As we embark on what is likely to be a vicious political war over Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement, I think it important to take a quick a look at the issue that will be at the heart of much of the vitriol coming from both the right and the left: abortion. There is no question that President Bush is being pressured by his patrons in the religious right to appoint a justice who will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, and so it is instructive to explore the likely, practical impact on American women should their right to choose be denied or narrowly restricted.
Writing in The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy in May of 2003 (“Envisioning Life Without Roe: Lessons Without Borders“), Susan A. Cohen did exactly that, compiling historical data on abortions and maternal mortality for the pre- and post-Roe United States, as well as that for a number of nations with either liberal or restrictive abortion laws. The conclusion is clear:
The American pre-Roe experience, just as that in the developing world today, demonstrates quite clearly that liberal abortion laws do not cause abortion, unintended pregnancy does. Indeed, some of the world’s lowest abortion rates may be found in countries with the most liberal abortion laws, where services are easily available and even subsidized; by contrast, high abortion rates (and, generally, high maternal mortality rates as well) may be observed in countries where the procedure is severely restricted.
As Cohen points out, illegal abortion was quite common in the US prior to the 1973 Roe decision, with as many as 800,000 procedures a year estimated to have taken place during the 1950s and 1960s. While affluent women could travel within the US or overseas to seek safe, legal abortions, poor women, mostly young and minority, often suffered severe health consequences. Even after the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s dramatically reduced abortion-related maternal deaths, maternal mortality rates remained high compared to current levels.
Before and after comparisons like that in the US can be repeated country by country, but perhaps the most striking example is that of Romania, where abortion was legalized in 1957, outlawed in 1966, and legalized again after Ceaucescu’s fall in 1990.
When abortion was against the law in Romania, from
1966 to 1989, abortion-related deaths soared.
Romania’s abortion-related death rate soared after abortion was outlawed in 1966, and plummeted after it was relegalized in 1990. The lesson in Romania and elsewhere is that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not; restricting access merely makes them less safe. According to the World Health Organization, unsafe abortions are responsible for about 13% of the half million annual deaths worldwide from pregnancy-related causes… in the most restrictive nations of Latin America, the rate is as high as 21%.
Indeed, not only do restrictive abortion laws uniformly increase maternal mortality rates in developed and developing countries alike, some of the nations with the most restrictive abortion laws also have some of the highest abortion rates.
| ABORTION LAWS, RATES AND MATERNAL MORTALITY | ||
| Country | Abortion rate per 1,000 women, 15-44 | Maternal Deaths per 100,000 live births |
| Where abortion is Broadly Permitted | ||
| Australia | 22 | 6 |
| England/Wales | 16 | 10 |
| Finland | 10 | 6 |
| Netherlands | 7 | 10 |
| United States | 21 | 12 |
| Where Abortion is Severely Restricted | ||
| Brazil | 38 | 260 |
| Chile | 45 | 33 |
| Colombia | 34 | 120 |
| Dominican Republic | 44 | 110 |
| Mexico | 23 | 65 |
| Peru | 52 | 240 |
| Note: Most recent data available. Sources: Abortion data — AGI, Sharing Responsibility, Appendix Table 4, p. 54; Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003, 35(1):6-15. Maternal mortality rates — United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), The World’s Women 2000: Trends and Statistics, New York: UNSD, 2000/updated 2002. | ||
While the consequences of having an abortion depend on whether it is safe and legal, the cause is universal: unplanned pregnancies. 28% of the 210 million annual pregnancies worldwide are unplanned, and 22% end in abortion. Reducing unwanted pregnancies through wider and more effective use of contraception is the only effective means of reducing abortion rates… making our abortion laws more restrictive will only make abortion less safe.
In the three decades since Roe became law, Americans have forgotten their history and grown complacent about the very real human costs of illegal abortions, allowing the debate to increasingly focus on moral and religious beliefs rather than the public health issue that abortion really is. Abortion foes have successfully struck an emotional chord by illustrating their arguments with images of the undeniable horror of dead and mangled fetuses. Meanwhile, pro-Choice forces have tended to make a more intellectual appeal, arguing a vague and unwritten constitutional right to privacy.
But if Roe is overturned and Congress or the States narrowly restrict access to legal abortion, the public health calamity will be very real and very bloody. Thousands of young women will die of sepsis from botched, back-alley abortions. That is the undeniable conclusion from studying the impact of abortion laws at home and abroad. And that is the emotional, rhetorical appeal supporters of Roe must make if we are to educate our fellow Americans as to what is really at stake.
It is time to fight horror with horror.
Goldy said “It is time to fight horror with horror”
What are you threatening?
Goldy,
You’re just trying to stir up the Lefty base — NO better than the Far Right and anti-flag-burning. Anyone with half a brain knows that the likelihood of overturning Roe is slim. And even IF they do, it will be a states’ rights issue and (most) states will just legalize it — albeit with a patchwork of guidelines.
Interesting how Roe herself is now fighting to have the court decision reversed, stating intense remorse and unknown psychological effects.
Mark you seem to assume that states will adopt rational laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is now a powerful political movement afoot in America determined to replace our rational-based society with dogma-driven orthodoxy. How can you say the chances of Roe being overturned are slim when that is the supreme objective of the religious right? If Roe is overturned, they will mount a drive in every state legislature to outlaw abortion, and the annual state legislative battles over abortion laws will distract legislators from getting any other business done.
I personally oppose abortion on moral and religious grounds. However, I do not propose to impose my personal moral or religious beliefs on those who may not share my beliefs. Furthermore, making abortion illegal won’t stop it, it will only make abortions more dangerous.
There is an even larger issue than abortion, though. Every we turn, the right wing is attacking science. This is a most dangerous movement as our prosperity and even our survival depends on understanding the world we live in and how nature’s forces work. What’s next, outlawing the antibiotics that saved my life a few days ago, and making people pray over their sick loved ones?
I think states should govern it themselves, The federal government’s intended place is to protect(military) and uphold(three branches) The constitution & state laws.
