Woman's Right to Choose - What? When?

Just what did Roe v. Wade establish and what would “overturning” it result in?

Is the pro-choice side really concerned about going back to the days of back-alley abortions?

I am pro-abortion but believe that some restrictions are reasonable … parents should have rights too. Taxpayers should have rights if they don’t want tax dollars to encourage or support abortions.

What if a state wants an 18 year-old to be counseled by both sides before choosing an abortion?

Are there any reasonable restrictions that the Pro-Choice people will accept?

Well, no. For me at least. This is a medical decision and the only parties concerned should be me and my doctor. I won’t accept anything that tried to wedge in someone else.

Roe v. Wade established the right of women to have unrestricted abortions in the first trimester of her pregnancy. Overturning it would allow States and the Federal government to regulate and ban abortion without any constitutional restriction. It would certainly result in many states banning abortion completely and there would be great pressure for a Federal law.

For the most part the days of back-alley abortions did not exist at the time of Roe v. Wade. Women today would use not coathangers in a back alley over large doses of legally or illegally gotten birth control. There is danger with self medicating/doctoring as with every drug or proceedure but in general these concerns are very much overblown by the pro-choice side.

Perhaps, but I don’t want to be in a situation that the government starts effectively censoring medical to those that can’t afford private doctors.

What do you mean by both sides?

Yes I think the pro-choice side is generally fine with the first trimester restriction. However, they generally do not want to see any restriction outside of perhaps some notification for minors. The only real issue that the pro-choice side is agreed on is that there should be general legal abortions. Specifics about that will vary from person to person.

It’s my understanding that overturning Roe v Wade would do nothing more than turn the decision over to the states, much like the Kelo v New London decison. After SCOTUS ruled eminent domain was permissible to turn property over to private developers, state gov’ts scrambled to enact laws to prevent that from happening. Where you run into stickiness is what happens if a woman desiring an abortion lives in a no-abortion state, and does not have the wherewithal to travel to a state where abortion is allowed. Does this deny her rights?

I am personally against abortion, since I think there are enough ways now to prevent pregnancy if one does not want to get pregnant. However, I understand birth control fails, etc, and the option needs to be available. I cannot see any state flat out banning all abortions in all cases. We’ve spent too many years having abortion as a right for state gov’ts to sucessfully turn the clock back now.

At least after subsequent rulings, I believe it is hard to say that it is unrestricted. I think that these rulings have said that the State has the right to regulate it in various ways, including parental notification, as long as it does not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

Legislating the insertion of third parties into a decision which should be the mother’s alone is against the spirit of the constitution. If the mother chooses to consult her doctor, fine. If she chooses to consult her parents, fine. If she chooses to consult the father, fine. If she chooses to consult a WalMart greeter or a birthday party clown, fine.

The government has NO business telling her which of those she MUST consult.

Doing so is, first of all, an assault on her body. Secondly, it has the potential of forcing the woman into a corner where she must choose between consulting someone she doesn’t want to consult or having an illicit abortion. Depending on her circumstances–including such variables as how she thinks her mother/boyfriend/etc. might react to her situation, and her education on the subject (unconscionably limited by the very people who would force her into this corner)–the illicit abortion might seem the least of the evils she faces. Because of this very real potential for harm, the government has no business inserting itself into this decision.

Yes. While I believe any pregnant person should be able to terminate pregnancy at any time, up until the moment of birth, without restrictions, I accept the conditions imposed by Roe v Wade as a reasonable compromise, as long as abortion services are in fact available on an affordable basis to those who seek them.

Realistically, I’m open to other proposed restrictions if they are accompanied by universal sex education and availability of birth control info and technologies, including the over-the-counter morning-after pill. The restrictions I anticipate would be on 3rd-trimester abortions, since that seems to be what upsets most people.

You must be me, because these are exactly my thoughts. I won’t speak for underage abortion, though, since I’ve never been a parent. Other than that, I don’t believe anyone else should have a say.

So what does happen when someone can’t afford medical care, in any situation?

I think the people who believe this was a common occurrence really are concerned that it would become one, yes. I know that it didn’t happen a lot, but I’m still worried about the consequences. I think that, as is often the case, poor people would suffer the most.

The idea of state-mandated counseling against abortion makes me uncomfortable. It’s already not a popular thing to do, and I think it implies government disapproval in an area that is not the government’s business. (Unless you’re suggesting every pregnant woman be asked to consider the benefits of abortion, there wouldn’t any pro-abortion counseling. And that would make me equally uncomfortable.) I don’t care about the woman’s age, especially if she is legally an adult. I think that’s not an area the state should get involved in. You mentioned ‘taxpayers’ rights’ earlier, and as a taxpayer, I don’t want the government mandating that someone try to talk a woman out of having an abortion. The result of this argument would probably be more children and a higher burden on taxpayers anyway.
Should the government try to have counselors argue people out of nosejobs and liposuctions? I would say no. A doctor should present the medical risks and the client should work it out on his or her own. Here we’re saying that abortion is different primarily because it is controversial, and I don’t like that either.

