THompson would over turn Roe V. Wade

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

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:

i was "quibbling" about the "I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother" when in fact the post i made above indicates it's not 99% were done to preserve the life of the mother. thanks for missing that and being argumentative.

And by 'quibbling' about Caladan's percentages you so conveniently left off that part of the sentence that explained it!

pardon me for being about 20 hours of no sleep

[no name 1]

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:

i was "quibbling" about the "I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother" when in fact the post i made above indicates it's not 99% were done to preserve the life of the mother. thanks for missing that and being argumentative.

And by 'quibbling' about Caladan's percentages you so conveniently left off that part of the sentence that explained it!

pardon me for being about 20 hours of no sleep

Truly weakens your debate skills if you cannot read a complete sentence yet go on for 3 pages.

[no name 1]

Do NOT GO THERE GARY. It is my freaking body. IT'S NOT YOUR DECISION, and IT NEVER WILL BE. Don't even try to decide you know what is best for my uterus (& my fellow American women's).

Wow! You are off the deep end! A true militant feminist!! To be honest with you abortion is at the bottom of my list of important issues. I really don't care what you do with your body. But I will "go there" any time I like and you can't stop me. It's not your decision, it's not the Supreme Courts decision, it's the states right to pass laws for or against whether it's legal or not. If the state says it's legal then fine, I can live with that. But if the states say it's not legal the you will have to live with it. If you can't deal with that then it's your problem and not mine. For me it's a states rights issue only. Roe v Wade will be overturned at some point. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and just made up a "right" that does not exist in the constitution. Some day we will have a majority in the Supreme Court and then the decision for whether abortion should be legal or not will exist where it should, in the states hands. Live with it, but don't get in my face with your "it's my body" line.

You are allowed to label me whatever you want because I spoke my mind? Must be fun in your moralist white man bubble.

[GaryC 7]

You are allowed to label me whatever you want because I spoke my mind? Must be fun in your moralist white man bubble.

The more you respond the more you show your true colors. Your too easy.

[Jenn! 918]

I have to say that I'm very torn on this issue.

I don't think opposing Roe v. Wade necessarily means that you're trying to force your morality on others. Gary even said that if individual states decide to keep abortion legal, then so be it.

My problem with reversing Roe v. Wade is only that I'm frightened of what will happen. I wonder about what the actual consequences would be. If certain states decide to make abortion illegal, can't people just go to states where it *is* legal?

[GaryC 7]

I have to say that I'm very torn on this issue.

I don't think opposing Roe v. Wade necessarily means that you're trying to force your morality on others. Gary even said that if individual states decide to keep abortion legal, then so be it.

My problem with reversing Roe v. Wade is only that I'm frightened of what will happen. I wonder about what the actual consequences would be. If certain states decide to make abortion illegal, can't people just go to states where it *is* legal?

Thank you Jenn, that is exactly what I have been saying. But to some here Roe V Wade is some sort of a holy pronouncement. I am not advocating making abortion illegal. I just see a large wrong done to states rights by Roe V Wade. The people should decide this, not 9 people in black robes. That is all I have ever said.

[Caladan 19]

I have to say that I'm very torn on this issue.

I don't think opposing Roe v. Wade necessarily means that you're trying to force your morality on others. Gary even said that if individual states decide to keep abortion legal, then so be it.

My problem with reversing Roe v. Wade is only that I'm frightened of what will happen. I wonder about what the actual consequences would be. If certain states decide to make abortion illegal, can't people just go to states where it *is* legal?

Many states have trigger laws, meaning it'll be banned automatically. And what will happen, most likely, is that rich girls will go to their private hospitals or friends of their dads, and poor girls will try to go out of state and end up having a later-term abortion due to travel delays. And probably one or two of the states will try to make it illegal to leave the state to get an abortion, meaning we'll have a bit of fun with cops pulling over pregnant women who cross state lines on probably cause.

Roe is a bad decision, legally, but I think reversing it is just going to mean a whole lot of headaches.

[no name 1]

I have to say that I'm very torn on this issue.

I don't think opposing Roe v. Wade necessarily means that you're trying to force your morality on others. Gary even said that if individual states decide to keep abortion legal, then so be it.

My problem with reversing Roe v. Wade is only that I'm frightened of what will happen. I wonder about what the actual consequences would be. If certain states decide to make abortion illegal, can't people just go to states where it *is* legal?

See post #82

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

You know, I worked in a family planning for 2 years and I saw the reason for every termination - with few exceptions, no one blithely carried out a termination without a lot of deep soul searching, without weighing out the pros and cons. I would shudder to think that someone else who didn't know them thought they knew what was better for their lives.

Also, a lot of what gets termed a "late term aborotion" is in fact a standard dilation & extraction for a fetus that is already dead, or is unlikely to survive longer than 24 hours outside the womb. New flash: not a single woman I know is going to carry a child for 6+ months only to change their minds. It is just so rare (I never knew of a single case) that to throw it in the debate is disingenuous

[no name 1]

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.

I just see a large wrong done to states rights by Roe V Wade. The people should decide this, not 9 people in black robes. That is all I have ever said.

Yet....