“Romania’s abortion-related death rate soared after abortion was outlawed in 1966, and plummeted after it was relegalized in 1990. ”
The communists were in charge during that time. It’s difficult to compare a communist dictatorship to a democratic society. Also, it would be nice to have numbers from all years to make sure the author wasn’t cherry picking.
From the table you provided, compare Mexico and Australia. Both countries had approximately the same number of abortions, but Mexico has nearly 10 times the number of maternal deaths. If, for argument’s sake, we say that all women in Mexico having abortions die, then the maternal death rate not related to abortion is 7 times the maternal death rate from all causes, in Australia.
I would argue the table is really evidence of the need to improve health care conditions in the Third World. I don’t see how that data, without additional information, backs up the author’s point.
“But if Roe is overturned and Congress or the States narrowly restrict access to legal abortion”.
Two big “ifs” Goldy. If abortion is such an important issue, get the WA State Legislature to make it legal. Then if Roe is overturned, you have nothing to worry about. I think this issue belongs in the 50 State Legislatures anyway.
I think the chart linking contraceptive use in Khazakstan to reduced abortions is far more interesting (as a data point anyway). Abortions were almost halved by about a 50% increase in contraceptive use.
“It is time to fight horror with horror.”
That sounds like something the crazy anti-abortion bombers would say Goldy. I hope that’s just phony hysteria from you to drive discussion.
And you see no role for federal courts in telling states they can’t beat confessions out of suspects, make it a criminal offense to use contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut), or saying the Constitution embodies a personal privacy right? God help us all if you’re right.
Slightly off topic, but then again it pertains to our over reaching Federal Government in other issues making it the over inflated beast it is today.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/.....i_69698402
Roger; you mean same supreme court that says a city can condemn my house if an office building fetches more taxes?
I’m still looking for that privacy clause in the constitution…
If it is okay for the government to take away your house and give it to someone else who is willing to pay more money for it than you are, then what “right of privacy” is left in the U.S. Constitution?
But I am interested in the underlying statistics on this abortion thing.
12 women die in the United States for every 100,000 children born alive.
How many women die of abortion related causes in the United States every year? To be meaningful, compare apples to apples. I.e. the number of fatalities for every 100,000 abortions performed in the United States.
I keep hearing this “Keep Abortion Safe and Legal” mantra. But I don’t see any statistics on just how safe abortion is (at least from the prospective mother’s point of view) at present.
Comparing the number of women having abortions with the number of women dying in childbirth is meaningless. Half as many women in Finland have abortions, but only half as many die in childbirth as in the U.S. In the Dominican Republic, twice as many women have abortions, but nine times as many die in childbirth.
I see you have been drinking liberally again Goldy, you really should lay off the sauce!
I get it – if I think Roe v Wade is poorly written law, then I am for women dying. If I think Roe v Wade should stand, then I am righteous.
Geez, how stupid is that?
This is why this issue is so divisive. Neither side wants to give the other any leeway for having a valid argument. Well, I’m in the middle – I think women should have access to legal abortions, and I think Roe v Wade is a poor decision that created something that wasn’t there. So, does that make me a mother-killer or a baby-killer?
All Tools @ 5 “I think states should govern it themselves, The federal government’s intended place is to protect(military) and uphold(three branches) The constitution & state laws.”
Here! Here! We should have a civil war and settle this “states rights” thing once and for all! I mean, what harm could it cause?
And YES! Them damn feds should only protect the defence, and the three branches of the constitution and state laws… and….
Whoah, All tools what you said @ 5 was about the stupidiest thing I have heard a right nut winger say all day!
I think that the federal law for abortions should be abolished and the right to an abortion should be decided at the state level through legistlation. The states already define first,second and third degree murder.. let them decide on abortion as well.
Donnageddon @ 13 “Whoah, All tools what you said @ 5 was about the stupidiest thing I have heard a right nut winger say all day!”
Then Rufus @ 14 “The states already define first,second and third degree murder.. let them decide on abortion as well.”
Good point Rufus, your statement is the stupidiest nutty right winger comment of the day!
righton, you want to prove me wrong again?
Funding for abortions should NEVER come out of the federal coffers. If a state is reasonable they would only allow abortions under extreme circumstances. No STATE money for abortions either.
You mean that OJ and Scott Peterson were tried in a federal court. Whoa.. Explain Donnaggedon.
Reply to 9
What’s your point? Are you insinuating that if I support certain Supreme Court decision, I support them all? What utter trash you speak. I don’t know ANYONE who supports the court’s decision on taking private property for private development.
RR @ 4
Mr. Rabbit, you took the words right out of my mouth! Especially your second paragraph.
et-al
Can you folks not see the point behind Goldys comment “fight horror wit horror”? Idiots! He dosen’t mean ‘fight’ with fists or guns, dopes, he means ‘fight’ in the sense that were trading one life for another (and in most cases two lives for one). Even if R vs W is overturned, IT WILL NOT STOP THE CAUSE AND DESPERATION WOMEN FEEL WHEN UNINTENTIONALLY IMPREGNATED!
Jeeze people, remove your colective heads from your asses!
Birth control and REAL education is whats needed to help correct this issue, not a reversal into the days when girls and women took their chances in back alley clinics (don’t think it wouldn’t happen)!
Rufus @ 17 “You mean that OJ and Scott Peterson were tried in a federal court. Whoa.. Explain Donnaggedon.”
My mistake, THAT was the stupidiest right wing post of the day. Thanks, Rufus, But if you want to top it, you just have about 45 minutes.
Goldy, this is one of your best posts. Thank you!
OK boys and girls, now riddle me this: if a woman becomes pregnant and chooses not to have the child, she according to the liberal agenda should be able to have an unfettered abortion with no one standing in her way because it is her body and she should have complete control over her body….but if she chooses to have the child, she can take the unwilling “father” to court and require him to use his body (in a job) to provide “support” for 18-21 years, she uses his body for without his permission…(or the government child support system) when he said he didnt want to be a dad.
