The Red Scare continues.

[PNWbrit]

Other countries where abortion only legal to save mothers life:

South America:
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gustamala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nigaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,

Sub-Saharan Africa:
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.

Middle East and North Africa:
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Asia and Pacific:
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.

Europe:
Ireland, Malta

Notice how many developed western democracies are included? Another step back to the middle ages. They'll be briging back detention without trial and torture next

[Magnoe]

Has your wife in public health told you what women where doing before abortion was legal? I hate the idea of abortions but for them to be illegal and teenage girls having black market abortions is worse in my mind.

I hear you on that. I know, it's a tough deal. But you can't dictate law by what some people are going to do. It's still our job in the society to uphold the constitution and law. Now, if you argued it should be legal because you interpret the constitution different from me, that is a completely different subject than "it should be legal because they're going to do it anyway".

[Cono Este]

This is going to get ugly. The Republicans could loose a lot of votes over this as only their far right base support attacking Roe v. Wade.

You are absolutely right they will. Just look at what has happened to the Democratic Party the last 6yrs, allowing the far left to define their party ruined them. Its all about the middle.

[Lurch]

I hear you on that. I know, it's a tough deal. But you can't dictate law by what some people are going to do. It's still our job in the society to uphold the constitution and law. Now, if you argued it should be legal because you interpret the constitution different from me, that is a completely different subject than "it should be legal because they're going to do it anyway".

If I could debate the constitutional legality of abortion I would be making a lot more moeny and not have time to post here.

[Magnoe]

Other countries where abortion only legal to save mothers life:

South America:
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gustamala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nigaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,

Sub-Saharan Africa:
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.

Middle East and North Africa:
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Asia and Pacific:
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.

Europe:
Ireland, Malta

Notice how many developed western democracies are included? Another step back to the middle ages. They'll be briging back detention without trial and torture next

Great logic. Only developed countries have the capacity to properly evaluate moral dilemnas. How pompous can we be? Do you think a conscience is gained through education? Many laws of man are already exist in every heart. Whoa! This is probably getting deeper than it needs to. But it makes for interesting conversation.

[Magnoe]

If I could debate the constitutional legality of abortion I would be making a lot more moeny and not have time to post here.

well...Touche!

[cj001f]

Great logic. Only developed countries have the capacity to properly evaluate moral dilemnas. How pompous can we be? Do you think a conscience is gained through education? Many laws of man are already exist in every heart. Whoa! This is probably getting deeper than it needs to. But it makes for interesting conversation.

Does it make a difference that a majority of the countries on that list are not longstanding democracies? Among that list are current dictatorships (Myanmar, Libya), countries recently emerged from dictatorship (Paraguay), countries with long histories of quasi corrupt 1 party/1man rule (Indonesia, Congo, Kenya, etc.) and countries that are now quasi stable after military rule (Brazil, Chile), numerous bastions of corruption (Bangladesh, various african states). Not exactly an elite crew.

[PNWbrit]

At a guess I'd say at least 90% of that list have records of torture, human rights abuses, dubious legal process etc. But it's just an interesting snapshot of which countries view the "rights" of a fetus over those of it's mother or allow religion to dominate it's laws.

Try the same thing with some other moral dilemmas facing the U.S. the death penalty for example that also groups us together with some nice friendly countries.

[Schmear]

So far I like this thread. I wonder how long it will remain cordial?

[Magnoe]

It's just an interesting snapshot of which countries view the "rights" of a fetus over those of it's mother or allow religion to dominate it's laws.

Try the same thing with other moral dilemmas facing the U.S.for example the death penalty groups us together with some nice friendly countries.

The constitution is the constitituion. It can piss you off that it was written by "religious" men. But it IS the basis of our law and country. If more people interpret "life" as beginning at conception than at birth, so be it. If more people interpret (I.E. Vote for the party that has the same interpretation) that it begins after birth so be it. That is what a democracy avails to us. But just because a person interprets that definition different from you does not make them religious or a caveman. There are plenty of people that have seen the picture of a little fetus grabbing the doctors finger from the womb during a surgery and have stepped back and reevaluated when they believe life begins. That does not make them wrong. You have the right to believe and vote as you wish.

