Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions

[Paradox]

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/05/court-virginia-ban-lateterm-abortions-unconstitutional

We say that the ban is unconstitutional, yet the Federal government just decided to uphold their ban because it thinks that the ban is constitutional.

Thoughts, opinions, hate mail?

[Moondazed]

While I personally loathe the practice and would never do it, there is no way that I believe that the government should be able to legislate my uterus, period.

[Trieste]

The thing is this. Placing political correctness aside, an unexpected, unwanted fetus should be allowed to be removed from the uterus, like any other parasite. Yes, living being and all that, but here's the thing: if it cannot survive outside of the uterus, if it needs another life form to survive, if it's taking nutrients that that life form consumes for its health needs and whatnot... it is biologically a parasite. The host should have the option to remove it.

I don't agree with the idea of women who get abortions as a form of birth control, but you know what? I don't know any, either. I don't know any woman who has obtained an abortion lightly. It's just like the idea of birth control promoting promiscuity in teens... theoretically possible, but practically unlikely. It's all in the parenting and personality.

I also don't agree with actively destroying a fetus if it's removed from the womb but can survive. There are supposedly hundreds of thousands of childless couples on waiting lists to receive newborn or infant children. I say let 'em at it.

Then again, who is then responsible for that fetus before it's claimed by an adoptive couple? If it can survive outside of the womb with assistance, who pays for that assistance? Who pays for the respirators, the incubators, the IV nutrients? Certainly not the mother who just had the thing removed.

It's a thorny question, but not one that the feds should ever, ever have a say in. It's a violation of states' rights under the goddamn Constitution for them to be poking their wrinkly-ass noses in any of this.

[RubySlippers]

I will keep this simple the Supreme Court should never have passed Roe vs. Wade its a states rights issue and there is no clear Constitutional provision that could clearly allow Federal intervention. It was an activist court making up laws and rights where said rights were very questionable. Any power not granted to the Federal government clearly in the Constitution are left to the States and the People and States have every right to regulate medical practice. And abortion is a medical practice. Add to that I feel simply a law is always preferable to a Constitutional right and protection, a law you can change if its a bad move. This Court Ruling cut down the rights of legislators to due their jobs following the wills of the voters.

And what is this your uterus when there is a child its also the childs home, what about the life of the child? Last time I looked when two humans have a child its a human that comes out not a dog or a cat or a fish so its a human life we are talking about here. Libertarians are rather mixed on this but taking the logical position for this the childs Liberty and its life has equal merit to the mother. If one intends to kill a human being even an unborn one then their must be a serious and compelling reaosn. The only one that would fit is if having the child gestate to a term when it can be removed from the mother and given a chance is dangerous and life threatening to the mother, then one can argue the present and mature life takes precedent. Its like the child having a gun to the mother much like a criminal having a knife threatening me I have a duty to self defense. I frankly don't see convenience as a legitimate reason when there are PLENTY of ways to avoid pregnancy.

And no I'm not religious this is not a religious viewpoint, its a matter of equal and fair execution of the Constitution to all persons and giving the most Liberty to all that must extend to ,for me, even to the unborn child. But I leave the execution of the decision where it belongs to the State governments, thats where it belongs and if they don't have a law then it reverts to the people.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Ok, I didn't even bother to read the replies to this one. 

I am very against abortion period, wheather partial birth or otherwise.  Here's only one of my, I think, very good reasons. 

I am pregnant now for the second time and only 7 weeks along.  My child already has a heartbeat.  I can see it.  This is a living human being and just because someone desides that they don't want to child after conception doesn't make it NOT a living human being.  It is NOT just some piece of bloody tissue (which I might add is also living) and it is not just a fetus.  It is a child who did not ask to be conceived and should not be murdered!  Yes, you heard me correctly, murder.  That's what it is.  Aborting an unborn child is WORSE than going and killing some little kid.  Why?  Because, the little kid can fight back but that poor unborn baby cannot. 

Now, is it unconstitutional for us to ban partial birth abortions?  I don't think so!  All humans have the right to life and an unborn child is a human. 

[Trieste]

Now, is it unconstitutional for us to ban partial birth abortions?  I don't think so!  All humans have the right to life and an unborn child is a human. 

The way I see it, the constitutionality of the ban on abortions has little to do with abortion itself. It has to do with the Constitution, and state rights. The federal Constitution is very specifically worded. I cannot remember the relevant amendment, but it is worded to ensure that states have the right to govern themselves except in the case of interstate commerce. Abortion does not fall under interstate commerce. At all. It should not be governed by the federal government.

[Moondazed]

ShrowdedPoet, it's convenient not to read other people's opinion and just state yours.

The reason a clear YES or NO will not be reached regarding abortion is that there will never be a clear agreement on when life starts.  I've carried two babies, as I said I wouldn't have one, but I don't have the right to say someone else can't.  That fetus can't live outside of the womb, so imo, it's not a person.  Feel free to argue ad nauseum, my decision is made and is based in my personal beliefs.

Regarding state's rights vs. federal rights, I agree that the Constitution states that it's a state issue.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I understand your point and--for the record--I too am against abortion, for the most part; however, what if you had been raped? Would you feel the same way about the kid then?

It's always stupid to say that though, because you can't legislate rape I suppose. It'd be too hard to prove who was being honest about being violated and who was just saying it as an excuse to have their baby hoovered out of them.

This may sound cold but I feel that rape victims should still have the baby and if they don't want to keep it give it up for adoption.  It is still a life.  And I'm not saying this because I don't know what it's like because I have been raped. 

[ShrowdedPoet]

ShrowdedPoet, it's convenient not to read other people's opinion and just state yours.

The reason a clear YES or NO will not be reached regarding abortion is that there will never be a clear agreement on when life starts.  I've carried two babies, as I said I wouldn't have one, but I don't have the right to say someone else can't.  That fetus can't live outside of the womb, so imo, it's not a person.  Feel free to argue ad nauseum, my decision is made and is based in my personal beliefs.

Regarding state's rights vs. federal rights, I agree that the Constitution states that it's a state issue.

