Advertisement

Previous   Next

What do you think the future holds for legal abortion?

Asked at Borders, 700 N.H. on November 30, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Ryan Armstrong

“I think that much will really change in the near future. I think that as my generation gets older, we’re probably going to lean more to the left on the issue.”

Photo of Christi Jarrett

“I think the future looks grim because of the hard swing to the right in the Supreme Court, but I don’t think it’s what the majority of Americans really want.”

Photo of Brad Ellis

“It will probably be strictly limited and only allowed for medical reasons, not for reasons of convenience.”

Photo of Kara Meyer

“I think that it will remain legal, even though I don’t personally agree with it.”

Related story

Comments

lunacydetector 9 years ago

once alito is confirmed, hopefully roe will be struck down. it isn't an issue of reproductive rights. reproduction has already occurred.

Byrne 9 years ago

You misspelled "conception," there, lunacydetector.

DuQuesne 9 years ago

Ms. Meyer, quoted above, offers a valuable insight: "...even though I don't personally agree..."

Supreme Court decisions are made based on the merits of an appeal and interpretation of questions of law and their constitutionality. Supreme Court decisions are not made on the basis of letters to editors, protesters on the courthouse steps, or consensus of observers. As I have said before: this is not the Jerry Springer Show, where you "win" by yelling or throwing folding chairs. This is the Supreme Court, where matters are decided by people who have worked to acquire a nuanced understanding of the intricacies of constitutional validity and careful review of lower courts' procedures. They surprise us with their decisions sometimes when we knew they were on "our side" because they were at least as liberal or conservative as we are but decided wrong anyway because they understand concepts most of us can't spell. That's why they get the black robes and we get the Van Halen t-shirts.

GreenEyedBlues 9 years ago

DuQuesne wins my award for the Most Correct Post in the History of On The Street.

Don't tell the posters on here, but Van Halen tee shirts are all we have. While it is important to share and discuss opinions, in the end most banter remains on this website, and not on the desk of W or offered as argument in Congress.

Daniel Speicher 9 years ago

Although I partially agree with DuQuense and Green (in terms of our opinions really meaning very little), it is also important to realize that the only way to truly understand the other side's point is to talk about these issues. Moreover, if one side is "right" and one side is "wrong" (and I believe that concept), it is morally irresponsible to not speak your mind.

So, on that note... Here's what I believe. I believe that it is impossible for science to tell if a fetus is alive or not. It is impossible for them to judge when life truly starts. However, they can tell when a human being is unique from the woman who is carrying it. This uniqueness comes when the woman's DNA and a man's DNA make a unique strand of DNA within the fetus. No woman has two separate DNA codes on their own. This phenomena only occurs upon conception, and, at this time, a unique being (a separate life from the mother) is created within her. Without using any Biblical text or spiritual criterion, this fact, alone, makes me believe that a human life does not begin at any time but conception.

If we agree that life begins at conception, than abortion has no option to be classified (as it should have been all along) as the murdering of an innocent child. This holocaust of an entire generation of humans is nothing less than infanticide. What we, as Americans, have forgotten somewhere down the road is that every life is valuable... Every human life has a purpose. This truth should be self-evident through the lives we live and the lives of those we love.

--Danny Speicher

enochville 9 years ago

DuQuesne: You say, "Supreme Court decisions are made based on the merits of an appeal and interpretation of questions of law and their constitutionality" as if there were some objectivity to the written law that can be discovered through careful consideration. The law is not composed of cells and molecules that can be objectively observed and described. The laws are written in words - and words are very subjective and subject to personal interpretation.

"I speak or write out of the context of my experience - you hear and understand out of the context of yours". Our agreement on the definitions of words or the ideas expressed in laws is achieved only to the extent that we have had common experiences. We can disagree on the meaning of very concrete things. Example: a color blind person may disagree with you on what is green. Let alone getting agreement on what privacy means or what constitutes human life. One can scientifically define colors as wavelength ranges, but there is no objective standard for the interpretation of laws.

The fact that the interpretation of the law is not an objective endeavor is why Supreme Court decisions are seldom unanimous. Well, that and the fact that you do sometimes have justices that are pushing an agenda. But, due to the subjective interpretation of law, it is important to people to have justices that interpret the law the way they do. That is why it matters so much what ideology nominees have.

Now, to answer today's question. I do not feel that a right to an abortion was intended or implied by privacy laws. And I feel that we now have a number of Supreme Court Justices that feel the same way. So, hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule that a right to abortion is not protected under federal law. The states will then have to decide for themselves what laws they will make in regards to abortion. Again, hopefully, many states will choose to protect the lives of these unborn babies and millions will be spared an untimely death. I feel that the only situations in which an abortion should be permitted are when the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

DuQuesne 9 years ago

Where our opinion counts is in the arena of public participation, in our selection of and communication with our legislators. The people who make the laws that stand or fall under challenge and appeal are not our leaders, they are our representatives, employees of all the enfranchised but they have to hear from all of us. And, they must be held to their responsibility to craft laws that will stand all the requisite tests. Otherwise we must learn every session or so that the shortest distance between a good idea and a workable law is not always a straight line through the bicameral process.

enochville 9 years ago

DuQuesne: Because interpretation of the law is subjective it is subject to being influenced by the arguments of others. We can affect how other people perceive things. That is why dialogue about these important issues is useful and productive.

One day soon, the voters may be deciding state laws regarding abortion. I hope to have influenced as many people as I can by that time to see the issue the way I do, because children's lives are at stake. I also think we should provide support to those mothers who will then be having these children that are presently being destroyed. They will need health care and adoption services if they still don't want the child.

enochville 9 years ago

DuQuesne: I agree completely with your 6:44am post.

DuQuesne 9 years ago

Enochville: I find in your posts clear evidence that you do not come to a battle of wits unarmed. Your careful and articulate treatment of the matter at hand reveals a carefully nurtured position, well-reasoned and supported within your frame of reference. I hope you feel welcome in this arena and continue to contribute.

Now, just in case no one else has thought we could keep it stirred up for a glimpse at what I believe, please see my post in response to the article, "Status Quo at Stake."

Richard Heckler 9 years ago

If the courts take an extreme position that does not represent the nation and Roe Vs Wade is struck down we can request that legislators submit a new writing for approval. If the court supports the extreme right what issue will they dream up next? This is their base.

killjoy 9 years ago

Yeah, those roundabouts are hard to believe...

DuQuesne 9 years ago

Marion: You have a point. However, if you were to wear a hat maybe nobody would notice. I sense a serious personal history with this issue - did you find out that our mother tried to abort you and failed? Or do you "have a friend" who got pregnant on purpose and got dumped anyway? Jeez. Talk about spin.

italianprincess 9 years ago

OMG...........I think I will pass on todays question as its going to cause huge fights between people in here who post.

I believe this question ( asked before, but worded differently ) will reach 150 posts by the end of the night possibly.

Have a great day everyone. Try not to argue to much, stay warm ( its freakin cold out there right now = wishing Spring will hurry ) and drive careful.

trinity 9 years ago

i'm with you ip only i'm betting on 200+posts by days' end.

Jeanne Cunningham 9 years ago

Do any of you who oppose abortion really believe that changing the law will stop women from having abortions? Or are you just wanting to punish those who do and/or who perform them?

My opinion is that abortions will still happen - in Mexico, or the Carribean or back in the dark alleys and abandoned houses where they used to. And, you won't need to punish some of the women because they'll die.

Sigmund 9 years ago

Abortion rights will be extended through the 7th trimester. Women should have the choice to terminate their pregnancies, postpartem, up to 1 year old. While this may seem a bit extreme, our society must evolve to see the benefits of this modest proposal.

A one year old 'fetus' isn't really viable and is completely dependent upon adults to continue to live. Instead of being a drain on society, they could benefit society by providing stem cells which can be used to clone spare parts. Further, there are simply too many people in the world already stressing our ability to raise enough food, provide health care, and we are quickly running out of oii with the people who are already here. We don't have enough money to educated the kids we already have and too few jobs for the adults who are already educated.

One doesn't have to look too far to see the benefits of such a policy. Lawrence would need less sewers, roundabouts and urban sprawl. It's only the religious right's control of the Kansas Legistlature, imposing their outdated morals, which prevents us from enacting such an enlightened policy. In a Darwinian world society must be allowed to evolve via natural selection. How can we be expected to rationally select until after birth? Every one year old should be a wanted one year old!

gccs14r 9 years ago

Roe is the least of our worries from Dumya's court. Wait'll they overturn Brown.

mom_of_three 9 years ago

Chic's post is absolutely correct. If it is outlawed again, and it should NOT be, then abortions will still happen, but women's lives will be at stake. But the abortion opponents don't seem to have a problem with that!!

erichaar 9 years ago

I've said it before. . . One day our nation will view abortion as no more a "right" than a white person in the 1850's South had the "right" to own another human being. Slavery was a grisly, barbaric "right" under the law 150 years ago; abortion is the same grisly, barbaric "right" under the law today.

