Based on the linked article, it appears that there was no such thing as the Supreme Court Decision entitled Roe Vs Wade. What was it, over 40 years ago, and we still deal with these RED retrograde states trying to chip away at this right obtained by women, nationwide. First, no abortion, excluding rape/incest or the health of the mother. The rightwinger has whittled away the exceptions and just says no abortion, period,
Conservatives are always saying to the state 'leave us alone'. But in this area, for the ladies, your body belongs to them to control at will. Don't you find that annoying? These 'blue noses' won't stop there, you can bet and I have heard of attempted inroads into even the ideas of contraception. It is difficult to have an equal standing in so competitive a society, when you cannot even control what happens within your own body, men are not so restrained. The ultimate in tyranny, how do you live with it?
The Right and their hypocrisy and double standards is beyond belief. Watching Fox news draw cover for that ridiculous Ma and Pa Kettle family, the Duggers, and their family secret of a child molesting member, made to look like the trials of a 'typical American family" The article that was the source of my irritation is below:
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/09/none_of … treatment/
Is it so hard for women to put a nickel between their legs?
And teach their daughters to do the same?
and what is it to you, Mr. C?
Why make this a vicious Red vs Blue thing?
She committed murder in the mind's of these current thinkers. It is a step in the right direction.
Next, abortion doctors will take their rightful places.
"She committed murder in the mind's of these current thinkers."
And there you have it. Until the root of the problem is addressed, it won't do a whit of good to whine about abortion being a red state control. It's not a matter of being red, or GOP, or conservative; it's a matter of deciding that abortion is murder, by personal declaration, and that no one else has the right to make the call.
I just knew that I would stir up the pot and with critical issues such as these the pot needs to be stirred.
Do you think that because I am not the immediate victim I have no stake in the outcome of this debate? I guess if the discussion is not about the distribution of comdoms as a male or the supply and demand of fried chicken/watermelon as African American, this discussion is outside my purview?
Everybody's freedom is my business and if I don't take a stand, the enemy of such will soon come after me and my rights.
I don't care about 'rightful thinkers', who the hell are they, outside the usual rightwing bullies ? Roe vs Wade guaranteed women the right to a safe abortion procedure and that is good enough for me. Until it is overturned, that is the law of the land, and is the only 'rightful thinking' that I am interested in....
And Yes, it is a "Red Thing'!
And it is being overturned, piece by piece. Telling such destroyers of freedom to go away because they are GOP and therefore evil will not change that one bit, and likely will accelerate the process.
Well, Wilderness, as for it being overturned, that remains to be seen. The drivers of the attempt toward reversal is from the Republican party, that is quite evident. And you don't need glasses to see this.
Oh, it is already being seen as abortion clinics are under legal attack all over the country as well as any financial support for those needing an abortion.
And yes, it is primarily the GOP party leading it, but the GOP in general is not the answer to stopping it. Such an attack means absolutely nothing to the religious radicals that are doing the pushing and will only result in the party gaining support from other radicals wanting to push their own religious agenda. Murder, after all, and doubly so in the murder of children, is perhaps the mostly emotionally charged topic in our society.
Yes, in places like Georgia and Alabama, try the more populous Blue States and skip the flyovers and see how all this plays with them. The statement of a woman terminating a pregnancy under the provisions of Roe Vs Wade is not murder. That is just charged rhetoric from the Right. The radical religious folks have a rather narrow following, no one is going to serious take them or their ideas to the finish line.
It is absolutely charged rhetoric, just as the OP in this thread is. Which does nothing but cement the emotions into a faction, and while you won't find too many in the total blue states, there are plenty left to swing to the pro-life camp.
If you think no one takes it to the finish line, you are grossly mistaken. Religion is still an extremely strong force in this country (if it weren't, we wouldn't be having the discussion).