Well, here's where it gets interesting.  I don't feel a need to argue with you.  What is the point?  I really don't care what you think because I believe it is wrong and I don't really see a point in argueing with you.  What's wrong in my book is wrong and if someone says it's right I will state my opinion only once just to give them my insight into the subject and then just let it be.  It's everybodies choice to believe what they feel correct to believe. 

[BlackRose]

Abortion does not fall under interstate commerce. At all. It should not be governed by the federal government.

Unfortunately Trieste, that is where you are wrong. This may get a little dicey, but what I am about to say is the truth. After a fair amount of research that I've been doing, I've come across a bit of legislation that has pretty much opened my eyes.

The United States of America is a bankrupt corporation in England. When a child is born, they come to you and get you to sign some paperwork. How many of you have actually read that paperwork? What you are doing is signing the life of the child over to the state. At that point, the state owns the child and you are allowed to care for it as its biological parent. This can be seen in the sense that all children can be taken from their parents as wards of the state, if the state thinks that you are not doing a good job as a parent.

Before I get flamed on anything I am writing, I will again state, this is fact, this is the law in the united states, I could go back and look up the exact laws if you would like and post them here.

If anyone remembers the masacre in Waco, TX. Everyone on that compound exercised their right to expatriate themselves from the United States of America. They became free people, not bound to the laws of the united states, not protected under the constitution, and were killed for it.

Under the law of the United States, when you are born and your parents sign that documentation, the state owns you, you are a slave. Obviously it isn't in the same sense of the word as you think, but here's how it works. Everything in the United States is a commercial matter.

Crime, for example, is a commercial matter, including capital crimes. This is why you can post bail, and stay out of jail until your trial is over. This is why you can pay a fine instead of getting jailtime for most small crimes. The government isn't about to tell you that you can pay money to get out of a murder case... but, theoretically, if you go through the right documentation and file the right paperwork, you can become something called a Secured Party Creditor. The government doesn't like it when you do this, because they can no longer make money from you. You no longer owe the government anything, and they don't own you. No more taxes, no more debts, nothing. Anyone who doubts this, feel free to do a little research on Secured Party Creditors and find out for yourself. Personally, I'm in the process of this.

Unfortunately, thanks to the legislation our government has passed... Human life is interstate commerce.

[BlackRose]

They did exactly what our forefathers did. All things considered, the United States of America consists of a 10 square mile area in Washington DC.

In the end, it comes down to money. 74 men, women, and children, of whom 21 were under the age of 16, were murdered by the American Government. There was spin put on the masacre to make it look less destructive, but that was the heart of the matter.

I find their presence no less subversive than illegal immigrants, but you don't see the illegals getting massacred, do you?

[Sherona]

Interesting way to look at Waco; however, if they really wanted to "expatriate" themselves, then they should have simply gotten the hell off of our land. Go to Canada. Or Mexico. Or anywhere in the world where their ideology was more accepted. There was no need for them to try to tear down one society just to build their own.

Having done significant research on the Branch Davidicans at Waco, I can safely say that their "trying to tear down our society" is ...highly suspect.

In fact the "official" story is that they had guns amassed on the property that were illegal. There were allegations of child abuse but they did allow investigators in and these allegations were never proven, and were closed. :) But I won't hi-jack this trhead any more with this :D Feel free to pm if anyone wants to discuss this further.

[BlackRose]

Sorry Joe, I forgot to mention. Legally, the jurisdiction for the USA is a 10 square mile in DC and any and all military bases that are operated by the USA.

Once more, this is simply a statement that the American government has a legal right to regulate and a vested interest in human life. This is because they own you, or rather, your legal name, which is but words on paper, however, you are collateral for those words on paper.

That is why your legal documents have your name printed in all capital letters, generally last name, first name, middle initial. Its called your Straw-man. Honestly, look it up. Theres a great book that is a little pricey from the Americans Bulletin called Redemption, which outlines everything and more that I've said already.

[ShrowdedPoet]

*rubs chin as though she has a beard*  Interesting!  Please make a new thread so we can discuss this further without getting so off topic.

[BlackRose]

I thought I was staying fairly on topic, with a few off topic comments.

The government has a legal right to ban abortion, lift that ban, regulate any part of your body. Your parent's gave them that right when you were born.

I also agree with definitive terms for things, rather than abstracts and ideas.

A human baby, until it is able to live on its own by itself without being attached to its mother, is a parasite, by definition. Morally, that isn't the case, because its a human. However, by definition, it is a parasite. The idea that it will eventually become a sustainable human life on its own makes it no less true.

[ShrowdedPoet]

So the people who are disabled to the point that they have to have constant care or constant life support are also parasites?

[BlackRose]

No. They do not require another living being to survive.

A parasite is an organism that lives and survives solely by feeding off of another living being without giving adequate return. If you would like, we can declare that a fetus lives in a symbiotic relationship with its mother, because of a psychological benefit.

If you remove a child in the first few months of the pregnancy, the child will die, even with special machines and such to stay alive. The child feeds off the mother in order to survive. After a certain point in the pregnancy, the child could very well live with the help of machinery.

There is a reason why the law stats that after a certain point, killing a pregnant woman counts as two counts of murder instead of one. That is because the law does not legally recognize the child as being alive until that point.

[BlackRose]

Monetarily, yes. But then, all children could be considered parasites in that sense too. I am speaking medically and biologically.

If the government in the US socialized medicine, they would no longer have that parasitical relationship. Nothing can be changed to stop the parasitical bond a child has with its mother after conception.

[BlackRose]

Hence why I said, you can state that the relationship is symbiotic, due the the mutual value that both gain, rather than a parasitical one. Just because the theory was discarded because it doesn't sound pretty doesn't make it any less true. Take the child away from the mother before a certain point and no matter what you do, it will die.

I am not saying that I think babies are parasites and should be exterminated. I rather disagree with the idea that everything should be politically correct and not offensive to anyone. I do not agree with the idea of sugarcoating white lies to make people less angry. Afterall, a rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet. A pile of dung by any other name would still smell like crap. Doesn't matter what you call it, or term it, it is what it is and nothing can, or ever will, change that.

