THompson would over turn Roe V. Wade

[Artegal 1]

I find it really hard to support anyone who's political party or platform or personal belief states that stem cell research and abortion even in cases where the health of the mother, rape or incest is the prevailing factor in the decision to abort a fetus is murder yet at the same time this anyone's stated position continues to ignore providing universal health care and inexpensive medicine to millions of uninsured, elderly and others on fixed incomes; and who continues to support a bias and ineffective death penalty against the mentally ill, children and minor adults, the developmentally retarded, and against the poor and uneducated. Nor can I support anyone who's logic dictates that the decision a woman makes about her own body and future, health and welfare is better handled by committees in congress, courts and lawyers, than it is handled between the woman and her doctor. While assuming the preservation of human life is the usual logic behind the banning of abortion and stem cell research--the same purveyors of right-to-life consider capital punishment and arbitrary military attacks on sovereign nations to be the hallmark of the American justice and international political strategy.

Many more people are killed in the electric chairs, gas chambers, and by collateral damages, starvation, and because of lack of basic human needs such as immunizations, clean water, security from racial, ethnic and religious persecution, and basic health care than ever died because of an abortion or experiment on a stem cell.

If the US Government decides to and provides full universal health care for all the people living in the US or being a citizen or lawful resident of the US if living abroad--then and only then should the US Government have any right at regulating any medical procedure such as terminating a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy. Until that day comes the Government and lawmakers, courts, etc have no such right in regulating or controlling this most personal and private decision.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find it really hard to support anyone who's political party or platform or personal belief states that stem cell research and abortion even in cases where the health of the mother, rape or incest is the prevailing factor in the decision to abort a fetus is murder yet at the same time this anyone's stated position continues to ignore providing universal health care and inexpensive medicine to millions of uninsured, elderly and others on fixed incomes; and who continues to support a bias and ineffective death penalty against the mentally ill, children and minor adults, the developmentally retarded, and against the poor and uneducated. Nor can I support anyone who's logic dictates that the decision a woman makes about her own body and future, health and welfare is better handled by committees in congress, courts and lawyers, than it is handled between the woman and her doctor. While assuming the preservation of human life is the usual logic behind the banning of abortion and stem cell research--the same purveyors of right-to-life consider capital punishment and arbitrary military attacks on sovereign nations to be the hallmark of the American justice and international political strategy.

Many more people are killed in the electric chairs, gas chambers, and by collateral damages, starvation, and because of lack of basic human needs such as immunizations, clean water, security from racial, ethnic and religious persecution, and basic health care than ever died because of an abortion or experiment on a stem cell.

If the US Government decides to and provides full universal health care for all the people living in the US or being a citizen or lawful resident of the US if living abroad--then and only then should the US Government have any right at regulating any medical procedure such as terminating a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy. Until that day comes the Government and lawmakers, courts, etc have no such right in regulating or controlling this most personal and private decision.

Whoah...is this the same Artegal that gets bemused over the idea that our trade agreements in South America, particularly Mexico have had dire consequences on the rural farmers?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I find it really hard to support anyone who's political party or platform or personal belief states that stem cell research and abortion even in cases where the health of the mother, rape or incest is the prevailing factor in the decision to abort a fetus is murder yet at the same time this anyone's stated position continues to ignore providing universal health care and inexpensive medicine to millions of uninsured, elderly and others on fixed incomes; and who continues to support a bias and ineffective death penalty against the mentally ill, children and minor adults, the developmentally retarded, and against the poor and uneducated. Nor can I support anyone who's logic dictates that the decision a woman makes about her own body and future, health and welfare is better handled by committees in congress, courts and lawyers, than it is handled between the woman and her doctor. While assuming the preservation of human life is the usual logic behind the banning of abortion and stem cell research--the same purveyors of right-to-life consider capital punishment and arbitrary military attacks on sovereign nations to be the hallmark of the American justice and international political strategy.

Many more people are killed in the electric chairs, gas chambers, and by collateral damages, starvation, and because of lack of basic human needs such as immunizations, clean water, security from racial, ethnic and religious persecution, and basic health care than ever died because of an abortion or experiment on a stem cell.

If the US Government decides to and provides full universal health care for all the people living in the US or being a citizen or lawful resident of the US if living abroad--then and only then should the US Government have any right at regulating any medical procedure such as terminating a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy. Until that day comes the Government and lawmakers, courts, etc have no such right in regulating or controlling this most personal and private decision.

that part in bold has me worried. does that anyone that is poor or uneducated can kill without penalty?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, if the unborn have a right to live, then it's not a personal choice anymore.

