[QUOTE=mswas]
I think that the state should have control over social issues personally. As long as there is a Federal Law saying that no state can punish someone for doing something that is legal in another state in another state.
[/QUOTE]
I’m often curious what kinds of laws pro-lifers have in mind when they say abortion should be outlawed, myself.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I’m often curious what kinds of laws pro-lifers have in mind when they say abortion should be outlawed, myself.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it should be outlawed, I just don’t choose to play the semantic games surrounding it. I think it’s a rather unsavory practice, but you do what you gotta do. I’m kind of on the fence with it so I default to pro-choice. I am more passionate about states rights than I am about abortion either way. I think that the Federal Government is locked up in gridlock because it tries to be all things to all people. If it kicked social issues down to the state level the Fed would be a lot more nimble. So, no abortion in SD but I can smoke a joint after the abortion in San Francisco.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because the alternative is a patchwork medical field where you roll the dice every time you see a doctor that he won’t let you suffer or die for his “morals”.
[/quote]
So following that logic, every doc should be forced to perform every procedure known to man. This would be the only way to truly eliminate the risk of your patchwork scenario, force them to perform and make sure they provide a one stop shop, especially if in a flyover state or rural area.
Ah yes, the old “go to school for ten years to be able to stick it to the woman who might come across my path and have the audacity to request an abortion…” plan. Are you just making this up or do you have proof of a movement amongst practicing and student OBs out to thwart Roe v. Wade in this way?
And people think I’m evil for opposing government sponsored health care. It’s not always going to be a Democrat in office, do you really want Bush/Cheney deciding what medical procedures you’re going to be allowed?
And back to an earlier subject, hasn’t it been reported that some pharmacists not only refuse to fill BC prescriptions, but they also keep the damn thing so the woman can’t go somewhere else? They should face jail time for that.
As far as the topic of the thread, I’m in favor of state-sponsored abortions. Saves money in the long run.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I don’t think it should be outlawed
[/QUOTE]
Nevertheless, I remain curious. Perhaps Stratocaster would be so kind as to indulge me.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Okay, how would you you feel is a state banned abortion? That’d be a pretty intrusive act of oversight, depending to what degree they staged police raids on OB/GYN practices and subjected travelling women to pregnancy tests before they left and upon their return to the state. If there was ever a “none of their business” issue, this is it.
[/quote]
I disagree. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the right of the unborn to live (I realize you disagree, but since you asked my opinion). There is nothing in the constitution that supports the right to an abortion (Roe v Wade is a tortuous opinion), so it’s fair game for the states. I also realize that is no longer the legal environment we live in–just my opinion.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Nevertheless, I remain curious. Perhaps Stratocaster would be so kind as to indulge me.
[/QUOTE]
Hard to answer. I’d favor a constitutional ban, that would be enforced similar to the bans that existed prior to Roe. In the interim, I’d settle for leaving it up to the states.
Just one comment- it’s discussions like this show the distinction between a genuine Pro-Choice position from the Pro-Abortion position. Anyone who would legally compel a medical professional to perform an abortion is not “Pro-Choice”.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Just one comment- it’s discussions like this show the distinction between a genuine Pro-Choice position from the Pro-Abortion position. Anyone who would legally compel a medical professional to perform an abortion is not “Pro-Choice”.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree wholeheartedly with this. I’m pro-choice, but jeez; we don’t even guarantee food and shelter to our citizens but every woman must have access to an abortion within twenty miles of her home?
People who feel that abortions are so important that they have to be a quick, local option at all times (but not important enough to warrant a six hour drive :rolleyes: ) need to move to a locality that is more in tune to their expectations. Before they get pregnant.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Hard to answer. I’d favor a constitutional ban, that would be enforced similar to the bans that existed prior to Roe. In the interim, I’d settle for leaving it up to the states.
[/QUOTE]
Well, over a million American women a year - you better be ready to pay a lot more in taxes for prisons. After all, if the cops arrest a woman in the act of arranging an abortion, she obviously poses an ongoing danger to her fetus and much be held in restraint for the duration of her pregnancy. Also, if a rape exception is permitted, count on a massive increase in rape accusations. Do these need to be investigated or is the woman’s word that she was raped sufficient?