So what if the right wins and overturns Roe vs Wade? If the decision and the law is to be legislated or ajudicated at the state level, the women will just leave a problem state and proceed to another to have the procedure done. I am sure that there will be Planned Parenthood chapters ready to assist, and to make a point. All the states will look patchwork some allowing the procedure and some not. The Right will shoot itself in the foot, because youre not going to stop what it is that they are trying to stop. I guess that these retrograde states will have to pass laws incriminating women for leaving the state in pursuit of an abortion.
What about the rights of the unborn child? Do they ever get a vote?
No Janesix, because they are just conglomerations of randomly growing tissue.
Such a conglomeration gets nothing. Not even a green light is some cases.
Just a red light... as in STOP.
On the up side, thankfully, abortion rates are down.
The saddest part about it,and the part I really don't get, is that abortion is OKAY in the eyes of so many people. It's kind of creepy.
No, youre right, its not Ok, but if I were female, that would be my decision to make and not the State's.
I disagree. A woman shouldn't have the "right" to kill a child just because it's inside her body.
How do you legislate this, do we go after every woman, a pregnancy police, if you will, to determine who has been impregnated? Can you stop a woman from going to Ill. from Indiana to obtain an abortion if she so wishes as Indiana is much more restricted. Who is going to accept that sort of imposition? Who is going to make other women comply with your point of view just because it is what you believe? Roe vs Wade is the law and as such, the current objective standard in regards to this issue
I wouldn't try to make other women comply with my point of view. We live in a democracy,and the public has made their wishes known. Who am I to try to stop them? Also, women are going to have abortions. They always have. It's better to have safe abortions that are regulated by law, than to have infanticide and back-alley abortions.
Warning Pure Creative Writing:
If the state declares that abortion is murder because it is discovered for a fact that life does indeed begin at conception, it would be BAD for those who couldn't care a fig about about the rights of the unborn.
In my view, the newly incarnating souls deserve to be treated with deep regard… after all they have been sleeping peacefully in the arms of the angels.
Then, there is that flash of light in their astral world..
The soul has been thinking about coming to earth for a while now.
Awareness is kicking in..."I want a body! I want to wake up! I want the love of those two great people! And I want to love THEM and live a lifetime on beautiful earth.
Here I go, lets see... I would like red hair, green eyes, and robust health… I'll take these genetic codes.. oh, not those... everything going according to plan… adjusting to being in a brand new body as it is unfolds…
But then… ouch! OUCH! what is this? a knife cutting off my arm, stabbing my head (and you really don't think this conglomeration of cells being directed by a being doesn't FEEL anything??? When DO sensory nerves develop? Why not as soon as the body begins its formation?)
And then all is gone / wham… GONE… no heart, no warm womb.
It finds itself going back to the astral realms, where the angels will have some soothing to do... before the tired soul finally drifts back to sleep.
Don't worry... they will never declare that a fetus is under the construction and direction of a soul. Never.
I hear you KH, I am not callous about these things. Life at conception withhave to pass muster with the medical and legal definitions dictionaries. We are not terribly far apart , it is just one thing to have a preference and quite another to legislate or adjudicate that over the entire female population. Everyone has to deal with and resolve these issues within their own conscience. Tying the woman up and making her carry an unwanted baby to term is certainly not the answer, but it is the tack being used by the Right.
I would vote for prison terms for anyone having or performing an abortion. No one would be forced to do anything.
According to Roe Vs Wade a woman's right to an abortion is available for up to 28 weeks after that the mother no longer has the right to abort unilaterally. The mother has to decide if she is going to carry to term, no one can make that decision but her
Of course ,, everyone knows its the conservative that's ruining this country . Not ! How about a little impulse control O.P.? Any reasonable conservative knows it's all a woman's choice .
I agree. A woman's body is her own and she should have the right to make decisions concerning it without interference from the government.
It's really laughable. Drugs to enhance a man's sex drive are all covered by insurance; but many insurance companies refuse to cover contraceptives.