Aditionally, we (unfortunatly) have seatbelt and helmet laws…another case of government dictating over what one chooses to do with their body.
Here, drink from the trough of life instead of death.
http://www.right-to-life.org/F.....202003.htm
Since the right is so bent on the culture of life let’s abolish abortion the day after we outlaw guns. The bottom line is guns are by design made to kill.
Who has ever seen a depiction of Jesus Christ with a weapon?
Did He have a dagger tucked in his loin cloth while he was on the Cross? No.
Did He keep a spear behind him in the Last Supper? No.
Did He have sword on his hip when he gave his Sermon on the Mount? No.
So when all the right wing, Christian Conservatives are ready to embrace the culture of life an get rid of their guns, let me know. I’ll be willing to compromise on that day.
gbs
Good idea, after all gun control worked so well for the Jewish people in Nazi Germany!
After all, guns kill! Imagine all the potential accidental deaths that could have been caused by gun ownership in Nazi Germany. Oh wait, because the Jewish people didn’t have guns and because they couldn’t defend themselves, MILLIONS DIED!
The rich and well connected will always have safe abortion on demand. If one of GWB’s daughters showed up inconveniently pregnant do es anyone really doubt for an instant what the family would do about it. They just wouldn’t tell dad because it might “upset” him. Abortion is just another way for tyrannical people to act-out.
Roger @ 4: “Every we turn, the right wing is attacking science.”
I won’t disagree with your entire post. I think that it is likely that SOME states will have more trouble than others passing sane abortion laws (e.g. “yes” at 6 weeks, “no” at 6 months).
But your quote above is wrong. The Far Right, the Religious Right, etc. are the ones that attack SOME science. And I, as a member of the Moderate Right — dare I say the Progressive Right — disagree with them. All I ask is that you and others be more specific in your attacks. You might find more of us on the other side of the aisle who agree — even if it is only somewhat. You need to decide if your posts are fun and games or if you really want to participate in discourse that impacts our lives.
The Far Left is NOT “progressive” and the Far Right is FAR from “right.” The ones who are going to make any progress are those in the middle who are more interested in what IS right than BEING right. Why are those in the middle called RINOs and DINOs? Because they scare the hell out of the party machines and the whack-jobs that run them and they have to be marginalized at all costs. If the middle only realized the power they have, we both Karl Rove and Howard Dean would be in BIG trouble.
Me @ 27
Ignore the “we” in the last sentence. Apparently, my indecision between two sentences at 7:30am resulted in a little of both being included. [reminder to self: save the blogging for 1am not 7am]
Howard Dean is a reasonable and moderate Dem. Rove is a gay , neo-con fascist.
Dr Quest @ 29
Howard Dean is a nutball with verbal diarrhea and a serious disconnect between his mouth and brain. If he is a “moderate,” then the Left is in BIIIIIGGG trouble.
YOU are apparently a homophobe. Why else would you use “gay” in the same attacking sentence as “neo-con” and “fascist?”
Why don’t you go back to pleasuring yourself over photos of Hadji and Bandit and leave the discussion to the adults…
I want a justice that knows that the fifth amendment is not a carte blanche license for Walmart to kick people out of their homes.
All these statistics make my anti-choice mom’s head hurt. Damn you, Goldy, can’t you just let her preacher tell her what to think?
Chuck@22:
Unwilling father? Oh. Unwilling when? 9 months later when he’s asked to pony up some responsibility for his sexual decisions?
You want control over your body? Get some conrol over your head. Both of them. Make the reproductive choice before you make the sexual decision. Figure out how you would feel about a pregnancy and how you would handle it, BEFORE you make a sexual decision. Some man/boy doesn’t want to be an “unwilling father”? Buy some condoms, get a vasectomy -or would that be destroying potential life? – maybe we should criminalize that? Or…just say no. Unwilling father? HOW DUMB IS THAT? “Without his permission….when he said he didn’t want to be a dad?” How dumb and irresponsible is that? Few woman give up child that some man didn’t give up first.
Marilyn
I hope I don’t get too beat up for asking for folks to differentiate between abortion and right-to-die, specifically, the Schiavo case? What I mean is that a lot of folks here (both left and right, myself included) got bent out of shape when Congress stepped into a state matter and had the federal courts review the Schiavo case. Why should abortion be any different?
As far as having the states decide, you already have de facto bans happening already with the number of abortion providers going down, thus access being restricted, especially in “red” states.
Washington passed an initiative before Roe, so nothing would change here, unless further legislation was passed, and that’s something I certainly don’t see happening.
Anyway, good topic, and certainly is of importance.
Marilyn@33
Understand I am not speaking personally, having raised my kids as a single parent because of a “deadbeat” mom (of which there are per capita more of incedently), but it is a two way street here, it isnt a chicken style relationship here. The woman CHOOSES to lay with the man (putting aside the rapes for the point). My point is it is a one way street now, to make things fair it has to be a two way street. If abortion is going to be legal and acceptable then fine, the man should have the legal right AT AWARENESS OF PREGNANCY to say if you have it you are on your own. If abortion is outlawed then so be it, either way. In no way am I referring to families that have mutually had a child, once that decision has been made, both parents have obligated themselves…
Good Morning everyone. You know this abortion issue would be diffused if people implemented abstinence, sex with protection, and stopped screwing at the drop of a hat like rabbits (apologies to the furry bunny Roger Rabbit). Unintended pregnancies would be way down and the need for abortions would be almost non-existent. Now moving from the utopian view of life, lets see where we are.
You are all pissed off by GWB having the ability to select a SCOTUS nominee that scares the crap out of many of you. Well that’s what presidential elections are for. If your party allowed Joe Lieberman to have a fair chance, your fare would have been paid. I would have voted for Joe. But no, he was more mainstream than the MoveOn.Org and Howard Deaniacs wanted. So Johnny Forbes Kerry was selected, the Vietnam vet (he mentioned it every chance he got) so you guys lost by what 3 million votes.