[ShrowdedPoet]

lol,it happens to the best of us!

[MadPanda]

For everyone else...you are overlooking the obvious.  The vast majority of late-term terminations are done for the health of the mother.  We are NOT talking 'oh, I don't want to have this child'.  We're talking 'the child will be stillborn and to carry the pregnancy to term means that the mother is likely to die'.  Or 'carrying this child to term may result in complications resulting in sterility'.

This is not a cut and dried issue.  It never was.

Do a little research, not by listening to the advocates for one side or another, but maybe pay attention to the medical community on the subject, yeah?  Or is it too 'elitist' to actually look at the facts instead of loud-mouthing?

[Sherona]

For everyone else...you are overlooking the obvious.  The vast majority of late-term terminations are done for the health of the mother.  We are NOT talking 'oh, I don't want to have this child'.  We're talking 'the child will be stillborn and to carry the pregnancy to term means that the mother is likely to die'.  Or 'carrying this child to term may result in complications resulting in sterility'.

This is not a cut and dried issue.  It never was.

Do a little research, not by listening to the advocates for one side or another, but maybe pay attention to the medical community on the subject, yeah?  Or is it too 'elitist' to actually look at the facts instead of loud-mouthing?

Don't leave out the ones who are done because it has been determined that the child will have a dibilitating disease that will dramatically decrease quality of life. *shrugs* I do not look down upon those who have made the choice to do late term abortions due to any medical reason..but for me myself and I, if there was a chance the baby would be born alive I wouldn't. But its a personal choice, not somethgn I think should be regulated.

[Greenthorn]

My stand:

The right to choose.

Enough said.

[BlackRose]

My stand:

The right to choose.

Enough said.

Quoted for truth

[ShrowdedPoet]

For everyone else...you are overlooking the obvious.  The vast majority of late-term terminations are done for the health of the mother.  We are NOT talking 'oh, I don't want to have this child'.  We're talking 'the child will be stillborn and to carry the pregnancy to term means that the mother is likely to die'.  Or 'carrying this child to term may result in complications resulting in sterility'.

This is not a cut and dried issue.  It never was.

Do a little research, not by listening to the advocates for one side or another, but maybe pay attention to the medical community on the subject, yeah?  Or is it too 'elitist' to actually look at the facts instead of loud-mouthing?

Ok, I don't think I've heard anyone loud-mouthing and believe me, I HAVE looked at all the facts.  I do study and look into things. 

[MadPanda]

Defensive, much?

That wasn't aimed at any side, or any individual.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I didn't say it was it just seemed a bit snippy and as though you were speaking to anyone against abortion as idiots. . .I myself don't care because I'm well read on the subject and have written many papers.

[MadPanda]

No, I'm against idiots in general.  They make me snippy as all get out.

[BlackRose]

Idiocy is determined by perspective. No matter what you've said or done or learned, anyone can consider anyone an idiot. That doesn't mean they are correct, it is simply their perspective. I too misunderstood your flamatory comment above. It seemed very much so like you were indirectly loud mouthing at anyone who didn't agree with you.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Well, I didn't notice any idiocey in the topic either but could have missed.  I hate idiots also.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Idiocy is determined by perspective. No matter what you've said or done or learned, anyone can consider anyone an idiot. That doesn't mean they are correct, it is simply their perspective. I too misunderstood your flamatory comment above. It seemed very much so like you were indirectly loud mouthing at anyone who didn't agree with you.

Most definately agree!  This is what I thought at first too!

[Sherona]

Abortion is a sensitive subject no matter where its discussed at. Pro-lifers have valid arguments that usualy revolve around the ethics and morality of deciding when a Potential human life has Life and thus has the Right to Life the same as a born baby.  Pro-choicers have valid arguments, usually revolving around legalities and the fear of Federal Government being able to control what they do to their bodies.

Its a sticky mess is what it is. My ideas of when something is alive, is far different then someone elses. One might say, the moment its born naturally and can take a breath on its own is life, another might say the moment a sperm cell unites with an egg cell it is life, stil others find a medium of when it can survive outside the mothers womb.

I really doubt that pro-lifers vs Pro-choicer will ever fade. 200 years from now it will still be heatedly discussed, insults will be flung, and hackles will be raised. Its unfortunate yes, but that is how it is. Because it is such a personal discussion.

[Greenthorn]

*ponders*

Should there be a law that women cannot get hysterectomies, or breast enhancements...or that all men must be circumcised?  Or should our bodies be our bodies...for us to choose what to do with them?

The right to choose.  

It's what makes us all human, the intelligence to choose what is or is not best for our own selves.  And in a topic like this, no one is "right", so therefore the all encompassing right to choose should be a happy place for everyone, dontcha think?

Edit: If I am a pro-choice so be it, but on a side note I am Roman Catholic and am against abortion...but I would not dare expect others to accept my own beliefs.

[Moondazed]

Have you noticed that terms pro-life and pro-choice aren't opposites?  The correct terms would be anti-choice and pro-choice, but that wouldn't put the warm fuzzy spin on it *sigh*

[Moondazed]

Nice try, Greenthorn, but there is no way to please everyone on this topic because those who don't believe in abortion feel that the baby has a choice in there too.

[Moondazed]

I agree with you that no one is right; however, I also believe that all men should be circumcised. Haven't you even seen an uncircumcised penis? They're downright frightening!

I SINCERELY hope you're kidding :P

[Greenthorn]

But the point is...we can each have our own beliefs on it...but should we allow a government to choose that belief for us?

[Sherona]

Have you noticed that terms pro-life and pro-choice aren't opposites?  The correct terms would be anti-choice and pro-choice, but that wouldn't put the warm fuzzy spin on it *sigh*

I had actually not thought of it that way. That is just the way I have always heard it termed on the news and such.

I would like to say I was not promoting EITHER side....I try very hard not to promote either side because that just generally generates nasty remarks :P Like GT I do not feel it is my place to force my own beliefs on anyone else :)

[BlackRose]

I agree with you that no one is right; however, I also believe that all men should be circumcised. Haven't you even seen an uncircumcised penis? They're downright frightening!