Kookamooka 9 years ago

Does anyone know, statistically, how many abortions are occurring. I don't think they are as "popular" as people think. I could be wrong, and maybe really old, but I'm seeing a lot of pregant teenagers around Lawrence trying very hard to be personally responsible for themselves. Having babies as teenagers is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you have the support and are financially capable of raising them. Many grandparents are stepping into the role of active caregivers. It used to be waiting to have kids until you had a career was the way to go. I know many women who "missed the boat" and more who have children in their forties, where the risk of birth defects is really high. I would love to see women reject abortion as a choice. BUT I WILL NEVER WANT THAT CHOICE REMOVED BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Statistics please?

thomgreen 9 years ago

A Jackson/Sharpton ticket?....hmmmm...it could work.

Abortion, along with other key debates in this society, are all topics that will always be in flux. No side will ever be outright "winners". Not that abortion is a debate that really has a winning side. But with this in mind, we waste a ton of taxpayer money on such debates, while our basic needs are ignored, pushed aside, or dealt with by putting band aid fixes on them. Personally, I'd like to see health care, social security, education funding, and the money we're throwing at Iraq argued about with as much furor.
We often come across as a society that looks like a dog chasing it's tail.

And maybe I missed it in past days, but why wasn't the question on the street based on Mirecki's apology rather than the abortion topic?

enochville 9 years ago

Chic and mom o' 3: I care very much for women and it would sadden me deeply if women were to injure or kill themselves by requesting unsafe operations. I would like to prevent that, but not at the expense of killing unborn children.

The way to address it is to try to alleviate the self-perceived reasons for why the women are seeking the abortion in the first place. If it is because they can't afford, take care of, or want the baby, we will do whatever it takes to relieve the mothers of that burden. Adoption is preferable, but even foster care or (American)orphanages are better than death. If the mothers want abortions because they are afraid of losing their jobs, we will enact laws so that they can't be fired as a consequence of pregnancy and delivery. If it is because they don't have health insurance, we'll cover the cost of the delivery. Just don't kill the children!

Your argument doesn't often work with a lot of people who are anti-abortion because they can simply reply that not many people care if an adult kills or injures him or herself while trying to kill an innocent child.

Liberty 9 years ago

Regardless of what man's "law" says, God stated very clearly His law concerning killing. In the 10 commandments; 'thou shalt not kill' is pretty clear. For an example just look at the story of Cain and Able. It is clear that God does not justify planned killing. Since God is the one that everyone is accountable to (whether they are willing to admit it or not), God's law is supreme to man's law. Man's law is derived and comes from God's law and the law of Moses. For Christians, God's law is written in their hearts, therefore a Christian does not need the law. The law was put in place by God for those that do not have a relationship with God (to make them realize that they need a relationship with God to remove the sin nature that the law reveals in them) and to curb unrighteousness and sin (the life-style of breaking God's law like abortion).

I think the direction is moving towards the removal of abortion. Abortion has never been legal, only allowed; because a court decision does not create new law. Only legislation can create law.

beatrice 9 years ago

I too believe that abortion will remain legal, although I suspect that states will be given the right to greater restrictions. And if Kansas requires parental consent, then look for teens to be driving to Missouri.

Over/under on posts today: 200 (established by IP) Over/under for number of times the phrase "baby killer" (or close variation) will be used today: 783 Over/under for term "personal choice": 374 Over/under for term "crack babies":78 Over/under for times a person on here ignorantly accuses another of having "personal history" with this issue, despite everyone being anonymous: 6

allateup 9 years ago

kookamooka.....here are some statistics for you...in the 1990's there was an estimated 1,500,000 abortions given per year. This is also an interesting statisitc....repeat abortions were 20% in 1973 and by 1995 45% of all abortions were repeats!

passionatelibra 9 years ago

enochville wrote:

"to try to alleviate the self-perceived reasons for why the women are seeking the abortion in the first place. If it is because they can't afford, take care of, or want the baby, we will do whatever it takes to relieve the mothers of that burden. Adoption is preferable, but even foster care or (American)orphanages are better than death. If the mothers want abortions because they are afraid of losing their jobs, we will enact laws so that they can't be fired as a consequence of pregnancy and delivery. If it is because they don't have health insurance, we'll cover the cost of the delivery. Just don't kill the children!"

While the above is a nice utopian idea, I don't believe it's realistic. In a way, I believe society has already tried this... welfare. Everyone is screaming for welfare cuts and what is described above just sounds like welfare to me.

If it isn't, then please explain to me the difference.

Thanks!

beatrice 9 years ago

"by 1995 45% of all abortions were repeats!"

Oh, I forgot, over/under on times unsubstantiated statistics will be claimed: 91

badger 9 years ago

Personally I think Roe is a flawed argument, and that the 1973 acceptance of that flawed argument (because I don't quite see where privacy is a constitutional right) has led to more strife and confusion over abortion instead of resolving the issue. I think that abortion will, by and large remain legal, but Roe itself may not stand.

beatrice 9 years ago

"I expect there will be lots of shouting & not much listening done on this thread."

Which brings up one more -- number of posts that will have unnecessary capitalized words: 39

enochville 9 years ago

passionate: It is welfare. Personally, I think if you bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to pay for and take care of it. However, If people try to avoid this responsibility by killing the child, I would rather save the child's life and have society bear the cost. Perhaps there is a better way. I am open to ideas. But, I will not negotiate the life of the child.

passionatelibra 9 years ago

Thank you for clarrifying things enochville. Not many would stand up and say I'm willing to pay more taxes for more welfare.

sunflower_sue 9 years ago

My one post for the day:

Blue Harley addressed something that many fail to overlook. What happens to all of these "unwanted babies?" Let me just say, for the record, I do not condone abortion. But, people who are willing to comletely "abort" Roe vs. Wade need to think about stepping up to the plate and doing something to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to accept responsibility for the masses of children stuck in a system they didn't ask to be a part of. Foster care is heartbreaking. I've seen the court's pathetic attempts at finding the right thing to do with these children.
How many of you are willing to take in a foster child? How many of you are willing to adopt a crack baby? A child with a disability? Even an extra healthy baby? Let me tell you, I've thought long and hard about it (for years). I'm still thinking. It probably won't happen because I'm going to take in my brother who has a disability and that will be difficult enough.
To summarize: I believe we should play the hand we're dealt. But if someone bows out of the game, someone has to play their hand, too. Will it be you? Good day everyone!

passionatelibra 9 years ago

Lately I have more of an extremist point of view:

Put all females on birth control at a certain age and don't let them off of it until they are 18 and have a job or married.

Extreme? Oh yeah. Violation of rights? Yep. Will it help lessen the amount of abortions? Not a clue.

But instead of just saying no abortions (unless for "acceptable" reasons. Who dictates that??) or saying, here take my money, maybe something can be done to help prevent the situation from occuring in the first place.

I agree with enochville, perhaps there is a better way. I, too, am open to ideas. So what's the solution? :o)

badger 9 years ago

I resent the characterization of women who have abortions as using them as a form of birth control because a child would be inconvenient. That's a myth used by the far right to paint a picture of careless girls out there thinking, "I don't have to be responsible or moral, I can get an abortion!" It couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't believe abortion is ever a good option, but sometimes it's the only one that makes sense. I know three women who've told me they had one. One, a college senior already engaged to marry the father, got pregnant while on the Pill. Because of the high incidence of serious birth defects in women who get pregnant on the Pill, she and her doctor agreed that it was best to abort in the second month.

One was repeatedly raped at a frat party when her soda was drugged. She simply could not face nine months of being reminded every day what happened to her. Starting off a pregnancy with a case of Chlamydia and a suicide attempt is a pretty bad idea on all counts.

The third woman has lupus and a number of other health issues. A pregnancy might kill her, might not, but the danger wouldn't be really serious until the seventh or eighth month, when it would be too late to terminate. She has asked her doctor if she can have her tubes tied, but insurance won't cover it, or a vasectomy for her husband (thought they'll cover abortions and birth control). When her birth control failed, he and I took her to the clinic ourselves and held her hands.

It's easier to gear up for the fight against abortion if you can tell yourself it's a bunch of immoral people who don't care about children and weren't trying to be sexually responsible. But really, no one ever sits down and says, "Hey, self, let's go have some unprotected sex, cause I haven't had a good abortion in months!" Most people who en up pregnant aren't thinking, "Oh, I can always have an abortion if I get pregnant." They're thinking, "I won't get pregnant," and usually the reason they think that is because they've had inadequate sex ed.

I agree we need to stop abortion in this country. I just believe that instead of outlawing it and accepting its inevitability in back rooms, we need to work on improving education and birth control so that we can decrease the incidence of unplanned pregnancy. Good sex ed is the reason I didn't become sexually active until my twenties, and the reason that when I did, I was informed and responsible.