[yesIsaidyes]

Great logic. Only developed countries have the capacity to properly evaluate moral dilemnas. How pompous can we be? Do you think a conscience is gained through education?

I think the better take home point is that many of these countries let the will (and moral preferences) of the few dictate the actions of the many. The basis of many folks feelings about abortion (particularly when life starts) stem from their religious and moral beliefs. But these are subjective and relative - to impose them on another person simply because some party feels they are "right" or "best" seems the more pompous stance.

Many laws of man are already exist in every heart. Whoa! This is probably getting deeper than it needs to. But it makes for interesting conversation.

Ahhh...natural law. This isn't that deep, don't kid yourself. Universal rights, natural law, Goethe's gestlat - all of these ideas that pre-suppose some sort of universal truth tend to fall apart once you leave the confines of Western thought. Natural law is simply s way of justifying the belief that one P.O.V. is superior to another in a way that is so baffling that the other party has no response. Its not a real argument. Its like faith, you have to feel it. And that's all fine and dandy except we don't all think the same, we don't all have the same moral and religious beliefs and tendencies.

This country is founded on egalitarian liberal democratic philosophy, not religious sophistry: this is why I think if the final result of the SD law is that the SCOTUS overturns Roe and the abortion debate goes back to the voter, our union is better for it. If the far right (or left) throws a fit, well, those folks can always move to Iran.

[Magnoe]

So far I like this thread. I wonder how long it will remain cordial?

I appreciate everyone being cordial. It appears my stance is different from most. But if our society can't respectfully discuss this, than we got bigger problems than the warm temps at our ski hill

[yesIsaidyes]

I appreciate everyone being cordial. It appears my stance is different from most. But if our society can't respectfully discuss this, than we got bigger problems than the warm temps at our ski hill

its not warm at my ski hill, you red stater!

[PNWbrit]

The constitution is the constitituion. It can piss you off that it was written by "religious" men. But it IS the basis of our law and country. If more people interpret "life" as beginning at conception than at birth, so be it. If more people interpret (I.E. Vote for the party that has the same interpretation) that it begins after birth so be it. That is what a democracy avails to us. But just because a person interprets that definition different from you does not make them religious or a caveman. There are plenty of people that have seen the picture of a little fetus grabbing the doctors finger from the womb during a surgery and have stepped back and reevaluated when they believe life begins. That does not make them wrong. You have the right to believe and vote as you wish.

Such a simplistic and selfish view

For every pro-lifer video that you care to mention can we get to remind you of the the incest or rape victim having to carry their child to full term? Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child.

Your highly dubious moral judgement restricts the rights of others and as has been mentioned already you're not in the majority.

I for one think that the U.S. has far more important things to decide in it's elections than whether abortion should be legal.

[Snow Dog]

I came across this before and found it interesting because it discusses the legal issues around the decission instead of the good and bad of abortion.

Roe v. Wade at 25: Still Illegitimate

[yesIsaidyes]

I for one think that the U.S. has far more important things to decide in it's elections than whether abortion should be legal.

I absolutely disagree - I think we need to bury this thing once and for all. Let the conservatives have their vote for abortion - see what happens. I think in the end the only people who are going to suffer are those in the deepest red states, which really sucks but at least we can redirect the national conversation away from abortion and back to important issues like gay marriage , just kidding, like a never ending war on shadows, our national torture program, and the fact that our kids are so fat.

[Magnoe]

Such a simplistic and selfish view

For every pro-lifer video that you care to mention can we get to remind you of the the incest or rape victim having to carry their child to full term? Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child.

Your highly dubious moral judgement restricts the rights of others and as has been mentioned already you're not in the majority.

I for one think that the U.S. has far more important things to decide in it's elections than whether abortion should be legal.

First of all, thank you for the cordial response. You don't appear to be emotionally involved or anything.

Second, : "you care to mention can we get to remind you of the the incest or rape victim having to carry their child to full term? Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child"

I'm not sure how you find that relevant to whether or not a person believes a fetus is a "life"... my original premise about the constitution. Life is not fair. It's really, really, really, not fair at times. But I don't believe you let the definition of a "life" be effected by trying to create a balance sheet for an unfair situation.

If a baby is a baby in one situation... it's still a baby in the next. Just because you are homely and I'm gorgeous doesn't mean you're not a male too.

[joshbu]

So there's this video (I'll see if I can dig it up...) where there's a debate over abortion in a church somehwere in the south. The priest spends 5 to 10 minutes raging about murder, fetus rights, etc... all the usual bullshite.

Then it comes to the supporters turn:

supporter: So your contention for rape victims and children of people who cannot financially or emotionally support a child is adoption?

priest: Of course.

supporter: I have a list here of 200 children waiting for adoption in this county. If adoption is the answer, then clearly your congregation will gladly start by taking some of these kids in.

<dead silence>

Classic. I love how it cuts right to the center of the fundamental hypocracy of the anti-abortion camp.

[The Dad]

You are absolutely right they will. Just look at what has happened to the Democratic Party the last 6yrs, allowing the far left to define their party ruined them. Its all about the middle.

The far left? If you mean Howard Dean, you've got to be kidding me. Politically, he's about as middle of the road, on average, as they come. His personality might be extreme, but his politics typically aren't.

I, by contrast, am part of the far left of the Democratic Party, particularly on this issue. I was a cofounder of multiple pro-choice organizations, and a full-time employee of one, where my responsibilities included tracking the connections between violent anti-abortion organizations and the militia movement (pre-OKC, when almost no one knew what the militias were). My wife and I met when we were both in leadership positions defending abortion clinics from blockades during the 1992 Democratic Convention, and I have broken a Kryptonite lock off a pair of clinic doors with my bare hands. (Okay, I took the easy way out -- I tore off the handles -- but it doesn't sound as cool that way.)

Simply put, I believe in abortion on demand and without apology.

That said, I'm also a lawyer. And like many other pro-choice lawyers, I believe that Roe v. Wade is good policy, but mediocre or downright bad law. Had the ERA passed, Roe would have had a sound constitutional foundation. But the ERA failed at least in part because the political organizations that had been developed to fight for abortion rights in state legislatures, and that had subsequently been put to use in the battle for ratification of the ERA, declared, "Mission Accomplished" and essentially fell apart post-Roe.

In retrospect, I think that the movement as a whole may have been better served if we'd continued to fight it out in the state legislatures, let alone if the ERA passed before the Court took the issue out of the political process, albeit temporarily. I'm not sure about that, though, because illegal abortions probably would have killed thousands and permanently injured tens or hundreds of thousands before the political process worked.

If abortion goes fully back to the political process, we'll have to rebuild those political organizations, which is good. There will also be deaths and injury due to illegal abortions, which is unmitigatedly bad, although the death rate will likely be but a small fraction of the pre-Roe 10,000 per year. Let's not forget that travel is far cheaper and faster today than it was 33 years ago, making even individual state bans less a prohibition than an expense. As always, poor and otherwise powerless women will bear the brunt, but that has ever been the case, in this as in so much else.

So at this point, on the distinct question of whether to return abortion to the political process, I see a very tough call between a better long-term political and legal prospect on the one hand, and a fair number of dead women on the other. (And yes, if you've followed the above, you'll know that the number of aborted fetuses "saved" aren't part of my calculation.) Although that's a choice I don't like to have to make, it may well be made for us.

[PNWbrit]

First of all, thank you for the cordial response. You don't appear to be emotionally involved or anything.

Second, : "you care to mention can we get to remind you of the the incest or rape victim having to carry their child to full term? Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child"

I'm not sure how you find that relevant to whether or not a person believes a fetus is a "life"... my original premise about the constitution. Life is not fair. It's really, really, really, not fair at times. But I don't believe you let the definition of a "life" be effected by trying to create a balance sheet for an unfair situation.

If a baby is a baby in one situation... it's still a baby in the next. Just because you are homely and I'm gorgeous doesn't mean you're not a male too.

Simple - a fetus is not a baby and Sex is not simply an act of procreation.

As already discussed this is a concept widely accepted throughout the developed, democratic world.

I have no problem with you choosing to not have an abortion. But object strongly to your moral, religous choices restricting the choices avalilable to others. I also think that an un-enforceable law that will create backstreet abortionists, abortion tourism and prosecute doctors is bad law.