One word...

Suckerfish

[MadPanda]

When I started the thread, I wasn't trying to push any opinions either. I wanted to see how people here felt about the issue of Virginia saying the ban is unconstitutional, while the Federal government says it isn't. Of course, things quickly fell from such lofty hopes of a discussion on the legal part of it to just abortion in general.

Here's half of the problem: law is the art of taking shades of grey and distilling them into a black-and-white division.  No matter how finely you narrow the focus, no matter how carefully you define matters...you still end up with borderline case.

Tragedy, according to Nietsche, is the collision between two equally compelling 'right's.  Which is what we have here.

[Sherona]

Here's half of the problem: law is the art of taking shades of grey and distilling them into a black-and-white division.  No matter how finely you narrow the focus, no matter how carefully you define matters...you still end up with borderline case.

Tragedy, according to Nietsche, is the collision between two equally compelling 'right's.  Which is what we have here.

COuldnt have said it better.

[MadPanda]

On the matter of idiocy...

If you've studied the matter, and thought about it both outside an echo chamber and away from groupthink, faced the long and short term consequences of your decision, and are willing to shoulder the burden of those consequences...then you're not an idiot.

Needless to say, out in my neck of the woods (and everywhere else, too) I hear a lot of idiots--by which I mean folks who will insist that it's all 'A' or 'Not-A' but who won't walk a mile in someone else's moccasins, nor consider the costs of their almighty opinion.

Case in point: brother of a friend, staunchly pro-life.  Won't have kids.  Won't adopt kids.  Doesn't want to consider rape, incest, or medical exemptions 'because it's denying the child a chance'.  Refuses to let his tax dollars fund, say, prenatal care for underprivileged mothers...let alone education.

He's an idiot.

Credit where it's due: his wife is a very nice woman who more than makes up for his loud-mouthing by her actions...and she is not an idiot.

[Hunter]

I'm only going to say one thing about the subject.

You don't want you uterus legistated?  And now you know how I feel about you trying to take away my guns.

[RubySlippers]

For everyone else...you are overlooking the obvious.  The vast majority of late-term terminations are done for the health of the mother.  We are NOT talking 'oh, I don't want to have this child'.  We're talking 'the child will be stillborn and to carry the pregnancy to term means that the mother is likely to die'.  Or 'carrying this child to term may result in complications resulting in sterility'.

This is not a cut and dried issue.  It never was.

Do a little research, not by listening to the advocates for one side or another, but maybe pay attention to the medical community on the subject, yeah?  Or is it too 'elitist' to actually look at the facts instead of loud-mouthing?

True but a child doesn't have to be carried to term with the last several decades and the advances in neonatal care would allow the child a chance to survive even at seven months gestation of twenty-eight weeks. So unless a child is actually stillborn and simple tests could tell that this procedure may not make any sense save in very odd cases.

As for Virgina its simply a matter they don't allow for if a procedure started as something else and turned into an illegal abortion, if they change the law it would be upheld most likely.

[Celestial Goblin]

I'm pro-choice, but also pro - doing all that's possible so that women wouldn't need to decide to do an abortion.
That includes:
- contraception
- sexual education
- having good orphanages
- encouraging adoption of orphans
- help for poor families
- preventing home violence
- changing negative attitudes towards single mothers
- good schools and childcare facilities available
- efficient laws towards alimony
- fighting rape
All those things can prevent an unwanted pregnancy or encourage the pregnant person not to abort.

[Moondazed]

1.  My uterus can't shoot you dead.

2.  Don't be melodramatic... no one is trying to take your guns.

[Moondazed]

*giving Celestial Goblin a great big hug*

Very well said.

[MadPanda]

I'm pro-choice, but also pro - doing all that's possible so that women wouldn't need to decide to do an abortion.
That includes:
- contraception
- sexual education
- having good orphanages
- encouraging adoption of orphans
- help for poor families
- preventing home violence
- changing negative attitudes towards single mothers
- good schools and childcare facilities available
- efficient laws towards alimony
- fighting rape
All those things can prevent an unwanted pregnancy or encourage the pregnant person not to abort.

...in other words, NOT being an idiot.

[Ariabella]

But....but....but...idiocy prevails in society! Which explains why I don't like most people I meet in person, lol.

[MadPanda]

And that, m'dear lady, is why I am a cranky Panda.

[Hunter]

1.  My uterus can't shoot you dead.

2.  Don't be melodramatic... no one is trying to take your guns.

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  :P

2. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!   You have no idea, then.

[Trieste]

Whoooa... I make a comment last night and the conversation runs away for two more pages after bed!

Blackrose, I'm not sure I entirely follow the reasoning of the ward-of-the-government ... thing ... um. *feels like an idiot* *realises there's a cranky anti-idiot Panda around and flees before he sees her*

All men should absolutely not be circumcised. Uncircumcised gentlemen are a delight to give head to ... assuming they've been taught to clean things properly. Much like us women need to be taught.

And ... that's all I have to say about that. *coughs*

[Moondazed]

Please forgive my obvious ignorance... would you care to start a new thread (and link it here) to enlighten me?

[Moondazed]

*nodding emphatically at Trieste, smiling happily*

[MadPanda]

Blackrose, I'm not sure I entirely follow the reasoning of the ward-of-the-government ... thing ... um. *feels like an idiot* *realises there's a cranky anti-idiot Panda around and flees before he sees her*

Not following a line of argument does not make you an idiot.  Especially not if I'm the one making the argument, and I've forgotten to mention a key point or five (which happens far, far too often).

Pretending to follow the line of argument without asking for clarification, on the other hand...

[Hunter]

I'm pro-choice, but also pro - doing all that's possible so that women wouldn't need to decide to do an abortion.
That includes:
- contraception
- sexual education
- having good orphanages
- encouraging adoption of orphans
- help for poor families
- preventing home violence
- changing negative attitudes towards single mothers
- good schools and childcare facilities available
- efficient laws towards alimony
- fighting rape
All those things can prevent an unwanted pregnancy or encourage the pregnant person not to abort.