One more thought: to those who say that you understand outlawing it won't stop abortion, but you just don't want to be part of a country that sanctions it, do you realize that what you're really saying is that you'll accept that thousands of women each year will risk their lives and break that law, and that many of them will die horribly and painfully, but you'll live with that so long as your government pays lip service to public sensibilities by telling them they're wrong?

mom_of_three 9 years ago

I know this will start a huge argument, but here goes:

If someone accidentally kills or purposely murders a pregnant woman, not all states recognize that as two murders. In some states, it depends on how far along the fetus is. So until that law is changed, you can't justify outlawing abortion as "killing a child." A fetus is not necesarily a child in the eyes of the law.

I don't think I could have an abortion, but I don't want to take away anyone else's rights to do so.

Frankly, I get offended by how self-righteous some anti-abortion opponents have become. I want to see you passionately protect the rights of the children that are already born to parents who don't want them, and the ones who have to grow up in a welfare system that doesn't seem to protect them. I want to see you outraged at the parents who keep their children in cages or the ones who don't seek medical care for their seriously ill children. I want to see you change the laws to protect children such as Precious Doe, so she isn't returned to her unloving parents.
And enochville - you may want society to bear the cost, but in order for that to work, society also needs to bear the responsibility of guaranteeing the future welfare of that child.

Lib_ee12 9 years ago

I haven't even read what anyone posted today, so I'm sure that this will agree with someone's post.

I despise abortion, and think it is a horrible thing to do to a helpless person. However, I don't always agree with everyone elses political views so I know that most people don't agree with me.

I am a woman, and I would rather that women have rights. If one of those rights is to be able to do with their body as they wish, then so be it. I would prefer to have abortions regulated and relatively sanitary than to have it illegal. I will help my women friends find other ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy other than abortion.

As much as I disagree with abortion I would like for it to remain legal.

enochville 9 years ago

mom of 3: I approve double homicide charges for killing pregnant women. I am very concerned about the welfare of children who have already been born.

I work as a psychologist. I empathize and help people work through the horrors of child abuse and neglect. It is awful, but people can move on, with scars and some come to experience true happiness as adults. It is my contention and my value that even a crummy life is better than no life at all.

And so, the government fails to provide the optimum environment for children; I gain comfort from the fact that at least they weren't murdered and I work to improve the lives and pick up the pieces of as many people as I can. We have to remember that the government did not put these kids in these bad conditions; it was the choices of adults in the community that did this to them. But, I thank God for every mother that does not kill her child.

Lib_ee12 9 years ago

okay, I've read many posts, not all. (I have to work at some point you know) Everyone does have some really great points, and are very good at the arguement points. I'm not going to try to change anyone's mind. I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. I like reading everyone else's 2+ cents (sense?).

jonas 9 years ago

I would guess that, in the future, some private entity will see the benefits of providing another medical option to the abortion debate, and the issue will mostly go away.

Marion: I notice that you say that "last month's fling" would then get it's skull pierced, and it's brain sucked out. I think it's amazing that such a fully formed fetus would exist after one month.

Oh wait. . .

That was just vitriol. . .

I apologize. . .

I like to double space all my comments so more people have to pay attention to me. . .

PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!. . . . .

jonas

staff04 9 years ago

I think this sentence from TOB's post earlier best echoes my sense of the issue: "There'll be the skirmishes over 3rd trimester, parental consent/notification, etc... but it will remain legal."

I work about a block away from the SCOTUS, and we hear a lot of rational arguments in this neighborhood from both sides of the issue, but the bottom line is the fact that a majority of Americans (polls turn out 55-60% in most cases) do not favor an outright ban on abortion. Most Americans, however, DO favor some restrictions on late-term/consent/etc...

allateup 9 years ago

My statistics provided in the earlier post were provided by the Guttmacher Institute (a branch of Planned Parenthood).

badger 9 years ago

snort

Jonas, did the bottle say to take 2 every twelve hours or 12 every two hours? Just checking.

I'm interested in something. Marion, you say that in opposing abortion you're exhorting Christians to act in accordance with their faith. Does that mean that if I am a member of a faith that does not consider abortion to be murder, then as I'm acting in accordance with my faith, I'm not acting immorally or unethically?

If your argument against legal abortion is based in Christian tenets and the expectations that Christians will adhere to them, then should abortion be legal for atheists?

We can't base US law simply on doing what's right under Christianity. We can't use the Ten Commandments as the basis for law, because the First Amendment kind of prohibits any law mandating obedience to the First Commandment.

When it comes down to a lot of people saying, "X should be illegal because the Bible says it's wrong," my first reaction is to say that if I were challenged on that in a court of law, I'd have to respond with the fact that as a nonChristian, I have no compelling reason to accept being bound by Biblical law.

mikeyj 9 years ago

To those who claim "abortions are going to happen in dark alleyways, scary places, etc. so we might as well legalize it so it can be safe" you must realize that's like saying "sometimes people get injured when chemicals explode while they're making bombs, so let's make it legal so they can do it more safely." If abortion is wrong, it is wrong, and we should not legalize it to "make it safer."

As to the question of wrong, I simply argue that a human father and a human mother cannot produce anything other than a human, so from the point of conception, whatever it is must be human. What else would it be?

A fetus differs from a grown human in four ways: size, level of development, environment and level of dependancy. It's smaller than a grown person, not as developed, in a completely different environment and largely dependant on its mother. Those are the ONLY four differences between a fetus and a grown adult. We can't use any of those differences to justify killing any other humans, though. We can't kill people because they're smaller than other people, we can't kill pre-pubescent girls because their reproductive systems aren't yet fully developed, we can't kill people because they're from a different environment than ours, and we can't kill people because they're more dependant on outside assistance (dialysis machines, artificial hearts, medicine). Since those are the only four differences, it must be concluded that one can't justify killing a fetus more than any other human outside the womb.

If a fetus is a human (what else would it be?), then no amount of rationalizing or situational ethics can justify killing it. If you can't use your argument of "she can't afford it," "it was the product of a rape" or "insert generic pro-abortion argument here," to kill off a 3-year-old, then you can't use it to kill a child in the womb. A lot of the abortion debate seems to revolve around special situations...but all those are diversionary arguments. If a fetus is a human, then abortion is murder. Period.

Ceallach 9 years ago

I predict the future holds a high number of frustrated posters!!

Voile!! Snowball fights are great stress relievers : )

http://www.elfmovie.com/swf/snowball_fight/index.html

BTW, it's 10:24, has anyone changed their position yet? :-)

jonas 9 years ago

Man, Liberty, in regards to your @8:56 post, you can sure be scary sometimes!!!!

Mari Aubuchon 9 years ago

A question for those who are opposed to abortion:

Are you pushing for free and widely available contraception?

The pill or the shot for all who desire it?

The morning after pill becoming over the counter?

Condoms in every public bathroom?

Free sterilization for those without insurance?

Ceallach 9 years ago

yes (already a fact) yes (already available) no (that is not contraception) yes (think that's overboard but would not oppose) yes

Aiko 9 years ago

I am with you staff04, Xanax!

Aiko 9 years ago

Good question Mari.............

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Cellach,

Depending on who you ask, the morning after pill is still contraception. Pregnancy is defined, medically, as having a fertilized egg implanted in the uterus.

You're not acceptably pregnant until the egg has implanted in the right place--this is why ectopic pregnancies are qualified as ectopic, and whey they are immediately terminated upon discovery.

The morning after pill works on a pre-implanted fertilized egg. If you are already pregnant (as in, if the egg has already implanted, generally after the 3rd day after conception), the morning after pill won't cause the egg to jump off the uterus.

This is my understanding. If I'm factually wrong, please let me know.

beatrice 9 years ago

So let me get this straight -- in this country there are some people who believe a woman should have the right to an abortion, while others are adamantly opposed to this concept. Fascinating! I had no idea.

New twist (offered for those not really reading the pros and cons arguments today): Can you name a famous song with the word "baby" in the title?

I'll start with two: "Billion Dollar Baby," Alice Cooper "She's Having My Baby," Charlie Rich

avhjmlk 9 years ago

"Baby, I'm Yours" by some "oldies" group. (Might actually be called "In Other Words":

Baby, I'm yours (baby, I'm yours)! And I'll be yours until the sun no longer shi-i-i-i-ines, Yours, until the rivers all run dry, in other words, until the end of time. Baby, I'm yours.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Whoops, forgot my closed parend ) after Words"

gccs14r 9 years ago

Badger,

I can't believe you said this:

(because I don't quite see where privacy is a constitutional right)

I invite you to read the text of the 4th Amendment, copied here for your convenience:

<>

What is that, if not a constitutional right to privacy?

enochville 9 years ago

"Mari (anonymous) on November 30, 2005 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A question for those who are opposed to abortion:

Are you pushing for free and widely available contraception?

The pill or the shot for all who desire it?

The morning after pill becoming over the counter?

Condoms in every public bathroom?

Free sterilization for those without insurance?"

