If I can answer these questions substantively, what will that prove?
As readers of these boards know, I am firmly against capital punishment. I recognize, however, that a rational distinction may be drawn between the two; favoring both capital punishment and the elimination of legal abortion is not necessarily inconsistent.
Last year, I spent hundreds of volunteer hours at a local project that cares for children in just such circumstances, and dozens of hours at a project that offers women in crisis pregnancies assistance with housing and vocational skills.
What have I proved?
Perhaps I’ve shown that my money is where my mouth is on the issue - but that doesn’t suggest the underlying issue is right or wrong, does it?
In that scenario, what would women in North Dakota do who want to abort but don’t have the resources to travel to South Dakota? Wouldn’t the demand for abortions create a dangerous unregulated black market run by unscrupulous folks just out for a buck?
I say this – rubbish. From the very first sentences, this OP was predicated on nonsense.
First, the idea that Roe v. Wade is in danger. As far as I know, there isn’t any case currently in the federal pipeline which might challenge Roe v. Wade, regardless of the justices involved.
Second, the premise that judges which might opposed Roe v. Wade (which could well be because it was a crappy bit of decision-making, abortion rights notwithstanding) would be reactionaries is just simply ridiculous, if for no other reason than the extreme unlikelyhood of someone who could be legitimately labelled as such could make it past the confirmation process. (See Bork, Robert.)
I would like to suggest a difference between one’s subststantive position on abortion and the procedural issue about which branch of the government gets to decide the issue. I am pro-choice but I don’t think that the US constitution has anything to say about what point in its development the fetus is deserving of legal protection. In a democracy this is a matter for legislatures not for Supreme Court Justices.
Well, I don’t agree, and I would find it hard to find very many people who strictly agree with one another on the abortion issue. Not all pro-lifers are against all forms of abortion. Being against a spontaneous abortion is a bit absurd. And no one would that I know would be against the D and C procedure that is used because of an SB, although, they can be used for elective abortions. And when the life of the mother is in danger is another example. You could call it ‘anti-arbitrary-abortion rights’ and ‘pro-arbitrary abrotion rights’ (or however the hell you would hyphenate it). A majority of people do support abortion rights. But a majority also supports some kind of restrictions.
With the ruling by SCOTUS, anyone can have an abortion for practically any reason. To me, that is like saying that , since you have the right to kill someone in self-defense, that the Constitution csays you cannot stop any killings, or it would go against the constitutionally protected right. They never said that. They left it up to legislation on where we draw the line.
I guess that’s a factor for the voters of North Dakota to consider as they make their decision - the possibility that outlawing abortion may create a dangerous black market.
That danger should not create a federal constitutional right, however.
Rape, incest, something wrong with the child, …i’m sure there or others i don’t know about or can’t recall atm. And I already gave an example of D and C for a spontaneous abortion. And please don’t go on about how pro lifers are hypocrites because of these reasons etc, you said pro-lifers. Not all pro-lifers. Like I said, not everyone agrees where to draw the line. That’s what legislation is for.
"There is nothing in the federal constitution that should give rise to a federal right in this area. Yet the Roe court found there to be such a right, and the Casey court agreed. I believe those were ill-advised decisions, although they are the law of the land at present.
The above is certainly a pro-life argument that means what it says."
The argument about whether Roe v. Wade is legitimately based on a federal constitutional right of privacy is not the “pro-life” argument that I characterized as hypocritical and insincere. The argument I refer to is that abortion amounts to murder of innocent human beings.
OK, I did not know that…I stand corrected. What’s D and C?
Yes, I did say pro-lifers, and since some would allow abortions in cases other than the life of the mom being at stake, then the term anti-abortion rights would not be an accurate description. Do you know if such pro-lifers make a distinction then between the rights of a fetus and those of a born child? This is not to call ANY pro-lifers hypocrites - my assumption is that pro-lifers who support abortion in cases of rape do not equate a fetus’s right to life with that of a born child. I’m also not assuming that you are one of those pro-lifers. If not maybe we will hear from one who is.
zwaldd, a D&C is a dilation and curettage, where the cervix is dilated and the uterine lining scraped out. This is only feasible in the earlier stages of pregnancy, I believe up to 3 months. After that other methods are needed.
I suppose it’s a good thing I have a ‘country doctor’ whose most advanced piece of telecommunications equipment is the phone the receptionist uses to schedule patient appointments.
Makes me wonder though, how the likes of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would’ve reacted to this.
SB was meant to be SA for spontaneous abortion. I actually corrected that and my misspelling of abortion in that post, but alas the connection to SDMB timed out and when I hit refresh it posted my original one.
zwaldd
CrazyCatLady, must be a nurse or well informed. D and C’s are used for spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) to clean out the dead fetal tissue. They are also used for early, elective abortions.
From the ones I have debated, I think they do make a distinction. Although they value the fetus as a potential child, some feel they cannot presume undue responsibilities on woman/girl when they had no choice to begin with. These, i like to call pro-responsibility pro-choice pro-lifers :p. They think you have the choice not to get pregnant. And with all of the birth control so available, abortion should not be used for it. If you cannot protect yourself then don’t have sex. After all, sex is how you usually get pregnant. And just as the male has a responsibility to the child at conception *, so must the female take responsibility for her actions.
I agree with the responsibilty part. And I got a tickle yesterday, when a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood was going on about how women were subject to the whim of nature and men can decide not to have sex or use protection so they should have no say.
*this is another debate on of the woman decides to have the baby on another thread.
I think that anyone who claims that a young girl without means and without her partner who undergoes an abortion is the moral equivalent of Susan Smith – who committed premeditated murder – is either a moral cretin or dishonest. The same could be said of, for example, Andrea Yates, and in the Yates case there was a genuine question of her sanity.
That was my point.
That the pro-life person does not mean what he/she says is demonstrated by the fact that those who claim that abortion is murder are the same people who actively oppose those institutional changes – suggested in my initial post – that would be required in order to make abortion fully as abhorant as child-murder, namely, the establishment of social mechanisms to ensure that unwanted children are cared for in a way that is at least minimally answerable to the standards in place for children who are wanted, and that mothers who give their unwanted children up for adoption are not stigmatized.
So long as those institutional changes remain unfulfilled, legal abortion remains slightly less abhorant than its criminalization, which, as I stated in my initial post, is not a justification of abortion but an indictment of our society.
The question of why those who want to criminalize abortion while leaving society unchanged is less a matter of political philosophy than of psychology, in particular, the psychology of men who refuse to acknowledge the social/political/moral rights of women.
You are begging the question. Provide proof that pro-life = a belief that the institutional changes you describe are wrong and that mothers who give up children for adoption should be stigmatized. Don’t simply re-state it again. Provide evidence.
Let me give you a hint. Finding individual examples of such behavior does not prove what you are asserting.
Second, demonstrate how even if this is true (and you have not demonstrated that it is), this is the equivalent of deliberately making misleading statements–i.e., “doesn’t mean what he says.”
However, the term “rights” already has positive connotations. Why don’t we just give up finding objective terms and call pro-life “blue” and pro-choice “green”?
D and C’s are used for spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) to clean out the dead fetal tissue. They are also used for early, elective abortions.