And how do you suppose thats going to happen? A fetus cant survive outside of the womb, at least in the early stages.

If you buy that argument, then you could pull the plug on anyone in the hospital on any kind of life support, though temporary.

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.feministsforlife.com/

When a bunch of women get together to promote ideas that repress their own freedom. Well.... they ain't feminists. Much as they'd like to call themselves that.

Here's an article from a 'real' feminist on that subject.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let me ask you a question. Without getting into a debate about abortion, how do you feel about late term or "partial birth" abortions?

Personally, I don't support the idea of terminating a pregnancy at any stage. At the same I do realize that there may be circumstances that will force a woman down that road. That's a decision a woman needs to make. It sure as hell ain't mine or your's to make. I believe that the way to reduce the numbers of abortions is to take positive steps towards making parenthood possible and attractive for more women - i.e. addressing the ridiculous lack of a meaningful maternity leave policy nationwide, steering the energy of the so called pro-life crowd to support the born life as much as the unborn, etc. Making it illegal to terminate a pregnancy - even if just in a number of states - will cost lives rather than save any.

I guess that just makes me a real pro-lifer rather than a lip-service one.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sheriff Uling 3]

[VJ Ambassador Sheriff Uling]

Sometimes I can't figure out when you serious and joking. But just in case your serious here goes. There is nothing that is beyond the sovereignty granted to the states. Even an emotionally charged one like abortion. If we can't deal with it on a state by state basis then it's our own fault but that does not give 9 people in black robes the right to tell 300 million people what to do. It should be decided by the people.

Gary...

What do you think the Supreme Court has been doing all this time?

If the Supreme Court does not rule within the context/confines of the law and somewhat in line with the will of the people, our voices will be heard. That's why we have a president, senators, and representatives. Our society is a tad more complex than the forefathers of this great nation could have ever envisioned when the constitution was drafted granting sovereignty to the individual states. Remember, state laws do NOT supercede the federal laws, which in and of itself yields the notion that states have limited powers (beyond it being explicitly written in the constitution). Socially charge national issues have proven to be out of the scope of what states can handle because of the great divide it creates within the populous of our citizenry.

I wish that we would simulate the ramifications of what you and others are suggesting. It's a horrendously bad that would send this country into a tailspin. I'm very glad that Mr. Thompson has no shot in hell at being the president. Who knows what other loony ideas he’ll try to implement.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

p.s. - When I am joking, I write typically write, "Hehehehe" or put smiley icons. I love you guys but you and Steven still trip me from time to time... Well, mainly Steven…

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's very obvious what would happen if abortion were left up to the states. It would be made illegal in every state except a handful, and while that would undoubtedly reduce the number of abortions carried out those handful of states would essentially be the focal point for every woman seeking abortion in the country.

The US would probably end up in the same position as Ireland, which added a right to life amendment to its national constitution (no doubt that will have some folks rubbing their hands with glee), but which ran into problems when it was used in a court case to prevent a woman travelling to the UK to have the procedure conducted there.

Given the propagandising of this issue - its doubtful whether limiting the practice to a few states would remain legal for very long - at least until they run into another Roe Vs. Wade or 'Case X' type scenario.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Number 6

[Caladan 19]

Less than 1-2% of all abortions are late-term, and I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother. The pro-life crowd would have you believe that it's just irresponsible girls in high fashion dresses aborting in the eighth month for sh!ts and giggles, but the far more likely case is that the baby has been growing without a brain and delivery will kill the mother because the child's head is horribly deformed and three times the normal size. Something like 88% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, most of them in the first month (so, uh, in a majority of cases, abortion doesn't stop a beating heart because the heart isn't beating until week 5 or 6.)

Arguing over late-term abortion when it rarely ever happens as if it is the most common form of abortion is the about the most dishonest rhetorical tactic on the planet.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Less than 1-2% of all abortions are late-term, and I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother. The pro-life crowd would have you believe that it's just irresponsible girls in high fashion dresses aborting in the eighth month for sh!ts and giggles, but the far more likely case is that the baby has been growing without a brain and delivery will kill the mother because the child's head is horribly deformed and three times the normal size. Something like 88% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, most of them in the first month (so, uh, in a majority of cases, abortion doesn't stop a beating heart because the heart isn't beating until week 5 or 6.)

Arguing over late-term abortion when it rarely ever happens as if it is the most common form of abortion is the about the most dishonest rhetorical tactic on the planet.

comfortable, yes, but are you accurate?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Less than 1-2% of all abortions are late-term, and I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother. The pro-life crowd would have you believe that it's just irresponsible girls in high fashion dresses aborting in the eighth month for sh!ts and giggles, but the far more likely case is that the baby has been growing without a brain and delivery will kill the mother because the child's head is horribly deformed and three times the normal size. Something like 88% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, most of them in the first month (so, uh, in a majority of cases, abortion doesn't stop a beating heart because the heart isn't beating until week 5 or 6.)