No, to all of the above. These are the responsibility of sexually active people. Any children resulting from their sexual activity (protected or not) is also their responsibility. However, if they decide to kill the child, I am willing to pay a share of the expenses of providing for the child through increased taxes to save the child's life.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

The right to privacy (as in, whether it exists constitutionally or not) has been argued back and forth for a LONG time. Most of the arguments against it are based on the fact that "right to privacy", in those words, is not included, in the Bill of Rights.

To be perfectly honest, though, the "right to _(pick your favorite)" is not usually stated in those words, except in a few cases ("right to bear arms" being one). However, in terms of using the 4th amendment to protect the right to privacy, using it in the sense that gccs14r has done is a little disingenuous, because the one's right to security "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is with regards to "unreasonable searches and seizures", and should not to be taken out of context as being a simple right to security in persons, houses, papers, and effects . That description is specifically tied to privacy against search and seizure.

I'm not saying that I don't believe in a Constitutional right to privacy. I just don't think it can be based on the 4th amendment without some other supplemental constitutional language.

For a copy of the constitution online:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Aiko 9 years ago

Charlie Rich, wow! There is a childhood flashback.....

passionatelibra 9 years ago

Will you cover my share of taxes too? I already have kids I'm taking care of and I can't afford to take care of someone else's more than I already am. Why should my kids go without even more for someone else's?

jonas 9 years ago

Beatrice: "Baby, Can You Dig Your Man," by Larry Underwood.

Wait. . . . THAT world was the one that was destroyed by the superflu, not ours.

jonas 9 years ago

Beatrice: "Baby, Can You Dig Your Man," by Larry Underwood.

Wait. . . . THAT world was the one that was destroyed by the superflu, not ours.

Ceallach 9 years ago

beatrice: to all the cruel-hearted men : )

Nick Cave - Nobody's Baby Now

I travelled this world around For an answer that refused to be found I don't know why and I don't know how But she's nobody's baby now I loved her then and I guess I love her still Hers is the face I see when a certain mood moves in She lives in my blood and skin Her wild feral stare, her dark hair Her winter lips as cold as stone Yeah, I was her man But there are some things love won't allow I held her hand but I don't hold it now I don't know why and I don't know how But she's nobody's baby now This is her dress that I loved best With the blue quilted violets across the breast And these are my many letters Torn to pieces by her long-fingered hand I was her cruel-hearted man And though I've tried to lay her ghost down She's moving through me, even now I don't know why and I don't know how But she's nobody's baby now She's nobody's baby now Nobody's baby now She's nobody's baby now

badger 9 years ago

gccs14r-

avhjmlk hit it right on the head. The 4th Amendment is written to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure of their possessions and persons, not to guarantee the absolute freedom to do whatever you want with your body. It's a hotly contended point of controversy, I agree, but I stand by my assertion that in this case there is no direct Constitutional protection for abortion based on the 4th Amendment.

The reason I believe Roe is a flawed decision is that I believe that it's based in an unclear and perhaps overly extended interpretation of the 4th, and that's left it unstable and a constant source of contention for 32 years.

Frankly, I don't think abortion is a constitutional matter, and making it one has pretty much guaranteed that as long as Roe is essentially its sole support, we will have this legal and political wrangle. I'm not even sure it should be a legal matter. I think it is a patient-doctor matter, and that legislators should keep their noses firmly out of things that happen between a patient and her doctor, unless either the patient or the doctor chooses to make those things the business of the government.

Those who wish to make it a moral, religious, or spiritual matter should also remember that moral codes, religions, and spiritualities are matters of choice, and basing law on them only guarantees that the law touted as a 'moral victory' will in fact be completely out of line with the morals of many of the people legally bound to obey it.

Aiko 9 years ago

Ice, Ice, Baby......I just had a Vanilla Ice flashback and it was not pretty.

Aiko 9 years ago

and they keep coming...thanks blue73harley!

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Way to go, Aiko and blue73harley! Both quite excellent examples.

"Do do do do-do do do. Do do do do-do do do."

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Oops. My bad. Forogt the extra "do" at the beginning of the second phrase. Remember, Vanilla Ice had to "hide" the fact that he wasn't "copying" the baseline to "Pressure" (that was the song, right?)...

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Sorry again. Meant to say "wasn't copying" instead of wasn't "copying." Quotation mark placement is VERY importante.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Badger, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Aiko 9 years ago

avhjmlk, you are right on. Vanilla Ica said that it was not the same and there was a count up or off (?) of the original. What a bafoon. Maybe he too will make the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Michael Jackson did and that says a lot.

Aiko 9 years ago

How about Santa Baby. That song creeps me out, always has.(?)

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Aiko, there is one pick-up beat added to the second phrase. Musically, it comes as the last 1/8th note in the first 4-beat measure, but it's tied to the second phrase.

I'm nearly positive that Vanilla Ice didn't know enough about music to actually explain how it works. I think that I remember a taped interview with him where his illustration of the difference went something like this:

"It's not 'Do do do do-do do do. Do do do do-do do do." It's, 'Do do do do-do do do. DO do do do do-do do do."

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Ooh, "Santa Baby." That is a good one (and, yes, I find it a little eeky, too).

passionatelibra 9 years ago

offtotheright - Thank you. I just thought it should be something looked at.

badger - If I understand what you are saying then abortion should not be legal nor illegal, it should be a matter handled between patient and doctor. If the doctor refuses to do it then the patient just finds one who will do it (if they still want it done). Am I right?

If I am not understanding correctly, could you please explain it again?

Thanks!

avhjmlk 9 years ago

"Baby love, my baby love. I need you, oh how I need you."

daisy05 9 years ago

Has anyone even read Roe v. Wade? It's not based on the Fourth Amendment.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973).

Let's go back to DuQuesne's comment from 5:23 am. We are wearing the Van Halen T-shirts.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

passionate--you're probably right on the head there.

But, there will always be people in the world who will do anything for money, or do anything to get what they want. The hope would be that, as is now the case, 95%+ of doctors would go about it the right way, just like we know that 95% percent of teachers care about kids, and 95% of parents try their hardest to raise their kids right, and 95% of people are inherently good. (Did you like my unsubstantiated percentages, OMB/TOB/Somebobby?)

Think about this (I know this isn't an accurate metaphor, but it's still a good illustration): Some people get plastic surgery. Most of it is done for true medical reasons (severe burns, malformed body parts, cosmetic repair for functional/psychological reasons). But, there are some people who are "addicted" to plastic surgery because they are never satisfied with themselves (...Michael Jackson's nose?).

Equally, some doctors are plastic surgeons. Most of them do most/all of their procedures in a medically ethical/responsible way, for good reasons, and with the best intentions for their patients in mind. However, some plastic surgeons are willing to do any procedure on just about anyone, whether it's the responsible/ethical thing to do or not.

Just like, if abortionn is made illegal, it's still going to happen, just in unsafe and illegal ways.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

daisy--absolutely right.

That's part of why I wanted to steer us away from the idea of the 4th amendment being involved. It's not.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

and passionate, I meant to say "you probably HIT it right on the head there."

Man, I must need a kick in MY head.

badger 9 years ago

libra - it's my understanding that something can't really be neither legal nor illegal. I think it really kind of has to be one or the other. In that sense, I think abortion should be legal.

However, I think abortion should be neither legally prohibited nor formally legally protected. I don't think that there should be a law prohibiting a doctor from performing an abortion if he and his patient believe that it is the appropriate medical option any more than I believe there should be a law requiring him to provide the abortion if his patient wants it but he doesn't feel it's the appropriate medical option.

I think that an individual's medical matters don't specifically belong in the court of public opinion, and they certainly don't belong there as political negotiation chips and point-scoring mechanisms for the parties to use to take cheap shots at each other.

And though I break with much of the rest of the pro-choice community on this, it's my belief that if you're performing a medical and surgical procedure on a minor, some form of responsible guardian-type adult needs to be aware of that, whether it's an abortion or a tonsillectomy.

Aiko 9 years ago

Suicide- it is illegal to threaten you own life but not against the law if you complete the act....Is that correct?

enochville 9 years ago

passionate: As I've said before, there might be a better way to discourage illegal abortions (if Roe is overturned and state's make them illegal except in certain circumstances) than agreeing to take them off the mother's hands and paying for it through taxes. I am open to ideas. This offer to take the babies off the mother's hands is a kindness or favor to help save women and children's lives from unsafe, illegal abortions. But, if Americans don't want to part with their money and save lives, then so be it.

Either way, people should not be permitted to kill their unborn children, whether the government helps out with the unwanted kids is a separate, albeit related issue. That child did not become the responsibility of the parents when he or she was born (because the gov't wouldn't let them kill it); it was the responsibility of the parents when it was conceived.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

badger--quite true on the adult notification thing. The same is necessary for any other medical procedure, unless the minor is in an emergency and waiting for parental approval would put the kid at risk. There is also some protection for older kids (close to legal majority) who can demonstrate the personal maturity to make certain minor medical decisions on their own, but I don't have the law handy on that one.

beatrice 9 years ago

Great songs, folks. Keep them coming!