Live with it gentlemen and Loocy. Remember in Joshua 24:15 it says “But for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” What does that mean to me? I do not condone abortion. But I can’t force my views on another American. Abortion is between you and your judgment day with God. BTW Where is Loocy? Loocy, just tell us where you went to college, university? Then, I will stop asking, unless you faked your college transcripts. We want honest communication on HA.
Marilyn@33
Get off of the man did it to the poor woman crap, they both did this so it has to either be a two way street or none at all.
If abortion is OK why would anyone want to reduce the frequency or quantity?
Chuck #36 – Only dirty men dropping their sperm in a “willing” receptacle is how Marilyn looks at the sex act.
Come on Marilyn, I agree that some men say I love you to screw the woman. But that being said, she can still say no! What part of saying no, keeping their pants on, not getting into a compromising situation can’t they understand? I teach my children not to get into those situations unless you plan on marrying the person.
Marilyn@33
By the way I raised my kids as a single Dad, and my ex was the deadbeat mom (more mothers per capita skip child support than men by far). But if you are going to be fair about abortion, then if the woman wants one, and the guy doesnt, then she should have to carry to term and give the child to the Dad to raise and pay support to him, if both parents agree to abort, then do so…OR give the man the choice BEFORE childbirth to tell the woman she is on her own and walk away with no further obligation….OR outlaw abortion exept in legitimate rape and incest situations. Should not be a one way street.
My posts arent going through.
Cheesy Chuckie @ 22
Chuckie, you have proved yourself a total ass!
Why should society (thru welfare) support a child because a guy who can’t keep his dick in his pants? If you play, you pay. Don’t want to pay child support? Then keep your pants zipped!
Numbskulls who ride motorcycles without a crash helmet, then mash their brains or break their necks, end up in nursing homes paid for by Medicaid. THAT is why we have helmet laws — the taxpayers are tired of paying to maintain the feeding tubes and bedpans of these fucking idiots!
Chuckie you are an example of redneck attitudes — you want personal freedom with no personal responsibility!
Fucking freeloader …
BF @ 25
People like you make me laugh! I’d like to see you keep an ANG from bombing your ass into oblivion with a .357! Or let’s see you sink an aircraft carrier with a deer rifle! The idea that you could stand up against a modern military organization with your personal firearms is a fucking joke.
Hey BF, after they pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, can I have it? Thanks.
Roger Rabbit@40
How little you know, a helmet INCREASES the chance of a broken neck by adding 10-15 lbs aditional weight to swing around in an accident. Going by your theory you should move because most accidents happen within 5 miles of home.
A helmet is only effective in a LOW speed accident, above 15-20 mph it becomes a deadly weapon.
Reply to 27
I don’t have any problem competing with what you call “moderate” Republicans. Democrats need Republicans to keep ’em honest. I don’t agree the D.P. is run by far left whack jobs. You’ve been listening too much to the right-wing noise machine that tries to portray the Democrats as a bunch of elitist liberals, which like everything else the r/w propagandists say is a goddam lie. The problem is the Republican Party has been hijacked by extremists and is no longer a moderate or centrist party. Sure I’m willing to have a conversation with real Republicans who want to take back their party, but I’d like to know how you’re gonna do that?
Mark @ 30
You obviously don’t know much about Dean’s record. He balanced his state’s budget and is pro-gun. Yes, he uses blunt language against Rethugs, but the situation calls for blunt language. Our nation and some of its most cherished values are under assault from within. This is not a time to be pussyfooting.
Reply to 35
Telling us we should have nominated Lieberman is like us telling you that you should have nominated McCain. Lieberman is far too conservative for the Democratic rank-and-file. Why should we nominate a guy who is Republican in everything except name to represent the Democratic Party?
Kerry, despite his inadequacies, would have won this election if it weren’t for the vicious smear of his military record by the Swift Boat Liars. I’m sorry, but I have a problem with people winning public office by lying about their opponents. Kerry would have defeated Bush if Kerry had officially carried Ohio, and the voting irregularities in Ohio were FAR worse than anything that happened in Washington. Many Democrats believe Kerry did win the election. Virtually all Democrats believe the 2000 election was stolen. What that tells us is we don’t have to nominate Republicans to represent our party in order to win elections, the voters are already choosing Democrats, and all we have to do is keep the election process from being rigged.
Chuckie, the cost of bearing and raising children belongs to the parents (both of ’em), not the taxpayers or society. Get your head out of your ass. I’m just a cute fluffy little bunny with 7,658 children, but even I know that!
Cheesy Chuckie @ 43
So you’re right and everyone in the medical and law enforcement professions is wrong?
Chuck@36: Precisely the point! So…how does that fit in with your “unwilling father” thesis? Marilyn
Marilyn @ 33
You totally skimmed over his post didn’t you? Once the deed is done the make has an unavoidable respopnsibility/punishment for his acts. However the female has a backdoor that she can escape responsability for herself(and secondly the male) however she holds the coice not only over her body but to wether she wants to punish the male.
Equal protection under the law need not apply here?
RR @ 41
I bet you’re feeling pretty stupid right now aren’t you? Don’t you get it? Had Jewish citizens owned personal firearms they could have repulsed the enitre Nazi Army and prevented the holocaust!! WOW BF’s insightful commentary @ 25 was spot on!
What I’m wondering is that if an armed Jewish population could have prevented the holocaust, as BF thinks, then with all the registered gun owners in this country where were they on 9/11 and why didn’t they stop Al Qaida from killing 3,000 Americans that day?
BF your level of critical thinking doesn’t pass muster here. Stick neocon blogs if that’s all you have to offer. Go back and read my post again at 24 and relay to the people here what the analogy means.
If you can do that then we’ll value your 2 cents, if you can’t stop wasting space on this site.
Roger Rabbit@49
OK Ill bite show me any competent person that says a helmet PROTECTS your neck…you find one and he will be a liar.
Roger Rabbit@48
Make it a two way street then…outlaw abortion.
Roger @ 46
If you look hard enough, almost everybody has some good qualities. But hey, it isn’t just me that thinks Dean should get some verbal Immodium. When both rank-and-file (people I know personally) and “national name” Dems denounce the guy and/or say “he doesn’t speak for me,” it isn’t just the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s propaganda machine.
RR: “Our nation and some of its most cherished values are under assault from within.”
You mean protection from takings and the like??
RR: Democrats need Republicans to keep ‘em honest.
Truer words were never said! :)
RR: “I don’t agree the D.P. is run by far left whack jobs.”
The MoveOn.org folks are as myopic as anyone in the Religious Right — and, like it or not, they both have WAYYY too much sway over the two parties.
RR: “You’ve been listening too much to the right-wing noise machine that tries to portray the Democrats as a bunch of elitist liberals…”
They’re not always “elitist” as in wealthy, but my personal interactions with many liberals is that they’re out of touch with Average Joe. I happen to live in a VERRRY liberal area and have personal experience with two kinds of libs that definitely are “out of touch.” The first is the pro-CAO, etc. protester that has never (and likely will never) own property him-/herself. The other is the public employee (both teachers and government workers) who have never held a 9-to-5 job in the real world, let alone tried to start/run a small business.
http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/xhmt_pa.htm
Not quite right, horses ass guy. Reversing Roe may result in the death of some females. No way to know what the numbers might be. Not reversing Roe kills (some would say “murders”) millions of females, albeit they’re very young. It also kills males. Abortion results in the intentional death of the nearly born whereas carrying full-term may result in unintentional death. So in the lifecycle of females you find it just fine to intentionally kill them off very young, I take it, when they have their full potential and life experience ahead of them rather than later in life. Do you not find that just a bit creepy?
Hello, Roger Rabbit. Let’s see. I’ll use my argument against Don and Loocy. If Gore won Tennessee, he’d be president, probably a single termer though. But why did Tennesseeans reject him? Maybe because he has no moral compass or backbone. Maybe they were upset at his $353 charitable contributions. Maybe they remember is rants in the senate. Maybe they forgot he “invented” the Internet. Whatever the reason, he didn’t get elected, Florida be damned!!! We also know that he lost Florida when he wanted the selective recount. That’s when the SCOTUS said enough. Gore then said later he was wrong to selective recount. Gore didn’t do the right thing and he paid the price. But you all go and rant on about how Gore got screwed.
Comment on 59
There is a difference of opinion as to when a “fetus” becomes a “human being.” At the moment of conception, a fertilized egg is in no way a person, sentient or otherwise. It is a cell, period — incapable of thinking, feeling, or being aware of its existence. On the other hand, it’s ridiculous to suggest that a fetus immediately before birth is something substantially less than the human being that emerges at the moment of birth. The truth is the difference between a fetus and a person is fuzzy. The difference is important because it affects our moral perceptions. Most people would agree it’s wrong to kill a human being. Some people have no moral problem with removing a cell mass that is not a human being. The Roe v. Wade court struggled mightily with the question of when a fetus becomes a person, and concluded that science, religion, and culture provide no clear answer. You have to accept the fact that not everyone thinks the same on this topic. The question then becomes at what point does society step in and protect human life? We can’t agree on that because we can’t agree on when a fetus becomes a human life. Ultimately, it is a political question, to be resolved in the political process; and the practical political question is whether a vocal minority should be permitted to impose their wishes on the majority. 35 years ago, the Supreme Court said no.
I do not intend to debate at length such questions as whether private gun ownership would have prevented the Holocaust. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto obtained some arms, fought the German Army, inflicted a few German casualties, but were quickly overpowered by superior military force.
No American citizens, or group of American citizens, could stand up against the military power of the U.S. government were that power to be exercised by a despotic government. It’s ludicruous to think you could fight off Navy ships, military jets, armored troop columns, machine guns, and artillery with civilian sporting and recreational arms.
What is more likely to happen is for politically polarized Americans to turn their small arms against each other. A collapse of our political system, followed by civil disorder, could lead to such a scenario.
Keep abortion legal so that Democrats can’t reproduce themselves.
Roger @59
The Supreme Court just gave them permission to steal your house and sell it to the highest bidder.
just cause they say it, doesn’t make it right.
And anyone figuring that the SCOTUS is actually going to reverse Roe/Wade is delusional. Even Bush has said that it isn’t going to happen:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....tion_x.htm
Bush has never called for a ban on all abortions.
“I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions,” Bush said in answer to a question at a news conference.
If you want to discuss limits on partial birth or something, maybe. But a dismissal of Roe? no.
Karl
Thousands of women are dying right now due to Roe v Wade…female babies and future mothers.
What about the millions of babies killed by abortion each year?
All tools@53. No, I didn’t. His more complete post @ 40 hadn’t been posted yet. However…”punish the male?” How?
chuck @40. I have NO problem with fathers being part of the decision as to a pregnancy. But I think they should make a better effort to be part of that decision BEFORE pregnancy occurs. I also think men who are opposed to abortion should make that clear to their partners, and should make it clear that they feel a responsibility to any pregnancy, intended or unintended. I do not think a woman should ever be forced into abortion just because her partner wants to walk away from the responsibility – the father still has an obligation to the child, if not the partner. Walking away from a child shouldn’t be allowed for either partner, before childbirth or after it. Finally, I say again, I don’t want abortion criminalized. I would prefer to discourage it through better options, and encouraging more responsibility between men and women. As a male, you can help a lot here, and it has to do with being supportive rather then condemnatory. You are to becommended for having reared your children. I’m sure it wasn’t easy especially without any support from the other parent – but you know…that happens all the time. Given your personal experience, you are in a unique position to be active in encouraging the obligations of both parents. You should get involved in talking to young people. That would help society a lot. Best wishes to you in raising your children. Marilyn
Not only will millions of women die horrible screaming deaths if Roe v. Wade is overturned, but thousands of abortionists will go broke. NARAL and Planned Parenthood will collapse, and the Democrat Party coffers will slowly drain away. Then who will prevent right-wing Christian fundamentalists from turning women into cattle, kept solely for the purpose of breeding? You know, like it was before the 60’s. Abortion is not only a woman’s right, but her duty as a member of the female gender. If it’s patriotic to exercise your right to free speech, then it must be patriotic to exercise your right to have an abortion as well. The more abortions you have, the more patriotic you are. That’s why we need a Supreme Court justice who won’t only protect a women’s right to choose, but perform abortions in her chambers during recesses as well.