The nickel between their legs comment is indicative of the problem women in our society face. Men are applauded for sexual prowess, but women need to have change for a quarter or they are considered the problem.
I will say that I do understand the moral stand against abortion but, that doesn't include understanding the hateful way people approach the subject or a woman's right to make life affecting decisions. I would have more respect for them if they each adopted a child from an unwed mother while they were attempting to legislate how a woman's uterus will be handled; but they don't.
"A woman's body is her own and she should have the right to make decisions concerning it without interference from the government."
I assume you also feel that any child inside that woman also belongs to her (is chattel) and she has a right to do what she wishes with that child, including kill it. Can you explain the moral difference between killing a child in the womb and killing one outside it? Or are they both chattel, to do with as the woman wishes?
I appreciate your comments. I don't discuss the subject of abortion with people who use the term 'murder' willy nilly. I will say that one has the right to make decisions which will affect their lives and no one has the right to infringe on that right when they have no stake in the outcome. The interference will not positively or negatively affect the life of the person interfering. I think that is probably one thing that drives the interference.
None of which answers, or even addresses, the question.
Perhaps you need to be discussing with people that use the word "murder", because that's exactly how they see it. Not as "abortion" and not as "woman's control over her uterus". They see it as murder, plain and simple, neither more nor less.
It's always a little baffling to me that people not only do not recognize abortion as murder (I don't, either) but that they refuse to accept that other people do and try to work and discuss within that framework.
Roe vs Wade was the compromize between abortion on demand and women having some control over the process. If the Right wants to change this, it won't be without a fight.
You're right - there will be a fight. And it is going on daily, and the religious nuts are slowly winning as more and more laws limiting abortion come into law.
the nonreligious nuts.
- how about
those who perceive the actual heartbreak and reality of the situation
those who just really really want/need a quick fix.
(Well, it takes longer to fix the situation.
than it did to conceive the poor thing.)
I disagree. Those who call it murder don't get the right to insist we all discuss it as such. I'm curious why you don't think those who refuse to accept that other people don't see it as murder and refuse to discuss it in that framework aren't being unreasonable.
Would you think it would be reasonable to expect us to discuss sex with a person who sees homosexuality as a life threatening sin as if their point of view were valid? Should we give latitude to an extremely racially prejudiced person as if their viewpoint were valid?
Why, on this issue, should we give leeway? Because, it's women? Are they of less value than another human being?
If you were a fetus would you want to be torn to pieces and vacuumed out of a womb?
And men hate the thought just as much as women.
And red hate the thought just as much as blue.
every body hates the thought.
But it is personal choice.
and thats the only issue.
That she killed her baby by her own self…
That's just amazing and brave…
Would she recommend it to others?
Should it be allowed, encouraged?
If I were a fetus I would not "want" anything at all as the brain is not yet developed to "want" at all. A three month fetus does not have the mental capability of even a fish.
I, you, or anyone else. Including biologists that understand animals and intelligence far better than either one of us.
If I'm reading it right, the cerebral cortex is the last portion of the brain to form, sometime later in the second trimester. A 3 month fetus cannot "want", then, any more than a fish does.
Then why is the small person even developing/growing. What force is there within the body utilizing the dividing multiplying cells, the tissues, the organs, the toenails, the brain, the finger prints, the lines on the palms, the moles, the umbilicus?
The will to live is instigated by SOME force.
Some force is utilizing/activating the beating heart!
What makes you think there is a will to live rather than simple chemical reactions going on?
But on top of that, are you really trying to use a question (ignorance) as evidence of thought? It reminds of "Well, if God didn't make you what DID" as proof of a god.
I was a fetus once. Having no recollections of that time I couldn't tell you how I would have felt about it. The thing that bothers me about the whole discussion is that it does not affect us. Not personally. We want to argue about what decisions another human being has the right to make for their own lives. We have absolutely no stake in the outcome; yet we want to have a say in it. What part of your own life would you appreciate such unwarranted and unrequested interference?