Arguing over late-term abortion when it rarely ever happens as if it is the most common form of abortion is the about the most dishonest rhetorical tactic on the planet.

comfortable, yes, but are you accurate?

Source of data: Strauss, Lilo T., Herndon, Joy, Chang, Jeani, Parker, Wilda Y., Bowens, Sonya V., Berg, Cynthia J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As for the 99% that you bolded, do you have anything that would suggest otherwise? Are you indeed claiming that these late term terminations of a pregnancy are done just for the fun of it or just because they can do it? Other than medical and health reasons of the mother, what do you think is the driving factor of late term pregnancy terminations?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Less than 1-2% of all abortions are late-term, and I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother. The pro-life crowd would have you believe that it's just irresponsible girls in high fashion dresses aborting in the eighth month for sh!ts and giggles, but the far more likely case is that the baby has been growing without a brain and delivery will kill the mother because the child's head is horribly deformed and three times the normal size. Something like 88% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, most of them in the first month (so, uh, in a majority of cases, abortion doesn't stop a beating heart because the heart isn't beating until week 5 or 6.)

Arguing over late-term abortion when it rarely ever happens as if it is the most common form of abortion is the about the most dishonest rhetorical tactic on the planet.

comfortable, yes, but are you accurate?

Source of data: Strauss, Lilo T., Herndon, Joy, Chang, Jeani, Parker, Wilda Y., Bowens, Sonya V., Berg, Cynthia J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As for the 99% that you bolded, do you have anything that would suggest otherwise? Are you indeed claiming that these late term terminations of a pregnancy are done just for the fun of it or just because they can do it? Other than medical and health reasons of the mother, what do you think is the driving factor of late term pregnancy terminations?

just thought the 99% was perhaps a bit high, that's all

eta: just found this:

Reason for abortion:

Mother's Health (3%)

Baby has possible health problem (3%)

Rape or Incest (1%)

Couldn't Afford Baby (21%)

Not ready for the Responsibility (21%)

Concerned how child would change lives (16%)

A relationship problem (12%)

Not mature enough (11%)

Had all the children they wanted (8%)

Other (4%)

link

Edited August 18, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Less than 1-2% of all abortions are late-term, and I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother. The pro-life crowd would have you believe that it's just irresponsible girls in high fashion dresses aborting in the eighth month for sh!ts and giggles, but the far more likely case is that the baby has been growing without a brain and delivery will kill the mother because the child's head is horribly deformed and three times the normal size. Something like 88% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, most of them in the first month (so, uh, in a majority of cases, abortion doesn't stop a beating heart because the heart isn't beating until week 5 or 6.)

Arguing over late-term abortion when it rarely ever happens as if it is the most common form of abortion is the about the most dishonest rhetorical tactic on the planet.

comfortable, yes, but are you accurate?

Source of data: Strauss, Lilo T., Herndon, Joy, Chang, Jeani, Parker, Wilda Y., Bowens, Sonya V., Berg, Cynthia J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As for the 99% that you bolded, do you have anything that would suggest otherwise? Are you indeed claiming that these late term terminations of a pregnancy are done just for the fun of it or just because they can do it? Other than medical and health reasons of the mother, what do you think is the driving factor of late term pregnancy terminations?

excellent response. i'll check to see if charles responds. in the meantime, i will state i personally oppose abortion. but that is my choice and do not feel i should somehow make the gov't enforce that on others. i'd rather persuade each individual who faces that situation not to. i would vote against fred.

Daniel

:energetic:

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

just thought the 99% was perhaps a bit high, that's all

what? you come in and challenge a post on the simple basis that you thought a number was a bit high? oh please. then again, why am i surprised at this? mad at myself.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

just thought the 99% was perhaps a bit high, that's all

what? you come in and challenge a post on the simple basis that you thought a number was a bit high? oh please. then again, why am i surprised at this? mad at myself.

Daniel

:energetic:

do you take everything at face value in vj?

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

just thought the 99% was perhaps a bit high, that's all

what? you come in and challenge a post on the simple basis that you thought a number was a bit high? oh please. then again, why am i surprised at this? mad at myself.

Daniel

:energetic:

do you take everything at face value in vj?

no.. and neither should you. maybe her numbers were off. they were not. but if they were? big woop. her logic was solid man. then you come and quibble about a percentage? man, you must love to argue about anything.

Daniel

:energetic: