts, child abusers....or someone who could afford a child...I'm not sure.
Not as birth control, there is no reason for peolpe to have multiple abortions when birth control is provided by the govt for FREE.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by LexiKD

Not as birth control, there is no reason for peolpe to have multiple abortions when birth control is provided by the govt for FREE.

I should probably start a different thread for this, but I actually know a couple who are illiterate, on public assistance, and they have two children - by artificial insemination!!!!

[damasa]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
I agree Honeychile,

First, we're talking about legislating morality. Many of the laws we have today are right along with the 10 Commandments. Should we allow murder and stealing because it's along a religious guideline? I know that's a ridiculous claim, but I mean COME ON.

You should share with us, some of "the many laws today that are right along with the 10 commandments."

Secondly, we have a law that allows murder, it's called The Death Penalty buddy.

But I have a feeling that you'd be the type of person that supports The Death Penatly, yet you'll argue about life and whatnot until the death. Life, what a concept...

[AKA_Monet]

The fact is that many of you up in here have unprotected sex and are not married or in a committed relationship...

There is only a "few" ways I can think of as to how a woman gets pregnant... Excluding artificial insemination and the immaculate conception...

So if you are going to judge somebody for aborting, then also judge the fact that they are having illicit fornication, too... As many folks that are up in the Dating and Relationships Forum lamenting of lost lovers... Hmmmm....

Then there is the fact of the ACTUAL numbers of selective abortions--NOT SPONTANEOUS ONES--BUT SELECTIVE ONES... The true in the live Roe V. Wade that everyone has their panties in a twist about...

~32 years ago, women were sticking hangers up their stuff ripping out their insides so that they would not a child. They had NO control of their bodies and who slept with them. The sexual revolution was at its infancy...

In the millenium, we have a patch, with Viagra/Levitra/etc. with full on cloning, artificial insemination and human embryonic stem cells. Because of HIV and AIDS, folks in the 1st world have TrojanMan to do some level of protection... Maybe the actual "physical need" for abortion is as relevant as the "legal need" for it... And that is where I think our argument should lie...

Because really, if you DON'T think this issue comes down to the money with congressional budgets and all for healthcare... Think again...

[kddani]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
[B]
Second, I don't know one person who is HAPPY that they had an abortion. Everyone I know who has had one is very regretful and hurt by their own actions. One of my best friends can't even watch diaper commercials.

I know several who do not regret it at all.

I don't know how truthful someone would be with you on that, especially if they know your stance on it.