It doesn’t make sense to lump all pro-choice people together. I can’t think of any restrictions I’d accept offhand, but if people keep tossing them out I’ll see if there’s anything I’d agree to.

What rights ? The right to force children to bear children ?

Fine, I don’t want my taxes to support the military or big business. If I have to pay, they have to pay.

You mean the anti choice crowd, who look at her as a walking womb, and will no doubt lie to her, threaten her, and possibly kill her ?

Except for health reasons, no abortions after the third trimester; that’s it ( at least for me ).

This particular pro-choice person will accept restrictions on aborting fetuses that can survive outside the mother… that’s it. No parental notification or consent for minors. No mandatory counseling or waiting periods.

This pro-choicer disagrees with that. It is already possible – if “heroic” and hideously expensive measures are taken – for a fetus to survive outside the mother at a fairly early stage of development, earlier than the law permits abortions for other than for health reasons. This point will only get earlier and earlier as medical science improves, to the point where a one-minute old fetus can be made to survive.

I think the current federal law’s allowances and restrictions should remain as they are even as medicine advances.

Good point.

On the other hand… if the state, or some pro-life group, wants to pay for those heroic measures and adopt the child, then why not let them? The fetus is out of the woman’s body either way.

I read an article some time ago about research on reasons for late abortions in Norway. The majority of these were because of medical problems in the fetus. Several of the women answered that a major reason for choosing abortion was that they were worried about the quality of life the child would face. For children who would need assistance all their life, a major worry was what would happen after the parents died, and the child had to depend on public assistance. I have serious misgivings about overruling the parents’ choice of abortion in such cases.

Personally, I’m pro choice but firmly in the “legal, safe and rare” camp. I do support some measures to help make abortion rarer, such as mandatory sex ed, easy access to contraceptives, and welfare programs which make it easier to support children. Mandatory counselling that tries to change the mind of the woman seeking abortion would be an extremely bad thing, but counselling that is aimed at presenting factual, relevant information would be a good thing, IMO. (I.e. not “Look at these pictures of cute fetuses” but “If you have a child, you’d qualify for these programs of support. Given your current job, your economic situation would be …”)

This one, I strongly disagree with. One of the costs of living in a democracy is that some of your tax money is going to go to some stuff you disagree with, and most likely some stuff you find distasteful and immoral. It’s your right to try to change policy, but it’s not, IMO, your right to demand that your portion of tax money doesn’t go to things that the democracy you’re a citizen of has chosen to sponsor.

Roe v. Wade declared various state laws restricting a woman’s access to abortion to be unconstitutional. I.e., A woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy is a Constitutionally protected right to privacy, as determined by earlier Supreme Court decisions (which is why you will often hear anti-choice conservatives who don’t believe in the existence of the Ninth Amendment try to argue that we shouldn’t have laws protecting our privacy). Overturning Roe v. Wade will return the right to each state to allow or restrict access to abortion as it sees fit.

Right now in California we are getting set to vote on a ballot initiative which will prevent a minor from receiving a clinical abortion until her parents have been notified. Now, a teenage pregnant girl is either gong to tell her parents or not. When the law says a doctor shalt not perform the procedure without parental consent, then she simply is not going to go to a doctor. She will either let the pregnancy come to term, perhaps attempting to hide it until it’s pretty much too late for a legal abortion anyway, or seek non-medical alternative abortion procedures, of varying levels of safety. At least at first. In short order, it will become clear that your average doctor’s office does not have the time, resources or inclination to do a background check on every patient who walks through the door, and will more or less choose to believe every girl who says her parents are dead, or whatever. I fail to see how such a law will benefit the state of California, so I’m voting no.

I believe that whatever forces gave women the power to bear children also gave them the wisdom to make sound decisions about it. In this, I find I trust God more than the religious arch-conservative anti-choice crowd.

As far as what political compromises I would accept, I ask: Accept, for the sake of what? Being reconciled with hypocritical ideologically-politicized stupidity? None, in that case.

And how did you come to that conclusion, if I may ask?

I myself do not believe in abortion.

I also don’t believe the government has any right telling a woman she has to have that baby.

Once they can decide who is to born, how long before they try to decide who must die?

Well, because they harass people, threaten them, lie to them, and assassinate them. Then there’s the abortion clinic bombings, people like Randall Terry claiming “Every woman who dies is a victory for morality”, the makers of RU-286 having to be ordered by the French government to keep making the stuff because the anti-choice nuts were threatening to murder the families of executives; the list goes on.

Think so?