And...I agree that all those things are definitely necessary.  But....I'm not going to say anything else about the subject.  Enough people think I'm a dumbass moron because of my political views without adding to it.

[Moondazed]

Personally, I don't find anyone who can legitimately cite why they believe what they do to be a dumbass moron.  Part of discourse is keeping your emotions out of the debate, Hunter.

[Moondazed]

Hold on... you believe in sexual education?  Most conservatives don't, if I recall correctly.

[ShrowdedPoet]

On the matter of idiocy...

If you've studied the matter, and thought about it both outside an echo chamber and away from groupthink, faced the long and short term consequences of your decision, and are willing to shoulder the burden of those consequences...then you're not an idiot.

Needless to say, out in my neck of the woods (and everywhere else, too) I hear a lot of idiots--by which I mean folks who will insist that it's all 'A' or 'Not-A' but who won't walk a mile in someone else's moccasins, nor consider the costs of their almighty opinion.

Case in point: brother of a friend, staunchly pro-life.  Won't have kids.  Won't adopt kids.  Doesn't want to consider rape, incest, or medical exemptions 'because it's denying the child a chance'.  Refuses to let his tax dollars fund, say, prenatal care for underprivileged mothers...let alone education.

He's an idiot.

Credit where it's due: his wife is a very nice woman who more than makes up for his loud-mouthing by her actions...and she is not an idiot.

I can definitely agree with you there.  Sometimes I'm under the impression that people just DON'T think anymore, and then someone walks up to me and asks me an out and out stupid question or says something utterly unintelligent and I KNOW that most people just don't think anymore.  They're running around with smoothies for brains.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Hold on... you believe in sexual education?  Most conservatives don't, if I recall correctly.

lol, I don't know about that, probably true though.

This very lovely lady who was married and VERY pregnant with her second child gave a speach in my speach class about sex education.  It was BEAUTIFUL!  So much so that it made me cry!

[ShrowdedPoet]

*is now confused*  That really didn't make much sence. . .typos screw things up royally. . .

[Moondazed]

Personally, I don't find anyone who can legitimately cite why they believe what they do to be a dumbass moron.  Part of discourse is keeping your emotions out of the debate, Hunter.

Let me rephrase... if someone can legitimately cite why they believe what they believe, I don't see them as a dumbass moron, I see them as someone with a different opinion than mine.  Someone who doesn't bother knowing WHY they believe what they believe and just spouts bs falls into the lemming category, which is the next door neighbor of the dumbass moron category ;)  Then there's the category of people who base their beliefs on selective facts instead of all of the available information... damn, this is getting complicated! :P

[ShrowdedPoet]

So mere-beleif is the lemming category?

[MadPanda]

(responding to Moondazed)

An important distinction!...which reminds me.  I very definitely failed to mention the irritant which prompted my initial outburst and thus gave some folks the understandable but incorrect notion that I was being inflammatory:

In my opinion, judging by the rhetoric with which they justified the decision, the politicians who enacted the bans were being idiots.

But that way also lies a Mark Twainism.  These are the same general class of folks who pass laws making it illegal to fish from the back of a camel in the Boise River, or get a fish drunk in Oklahoma, or prohibit lions from roaming loose in the streets of Cleveland.

[Moondazed]

Belief that isn't based in actual knowledge is called blind faith, and yes, in my book that's lemming behavior.  Note that I'm not saying that scientific evidence is required to keep one from being a lemming, since there is no verifiable scientific evidence of a Divine force, yet I've had personal experiences that lead me to believe the things that I do.  However, if there is scientific evidence to be factored into the overall picture and one chooses to ignore it, they've just stepped into the lemming category.  Let me state clearly and without equivocation that the above is IN MY OPINION, your mileage may vary.  There are certainly people who don't respect my belief in the Divine because there's no scientific evidence to support it, which is their prerogative.  That's one of the perks of living in a country where we're freely allowed to express our beliefs whether they're in line with 'accepted standard' or not ;)

[ShrowdedPoet]

*bumps you*  stop being so uptight about possible flamation. . .

[Moondazed]

I prefer to think of it as being clear :)  Lack of caution in that department has caused a fair bit of trouble in the past.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Yeah. . .ok, I guess. . .*pouts*

[robitusinz]

I am pregnant now for the second time and only 7 weeks along.

Man, my baby's mama has pumped out two mini-me's, and they've made me even MORE pro-choice.

Caring for kids is a huge, huge, FUCKING HUGE undertaking.  Frankly, anyone who even THINKS about having an abortion, should just go ahead and do it.  If there's even an iota of doubt about whether you really want to see the kid alive or not, you just don't have what it takes to be a parent (no, no, I don't give a shit about your personal opinion, or your personal testimony on how you came 'this close' and are happy you didn't...)

We really don't need any more future convicts being shitted out, nor news stories about wack jobs finding new ways to upstage each other in the race to discover the most fucking insane ways of killing their kids.

Because, the little kid can fight back but that poor unborn baby cannot. 

That's exactly why you gotta hit em while they're still in the factory.  I'm still regretting teaching my boogers to talk.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I'm going to pretend that I did not just read that.

[Greenthorn]

*reaches up and grabs Rob before he gets in trouble*

Now, now..everyone is entitled to their opinion here..but let's be nice with the delivery (not just you Rob)

[robitusinz]

Hey, my delivery's all I've got.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult to properly raise children.  After experiencing it firsthand, and being as responsible a parent as humanly possible, I would definitely rather someone abort their "fetus" rather than take on the "burden" of raising a child they never wanted.

I think it's funny how all the Pro-Lifers choose to circle abortion clinics and berate the people who work there, when the better show of protest would be for them to line up in front of an orphanage and adopt all of the children there.  What would Jesus do indeed.

[Sherona]

I think it's funny how all the Pro-Lifers choose to circle abortion clinics and berate the people who work there, when the better show of protest would be for them to line up in front of an orphanage and adopt all of the children there.  What would Jesus do indeed.