Marilyn @ 67
I think your wheel is turning but the hamster is dead. What do you mean how? …child support maybe?
Roger Rabbit@61
A bunch of mountain men in Afganistan ran the Soviet Union out with sticks and stones!
Liberal Larry@68
Then it is a mans duty as a member of the male gender not to pay for a child he didnt want!
Comment on 61 – nobody ever got to be an adult able to kill human fetuses (sorry, cell masses) without first going through that mass of cells stage. To be one you must first have been the other. Unless the mass of cells that was meant to be you was killed by another mass of cells that went on to become a mature cell mass because nobody bothered to kill it while it was still a cell mass, or by order of another mass of cells that has been granted judicial authority by a collective of mature cell masses. Makes you wonder why we as sentient cell masses do that to our babies.
Now just a minute, Goldie…
Reversing Roe will return the issue to the States. There is a silver lining or two here…
Red States will ban abortion; they will suffer the carnage. Blue States will operate swank clinics for the well-to-do from the Red States.
Help me out here, somebody… Why isn’t this a win-win?
Do you really think that any women today, in the big business of abortion, that suffer physical damage or death due to internal bleeding from boched abortions, are reported as such?! Give me a break. People like you are so quick to point out some kind of conservative conspiracy all the while, women that were nurses in these abortion clinics but grew a consciences and quit their jobs, talk about all kinds of complications, some leathal. Normally these would be major malpractice issues but for some reason it never gets out. Hmmmmm, more of that big business that the liberals hate so much I think.
Why do you think that most major hospitals do not provide abortion? Why do you think it is done in clinics where the Doctors make more money than their hospital working bretheren? There is simply no garuantee that you will not have some kind of complications, either to future child births or directly to the mother when you start poking around in down there. Don’t be so arrogant that you think that we are so sophisticated that we can do this today without any harm coming to the mother, unlike those dark past back alley abortion days.
The issues involved here are much deeper and more complex to the society as a whole than just fear mongering comments about back alley abortion deaths. That is only spoken because selfish people do not want to be accountable for their responsibilities. They hope to scare people out of serious discussion of the sociatal impacts of abortion. They know deep down that it reduces the value of life, and please, quite making comments that it is only the woman that has to suffer or deal with it becuase it is her body. Just because it is not the body of the man that is affected, does not mean that the psychological impacts are less devastating. And again, no voice for the unborn? They are just a lump? Take some good classes on reproduction and child development in the womb before you answer that one.
This always boils down to the same basic issue, my selfish desires, my wants, my needs, me, me, me. This is nothing new in the history of the world from the time that Adam and Eve screw up to now. Except now we do a better job at making ourselves feel better about and eliminating the guilt. Oh wait, no we did that in the past as well.
Calvus @ 74
No medical procedure comes risk free, particularly those that involve being put under. I don’t think anyone is claiming that point of view. However, the reality is/was women were suffering much higher mortality rates when the procedures were performed outside of a clinic.
GWB helped one of his girlfriend get an abortion of the child he fathered and chalked it up to indiscretions of youth. Where’s the outrage of personal accountability.
Since you’re driving the point of accountability, where is your outrage on the mismanagement on the War on Terror, outing a CIA operative, out of control fiscal policies, support of the patriot act that erodes our 4th amendment rights, inability to sustain support from our allies in the War on Terror, lower wages for the average American worker, . . .
This administration and the Republican leadership in general has abandoned the principles of former Republican party.
Not a peep about that? Or, is that a topic for another time?
OK, my dear pontificating Calvus… I’ll pontificate back!
Let’s strip the moral crap away from this and get to the core. I’m in touch with my inner monkey. :-)
“the same basic issue, my selfish desires, my wants, my needs, me, me, me.” Within the context of this discussion, that should be … ” she, she, she,”… The entire improbable edifice of the equality of the sexes is in question here. If women are to have “equality,” a biological impossibility and an evolutionary absurdity, we have to pretend, and decide politically, to ignore the child’s rights, the father’s rights, and societies rights. I don’t like it, preferring “conception is contract,” but nobody asked me.
Margret Mead pointed out that the real question before societies was the role of men, since the role of women was ordained. Society exists to give women the chance to create healthy kids. Necessarily, this view subjugates women to society more than it does men, who are expendable.
Any attempt to “level the field” creates a host of societial downsides, whether it is PC to admit or not. From “moral pollution” – if such a thing exists – to the baby bust that leaves “us” hostage to immigration for tomorrow’s generation [“sophisticated” people don’t breed enough to survive, long run] the downsides are everywhere.
So pick your hell. You want “equal” women or long-term societal survival?
You can’t have both.
GBS@75
Goldie, thats an interesting argument:
“No medical procedure comes risk free, particularly those that involve being put under. I don’t think anyone is claiming that point of view. However, the reality is/was women were suffering much higher mortality rates when the procedures were performed outside of a clinic”
I cant argue that point and I won’t. To me the tragedy is not the legalization of abortion, but the casual use of it. The fact that so many people chose abortion for convenience is what i consider the problem, which is why a culture shift is more important to me then legal one. When our society becomes more responsible in choices and desires, then legal abortion won’t matter anyway.
“GWB helped one of his girlfriend get an abortion of the child he fathered and chalked it up to indiscretions of youth. Where’s the outrage of personal accountability. ”
Since the woman who was Roe has recanted her desire to want one then, it seems to me that there is a lesson that as people age and mature their values shift. If GWB did that, then thats between him and her and God. I am more concerned what happens moving forward. I would heavily oppose him trying to force a loaded court solely to overturn Roe, because it wouldnt fix anything. I don’t mind his overt opposition to Late term abortion however.
