|
There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false.
There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy.
This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill.
It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned.
In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade.
This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition.
As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
|
On April 28 2011 16:41 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:23 TOloseGT wrote:On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise. You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now? well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator. Besides that - 1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values. 2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T) 3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case!
if your not trolling, then you should understand that no one is going to take you seriously when you use "God" as the basis for your arguments.
|
On April 28 2011 16:41 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:23 TOloseGT wrote:On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise. You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now? well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator. Besides that - 1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values. 2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T) 3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case!
Yes, well, aside from Jesus...
You claim that that some people who are not against abortion are short-sighted liberals. Why do you call them short-sighted? The most plausible reason I could see from your posts beforehand is that you don't believe they see what you see. What you're doing is placing yourself in their shoes, then calling them short-sighted for reaching a different conclusion.
Abortion by itself is not complicated. It's terminating a fetus. The humanity it comes with is what divides so many of us. Now, biological consequences aside, the question of whether it's right or wrong can not be decided by a roll of a dice, which is basically what they are doing here. Arbitrary numbers and morality don't go hand in hand.
What complexity can we discuss for an abortion? You have potential mothers who suffer severe emotional trauma because they terminated their first "child", but you have others who could care less. This artificial complexity you're placing on abortion is without much merit.
|
A fetus can survive only after a minimum of 24 weeks in utero and even at 24weeks, it is so preterm that a hundred million things can go wrong. It is 24 weeks in my country. I think one has to consider the consequences of not aborting and the consequences on the child.
An unwilling or a teenage mother no way can rise a child properly. Also, there are many problems during pregnancy. An unwilling mother isn't going to take care of her growing baby when she's pregnant. She's not going to come for regular follow-up. She might smoke. The consequence is that it is the child that suffers for the rest of its life.
Finally, is abortion still wrong if you know for sure that the child will be born with a limited lifespan. For example, a fetus can be diagnosed with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy in utero. The diagnosis is definite. The child is mentally very well developed. However, muscles start wasting by the age of 6. Children are wheelchair bound by the age of 12. Most die by age 20 due to respiratory complications. Do parents have the right to abort at more than 20 weeks if a late diagnosis of Duchenne's is made?
|
And yet again it's men talking about abortions, telling the women what they can and can't do.
The worst part is you're acting like it's an EASY choice for the women who decides to get an abortion. Are you really that naive? It's nowhere near an easy choice, they go through this whole debate throughout the whole process and you're sitting there behind your keyboard saying "MURDERER!"
Ridiculous.
Want to know something interesting? Legalizing abortion in the US lowered crime rates. But I don't know, must be a bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
I must admit that it can't be traced back to abortion being legalized exactly but it's quite the astonishing "coincidence".
To me, it's irrelevant if it's to kill something or not. It's all about the woman's choice. Here in Sweden you can get an abortion in the 18th week and I guess that seems okay. Getting an abortion is probably the best for both the kid and the woman going through with it.
I would not want to be an unwanted baby. Unexpected, sure, but not unwanted.
Some say that the woman can have the baby but send it off for adoption. Don't you think there are enough kids out there that needs to be adopted? Instead of adding more, let's take care of those that are already there.
To argue that the woman can't decide for herself? That's stupid.
To act like it's an easy choice? That's stupid.
|
In my country we also have a 20 week limit for the absortion. I find it morally wrong... I have couple of friends thare were adopted... why do people find it hard to have a child and then give it to adoption?
Another view that I have in absortion, is that the dad should have a say in the absortion. I find it odd that only women can make the final decision.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 28 2011 15:46 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ? Listen up, hippie. Equating a fetus to the same level of importance as an egg or an acorn only means anything if you consider killing a chicken or cutting down a tree to be as immoral as butchering a human being. A fetus represents the potential for a fully grown human life. Potential that has already passed, on the slimmest of odds, through all the preliminary rounds of fate. If someone were to ask you, right now, whether you would prefer it if your mother had aborted you instead of giving birth to you, you would say no. Don't tell me otherwise, because if you felt so you would have shot yourself in the head by now. I admit, I consider the act of killing a fetus less morally repugnant than killing a fully developed human being, in the same way I consider punching a child less morally repugnant than raping it. But that doesn't mean I consider it in any way morally neutral. Just ask any expecting mother who receives the news that her 20 week old fetus has died how unimportant it is, and you might get some moral truth past that thick skull of yours and stop spouting this college liberal bullsh!t.
Nothing quite like a completely random insult at someone for having an education. I love that going to college is a bad thing in this situation, because dumbing down the argument is always such an effective tactic.
Let me spit that ultra-college liberal hydro-ghetto shit at you: when I was an incognizant fetus, I did not give a fuck if my mother aborted me or not. Your poorly-planned consequentialist insult is the same bullshit other idiots use to frame questions like "What if Hitler had been aborted?" It doesn't matter.
If you can't form a real argument, then don't even attempt it. Maybe appealing to the lowest common denominator of the imbecile's emotions works in backwater New Zealand or next door in Alaska, but where us college educated people come from, that shit don't fly, homie.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote:There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false. There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy. This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned. In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade. This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition. As a Hoosier, I'm concerned.
As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus.
This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
|
lol i love how everytime the abortion debate comes up people always say "well the women shouldn't of been such a slut and had sex without protection"
it takes 2 people to procreate!!
also read a book called freakenomics it gives pretty convincing evidence that since abortion has been legalized it has directly lowered the crime rate since most aborted babies would have been born into poor communities and thus adopted a life of crime.
|
I have no real issues with banning late term abortion's,
in reality if your going to have one normal down within the first few weeks.
though there is the issues of constitutionality via ruling of Rode vs wade.
|
20 weeks sounds just about right. The only problem I see is the "foot in the door" argument.
Personally, I think there should be a lot more abortions. What's with dirt poor people having 7+ kids? Or people completely unfit to be parents, who don't even want children, and they end up still having them. Then you get juvenile crackheads murdering normal kids for 10 dollars, or psychotic kids shooting up a school. The only parents who should have kids are those who want them, have the ability to love them and the means to support them.
Less quantity and more quality of life...
|
also read a book called freakenomics it gives pretty convincing evidence that since abortion has been legalized it has directly lowered the crime rate since most aborted babies would have been born into poor communities and thus adopted a life of crime.
Correlation does not imply causation, beside, if you objective is to lower crime rate by allowing people with low economic power to abort then you:
1- Are doing things wrong
2- Haven't any ethics at all
If you want to solve crime rates, abortion is not the way to go.. specially if you want to call your selfs land of the free...
|
On April 28 2011 17:27 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote:There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false. There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy. This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned. In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade. This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition. As a Hoosier, I'm concerned. As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus. This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew.
We can certainly disagree on whether this bill is part of an effort to bring down Roe, as I can't see into the minds of the people proposing this and other legislation. That being said, there's a pretty significant revamp of the 90's "culture wars" going on, specifically targeting abortion. A quick google search will yield several articles on this topic.
I'm not intimately familiar with the pro-choice movement and it's strategies, but I do recognize this pattern from another movement with which I'm quite familiar. Proponents of teaching creationism (banning evolution, equal time, ID, etc.) have used similar tactics throughout the last half century. I can think of several Supreme Court cases and at least two federal district court cases (off the top of my head) that came about in a similar way.
The plan works like this:
1) Create a sample law (designed to violate precident)
2) Get state legislatures to pass a version of that law
3) Wait for someone to challenge one of these laws
4) Appeal it (or lobby for appeal) as far as it will go, preferably to the Supreme Court
I'm sure there are other explanations for the resurgence of anti-abortion legislation in the states. I'm just not sure what those reasons are. Perhaps you have an explanation.
What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
I thought I made a decent effort at moving the discussion past the "When does life begin?" question, but I guess you disagree.
|
On April 28 2011 17:42 chickenhawk wrote:Show nested quote +also read a book called freakenomics it gives pretty convincing evidence that since abortion has been legalized it has directly lowered the crime rate since most aborted babies would have been born into poor communities and thus adopted a life of crime. Correlation does not imply causation, beside, if you objective is to lower crime rate by allowing people with low economic power to abort then you: 1- Are doing things wrong 2- Haven't any ethics at all If you want to solve crime rates, abortion is not the way to go.. specially if you want to call your selfs land of the free...
Fuck, this pisses me off.
YES IT DOES.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.
As for your other points: if you aren't going to provide some kind of logical argument for the remainder of your statements, they can safely be dismissed as meaningless drivel.
|
Fuck, this pisses me off.
A different person having a different opinion pisses you off? Calm down my friend.. its normal in our society to have different opinions.
If you do not see any problems with ethics, when you have a reason to allowed absortion, be to lower crime rates, then I guess you had never an ethic class, or even a discussion about ethics.
Isn't:
Correlation does not PROVE causation = Correlation does not imply causation?
|
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote:Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
Personally i'd be against abortions for a fetus older than a couple of weeks , imagine the womans mental trauma for the rest of her life if she caught a glimpse of that 20 week old fetus before it went into the incinerator.
|
"Abortionist" isn't a term in the real world  . Also I'd like to point out human life has no inherent value, and an unformed, unconscious, unthinking developing cellular mass isn't even a human being .
I wonder what the gender demographics are for this kind of argument. Is anyone against abortion in this thread a mature female?
|
I wonder what the gender demographics are for this kind of argument. Is anyone against abortion in this thread a mature female?
By this I am allowed to guess thayou think that only female should be allowed to make a decision?
Also I'd like to point out human life has no inherent value, and an unformed, unconscious, unthinking developing cellular mass isn't even a human being .
Doesn't the becoming haven't any effect on you? Since that cellular has the capacity to become human?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 28 2011 17:44 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 17:27 Jibba wrote:On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote:There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false. There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy. This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned. In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade. This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition. As a Hoosier, I'm concerned. As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus. This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew. We can certainly disagree on whether this bill is part of an effort to bring down Roe, as I can't see into the minds of the people proposing this and other legislation. That being said, there's a pretty significant revamp of the 90's "culture wars" going on, specifically targeting abortion. A quick google search will yield several articles on this topic. I'm not intimately familiar with the pro-choice movement and it's strategies, but I do recognize this pattern from another movement with which I'm quite familiar. Proponents of teaching creationism (banning evolution, equal time, ID, etc.) have used similar tactics throughout the last half century. I can think of several Supreme Court cases and at least two federal district court cases (off the top of my head) that came about in a similar way. The plan works like this: 1) Create a sample law (designed to violate precident) 2) Get state legislatures to pass a version of that law 3) Wait for someone to challenge one of these laws 4) Appeal it (or lobby for appeal) as far as it will go, preferably to the Supreme Court I'm sure there are other explanations for the resurgence of anti-abortion legislation in the states. I'm just not sure what those reasons are. Perhaps you have an explanation. I think each of the things you said is true and is happening, I just don't think they're happening with this bill. Probably the reasons behind the Planned Parenthood decision is separate from the abortion decision, but they're combined because it's a similar issue and they can hit two birds with one stone. Planned Parenthood is part of the "culture war" you described, I don't know the purpose of the abortion section, though. I just know that the bill isn't radically different from Roe v. Wade in any way, besides pushing the date a few weeks forward to account for changes in modern medical technology.
Show nested quote +What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness? I thought I made a decent effort at moving the discussion past the "When does life begin?" question, but I guess you disagree. 
|
Either use proper protection and don't get pregnant in the first place, or carry it out and put up the baby for adoption. Abortion is a non-solution, and a rather creepy one, it should only be used under extreme circumstances like deformations, defects, disease, rape, you get the idea.
On April 28 2011 17:04 Aldehyde wrote:
And yet again it's men talking about abortions, telling the women what they can and can't do.
[...]
To me, it's irrelevant if it's to kill something or not. It's all about the woman's choice.
[...]
Getting an abortion is probably the best for both the kid and the woman going through with it.
Arrogant statements to say the least. Does the father and the kid (fetus, whatever) not have any say in the matter? Despite the former having at least as much right to the kid as the mother, and the latter's chance to life being at stake? It is NOT solely the women's decision. Stop acting like it is.
And the most arrogant of them all, trying to justify it. Poverty is not solved by killing off the poor, what you are essentially suggesting. It is solved by giving them proper education, including about preventing unwanted pregnancies, access to protection, or a chance to emerge from poverty and to raise their offsprings under fair living conditions, without endlessly propagating the poverty they are living in.
Some say that the woman can have the baby but send it off for adoption. Don't you think there are enough kids out there that needs to be adopted? Instead of adding more, let's take care of those that are already there.
Unfortunately it is not only a matter of numbers. There wouldn't be so many child trafficking incidents if it were, for one thing.
To argue that the woman can't decide for herself? That's stupid.
Are we talking about the same woman who got pregnant without wanting to, "by accident"? Why yes, she demonstrated a heavy lack of responsibility and shown she is utterly incapable of correct decisions. She's stupid, indeed, and deserves no say in the matter when other rights, interests and opinions are in play. Especially since she made her decision when she got pregnant.
By the way, it would be nice if I heard swedish people spewing anything else other than state-mandated "correct" opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