*grins* Not defending the protests (though I feel as long as they are peacable then they have every right to protest all they want.) Nor taking the stance of Pro-life (did some research and they call themselves pro-life rather then anti-choice because most do ot feel that choice is being fair to the unborn baby who does not get a voice/choice..anywho just another side of the argument)

But I do wonder how that would show of protest? Taking on more children that they themselves might not be able to raise? And I happen to know for a fact (after being with real life friedns trying hard to adopt a baby-baby) that infants are in high demand for adoptions...so people who do not want babies that hey are carrying could give them up for adoption without worry that they will sit in an orphanage forever and a day. Its the older oens that sadly go unadopted..

Again not defending or what not, just wondering how this would be a better protest.

[robitusinz]

*grins* Not defending the protests (though I feel as long as they are peacable then they have every right to protest all they want.) Nor taking the stance of Pro-life (did some research and they call themselves pro-life rather then anti-choice because most do ot feel that choice is being fair to the unborn baby who does not get a voice/choice..anywho just another side of the argument)

But I do wonder how that would show of protest? Taking on more children that they themselves might not be able to raise? And I happen to know for a fact (after being with real life friedns trying hard to adopt a baby-baby) that infants are in high demand for adoptions...so people who do not want babies that hey are carrying could give them up for adoption without worry that they will sit in an orphanage forever and a day. Its the older oens that sadly go unadopted..

Again not defending or what not, just wondering how this would be a better protest.

Because unless you offer a solution, you have no business criticizing others.

Unless you're willing to pick up the tab on the unborn kid, shut the fuck up.

I wish I could be Pro-Life...in fact, I'm completely for life...however, I live on the planet Earth, where it takes a looooooot of money to keep a kid living decently, and unless your baby ends up being a child actor, the rate of return is shit.

Where are the pro-lifers when that 16 year old girl does "the right thing" and keeps her kid, then basically throws away any chance of having some sort of career?  Great, like we need another waitress in this country.

Or, where are the pro-lifers when there's a 4 year old kid trapped nightly in a doggie kennel while the mom is having her douchebag boyfriend ass-fuck her prior to smoking a few rocks of crack?

Frankly, if I were anywhere near Pro-Life, my stance would be that anyone who has an abortion should also be voluntarily sterilized...."Fool me once, shame on me...but you ain't fooling me twice!"  Just like we spay and neuter our dogs and cats, we should do the same to people who can't be responsible with their dingalings.

All I'm talking about here is responsibility.  Abortion is an issue where NO ONE is right.  The aborters should've been more responsible at the beginning.  The pro-lifers just need to shut the fuck up because they're not willing to take responsibility after the fact.  The only "right" in the entire thing is that the government should have no say whatsoever in whether or not abortion is legal.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Hey, my delivery's all I've got.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult to properly raise children.  After experiencing it firsthand, and being as responsible a parent as humanly possible, I would definitely rather someone abort their "fetus" rather than take on the "burden" of raising a child they never wanted.

I think it's funny how all the Pro-Lifers choose to circle abortion clinics and berate the people who work there, when the better show of protest would be for them to line up in front of an orphanage and adopt all of the children there.  What would Jesus do indeed.

I have kids too.  And if you don't want it put it up for adoption.  Not all pro-lifers are christians either.  I myself am not christian, I just believe in the sanctity of life.  I would also not protest at an abortion clinic and attack the workers and women going in, that's not the way to win.  No flaming please!  I could not help but post a reply to this one, the first one I could ignore but not this one.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Because unless you offer a solution, you have no business criticizing others.

Unless you're willing to pick up the tab on the unborn kid, shut the fuck up.

I wish I could be Pro-Life...in fact, I'm completely for life...however, I live on the planet Earth, where it takes a looooooot of money to keep a kid living decently, and unless your baby ends up being a child actor, the rate of return is shit.

Where are the pro-lifers when that 16 year old girl does "the right thing" and keeps her kid, then basically throws away any chance of having some sort of career?  Great, like we need another waitress in this country.

Or, where are the pro-lifers when there's a 4 year old kid trapped nightly in a doggie kennel while the mom is having her douchebag boyfriend ass-fuck her prior to smoking a few rocks of crack?

Frankly, if I were anywhere near Pro-Life, my stance would be that anyone who has an abortion should also be voluntarily sterilized...."Fool me once, shame on me...but you ain't fooling me twice!"  Just like we spay and neuter our dogs and cats, we should do the same to people who can't be responsible with their dingalings.

All I'm talking about here is responsibility.  Abortion is an issue where NO ONE is right.  The aborters should've been more responsible at the beginning.  The pro-lifers just need to shut the fuck up because they're not willing to take responsibility after the fact.  The only "right" in the entire thing is that the government should have no say whatsoever in whether or not abortion is legal.

*can't keep mouth shut any longer*  Completely off abortion topic!  I got pregnant at 16, had my daughter at 17.  I graduated with honors. . .have a good job at a law office. . .almost have my AA and will be going on to get my BA.  My life was NOT ruined and just because someone has kids young does NOT mean their life is ruined!  And don't go spouting crap at me about how MOST of them end up like that cause I know a nifty few (meaning a heck of a lot) who turned out going to college and having fulfilling lives.  People like you are the problem.  Not pro-life or pro-choice. . .people like you. 

Keep it PG-13 man, this is a public thread.

AND you DO need to keep it pg-13 because I WILL go to a siren. . .

[BlackRose]

*can't keep mouth shut any longer*  Completely off abortion topic!  I got pregnant at 16, had my daughter at 17.  I graduated with honors. . .have a good job at a law office. . .almost have my AA and will be going on to get my BA.  My life was NOT ruined and just because someone has kids young does NOT mean their life is ruined!  And don't go spouting crap at me about how MOST of them end up like that cause I know a nifty few (meaning a heck of a lot) who turned out going to college and having fulfilling lives.  People like you are the problem.  Not pro-life or pro-choice. . .people like you. 

AND you DO need to keep it pg-13 because I WILL go to a siren. . .

*pets ShroudedPoet* Its okay...

No use getting worked up over things. Some people just don't have all the facts... or any of them...

Honestly? This thread was supposed to be about the abortion laws... not about whether or not abortion was right.

The government has every legal right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their property, that is, your body.