“Since you’re driving the point of accountability, (snipping some)
“outing a CIA operative”
Valerie PLames outing is one of the biggest non issues going on.
“out of control fiscal policies”
I would agree, but my dislike of irresponsible nanny state government goes back quite a few years through many administrations, and through many congress, controlled by both parties.
“support of the patriot act that erodes our 4th amendment rights”
Sorry, I never saw anything in the 4th ammend that deals with Library Records, and thats about the only thing in the patriot act that is new.
“lower wages for the average American worker, . . . ”
Raising minimum wage wont fix anything, it will just further deteriate the economy.
“This administration and the Republican leadership in general has abandoned the principles of former Republican party. ”
I would say that the Democratic Party suffers some of the same woes. The reality is that both parties suffer from polematic hubris, and exist as much to oppose the other as they do to fix anything.
Sure they have their seperate issue, and planks in their platform, but take away abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, gun control and a few other buzz issues, and they become the YinYang, two equally opposing sides of the same ball of crap.
The republicans have their issues, but the democrats aren’t much more appealing.
Leaving a big mess of indecision and waste in the middle.
karl:
“support of the patriot act… Sorry, I never saw anything in the 4th ammend that deals with Library Records, and thats about the only thing in the patriot act that is new.”
Did you read it or are you shooting blanks? Here’s a penny bet it’s blanks; most of the S.O.B’s that voted for it didn’t read it… Probably because it was too big to pick up and carry…
All tools@69: Apparently I’m assuming too much – I’m assuming that responsible adults want to be responsible for their children. In some states, child support is sent directly to the court, the court monitors it and dispenses it to the custodial parent. Child support shouldn’t be optional – it should be the first priority. If someone feels they can’t handle the financial responsibilities of another child, the time to make that decision is BEFORE having unprotected sex. Birth control has been around and available for decades – to men as well as women. Condoms have been around a lot longer than the pill. Birth control is the responsibility of the individual. You don’t let someone else do it for you. Marilyn
The example of Romania, “where abortion was legalized in 1957, outlawed in 1966, and legalized again after Ceaucescu’s fall in 1990”, is one of many such examples showing the deadly relationship between the denial of abortion services and authoritarian governments.
With our own increasingly authoritarian regime, the rights of women are under an attack worse than any time since before the early twentieth century. What better way to control half the population than to “keep ’em pregnunt”!
If women do not “get it” yet, perhaps they will, once they find themselves treated in the ways described by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid’s Tale.
It’s the 11th hour now and yet I do not see women marching in the streets. Why are you all so quite? Are you in fear, already, or just distracted by the programming on the Oxygen and Lifetime channels? Just wait until it’s the way it was before 1973!
Perhaps you think you’re safe because of Washington State’s abortion law? Well, it’s very much on the hit list, ladies. You’re imagining a World that no longer exists if you think you have rights that can’t be taken away. The patronizing, male dominated (what was called chauvinists in the 60s) Republicans – – – like Rossi, Vance and the Righties in our State Legislature will see to it they fulfill the wishes of the rabid right wing anti-woman fundamentalists. Soon, you will have to wear headgear and make sure your ankles don’t show in public. Be afraid, be very afraid. Take action now because soon it will be too late. If you don’t care enough for yourself, why not care for the future of your daughters and grand daughters? Do something NOW!
Marilyn@79
Aparantly you dont get it, if those are your feelings, then join the pro life movement and outlaw abortion.
Demonrat@80
It isnt necisarily the abortion law many of us are after, it is fairness to the man, the male is simply a human wallet with no say and that is sexist!
Demonrat @80
The patronizing, male dominated (what was called chauvinists in the 60s) Republicans – – – like Rossi, Vance and the Righties in our State Legislature will see to it they fulfill the wishes of the rabid right wing anti-woman fundamentalists.
Wow. I thought I had a lock on the most paraniod…
all crime is imposing your moral beliefs, this is why we need a more libertarian and anti-fascist society
Re 30, mark: Putting Dean and Rove on the same playing field is asinine. Rove will soon be a convicted felon. Dean is a good and honest man who would never put the lives of CIA operatives in danger, as Rove did, to protect his drunken little president from the criticism he so richly deserves.
Women should be in control of their own reproductive destiny. They don’t need Jesus’ minions up their skirts.
Dr Quest @ 85: “Dean is a good and honest man…”
Dean is a closet racist who can’t keep his mouth shut and is well on his way to guaranteeing at least GOP power maintenance, if not gains, in 2006 and (if he’s around that long) 2008. Without the MorOn.org crowd, Dean has nobody to drink his Kool-Aid.
Dan @78
I have read alot about it.
What fails to get press is that the Patriot act contains primarily practices that were already legal when used to fight organized crime, the Act mainly opened those practices to terrorism.
The biggest beef seems to be the libraries aspect of it, and frankly it puzzles me to a degree. First, it is a public library, and there is no expectation of privacy as to what you check out, they keep a record of it for crying out loud. And second, frankly the internet stations and books read in the library but not checked out, which therefore cannot be tracked, already make the checkout history redundent.
yes, I will be the first to admit and agree that it has the potential to be abused, and said abuse could be very scary. But there are checks and balances built into it, and I fail to see how it is that much more dangerous then the power the government could levy on a daily basis without it. Even under existing laws mistakes happen. Its a fact.
Could it be imporved? Probably, any law or act can be improved in hindsight. I am certainly no legal scholar,so I wont attempt to say how.
I personally am more worried about the recent idiocy of the US Supreme Court in allowing the government to steal property at will then I am the Patriot act.
It’s murder, no matter how you slice it.
re 86: “Mark, you ignorant slut, etc……..”
Karl @87
You either did not read or most likely fully understand the Patriot Act and it’s provisions.