I'm not pro abortion. I'm simply pro reality. What is the outcome of refusing to allow a woman to make her own decisions in this matter? What will happen to the mother? What will happen to the child? We want to believe that everything will turn out all right in the end; but is that realistic? Creating what could be a lifetime of misery for two people, just because we had an opinion and felt it would be dandy to make other people live in the confines of our opinion doesn't sound like something I want to participate in.
*shrug* Why discuss it? Because if you don't the fight will never end and eventually the religious views will win. Or so I see it, based on the known fact that the ongoing battle is slowly shifting to the side of the religious.
Until they come to understand that their opinion on life, and specifically human life is no more "right" or "important" than yours the battle will continue. The discussion, then, must shift from abortion to religious freedom and freedom in general with an emphasis on the value of individual opinion.
You do not know! We are complete beings on the astral realm…
We have bodies made of light.
they are complete blueprints of the bodies we have now.
We do not incarnate due to RANDOM choices due to impersonal EVOLUTION
We (our souls) guide the process of manifestation.
According to My Memory of My Life Before Birth.
Darn, I wish I could say that honestly!!!!
If the morning after-pill is legal, and abortion is legal, killing a potential human baby at any stage of development should be legal.
Even at birth.
Who is to say at what stage it should be legal vs not legal?
Yet we do.
And who is to say that a woman should not induce her own abortion before the agreed upon legal stage?
And yet they did, in this case.
We are just confused humans aren't we?
I believe in the soul.
The soul that guides the formation of the body. (Edited to keep emotions out of this.)
Presuming that's to me and you're moving the thread back left, no it doesn't make sense at all. Not if "soul" is defined in any manner I'm familiar with.
-what definition are you familiar with?
I exist therefore I believe in my soul.
* I * equals soul.
This thought proves existence of SOUL to me.
Soul: "The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal."
A woman who feels that she could become an "incubating machine" should NEVER EVER have sex.
End of story.
to KH and Wilderness, my antogonists. I appreciate your participation in this topic.
Being pro-choice is not pro-abortion. If I took the line of reasoning those on the Anti-choice or Pro-life side takes, we would come to the conclusion that life begins at conception. We, on the left are not the amoral ogres we are painted out to be. It is just that it is virtually impossible to police pregnancies at the point of conception watching every medication ordered and ingested, charging a woman with drinking too much and harming the fetus. In this day and age can you imagine today's woman tolerating the restraints on her sexuality, that will extend into other rights that she now enjoys?
Now, the Right says that incest and rape are not sufficient to allow the abortion of a fetus. I know that I would not want anyone making me carry a child to term under such circumstances, based on the religious dogma of others...
I don't how you make a woman carry a child to term that she does not want. It is an exercise in futility. I am mad at the Right only in the fact that they try to force women to comply in this most personal of life experience and choice.
No one has yet to explain how, if Roe Vs Wade is overturned will there be a practical solution for women who have to go other states to get what they want done. How can you legally keep them from aborting? So if it doesn't fit, don't force it. No Wilderness, the Evangelical religious Right are seen by most of us on the progressive side as crackpots. As for when life begins, there is currently no legal definition, even though there may well be a moral one. One persons morals is another's strawberry ice cream, so what?
Yes, I am P.O.ed at the Right, as usual, but it is nothing personal.
"No Wilderness, the Evangelical religious Right are seen by most of us on the progressive side as crackpots."
Me, too, Credence. Don't get me wrong - I'm on your side on the abortion issue. I just take except with the idea that all conservatives insist their religious beliefs should be forced onto the world. I also do not see the abortion issue as anything but a decision on when human life begins. We HAVE made that legal call with our abortion laws as far as I'm concerned, and as no one else has any right whatsoever to make it for the country, I'm OK with accepting the current laws on abortion.