Steering the subject back on track...

Late term abortions sound more like murder to me... but thats just me. If it's still born or has a terrible defect, I think it's only humane to terminate it...

I mean really, think about it...

Why is it inhumane to allow a dog to suffer if the vet says it should be put down when it may very well lead a hard, painful life, but it is "against God's will" to terminate a a pregnancy where the child will lead a hard and painful life?

THAT, ladies and gents, makes no sense to me.

Oh, and the first person to retort with, Dogs aren't humans, they shouldn't get the same consideration... Well, please don't.

[Ariabella]

My only response to your analogy is that I've always felt it wrong also that someone with a terminal illness with no hope for cure or a good life also could not, by their choice, be euthanized instead of living a life filled with pain and inability to live.

[Greenthorn]

.......the government says abortions are bad (and some pro-lifers) yet it's okay to go and participate in wars where many children/pregnant women are killed...*ponders*

But oh wait, that's right..."it's not the same thing", "it's not our children/pregnant women"

*walks out and away from the backlash*

[ShrowdedPoet]

*pets ShroudedPoet* Its okay...

No use getting worked up over things. Some people just don't have all the facts... or any of them...

Honestly? This thread was supposed to be about the abortion laws... not about whether or not abortion was right.

The government has every legal right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their property, that is, your body.

Steering the subject back on track...

Late term abortions sound more like murder to me... but thats just me. If it's still born or has a terrible defect, I think it's only humane to terminate it...

I mean really, think about it...

Why is it inhumane to allow a dog to suffer if the vet says it should be put down when it may very well lead a hard, painful life, but it is "against God's will" to terminate a a pregnancy where the child will lead a hard and painful life?

THAT, ladies and gents, makes no sense to me.

Oh, and the first person to retort with, Dogs aren't humans, they shouldn't get the same consideration... Well, please don't.

*breathes*  I know, it wass just. . .  *shakes head*  wrong, and I wouldn't normally say something that someone believes is WRONG. . .  I know. . .  I really do think that when it says in, the constitution (correct me if I'm wrong cause I think I am. . .it says it somewhere, maybe bill of rights)  That everyone has the right to life. . .I think that's enough.  Now yes I know that if it IS dead there is no reason to carry it to term but if there's a chance it will servive. . .and I've known tons of disavled people who've lived wonderful lives.  Now as for the dogs. . .they're living creatures too. . .putting them out of their pain isn't necessarily a bad thing but they've had a chance to live life. . .unborns only experience inside the womb if they are aborted.  But anyway. . .Thanks for not flaming me for getting upset at. . .I WILL NOT CALL PEOPLE NAMES. . .the poster who posted such filth.

[Trieste]

It looks like it's time for a breather.

I will be more than happy to unlock this thread after people have settled down and are ready to discuss things in a calm manner. Or I'm at least going to give it some time. *smiles*

[Moondazed]

It appears to me that things calmed down on their own... no intervention necessary ;)

[ShrowdedPoet]

It appears to me that things calmed down on their own... no intervention necessary ;)

*thumps noodle*  they might not have though. . .then people REALLY would hate me. . .

[ShrowdedPoet]

In a Bill Clinton-esque voice- "I feel yer pain"

Do you?  Do you really?  (I'm from and curently live in that state and it disgustes me that he crawled from the swamps of Arky. . .lol)

[Moondazed]

Now now, does that have anything to do with the ban on late term abortion? ;)  A thread on Clinton would probably be a rousing read on this forum! *giggle*

[ShrowdedPoet]

I don't know that I'd start it though. . .*sighs* 

Nifty little tidbit, abortion has been around for a very very long time. . .predates christianity. . .was practiced widely in pagan faith as a means of birth control. . .chew on that one for a while. . .lol

[Moondazed]

First you'll have to share factual evidence :)

[MadPanda]

As MD says, 'sources, please'.  Show us the data.

I suspect you mean infanticide, which is something completely different.

[Moondazed]

I have to giggle at the naughty medical images that enter my mind when someone abbreviates me *giggle*

[MadPanda]

Ahh.  Walked into that one, didn't I?  :)  Well, milady, you know where I am...

[ShrowdedPoet]

First you'll have to share factual evidence :)

This is stuff I learned in phiosophy so I'll actually have to search for it online.  Sorry, just trying to get it back on topic.

[Vekseid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#Prehistory_to_5th_century

I had assumed it was fairly well known. The reason why infanticide was so common was because early abortion techniques were not always effective.

[MadPanda]

This is stuff I learned in phiosophy so I'll actually have to search for it online.

Philosophy != History

Just ask that Marx guy and his buddy Haeckel.

[ShrowdedPoet]

We were talking about history at the time.  We (there was me and my friend as students and a great teacher. . .that's it) got off topic alot.

[MadPanda]

Uh huh.  Point is, a philosopher speaking about history is not necessarily also a historian, and there's a lot of bad data flying around out there (some of it from sloppy historians), so your philosophy prof (as cool as they might be) may not know how to separate data from noise.

That's not to say that they're wrong in any given case.  Just that being cautious with this stuff is a good idea, because there's a lot of cherry-picking that goes on.

And thanks for the link, Oh Mighty Mod.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Uh huh.  Point is, a philosopher speaking about history is not necessarily also a historian, and there's a lot of bad data flying around out there (some of it from sloppy historians), so your philosophy prof (as cool as they might be) may not know how to separate data from noise.

That's not to say that they're wrong in any given case.  Just that being cautious with this stuff is a good idea, because there's a lot of cherry-picking that goes on.

Well, he was actually really good at that. Which sometimes sucked for us, the masters of BS.  But he is very historically inclined and not a philosopher, a phyisist actually.  And a mathmatician.  And I think he would have done great teaching Western Civ.  lol but I do understand what your saying.  A bit busy right now but I will get that info for you guys.

[Moondazed]

Why does it amuse me that Vek linked to Wikipedia for factual evidence? :P 

Just teasing, before anyone freaks out.