Just out of interest what is your view on capital punishment?

[Dr. Gaper]

Such a simplistic and selfish view

Or the simple cold fact that some people get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it and just don't wish to have the child.
.

This is a scary precedent, and although I am in favor of abortions (or to put it in better terms - in favor of a woman's right to choose), this is one aspect of the abortion debate that makes me a bit worried.

"Oh, sorry honey, I was gonna pull out, but the phone rang and it startled me."

"We just don't wish to have that child."

Abortion will be convenient for all the sluts of America! Birth control gone awry.

[Magnoe]

[QUOTE=joshbu]So there's this video (I'll see if I can dig it up...) where there's a debate over abortion in a church somehwere in the south. The priest spends 5 to 10 minutes raging about murder, fetus rights, etc... all the usual bullshite.

Then it comes to the supporters turn:

supporter: So your contention for rape victims and children of people who cannot financially or emotionally support a child is adoption?

priest: Of course.

supporter: I have a list here of 200 children waiting for adoption in this county. If adoption is the answer, then clearly your congregation will gladly start by taking some of these kids in.


No offense, but that is one of the most misguided statements on this thread. As Morissa Tomei was asked in 'My Cousin Vinnie':

Judge: "is that an opinion?"

Marissa: "No, it's a fact"

The list is enormous of families wanting to adopt in the U.S. I come from a family that has 5 adoptions in it so don't try that kind of B.S. on us.

I also have an app't tomorrow morning with a couple (husband and wife) that are both physicians. They cannot have kids naturally so they are adopting from khazikstan. They are going to be so relieved from this information you've enlightened on us. They can cancel their tickets overseas.

[flatlander#2]

On the same day they voted on this there was a bill being debated on making it legal to ride your horse or your bike while intoxicated. Dakota, South Dakota...dang. I grew up there, on a ranch about 60 miles from the capitol Pierre. There are alot of one issue peeps there. Daschle basically got shitcanned because of abortion.

I don't believe anybody has the right to tell someone else how to live, what to choose. If you make it illegal my next door neighbor will set up an obgyn clinic in their basement. People have been having abortions since they been getting knocked up. Think about how hard it is to score a bag of weed. Making it illegal will ease some peoples conscience is all it will do. It won't save anybody anything. And this is from a kid that was adopted at birth along with two other sibs. My Mom could have made the choice, didn't, gave me up and I was raised in a great family and I'm close with her and her other kids now. That was her choice. I have a daughter, if she was raped and impregnated I'd kill the prick that did it first and then find a way to get her taken care of and helped.

[Magnoe]

Alpinedad,

Good inpu. It was interesting to hear your angle from your experience.

[joshbu]

No offense, but that is one of the most misguided statements on this thread. As Morissa Tomei was asked in 'My Cousin Vinnie':

Judge: "is that an opinion?"

Marissa: "No, it's a fact"

The list is enormous of families wanting to adopt in the U.S. I come from a family that has 5 adoptions in it so don't try that kind of B.S. on us.

I also have an app't tomorrow morning with a couple (husband and wife) that are both physicians. They cannot have kids naturally so they are adopting from khazikstan. They are going to be so relieved from this information you've enlightened on us. They can cancel their tickets overseas.

Try again boy-o. Your the one drawing from opinion.

the Percentage of Women Adopting Has Declined
In 1995, about 500,000 women were seeking to adopt a child, and 100,000 had applied with an agency. [2] The same year, an estimated 1.3% of women adopted one or more children, a decline from 2.1% in 1973. [3]

[3] [The estimate refers to currently or formerly married women age 18-44.] Chandra, Anjani; Abma, Joyce; Maza, Penelope; Bachrach, Christine, Adoption, Adoption Seeking and Relinquishment for Adoption in the United States, at pg. 5, Advance Data, No. 306. National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (May 1999).

Those long waiting lists are for healthy, usually white babies. Meanwhile, any kid over a certain age, or not white, or born to a drug addict have fewer people out there to help them. The average stay for a kid in foster care in this country is 33 months. Yet your lovely couple can't help THOSE kids, can they?