Anyway, I’m glad that question is hard to answer. It tends to support my position. I’d be very concerned about people who believe it’s an easy question to answer because sometimes their easy answer involves gunfire.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Just one comment- it’s discussions like this show the distinction between a genuine Pro-Choice position from the Pro-Abortion position. Anyone who would legally compel a medical professional to perform an abortion is not “Pro-Choice”.
[/QUOTE]
I’m still not sure how this idea got into the mix. It always seemed to me that the specific issue was that a hospital or clinic put its federal funding at risk if they wanted to fire a doctor who won’t provide certain medical services desired by the hospital’s patients.
More generally, I can see the concern that petty obstructionism like this, while doing nothing to make abortion illegal, has the effect of making it unavailable. There are similar sentiments expressed in gun-rights threads, about cities that are not allowed to ban handguns but effectively do so anyway by requiring a special license issued by the city, and the discretion to issue said licenses rests with a specific city official who routinely rejects applications without reading them.
Heck, let the market decide fairly. No legal obstructions, no petty bureaucratic requirements, no pressure on insurance companies. First-trimester abortion is a very safe and relatively minor medical procedure. Let someone set up a clinic with no more hassle than, say, a dental practice. Public money doesn’t have to be spent to support it, but neither do public resources have to be spent trying to find imaginative though legal ways to drive it out of business.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, over a million American women a year - you better be ready to pay a lot more in taxes for prisons. After all, if the cops arrest a woman in the act of arranging an abortion, she obviously poses an ongoing danger to her fetus and much be held in restraint for the duration of her pregnancy. Also, if a rape exception is permitted, count on a massive increase in rape accusations. Do these need to be investigated or is the woman’s word that she was raped sufficient?
Anyway, I’m glad that question is hard to answer. It tends to support my position. I’d be very concerned about people who believe it’s an easy question to answer because sometimes their easy answer involves gunfire.
[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much how I see it. There is no reasonable way to protect a child from its Mother up to a certain point. Nor should we try to. The child is dependent upon the Mother, and that decision is between the Mother and her Conscience and/or God if she believes in such.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
It’s comical how often in this particular debate how many people see only one right, one so primary that it actually assigns a duty to the government or to unrelated citizens to make sure that this right is accommodated upon demand. The government has to either force doctors to perform abortions or shuttle those who want one to the nearest clinic. You don’t just have the right to an abortion, you have the right to force someone else to make it happen. That’s one badass right.
It’s similar to the zealots who think that a television network caving into public pressure on a sensitive topic by cancelling a program has somehow violated someone’s free-speech rights. You have the right to express your opinion. I don’t have to be the guy who gives you the forum, regardless of how inconvenient this is for you.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, you oppose the meaningful existence of rights. If the power or the ruthlessness of one side can prevent the other from indulging it’s “rights”, in what sense do those rights even exist ? If the anti-abortion scum are allowed to prevent women from getting abortions by terrorism against doctors who perform them, so that there are few who do and it’s hard to even reach them, in what sense is there a “right” to an abortion ?
[QUOTE=mswas]
It’s not the Doctor’s fault she chooses to live in the sticks. No one is punishing her. She is responsible for her own actions. It’s funny how you are diminishing women like this and saying they are poor victims rather than rational adults capable of dealing with the consequences of how they live their lives.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, garbage. It’s the fault of the doctor and his fellow anti-abortionists that it’s so hard to GET a doctor brave enough to risk being murdered.
And, I notice how right wing class warfare has also been rolled into the anti-abortion crusade. Punish the poor, punish women, but especially punish poor women.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Ah. Now I get it. You hate women so much that you are hoping desperately that they either die on the abortion table or get ravaged so they may never conceive again, which is why you encourage them to have abortions. It’s the only possible conclusion to make. Any other option is outside the realm of consideration.
Quite frankly, the moral depravity of your position is horrifying.
[/QUOTE]
A standard, and dishonest right wing tactic : pretend to a false moral equivalence between your side and theirs. I’M not the one on a crusade against one gender. And abortions are safer than pregnancy. And it’s not my side that has a consistent policy of brutality.
[QUOTE=JXJohns]
So following that logic, every doc should be forced to perform every procedure known to man. This would be the only way to truly eliminate the risk of your patchwork scenario, force them to perform and make sure they provide a one stop shop, especially if in a flyover state or rural area.
[/quote]
Great strawman. No, but they should be forced to do their jobs, or fired and replaced.