[Moondazed]

I don't know that I'd start it though. . .*sighs* 

Nifty little tidbit, abortion has been around for a very very long time. . .predates christianity. . .was practiced widely in pagan faith as a means of birth control. . .chew on that one for a while. . .lol

I have no doubt that as long as women have been getting pregnant there have been those who wished to become unpregnant... what I need proof of is the part that's in bold. 

And I'm not sure what that has to do with how American law applies to abortion... but whatever floats your boat ;)

[Sherona]

Why does it amuse me that Vek linked to Wikipedia for factual evidence? :P 

Just teasing, before anyone freaks out.

Veks and I have debated the factual basis of Wiki and its usefulness. My argument, because its reader-editable it is unreliable, veks Argment - Most of the time admins of wiki jump to delete bizzare posts and that it makes a good jumping off point in research.

After discussion with him, and some of the interesting questions he has posed for me, I have to agree...its not something I would base my opinion solely on, but it does give a good starting point :D

[ShrowdedPoet]

It had to do with abortion.  I was trying to get the thread back to some topic having to do with the original post.  I am a pagan myself so I didn't mean this as a bad thing.  Just an interesting thing.  Maybe I should just shut my mouth maybe then people won't jump me.  

[Moondazed]

Please don't take away from my comment that I see no value in Wikipedia :) 

[Moondazed]

Asking for proof of your statements is jumping you???  I'm sorry you feel that way.  If my intention had been to jump you it would have included a switchblade and a demand for the contents of your purse :P  That's not my style :D

[ShrowdedPoet]

Please don't take away from my comment that I see no value in Wikipedia :) 

Huh?

lol, that's not what I meant. . .I felt like I may have annoyed people with my comment.  I've been getting jumped on a lot and I'm not meaning to do any harm and have become rather depressed so it shows.

[MadPanda]

Vekseid's link is interesting and informative in its own right, but you need to bring your own to the table for next time.  :)  Wiki is where research starts, not finishes.

And with that, I am formally bowing out of this discussion and letting people less inclined to crankiness fight it out.



"You know, Alcibiades, I used to be pretty good at these word games, too."
--Pericles, as interpreted by Larry Gonick

[Moondazed]

That was in reply to Sherona... your post wasn't there when I answered... they crossed paths in the aether :)

[ShrowdedPoet]

Oh, ok. . .

[Vekseid]

Why does it amuse me that Vek linked to Wikipedia for factual evidence? :P 

Yeah yeah, it's almost like me saying 'bite me' in the public forums... :-p

I do want to encourage good sourcing, of course, but I figured I'd give a pointer.

[Elvi]

From BBC education
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/legal/history_1.shtml

For those interested in the American history of abortion laws.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm

Anti abortion (SPUC) point of view (UK)
http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/history

Pro abortion (Pro choice campaign) point of view (UK)
http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=44

These are just a very few of the sources I have used while debating this in other places.
There really is a lot of stuff around if you choose to look and then make an informed arguement.

[robitusinz]

*can't keep mouth shut any longer*  Completely off abortion topic!  I got pregnant at 16, had my daughter at 17.  I graduated with honors. . .have a good job at a law office. . .almost have my AA and will be going on to get my BA.  My life was NOT ruined and just because someone has kids young does NOT mean their life is ruined!  And don't go spouting crap at me about how MOST of them end up like that cause I know a nifty few (meaning a heck of a lot) who turned out going to college and having fulfilling lives.  People like you are the problem.  Not pro-life or pro-choice. . .people like you. 

AND you DO need to keep it pg-13 because I WILL go to a siren. . .

...sigh...I knew the, "I did it despite the difficulty" sap story was bound to come up.

Look, that's great.  I applaud your accomplishments, but even though you don't want to hear it, you're the minority, not the majority.

Now, what "problem" are we discussing, and how am I helping to propagate it?  I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to do as they please.  I don't see how that's a problem for anybody.

Me:  "Hey, buddy, do what you want!"
You: "No, regulate me and the rest of society, darn it!"
Me:  "No, no, really, I prefer that you just do what your own moral conscience allows you to do.  Take personal responsibility for your actions, but in the end, let the decision be your own."
You:  "Arg!  How can we live like this!  I need YOU to tell ME what to do with my body!"
Me:  *goes cross-eyed*



As far as PG-13, isn't Politics and Religion a private forum?

[Sherona]

As far as PG-13, isn't Politics and Religion a private forum?

Nope everything on the far left of the forums are public :)

[robitusinz]

Nope everything on the far left of the forums are public :)

Oh well, I kept to just one "fuck" per post.  :D  That'd slide in under PG-13.

[LaCroix]

No offense, Rob but the problem they were refering too as I've read it is people who take up a stance and are completely unwilling to bend, unwilling to even to listen or consider the possibility that other people might have something important to bring to the discussion.

You make up your mind and then throw up a virtual finger to anyone who even might think about coming into the topic to discuss the facts of the issue on both sides. You're pro-choice? You're all up for people making informed choices and descions about their own lives with one hand and yet with the other you're throwing up a big 'F*** You' to anyone who might have something to bring to the discussion.

I, myself, am a proponent of choice and individual responsibility, yet at the same time I fall onto the side of pro-life because I believe in the sanctity of life. Regardless of whether or not that fetus can make a choice for itself from the time of conception on, or whether or not it can be defined as nothing more than a parasite is not the issue for me, personally.

For me, the fact of the matter of is that I know that that fetus is not a parasite and from the time of conception I believe that that fetus has the same rights to its burgeoning life that any of the rest of do. If the mothers life is endagered, if the fetus will be born stillborn, then I believe that measures can be taken to save the mothers life.  However, if that is not the case then I believe that the life of that fetus has the same value as the life of the mother. Yes it might be the woman's body and in any other matter it should be solely and completely her choice, but not, again in my opinion, when there is another life to be considered.

That being said do I choose to shout profanity at people who are pro-choice? No. And I never will. Neither will I do everything short of calling morons and 'f**king idiots' because they believe what they believe. You want to be pro-choice? Then how about sitting down, shutting up, and listening to people who have made choices on the issue and then debating it in a civil manner, rather than saying you don't want to hear anything anyone else might have to say on the issue.