However, I have a mew morality question, prompted by av+: The Queen and David Bowie song "Under Pressure" takes me back to the days when Queen was one of my favorite bands (I really was, and am, all over the board musically). Here is the question -- should I pay money to see the new reincarnation of Queen, with Paul Rogers of Bad Company fame? Or is this blasphemy (musically speaking, of course)? Has anyone heard the new cd they put out (I haven't yet)? Can Queen be Queen without Freddie? Can I go see this new Queen variation and still respect myself in the morning?

badger 9 years ago

Daisy - my apologies. I responded to the section I was quoted without really thinking about it being the wrong amendment. You're absolutely correct and mine is actually a Sex Pistols T-shirt, cause they're so totally in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Van Halen's like totally not!

passionatelibra 9 years ago

Thank you avhjmlk and badger for clarifying that for me :o)

In that case, I agree 100%. It is a matter between a patient and her doctor. Just like everything else having to do with most healthcare.

As for the guardian or someone in a guardian type position in the minors life, I agree with that view as well!

Thanks again!

avhjmlk 9 years ago

I know that I'm arguing about special cases here, but it's not always the "responsibility of the parents when it was conceived."

Are you going to require a rapist to be the one to raise an infant product of his crime? It's certainly not the mother's fault in that case. Granted, there is likley an acceptable medical reason (mental health/extreme mental distress/psychiatric trauma/risk to child when born if the psychiatric issues are bad enough) under a medical exception clause, but I would guess (absolutely nothing to back this up) that there are some rape victims who are able to get on with their lives without overwhelming long-lasting effects, for whatever reason. Do we still think that such mother, with no mental health issue for an exception, but likely absolutely no desire to have a permanent reminder (needing to be cared for, loved, and nurtured) of such a horrible life tragedy?

Once you have to start carving out exceptions, the slope gets slippery. But, very few people believe there shouldn't be excptions at all, so some accomodation has to be made. If an acceptable/constitutional legal exception can't be crafted, then abortion has to be tightly regulated, but legal.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

beatrice, I'm not old enough to know enough about the actual artists to speak with any kind of religious authority about them.

I know music, but I'm only 25. I am, though, in the last year of the "Breakfast Club"/Brat Pack generation.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Tightly regulated just like any other medical procedure, to ensure that safety is the very first concern.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

And, safety, in some cases, means not doing a procedure if the situation doesn't allow for reasonable assurances of safety.

dotteboy 9 years ago

I don't know what an abortion costs but I'm sure it's a helluva lot more than a pack of condoms or a month of the pill. And please, don't quote birth control stats back to me. My point is before you start s@#$%ing each other's brains out, think about the consequences.
I e-mailed these points and a possible solution to the problem of abortion among teens to the self proclaimed ex-tramp dope addict and current State School Board member Connie Morris and her reply was, "I disagree."

Apparently religous conservatives are prepared to cast the first stone.

enochville 9 years ago

We are not talking about a medical procedure like a hysterectomy or plastic surgery, we are talking about one person making the decision to kill another. Conspiracy to murder should never be a secret act in the privacy of a doctor's office. It is an issue that the society should have a voice in, not a discreet argreement between two people.

I also contend that the numbers of abortions will go down if it becomes illegal. Some will still do it, but not as many. The reason I am so passionate about this is that we are talking about keeping children from being killed. I sometimes feel like I am in Nazi Germany and I am surrounded by millions of content Germans who sanction the slaughter of millions of Jews. Is there no one here who values human life anymore? It disgusts me how people sanitize the killing of innocents by calling it a "medical procedure" or "a woman's right".

Some people think they are not responsible for the child if they used protection or because insurance won't cover getting my tubes tied. My goodness, if you had consensual sex, you are responsible. Things are getting as bad as the world before the flood or Sodom. I would be content to let the world go to hell in a handbasket if they would only quit killing children.

enochville 9 years ago

avhjmlk: I said this at 6:36am this morning, perhaps you missed it:

"I feel that the only situations in which an abortion should be permitted are when the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth."

When I said that parents are responsible for the child at the time of conception, I did so with the above allowances. If I had to repeat that sentence everytime, my posts would become quite lengthy.

wonderhorse 9 years ago

Bea

Queen without Freddie is not Queen. I absolutely adore Paul Rodgers. Free, Bad Co., etc., I have followed him. But, this will not be Queen. I think they should have changed the name of the band.

By the way, I also adore David Bowie. I think if George Harrison got burned for the "My Sweet Lord" rip-off of "He's So Fine", vanilla ice should be burned for his rip-off.

Aiko 9 years ago

OMB- I am with you on that. What a women does with her body is her business.

passionatelibra 9 years ago

There have been a lot of different views expressed today and a lot made some very valid points. It didn't get as ugly as I half expected it to become. Yay! But I still have one question that I haven't been able to see a feasible solution...

If they make it illegal to get an abortion, who is going to take care of the kids? Financially, emotionally, mentally and physically...

enochville 9 years ago

OMB - You don't have to have a womb to have an opinion about killing children.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It should be as illegal for men to kill unborn children as it is for women.

And to those who claim that we, pro-lifers are forcing our beliefs on others - If we are wrong, we have only prevented people from legally getting one type of medical procedure. But, if pro-choicers are wrong, they have allowed others to force their beliefs on others by killing them. I'd rather be guilty of preventing people from getting a "medical procedure" than permitting and enabling others to kill children.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

enochville--sorry if I made you think that I didn't think you would be willing to carve out an exception for rape. My bad.

However, there is still a slippery slope here. What about a wife who "submits" to her husband at his every call, and is then left by him for another woman, pregnant with his child?

Also, medical exceptions are constitutionally protected (and the parent notification for minors whose health is at risk without an abortion is up for the Supreme Court this week--today, I think) according to the Supreme Court. How can we be sure that the medical excption will protect every medically-necessary abortion without a legal fight that will last so long the baby gets born anyway?

I've never had an abortion, and never will as far as I can imagine. But have significantly different life experiences than other people.

What happens to a girl who gets pregnant at 16 after, arguably, consenting if she was raised to think that women must always heed the desires of the men they are with? What if she has no financial resources? What if she doesn't have the knowledge or ability to access contraception?

They were just discussing on NPR today (granted, about AIDS), that there are cultures that believe women should submit to men's sexual desires. There are all sorts of cultures in the great American melting pot, so it's more than reasonable to believe that a woman might have sex out of a sense of duty, and then be left pregnant to fend for herself.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

True, TOB, but I don't see "your kind" (aka men) being left "barefoot and pregnant." Barefoot, maybe, but not pregnant. :)

If you are, let me know, because you're a medical miracle!!

Mari Aubuchon 9 years ago

enochville:

Are you really open to new ideas about how to prevent abortion? You certainly seem to oppose helping those who cannot afford effective means of preventing pregnancy. Why should birth control only be available to those who can afford the dr. visits and the prescriptions/procedures? Should only those with good jobs and decent insurance be able to be sexually active? Is this a compassionate or even reasonable expectation?

I am not suggesting that contraception or sterilization be provided at no cost for everyone, just those with limited means. After all, helping folks who want and need it to plan their families is a sound fiscal practice. It really does take a village treasury to raise a child, any child. It only takes a brief glance at your property taxes to confirm this.

Naturally, if a mother is unable to foot much of the bill , there are much greater social, economic, and medical costs to be borne by others. So many poor mothers are unable to get the prenatal care that can prevent future medical problems caused by such common occurrences as gestational diabetes. In addition, years of subsized food, housing, and child care take their economic toll on both families and taxpayers as a whole.

I would like to see much greater support for children in our country. I would also like to see the poor have the same reproductive choices as I have in my life. To have family planning knowledge and choices empowers women, decreases the rates of maternal and infant mortality, helps to preserve marriages, and increases the resources available for children within families.

One of the most successful strategies in creating more egalitarian and economically viable societies in developing nations has involved giving women the ability to decide how many children they wish to bear.

As to condom machines in public bathrooms (as one sees even in Catholic Ireland and Malta), this would not cost you a dime and all we all derive social and economic benefits from preventing disease and unplanned preganancies.