[QUOTE=JXJohns]
Ah yes, the old “go to school for ten years to be able to stick it to the woman who might come across my path and have the audacity to request an abortion…” plan.
[/QUOTE]
More like 20+ years; odds are we are speaking of fundies raised since childhood to be weapons for the One True Faith. Given their track record, there probably are fundie run medical schools that exist only to pump out “doctors” who won’t perform abortions.
[QUOTE=DrCube]
Yeah I agree wholeheartedly with this. I’m pro-choice, but jeez; we don’t even guarantee food and shelter to our citizens but every woman must have access to an abortion within twenty miles of her home?
[/QUOTE]
First, we should do just that; guarantee at least minimal food and shelter. We don’t, because we are a nation of near-sociopaths.
And your analogy doesn’t work very well, since supermarkets and landlords don’t normally need to worry about being sniped or bombed. Your position amounts to “let the fanatics win”.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Heck, let the market decide fairly. No legal obstructions, no petty bureaucratic requirements, no pressure on insurance companies. First-trimester abortion is a very safe and relatively minor medical procedure. Let someone set up a clinic with no more hassle than, say, a dental practice. Public money doesn’t have to be spent to support it, but neither do public resources have to be spent trying to find imaginative though legal ways to drive it out of business.
[/QUOTE]
There is no free market when one side is using force and threats to suppress the service in question.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
I love the government gridlock everyone is so eager to eliminate. Nothing would make me happier than if at the end of every Congressional session, a Rep sheepishly came out on the steps to announce to reporters that yet again, not a single bill was passed, not one government program was voted in. 
[/QUOTE]
And then you could continue to watch as the country slides towards collapse because nothing is being done.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Oh, garbage. It’s the fault of the doctor and his fellow anti-abortionists that it’s so hard to GET a doctor brave enough to risk being murdered.
And, I notice how right wing class warfare has also been rolled into the anti-abortion crusade. Punish the poor, punish women, but especially punish poor women.
[/QUOTE]
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
As for moral equivalence there is no moral equivalence, you are pushing the immoral position. There is nothing respectable about a pro-abortion stance. Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, but not Pro-Abortion. You are talking about taking the Doctor’s choice out of this. So you are anti-choice.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
More like 20+ years; odds are we are speaking of fundies raised since childhood to be weapons for the One True Faith. Given their track record, there probably are fundie run medical schools that exist only to pump out “doctors” who won’t perform abortions.
[/quote]
I don’t suppose you have a cite for this either do you? The grand conspiracy to wipe out abortions through fundie medical schools? Or is this just more bullshit?
[QUOTE=JXJohns]
I don’t suppose you have a cite for this either do you? The grand conspiracy to wipe out abortions through fundie medical schools? Or is this just more bullshit?
[/QUOTE]
Are you offering to pay the salary of an investigative reporter to find out ? I said “odds are” and “probably” specifically because I DON’T have a cite - don’t put words in my mouth. It is, however, the sort of thing they do.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Are you offering to pay the salary of an investigative reporter to find out ? I said “odds are” and “probably” specifically because I DON’T have a cite - don’t put words in my mouth. It is, however, the sort of thing they do.
[/QUOTE]
I just assumed that you based your accusations on something other than a bullshit opinion based on a warped view of reality. Guess not.
[QUOTE=JXJohns]
I just assumed that you based your accusations on something other than a bullshit opinion based on a warped view of reality. Guess not.
[/QUOTE]
To Der Trihs all religious people are the dark legions of Mordor, there is no reasoning.
TWEEEET!
All right, the hijack involving the byplay with Der Trihs is over.
Absolutist declarations that some group is “bad” are permitted, (given the extreme partisan nature of many posters), but such declarations should be treated as what they are–nothing more than a declaration of the poster’s personal biases. Arguing over such positions is silly–especially since the position is, typically, merely one position’s or poster’s dogma.
However, those claims (from both sides) that their opponents’ positions are monstrous or immoral or hate-filled or whatever are outside the bounds of the rules for this Forum.
Everyone will now stop it.
[ /Moderating ]
As a minor note, a casual perusal of crime statistics indicates that the total number of abortions in the U.S. is about 60-80% that of the total number of violent crimes (by which the FBI means murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault). I assume someone seeking to ban abortion views it to be at least as heinous as robbery, so what’s to be done with the newly-designated 800,000 to 1 million new violent felons every year following a nationwide ban?
Just wondering.