The library issue is just on issue. Where the government gets too much power comes for the ability to sneak into your HOME and remove evidence, look into your business and personal records without your knowledge, tap your communications without your knowledge, and most importantly they can do it without the oversight of a judge issing a warrant. To be secure in our papers and free from UNWARRANTED searches and seizures are expressly addressed in your/our 4th amendement right. When a “law” supercedes your rights against the government, and that is exactly what the Bill of Rights are, then your constitutional rights are being eroded.
And, isn’t that what Bush says about the terrorist, they hate us because of our freedom, our rigths? If he’s telling the truth, then isn’t Bin Laden winning by default because we’re losing our rights that they hate so much?
Republican leadership has failed the American people during a time of war. Look at what happened in London today. Our enemies are still on the loose all over the world. Porter Goss knows where Bin Laden is but Bush has decided to respect the borders of another nation; breaking his promise that terrorists will have no safe haven.
Chuck@81: Apparently you don’t get it. Abortion doesn’t need to be outlawed. What needs to be outlawed is irresponsible, unprotected sex. As I said before: You don’t want anymore kids, guy, learn to wear a condom, get a vasectomy, or…have sex with guys. Even if a woman says she is on the pill – that can fail if she is taking certain other medications. You’re as responsible for an unintended pregnancy as she is – no woman should have to pay a penalty for an unintended pregnancy that her partner doesn’t also pay…and she shouldn’t be forced into abortion just because her partner is irresponsible. Learn to make the important decsions before you have sex. What is it about that that you can’t figure out? Marilyn
chuck@82: You said you were rearing your children. I took that to mean you were the custodial parent who is not receiving child support from the other parent. How are you the wallet? Or, are you paying child support for other children you have fathered?
Marilyn
Goldie @ 90
Good points though I would want to verify a few examples of what you are referring to.
With one exception everythign you mention was an accessible law enforcement tool before the PA.
The problem as I see it is terrorism cannot be countered by any conventional means. The war cannot do it alone, because the enemy is not fixated to a tangible place, and normally wars are fought against a location as much as a people. In this case the enemy is fluid and despite a common leadership, it has no national identity, which usually accompanies a national homeland. We cannot take the fight directly to anyone specific as a country. That they come to fight us in Iraq is not ideal, but fight them there we do.
So we also have to wage a fight against individuals, and to do so we use something more akin to a conventional legal system. In reality terrorism is more like organized crime and conspiracy then a conventional war. So the same tactics used against arganized crime, wiretaps and such become the weapon to find individuals who might committ acts of terror. Is it ideal? No.
Some of the more dangerous provisions of search laws already allowed a search without a warrant. Look into the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in 2004 to thank for that.
But the real question is this: What would you rather see done? There is no ability to use diplomacy against Jihadists, because they are not there to negotiate, just to kill. Others have attacked you on the other aspects of non force measures, so I wont.
Suffice to say that certain aspects of the PA are troubling, but the proof in the pudding here will be how it is wielded. The government already wields all the power to do anything it wants, as evidenced by the SCOTUS.
As I said, I am more worried about the Supreme Court then I am the PA.
Goldie:
One last comment:
“Republican leadership has failed the American people during a time of war. Look at what happened in London today. Our enemies are still on the loose all over the world. Porter Goss knows where Bin Laden is but Bush has decided to respect the borders of another nation; breaking his promise that terrorists will have no safe haven.”
I read this and I ask myself what you are demanding. Should we go to more places to fight the terrorists? Are you advocating us invading Pakistan now?
If your true aim is to reduce military action, then asking for me seems contradictory.
And considering the nature of the Islamo-facists, capturing Bin Ladin would not be an end to anything, just another milestone.
Marilyn@92
Nope no child support for me as I said I raised my own…but the state support enforcement will not go after a deadbeat mom… but as I said the man is looked at as a human wallet.
Marilyn@91
“You’re as responsible for an unintended pregnancy as she is – no woman should have to pay a penalty for an unintended pregnancy that her partner doesn’t also pay…and she shouldn’t be forced into abortion just because her partner is irresponsible.”>>>
Couldnt agree more, and also the other way around, no man should have to pay a penalty for an unitended pregnancy that his partner doesnt also pay and he shouldnt be forced to pay just because his partner refused to have an abortion just because she was irresponsible. OR outlaw abortion exepy by mutual agreement of both parties involved…
Chuck@96
…”just because his partner refused to have an abortion just because she was irresponsible”
I hope you don’t mean that quite the way it sounds. It sounds as if being “irresponsible” is a cause for aborton, and just a backstop for birth control. There is no reason to use an invasive medical procedure as a birth control measure and it shouldn’t be encouraged for that. But as to “Outlawing abortion except by mutual agreement of both parties involved” : What issue does that address? If mutual parties can agree to have an abortion, or not, surely they can agree that both of them use birth control before they have sex – yes, both of them. Any one measure can fail, but it is unlikely two would fail at the same time. I don’t think abortion should be criminalized however, because it holds only one party responsibile. Holding only one party responsible compunds the irresponsibility of both men and women. Birth Control is not a one sided responsibility. I really think that with the advent of the pill, males have abdicated their own birth control responsiilities and now their solution is to hold the female entirely responsible for the reproductive process. This doesn’t seem to be working very well. Thanks for responding. Marilyn
Marilyn@97
I am simply pointing out that we presently have a one way street, it needs to be a two way street or nothing at all. By the way, have you looked at the effectivness of birth control available to men? The effectivness is very poor compared to that available to women.(no Im not talking about a vasectomy, that is permanent)
Karl @94,
Why are you askin me? That wasn’t my statement. Go ask gbs.
Goldy….My bad…and my apologies
So GBS….same questions
PS goldy: Thanks for the forum to discuss this stuff.
NOT reversing Roe kills tens of thousands (and more) babies
It was reprehensible that Roe lied at the trial, saying she was raped. No excuse for that. Glad she’s trying to reverse the damage she caused to millions of unborn children