One last note: The morning after pill prevents ovulation, which, naturally, prevents conception. It seems that there exists considerable confusion as to the effect of this med that of RU486, which is an abortifacient.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Mari--right on. The morning after pill is NOT THE SAME as RU486.

heatherlandeo 9 years ago

i am a day late on this but still wanted to say, has anyone thought about what the parents of these unwanted babies will do to them if they have them and do not choose to put them up for adoption or foster care etc.? i am against abortion all the way but would hate to think about the lives some children will be living when they are born to a mother and maybe even a father who dont want them. i do not think all girls under 18 should be forced to use some sort of birth control, i do however belive that if a woman has one abortion because she just does not want a child or cant support a child or some reason that does not threaten her life ,she should be forced to use some reliable from of birth control. if she later decides she wants a child or can support a child then she should be evaluated by some responsible party to see if she really does seem to want a child and could support it. but then i also think everyone should be evaluated befor they are allowed to have children. it should be harder to have a child than it is to adopt a puppy!! you must know how many people there are in the world who should not have children. i should correct mysself, i a not against abortion all the way. i am against abortion being used as a way to get out of parenthood. if there are no medical reasons why you cannot have a child you should have it. if you dont want it, give it up. adoption should be cheaper so babies can get homes easier. just because a family is poor or middle class and cannot afford the adoption process is no reason they should not be able to adopt. there are wonderful people out there who would love a child in their family who cant adopt simply bacause they cant afford to.- women and young girls who are raped shoud be allowed the option of abortion. unless you have been in that situation i dont think you should be allowed a vote on it. every women is different, some feel no matter how they became with child the child is theirs others feel the child would remind them of their horrible experience the rest of their lives. of course adoption would be preferable but some women or young girls may mentally not be able to carry and deliver a child of rape and should be evaluated to determine that.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Mari--doesn't the morning after pill also prevent implantation? I'm certain I heard that.

mom_of_three 9 years ago

Passionatelibra - I tried to make that point also. Who is going to take care of the "unwanted" kids when abortions are illegal? Because we, as a society, aren't doing a very good job of taking care of the ones we have now.

craigers 9 years ago

Post 126, Sweet! just doing my job to pad the totals for you guys. Who has 200?

heatherlandeo 9 years ago

i guess i dont know what day it is huh?

avhjmlk 9 years ago

heatherlandeo--it's ok. We're all a little senile now and again.

enochville 9 years ago

Avhjmlk:

As awful as some of those situations are, I do not believe they justify killing a child. If you want to understand how pro-lifer's think, as a general rule, think to yourself: would it be ok to kill a 3 month old if such and such situation exists? There are not many situations where death would be permitted.

In the case of where a woman's life is in danger a proper analogy might be: A woman and her three month old crashed off the road into a river and both are trapped under water. A rescuer can only save one. Most people would understand if the woman saved herself. But, some women would sacrifice themselves for the baby. So, in situations where the mother's life is in danger, an abortion could be permitted. These situations are very rare, especially with today's medicine.

As far as those other situations you mentioned, adoption is often an option or raising the child by herself is an option as well. If you had no other option than to raise the baby, you'd soon find that there was a way all along to be able to provide for the child yourself.

Passionate - "who is going to take care of the kids?" I think that many mothers would decide to keep the child after all. (We must better enforce child-support! Rant-rant). Others might offer them up for adoption. And still others might abuse them and they would be taken into state custody. We are already doing all these things right now. In any case the children would be provided for. As I have said before, I contend that even a crummy life is better than no life at all. Depressed people may not think so, but at least they get to decide for themselves. In the case of abortion, the parents decide for them.

Ceallach 9 years ago

If there is to be a future for legal abortions, I hope the father will be given a voice in the decision. Many men have to live with the death of their child because they were not given the option of raising it. Since, in the vast majority of cases, the sex is consentual, there is a case to be made for the father having equal say about the child's future.

When a man and woman make the decision to partake of an activity that could result in pregnancy (we all know that nothing short of abstinance is 100% conception proof), they take an equal risk. That's where the equality ends -- should she choose to keep the baby he is required by law to support it, yet, he has no voice in whether or not she may kill it.

Why are there so few voices for men's rights? Our society has seen many examples to verify that a father is just as capable of raising a child as a mother. Does the fact that fathers who want to be involved are in the minority alter their need for representation in making such an important decision?

heatherlandeo 9 years ago

Ceallach- i agree!! all fathers should have a say.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

But at the same time, Cellach, should she be required to keep the baby at his behest without any guarantee that he's going to help? Whether he's required to help and whether he DOES help are two different things (enochville was right on with the point about child support enforcement).

And, enochville, in terms of personal beliefs, you and I aren't really that far apart. But my personal beliefs shouldn't be forced into someone else's life. For example, I hate smoking. I have asthma, certain smoke scents give me migraines, and I hate to smell like it. I think it's acceptable for a city to restrict public smoking and smoking in establishments. I would LOVE for the city to be able to restrict parents from being allowed to smoke (even outside smoking gets to the kids), but I can't enforce my belief that smoking is horrible for your body and others, and is particularly damaging to children's health, onto others who wish to smoke around their kids. The city/state can't either.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

TOB--good to know you're doing your part to populate the nation. Congrats!

beatrice 9 years ago

wonderhorse: I agree. They should have renamed the band. I like both -- saw Queen three times in concert and twice for Bad Company (yes, av+, I'm that old) but I'm a little worried about this combo. I'll have to keep you posted once the tickets go on sale. They might not be Queen, but it could still be good ... or it could be horrible. Decisions, decisions.

Other baby titled songs: "Baby Come Back," Player "Be My Baby," The Ronettes "Love to Love You Baby," Donna Summer

passionatelibra 9 years ago

So to force someone to have a child and knowing there is a possibility that the child will be beat to death, raped, molested, sold, or any other horrific thing you can think of while understanding that the likelihood of the state even noticing let alone taking them away to throw them into foster care where more of the same could happen... is a solution? Wow. I can't even comprehend that...

wonderhorse 9 years ago

And I saw Free (but I was only 13 at the time). Love to see Paul with the Queen remnants--are they supposed to do Kemper? Or Memorial?

enochville 9 years ago

Mari: I am open to helping the poor get access to contraception. I read your first post to mean having the government to foot the bill for everyone for all those products/procedures, which I still disagree with.

avhjmlk: pro-choicers are forcing their beliefs on millions of children by actively killing them. I would be forcing my beliefs on others by denying them a "medical procedure". Smoking does cause diseases that might passively kill second-handers eventually. Abortion directly, immediately kills children that had no part in the decision making or an ability to run away from harm. That is a big difference. People are not free to kill in my book and I will take away the opportunity for others to "kill without reason" every opportunity I get.

enochville 9 years ago

Correction: I should have said pro-choicers are allowing aborters to force their beliefs on children by killing them.

passionatelibra 9 years ago

oops, "while understanding that the likelihood of the state even noticing let alone taking them away is really slim. Then they throw them..."

Struggled trying to figure out the right words to use. My apologies.

enochville 9 years ago

passionate: We do the best we can to prevent those things. We don't want to put children into that kind of environment. But, the choice is certain death by killing versus possibly death by killing. I'd go with the odds. It is not like even the majority of kids who escaped abortion would be abused.

Furthermore, as I've said before, lots of adults had bad childhoods and are moving on and many are experiencing happiness. But, of course we would do all we can to make sure children aren't in abusive environments.

beatrice 9 years ago

w_h: I don't know if Queen is playing at all in Kansas or Missouri. I recently moved to Phoenix. They will be playing in nearby Glendale -- where the Coyotes play hockey. Sorry to get you excited for naught. bea

wonderhorse 9 years ago

Went to HS in Mesa--saw Alice Cooper in concert in Phoenix. It was great!

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Baby Baby Don't Get Hooked on Me - Mac Davis

Hi everyone! I'm loving the fun things here today.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

I do have to comment that I'm generally very proud of us (sniff sniff) for being so civil today, especially in light of the topic. We get a lot pissier than this when we're griping about way less important things.

Yeah us!

passionatelibra 9 years ago

Yeah us! I am such a geek lol I love to learn other viewpoints on so many issues. Yep... I'm a total geek :o)

Ceallach 9 years ago

avhjmlk: sorry if I was unclear -- I was referring to the father having custody of the child in question.

staff04 9 years ago

Is it safe to assume that Social Security is now fixed, since I haven't heard a thing about it for so long?

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Cellach--understood. Yes, if the father is willing to take custody, by all means, do that instead of having an abortion! There is nothing that prevents an dedicated father from being as good a single parent as a dedicated mother, and a willing father is definintely better than an unwilling mother.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

No, it's just that Social Security has gone back off the radar because they realized that they couldn't change it the way they wanted right now--would't fly.

passionatelibra 9 years ago

offtotheright - The only free clinic I know of in town is Healthcare Access. The others (Douglas County Health Center and Heartland Clinic), that I know about, go on your income or have set rates that are more affordable than a standard practice.

No matter how broke I was there was never free birth control, they just went after my parents to pay for it. But it could have changed since I was younger. Also, I grew up in a different state.

Mari Aubuchon 9 years ago

avhjmlk:

Yes, the issue of whether the Morning After AKA Plan B pill prevents implantion has been a significant one. From the time this med was first available, drs have been not been sure whether it did indeed have this effect and erred on the side of caution in package inserts and widely-available lay information.

However, after well over a quarter century of use in Europe and continued research into fertility in general and the effects of hormones on reproduction in particular, there has been no evidence that it prevents implantation. Admittedly, there is still more study that needs to be done to know if the uterine lining is effected. As you can imagine, this is a difficult topic to study. However, the fact that it does not limit the chance of later pregnancy within the same cycle certainly decreases the likelihood of much change in the uterine lining.

In case you are curious, Plan B causes a similar hormonal effect as breastfeeding and rather less than the pill. It prevents the release of the egg and also slows down the movement of the egg in the fallopian tubes. It does not cause the shedding of the uterine lining like earlier pills or like that of RU486.

I wouldn't recommend it for anyone who has lingering doubts as to the implantation question, but it is quite safe and reasonably effective, typically 60-89% depending upon how soon it is taken.

mikeyj 9 years ago

enochville said: "I feel that the only situations in which an abortion should be permitted are when the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth."

This is what I was talking about earlier. Your statements seem to make good sense, and they seem to be very compassionate and thoughtful and I appreciate that. Regarding incest or rape - I don't believe the circumstances of a pregnancy merit a killing. If the fetus is human, which I addressed earlier, then there really aren't any reasons that you can use to justify killing it. Under the horrible condition of incest or rape, I think it's enough that there's already one victim. There's no reason to kill off the product (even though the circumstances are horrible) and make two victims. The conditions of conception can't justify a murder.

When the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy - Medical science is not yet to the point that it can 100% predict death. This is the toughest situation I've come across. I would still say that an abortion is wrong in this situation because it's choosing one life over another. Assuming there was 100% certainty that a mother would die delivering her child but 100% certainty that she would live if the child was aborted (which is a situation that happens in a fractional miniscule percentage of pregnancies), then by deciding to abort the baby, we (humans) are choosing one life over another. In this situation I'd rather leave the decision to nature. It's as if you have the mother on one side of a seesaw and the baby on the other. If you lift (save) the mother, the baby falls. If you lift (save) the baby, the mother falls. I'll leave this one to the powers that enable life in the first place.

Fetus is known to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth - Again, medical science can't definitely make statements like that. I know (personally, not anecdotally) of situations when a mother was told definitively that her baby wouldn't live, but she chose to carry it anyway and it lived a healthy life. If you abort the baby, it's a sure death. If you choose not to abort, then the mother must endure pregnancy but there's a chance the baby could live. I'd go with the possibility of life instead of sure death.

Purell 9 years ago

In my Sorority, we had a special fund set up for the girls that would need abortions and ones that were caught shoplifting...

Crispian Paul 9 years ago

As a social worker, I want to point out that I see far too many children, born to mothers unable to care for them, unwilling to abort them and unwilling to have their child adopted. That being said, if abortion no longer was an option for women in this country, there may be consequences further down the road. Sure, "millions" wait to adopt. But these same "millions" wait to adopt predominantly healthy white babies, NOT the over-represented minority, special needs and older children. The majority of children waiting to be adopted in this country are children that "no one" wants. Why not adopt these children? Why set up a system such that the only options are to raise a child you are unable or unwilling to raise or to have a child raised in an overburdened underfunded foster care system? Is this going to solve the problem. No abortion should not be a person's "first line of defense". But do we want it to be a tool not available in the arsenal? I know this is an oversimplification, but valid, I believe, nonetheless.

Ceallach 9 years ago

Guess either way they had need for Purell :)

Crispian Paul 9 years ago

I wanted to address the comment that women who get pregnant and would like an abortion are somehow immoral and irresponsible....there are a lot of reasons women desire abortions. No woman I know who has had an abortion says "Sure, it was the greatest thing I've ever done!". But, plenty of women have abortions who are married or partnered and fdor varying reasons, cannot have a child at that point (i.e. husband and wife factory workers laid off at the same time as they find out they are pregnant with number 5). Just keep in mind it is difficult to righteously judge another's decisions until you've walked a mile in their moccasins.

acg 9 years ago

Two years ago I would've had an entirely different answer to this question but having recently had the cutest baby ever conceived :), I can't fathom ever having an abortion. I'm sure there are legitimate reasons for doing so but every time I look at my daughter's face they escape me. This issue is one of the worst double edged swords ever. If people would just start being responsible for their actions we wouldn't have this problem, or at least it wouldn't be of this magnitude. I mean, seriously, accidentally getting pregnant? There's a whole aisle of stuff at the pharmacy to keep that from happening, so I don't necessarily buy it.

beatrice 9 years ago

av+: "I do have to comment that I'm generally very proud of us (sniff sniff) for being so civil today .... Yeah us."

followed two post laters by

ottr: "my tax dollars help pay for some of these low lifes that are kicking out babies left and right, so don't tell me 'nobody helps these poor women'..........Tell it to someone else!"

Oh well, so much for civility.

w_h: Did you see Alice Cooper at Mesa Amphitheater? Great place! I saw him years ago here at Compton Terrace, but did see REM, Roxy Music, and The Smiths (not all one show!) at Mesa Amphitheater. (I lived in Phoenix for many years before my recent return.)

Sorry if anyone is getting bored with my recent music rants. I've been listening to a lot of music out here -- more time spent driving, for one -- and remembering old times. I also don't feel like typing much about abortions today.

"Baby What You Want Me To Do," Meat Puppets

passionatelibra 9 years ago

acg,

I was on the pill AND we used a condom when I had my daughter. Depo shots and a condom when I had my son. I also had tubal pregnancy over a year AFTER I had my tubes tied. No birth control is full proof. In some cases, it happens.

passionatelibra 9 years ago

I refuse to give up on the idea of civility... it can be done!

wonderhorse 9 years ago

Bea

Saw him in '75 at a Phoenix location--don't remember which one anymore. It was quite the rebel thing to do, considering where I lived at the time (Mormons and all). Dad was air force stationed at Williams AFB, and I was thought to be, uhm, wild by the local populace. My best friend lived across the street from me--he was a catholic and was also less than accepted.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

acg--you get to have the cutest baby (currently, not "ever conceived") if I get to have the cutest toddler.

allateup 9 years ago

enochville.....I read the posts for OTS almost everyday but do not post very often because when you do, it never fails when someone doesn't agree with your opinion they start the name calling and such. I have not always agreed with everything you've written but, today I agree with EVERYTHING you've said. Thanks for standing up for what you believe in.

italianprincess 9 years ago

I will be 42 next Tuesday and I and I got talked out of having my tubes tied at 34 by a nurse at the Women's Center. I had insurance then and now I don't. To have it done now is costly and I'm so mad I didn't do it back then. They say I'm to old for certain birht control now, so where does that leave me.

Sucks now........I want them tied, burned, cut off, given away..........what ever it would take to not ever get pregnant again. I would donate parts if I could just to get rid of anything to do with the possibility of getting pregnant again.

Yes I'm prochoice, but couldn't get an abortion myself ever. Its just not for me so I do hope the other means of birth control I use works. God help me if I ever got pregnant at 42.

BunE 9 years ago

I am so glad they have a waiting period for abortions. Just last week I wanted one Sooooooo bad. Turned out I was just thirsty.

-Sarah Silverman

Just last week, my parents just told me to get my act together or they would have a 83rd trimester abortion!

mud_duck 9 years ago

I wanted to clear up a little matter as to the right to privacy discussed earlier. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 is the case that recognized the right to privacy not Roe v. Wade. By combining the express rights of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments and the penumbras of those amendments, the right to privacy was recognized. Roe v. Wade applies this right to privacy recognized in Griswold as applying to the right to an abortion.

wonderhorse 9 years ago

"Murder" is your belief. Others may not believe the same way.

BunE 9 years ago

And the flesh you so fancifully fry is death for no reason and death for no reason is MURRRRRRDER. Do you know how animals die?

-The Smiths "meat is murder"

THe Sarah Silverman quote above is from "jesus is magic"

mom_of_three 9 years ago

offtotheright-

You get real! You are the self righteous of which I speak.

Just because our opinion does not agree with yours does not make us wrong.
And because a woman chooses abortion does not make her a murderer.
She is unfortunate to have to make that decision.

daddax98 9 years ago

Pergnancy and birth are dangerous so by definition wouldn't every pregnancy put the mother's life in danger? Why have the exceptions for rape and incest still not the fault of the baby right?
If these exceptions are written into the laws after roe is overturned (and it will be) who gets to make the decision that an abortion is medically necessary?
If one doctor says it is and another says it is not is abortion still available?
Would a criminal case have to be filed before an abortion for rape and incest can be had? If an abortion is available to women that are having babies that are malformed or have some genetic problem, who will make the decision that the deformity or other malady is bad enough?
The way I see it there can be no middle ground, either abortion is unavailable in all cases or it is available in all cases and we just have to pray that the mother makes the right decision. As a final note, to all of you that are comparing killing children after birth; this issue is not about a right to kill your children it is about the right to have control over your own body.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

We're getting close to two hundred!

enochville 9 years ago

Crispian: I hold by my contention that a misable life is better than no life at all. And in any case it is not the right of the parent to decide whether the child should die.

You know, before contraception and the legal use of abortion, American families had 9 or more kids even though they couldn't afford it. Why do we as a society think we have a right to a wealthy, materialistic lifestyle? We can make do with less. Granted, we should plan to provide for our families well and family planning is a part of that. But, if a child comes along and we are unprepared, we shouldn't kill the child. And if our society is flooded with unwanted babies, group homes aren't the end of the world. Throughout history children have had it much worse. We should try to make things the best for them that we can. But, life is better than death and we are not permitted to take that life from babies who would struggle for life if they could just as every living organism fights for life.

jonas 9 years ago

You may have gotten 200, but I'm the first to stroll boldly into this new commentury.

Can you boldly stroll, though? I'm sure you can in England, but maybe not so much here. Not unless you want to be called a metrosexual.

Badger: Two pills every 4 hours on the bottle.

gccs14r 9 years ago

enochville,

Calling a fetus a baby changes neither its medical nor its legal status. You can be as passionate about your opinion as you like, but passion does not change facts.

thunderbuns 9 years ago

Abortion stops a beating heart.

I'm glad Mary (the mother of Jesus) didn't believe in abortion. How 'bout you?

enochville 9 years ago

gccs14r: killing an unborn child is still killing an unborn child whether it is called a "medical procedure", "terminating a pregnancy", or "a woman exercising her right". And a child is a child no matter whether you call it a fetus or not.

I use the words I use to sculpt the perception of my audience just as you do. Medicine can never answer the question of whether it is right to terminate a pregnancy or not. The most we can do is try to get public opinion to lean our way.

gccs14r 9 years ago

thunderbuns,

The fewer religions, the better. Considering all the trouble they've caused, we could've done without Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.

gccs14r 9 years ago

There's no such animal as an "unborn child" any more than there is an "unborn chicken", rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. One might as well claim that an ovum is a baby.

enochville 9 years ago

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

Main Entry: child Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural chil*dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/ Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly 1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant

beatrice 9 years ago

TOB: So glad to learn you are a Meat Puppets fan! Most people, if they know the Puppets at all it is through the couple of songs Nirvana did of theirs during their MTV Unplugged session. I have been a Meat Puppets fan for a very long time -- first time I saw them was before they had an album out! They use to play regularly at a joint in Phoenix called The Mason Jar -- great punk place in its day (now closed, I recently saw when I drove past). I have seen them probably 50 or more times, literally. Do you have the remasterd cd of Meat Puppets II? Seven extra songs -- sweet!

Now, regarding Cris Kirkwood, the bassist, attacked a security guard a couple years back at a post office, and the guard shot Cris in the stomach. Cris survived, and I think he served a year or so in jail. Great stuff those Puppets!

Sarah Mathews 9 years ago

Just curious- To all the "pro-lifers" out there: What are your thoughts on capital punishment? Or can you find a way to justify this?

Daniel Speicher 9 years ago

I, for one, am against capital punishment as well, Sarah. As a matter of fact, I recently did a paper and debate on the issue in my Sociology. I attend a conservative college... Imagine how well my opinion went over. ;) Seriously, though... I don't know how one could say all life is precious and then justify killing someone simply because they have committed the same crime. Taking it a step further... I also believe war simply for war's sake is wrong as well, as this takes lives without justification of protecting other lives. Whether or not Iraq is such a war... Well, that's for another board and another time. ;)

--Danny Speicher

GreenEyedBlues 9 years ago

The correct term for Pro-Lifers is Pro-BIRTH. Don't kill the fetus! We can use warm bodies overseas! Are you kidding me? Once they turn 18, we can send 'em off to Iraq or some other godless heathen country that requires cleansing with mortar and gunfire!

And, if they break of our God's commandments, we can give 'em the chair or an injection.

enochville 9 years ago

Capital Punishment? He who is without sin cast the first stone.

enochville 9 years ago

You might be interested in Badger's comment on the "Status Quo at Stake" thread linked to under the title of this thread. I quote it without commentary in agreement or disagreement. My opinion was stated in my last comment.

"However, a reasonable argument can be made that if someone has been found guilty of a particularly heinous crime, he has made a set of life choices that brought him to his own execution, and he is in essence responsible for it. Those who believe the life of a human being begins at conception believe that though it is a being independent of its mother spiritually if not physically, it has made no life choices and bears no responsibility for its situation. That's a pretty big divide and not a very good basis for comparison.

I'm not really sure it clarifies or helps the argument any to bring in the death penalty, because they're really very different circumstances."

DuQuesne 9 years ago

If he who is without sin has to cast the first stone, and nobody is without sin, there that means.... Ouch! I just got struck by a thought...

Ember 9 years ago

One minor, insignificant question.

Abortion is, at the root, a question as to whether or not the fetus inside the womb can be defined as alive, and whether a female American has the right to dictate whether she carries that fetus to birth.

Now if I am wrong, that is really gonna pooch this whole idea.

Obviously there are plenty in the U.S. that are more than willing to remove a female's rights to her own flesh and blood. The key question is not whether abortion is right or wrong. Any apothecary can whip up a drink that will force a miscarriage.

This is the real question.

Are you willing to give up the right to dictate what happens to your own flesh and blood, namely your body, in an attempt to end a medical procedure that you find personally repulsive?

Ceallach 9 years ago

So is a woman's flesh and blood more valuable than a child's flesh and blood? Especially considering the fact that the child did not force it's flesh and blood into the woman's flesh and blood. But was created as a result of the woman inviting a man's flesh and blood into her own flesh and blood in the first flesh and blood place. I'm just trying to flesh out your reasoning here. I could have misunderstood, after all, I'm only flesh and blood.

raine 9 years ago

so all you abortion mongers out there~ are you against the war? against the death penalty... doesn't add up to me.. you'd think you'd be the champion of life not the taker away of.. once upon a time i lived that same lie.

Ember 9 years ago

Actually, Marion, I do have a child, and a daughter at that. Frankly, I have absolutely no desire to live in her back pocket once she reaches the age where boys are no longer 'icky'. I am going to trust her to actually think for herself, and if she decides, as a human being capable of making a rational decision, to have sex, then she has sex.

Since I, as a human male, am incapable of contending with the physical problems that bearing a fetus to term will enforce on her, I am not going to sit down and dictate that she absolutely has to keep the fetus.

It is her choice to make, not mine, her mother's and definately not yours, mon ami. She will have all fo the support that I can give her, regardless of the choice she makes.

And I am cold blooded enough to say that yes, abortion is a GREAT solution to the difficulties that the welfare system in this country is experiencing.

Ember 9 years ago

Ceallach, yes an adult female's body is more important than that of a fetus. Other than the propigation of the species, which I am still not sure is a good thing, what direct use does a fetus have as opposed to an adult female?

I am exceptionally cold blooded, and have never been called a 'bleeding heart', unlike the vast majority of people who seem to think that abortion is such a terrible idea. I mean, the world was obviously so much better before abortion. It gave us such great, awe-inspiring figures like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Vlad Tepesch.

Yeah, those are radically extreme examples of personalities that could have been prevented with a wet/dry vac. How many child molesters have not been born? Child pornographers? Murderers? Oh, that's right, there are no statistics for those.

One question though, about your statistics, your being used in terms of anti-abortion believers and not you specifically.

How many people have died in the last 40 years from automobile accidents?

Drug overdoses?

Suicide?

Almost guarantee that you will have to search for those statistics, but you can rattle that 40 million statistic off as if it were engraved on your forearms.

Don't like reality, don't look at it, but on the same token, don't force your aggrandized sense of moral supremacy off on those who want a world of choices instead of limitations.

snaptybean 9 years ago

Why is it that so many people seem to separate the death penalty and abortion rights?? Even George W., ex-governor of the most "killingest" state in the US was an obvious supporter of the death penalty, but insists on filling his Supreme Court with conservative pro-life (though ambiguous) proponents...A rose by any other name is still a rose. Maybe those who falter need to get off the fence, pick a side, and stop trying to confuse and justify their stance with twisted rhetoric as to why one is different from the other, and it's fine to kill a criminal but NOT okay for a woman to do with HER body what SHE wants if it means taking a life inside of HER. And not every unwanted pregnancy is a result of a fling in the back seat of a car or happened due to irresponsible behavior, as was previously touched upon. If RvW were overturned and states were to decide, no doubt Kansas would never have another abortion performed unless "medically necessary" or due to rape or incest, but certainly the incidence of "rape" and "incest" would gradually increase.

dotteboy 9 years ago

What if we went back in time and aborted someone that had become a serial killer that we were going to execute anyway?

Baby Got Back-Sir Mixalot

Crispian Paul 9 years ago

Sure there were families that had many children. But one of the little talked about facts of the medaeival world were tonics that could cause abortion, knowledge passed along by midwives on how to prevent conception so on and so forth. In addition, the families that often had a lot of children were farming families meaning that they had access to food on a regular basis at the least.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.