It's not your decision, it's not the Supreme Courts decision, it's the states right to pass laws for or against whether it's legal or not. If the state says it's legal then fine, I can live with that. But if the states say it's not legal the you will have to live with it. If you can't deal with that then it's your problem and not mine. For me it's a states rights issue only. Roe v Wade will be overturned at some point. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and just made up a "right" that does not exist in the constitution. Some day we will have a majority in the Supreme Court and then the decision for whether abortion should be legal or not will exist where it should, in the states hands.

So it's to be decided by 9 people in black robes but only if they're 'your' majority?

Edited August 18, 2007 by devilette

[Jenn! 918]

I have to say that I'm very torn on this issue.

I don't think opposing Roe v. Wade necessarily means that you're trying to force your morality on others. Gary even said that if individual states decide to keep abortion legal, then so be it.

My problem with reversing Roe v. Wade is only that I'm frightened of what will happen. I wonder about what the actual consequences would be. If certain states decide to make abortion illegal, can't people just go to states where it *is* legal?

See post #82

Oh I never read his posts. jk

What Number_6 said makes sense to me and is probably what would happen. If it is true that most states would choose to make abortion illegal, then the current state of things seems rather undemocratic, IMO. I know that if the situation were reversed, i.e. abortion was illegal throughout the U.S. despite the fact that most states, if left to decide on their own, would make it legal, then I would be pissed too. I think the only reason that Roe v. Wade *doesn't* piss me off is just because I happen to agree with the decision.

Edited August 18, 2007 by jenn3539

[no name 1]

I have to say that I'm very torn on this issue.

I don't think opposing Roe v. Wade necessarily means that you're trying to force your morality on others. Gary even said that if individual states decide to keep abortion legal, then so be it.

My problem with reversing Roe v. Wade is only that I'm frightened of what will happen. I wonder about what the actual consequences would be. If certain states decide to make abortion illegal, can't people just go to states where it *is* legal?

See post #82

Oh I never read his posts. jk

What Number_6 said makes sense to me and is probably what would happen. If it is true that most states would choose to make abortion illegal, then the current state of things seems rather undemocratic, IMO. I know that if the situation were reversed, i.e. abortion was illegal throughout the U.S. despite the fact that most states, if left to decide on their own, would make it legal, then I would be pissed too.

Bottom line, women should be allowed to decide what to do with their bodies, not lawmakers.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Since Gary doesn't want the government deciding who his doctor is in some kind of Universal Healthcare Plan, I'm quite surprised that he wants the goverment (or anyone else) making very private healthcare decisions for women. But I learned long ago that the modern conservative doesn't want traditional conservative values, i.e. less government.

[GaryC 7]

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.

I just see a large wrong done to states rights by Roe V Wade. The people should decide this, not 9 people in black robes. That is all I have ever said.

Yet....

It's not your decision, it's not the Supreme Courts decision, it's the states right to pass laws for or against whether it's legal or not. If the state says it's legal then fine, I can live with that. But if the states say it's not legal the you will have to live with it. If you can't deal with that then it's your problem and not mine. For me it's a states rights issue only. Roe v Wade will be overturned at some point. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and just made up a "right" that does not exist in the constitution. Some day we will have a majority in the Supreme Court and then the decision for whether abortion should be legal or not will exist where it should, in the states hands.

So it's to be decided by 9 people in black robes but only if they're 'your' majority?

As long as they uphold states rights then I don't care who is in the majority. We have a constitution and it gives the states the right do decide such things. Just because you think there should be no law passed that has anything to do with your body doesn't make it right. We have other laws in regard to that. If I want to put drugs into my body I should have the right, yes? But we have laws that say what drugs I can and can't do. Since this involves another human when an abortion is preformed (the baby) it must have some sort of legal oversight. As I have said before, I have no problem with the idea of legal abortion, as long as the states make it legal and not the Supreme Court.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

So, a larger percentage does it just for the fun of it then.

My whole point for bring it up was this. If it means the mother dies if the procedure isn't done then of course it should be done. But I pointed out there was a bill to outlaw 3rd trimester abortions that had a provision to allow it if the mothers life was in danger and Hillary voted against it. That means she is in favor of terminating a viable baby for any reason. While I don't have a real problem with abortion this really seems cold blooded to me. I mean really, if the same baby was delivered by C section it would live for crying out loud! How can you call this anything but infanticide?

But do you hold the same candle to GWB - look at his public 'pro-life' stances on abortion, stem cell research and opposition to euthanasia, then take a look at the Texas Futile Care law which he signed while Governor of Texas.

If this is an (apparently) irrelevant issue for the voting public - then why is it so bad just cause another candidate is doing it?

Your throwing in an unrelated act to muddy the waters here. But to respond, I think just letting someone linger on life support with no chance of revival is tantamount to torture. So I guess I agree with the Texas bill. But I ask you, how do you feel about an elective 3 trimester abortion? And what do you think of someone that votes down a bill that outlaws it even if it has a provision to protect the womans life?

Its an unrelated issue in the sense of abortion - but the point I was addressing was why you're objecting to one political candidate for a hypocritical moral stance on one social issue while ignoring another. On the bolded part - whether you agree with the law or not - you need only look at GWB's reaction to the Terry Schiavo case in 2005. Pretty clear contrast of values being displayed there. This is ok, but Hillary doing it is not?