But the religious radicals don't see it that way, and until they understand and accept that their very personal definition should not be required of everyone else, there will be a fight over abortion. So take the fight away from abortion and put it where it belongs - the discussion should be about the idea that the the religious crackpots have the right to force their beliefs on others.
Wilderness, I sort of thought that you would see my point and the actual danger of allowing our own version of Taliban Lite to dictate what is appropriate for us all. While the zealots have had some success in very conservative states; Indiana, Texas, Alabama to name a few, they are going to have to be a much broader base for the total success and I don't see it. For these people to get what they really want will require amending the Constitution and getting 3/4 of the states to go along with that is virtually impossible. We are never going to see what happened with Prohibition again.
I know that you do not affiliate yourself with a political party, per se, but the party that represents the Conservative standards, the GOP, is on steroids and the extreme radicals are taking over. If you are a moderate, I don't see many political examples of moderation within the party, the extreme positions are the positions of the GOP. So moderate Conservatives need to figure out how to tone down those on the insane Right, that seem to be taking the lead.
I always did see your point on abortion, and overall agree with it. I just disagree that a reasonable course of discussion is to continually say that a woman has an unlimited right to murder children, and that's what the religious zealots hear.
No, it won't take a constitutional amendment to cut off abortion; all it will take is a congressional agreement that human life begins at conception. We already see some of that in some states that are applying double murder charges to people that kill a pregnant woman - the fetus is, by law, considered a "person", for the purpose of limited homicide, and with all the legal ramifications that brings. All it needs is to extend that definition for ANY killing of a fertilized egg and the zealots have won.
Roe vs Wade does define viability at over 28 weeks, then the interests of the state to preserve life takes hold. So there is no unlimited license for abortion, but a compromise between warring parties, where the conservatives want to break the truce that is in play. The religious zealots want to prohibit abortion at conception and that ain't going to happen. Remember the Human Life amendment they tried to pass a few years ago, dead in the water!!!
Tell me how a 'congressional agreement' can restrict the act of abortion in defiance of the court ruling?Something of this magnitude will never be decided in a smoke filled chamber. You have to pass a law that goes beyond Roe. We agree to disagree, the only way the rightwinger can win here is if abortion from the point of conception is prohibited in all 50 states, and that is not going to happen.
"Roe vs Wade does define viability at over 28 weeks, then the interests of the state to preserve life takes hold. So there is no unlimited license for abortion, but a compromise between warring parties, where the conservatives want to break the truce that is in play. The religious zealots want to prohibit abortion at conception and that ain't going to happen. Remember the Human Life amendment they tried to pass a few years ago, dead in the water!!!"
Right, right down the line. Or at least right up to the point that it "ain't going to happen". It does seem to me that in the past few years the far religious right is pounding their pulpit ever harder in an effort to stop their slow decline. And it's showing results, in some areas both abortion and other.
A 'congressional agreement' would commonly be called a law. And if a fertilized egg is declared to be a "person" then any intentional killing of it would be murder. Roe may have defined "viability", but that does not mean congress can't define "person" some other way. I don't trust our lawmakers - it has become the norm that when a law fails the next best thing to do is to chip away at it over years or decades. To enact it one tiny bit at a time until the original law is seen as acceptable or even necessary. Which is exactly what the pro-lifers are doing - enacting a total abortion ban one small step at a time.
Maybe what is "appropriate" for us all, is to suffer the consequences of our actions.
... whats wrong with that idea?
Doesn't it go along with survival of the fittest and evolution?
Maybe what this really is, is a conspiracy propagated by MEN to keep us females open to the concept of "loving the one you happen to be with tonight~!!!"
Actually, abortion rates are down. (Who wants the pain? )
I always forget it was Eve who first tempted Adam with the Apple (of sex.)
Actually, the sex urge is so strong for all humans. The right wants to be pro active regarding it
and the left want to be post active.
Maybe we need to appreciate both views.
They are both right.
Ultimately, it is compassion to facilitate legal safe abortions as opposed to the coat hanger!
I believe this understanding is common sense and will never be legally reversed.
The right believes morality needs to be enforced through legislation.
The left says we need the right to not be penalized for our mistakes and human weaknesses.
What would the Founding Fathers say?
I think they would leave it up to the individual. But they would wag their fingers...
"We cannot have freedom with out morality! Get it together!"
...what would they say about drug production/use, pot smoking/cultivation?
Would they merely wag their fingers?
At what point is it up to the individual?
At what point do we not allow "...doing what(ever) you like." ?
If the soul enters at the moment of conception…. which it does, and we want to murder the fetus, at least call it what it is and allow murder during the first trimester (or whatever we allow these days.)
When girls contemplate abortion they will confront reality and weigh it against what the Bible teaches, if they are so inclined. Many girls suffer for the rest of their lives for their decision to abort. It is not a laughing matter.
To prohibit murder at any stage, protects the unborn's life. Don't they have any rights when they are conceived?
"In 2012, Georgia approved a controversial law that would ban abortions after 20 weeks — the point at which anti-abortion activists say a fetus can feel pain. Abortion rights activists argue that those laws are unconstitutional and impose an arbitrary time frame for fetal viability that isn’t backed by scientific evidence. That bill has been temporarily blocked by a state judge."
This article has more info about this case and says it may be unprecedented.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn … ther-says/
Usually the left are the ones who push for sexual education in schools and accessible birth control, how is that not being proactive? Seems a lot more proactive than simply yelling about not having sex unless you're prepared to commit the rest of your life to raising a child or unless you want to murder a cluster of cells with a 'soul'.
Because you're absolutely right, sex is a big part of who we are as humans and it's evolved way past something we have to do to procreate. It's not realistic to expect everyone to abstain unless they want a baby.
The right knows that we have to have laws and boundaries in ensuring justice for all.
I cannot help it if I believe that a soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception.
and it is a possibility in reality.
Could you have stopped your child's growing tissue at an early stage?
I was in college when I got pregnant/ unmarried/ in the middle of the credential program. Nothing and no person could make me stop that growing tissue. And many begged me to consider other options.
I was in a terrible situation for raising a child!
Everything has worked out miraculously! which is why you see me keyboarding way I do.
No. I could never have an abortion. I was 22 and in the middle of a degree when I got pregnant. A young, unmarried, full-time student. I had friends telling me to have an abortion. I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider it (as well as adoption). Ultimately I decided to keep my daughter and raise her and it's been the best decision I've ever made. She is my world. My life has been a lot harder, my personal goals have been postponed (and in some cases completely scrapped), and there are times when I feel way too young to feel this tired and old... but I don't regret my decision.
None of that means that my choice was the best choice for anyone else. I had wonderful support from my family and while I was unmarried I had been with my boyfriend (now husband) for 4 years and he was reliable and financially stable and is now a great father. Not everyone is so lucky and I don't believe that it's right that a woman should feel desperate and trapped because she has no options.
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
According to Huffington Post and Reuters, the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday, April 5, 2013 on a 90/30 vote declaring that "life" now begins at fertilization. This is after the...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue...how could any American citizen stand for allowing their tax dollars or be forced in their work ethic to be used for something that is against their deepest...
by Laura Tykarski3 years ago
It has been forty years but this ruling still troubles some people. What are your personal views?http://news.yahoo.com/roe-v-wade-turns- … 45029.html
by Emile R3 years ago
Everyone has one and everyone has a right to one but, do men have a right to weigh in on laws concerning abortions? They don't have a uterus. They can't be a mother. I simply think a man voicing an opinion which doesn't...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater...
by Credence22 years ago
This fellow has such a screwed reasoning system, check out this articlehttp://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … c#commentsDoes he really believe that the indiscretions of a former President almost 20 years ago...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.