Bye Bye Roe v. Wade

[Last One In]

Alito, who is a catholic, just got elected to the supreme court and now theres a conservative majority. With this turn of events, it won't be long till Roe V. Wade is overturned.

 

[satch919]

I suspect that if they try to overturn it, there will be massive outrage amongst people across the nation. I'd protest their desire to overturn it.

Isn't it rather suspect that the "right" claims to be for "small government" but yet they want to enact all kinds of laws to invade people's personal business. The government doesn't need to be sticking it's nose in it's citizens business.

 

[Last One In]

It does for those citizens who can't defend themselves. This isn't a battle over rights, rather its a battle over if a child in the womb has a right to life.

 

[CptStern]

bush has been putting his neo-conservative cronies in key positions of power since he took office ...over-the-top UN critic, John Bolton (who replaced John Negroponte who is famous for supporting death squads in south america) as the US ambassador to the UN (he campaigned to stop a UN purposed ban on Biological weapons in the 70's, and has been one of it's most vocal critics), Paul Wolfowitz the leader of the World Bank, mastermind of Bush's foreign policy and leading liar in the build up to the iraq war

 

[Last One In]

There's no doubt that he has put alot of monsters in power, but hopefully his latest decision will bring about an end to the abortions that has been going on in this country for the last 30 years.

 

[CptStern]

you're kidding right? you mean if a mother is in danger because of the baby, both should die? if the baby has absolutely no chance of survival after birth, the parents should carry it for the FULL 9 MONTHS anyway? if they baby has so many medical ailments that no amount of medical intervention will make their life anything but a living hell they should allowed to live just to placate some moralizing religious dimwit (not you, pro-life people in general) who will never ever have to live with that decision?

look, you have no right to make any sort of statement about this TILL YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE DECISION YOURSELF

 

[Nat Turner]

There's nothing in the Constitution about abortion, so Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. It should be a state's right to legislate on the matter. Note that I'm very against outlawing abortion (pro choice), I just think that Roe vs. Wade was judicial activism.

 

[Nat Turner]

I suspect that if they try to overturn it, there will be massive outrage amongst people across the nation. I'd protest their desire to overturn it.

Isn't it rather suspect that the "right" claims to be for "small government" but yet they want to enact all kinds of laws to invade people's personal business. The government doesn't need to be sticking it's nose in it's citizens business.

Yes, which is why it should be overturned. Abortion isn't supposed to be a federal issue, because there's nothing in the Constitution about it.

 

[Last One In]

you're kidding right? you mean if a mother is in danger because of the baby, both should die? if the baby has absolutely no chance of survival after birth, the parents should carry it for the FULL 9 MONTHS anyway? if they baby has so many medical ailments that no amount of medical intervention will make their life anything but a living hell they should allowed to live just to placate some moralizing religious dimwit (not you, pro-life people in general) who will never ever have to live with that decision?

look, you have no right to make any sort of statement about this TILL YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE DECISION YOURSELF

If both mother and child will die, than the baby should be aborted; Where is the sense in two people dying when they don't have to? As for those who will be born with defects, they should be allowed to live. My brother was born with Cranial Synostosis, which is a disorder where the skull won't grow with the brain. He would cry for hours on end because of the pain it caused, The outlook was bleak, but my parents never lost hope. After 6 months of misery, they were able to get assistance from the Ronald McDonald foundation for an operation to correct this disorder. Now my brother is living out his life as a happy, smart, and normal person with no sign of the defect but a scar on his head. My point is that though a person may be in pain at birth and have a bleak outlook, there is hope for that person in the medical community. With this sort of hope and medical technology, there is no reason why a person should abort a child unless the death would result in the death of the mother and child.

 

[CptStern]

which will lead to coathanger abortions performed in back alleys in some states, and sterile safe abortion in others

if I was below the mason dixon line I'd head north and not turn around till the sounds of banjos playing died

 

[Nat Turner]

which will lead to coathanger abortions performed in back alleys in some states, and sterile safe abortion in others

if I was below the mason dixon line I'd head north and not turn around till the sounds of banjos playing died

Yeah, I'm all for a Constitutional amendment for the right to abort. Until then, it should be up to individual states to decide. They have no basis whatsoever to restrict democracy in this instance. Roe vs Wade was judicial activism (even if for a good cause), plain and simple.

 

[CptStern]

If both mother and child will die, than the baby should be aborted; Where is the sense in two people dying when they don't have to? As for those who will be born with defects, they should be allowed to live. My brother was born with Cranial Synostosis, which is a disorder where the skull won't grow with the brain. He would cry for hours on end because of the pain it caused, The outlook was bleak, but my parents never lost hope. After 6 months of misery, they were able to get assistance from the Ronald McDonald foundation for an operation to correct this disorder. Now my brother is living out his life as a happy, smart, and normal person with no sign of the defect but a scar on his head. My point is that though a person may be in pain at birth and have a bleak outlook, there is hope for that person in the medical community. With this sort of hope and medical technology, there is no reason why a person should abort a child unless the death would result in the death of the mother and child.

it's the parents CHOICE not the states ..and in your case that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about because that wasnt a physical deformity where a doctor would suggest an abortion


once again: you have no right to opinionate till it's you who has to decide

 

[Yuri]

I don't give a shit why it is legal, since it should be f*cking legal.

Saw the shit news just now, and decided to see how anti-abortion Alito will be...
This article reveals the 1985 quote by Alito. However, it also states

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Alito assured her in a meeting last week that he believed in a right to privacy, the basis for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, and had respect for precedent.

After reviewing the document, Collins said, "I am unclear whether Judge Alito's personal views may have evolved over time, or whether despite his personal views, he has a commitment to setting these opinions aside when deciding cases."

Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman, said Alito should be evaluated on his judicial record and that his personal views "are beside the point."

"Anybody who would read this letter from 20 years ago as an indication that he would overturn Roe v. Wade is jumping to conclusions," Schmidt said.

So. Yeah.

once again: you have no right to opinionate till it's you who has to decide

That's a pretty interesting statement, because men (who primarily are the one's who make decisions in this country, sadly) will never be the one's who have to decide.

 

[Last One In]

you're kidding right? you mean if a mother is in danger because of the baby, both should die? if the baby has absolutely no chance of survival after birth, the parents should carry it for the FULL 9 MONTHS anyway? if they baby has so many medical ailments that no amount of medical intervention will make their life anything but a living hell they should allowed to live just to placate some moralizing religious dimwit (not you, pro-life people in general) who will never ever have to live with that decision?

look, you have no right to make any sort of statement about this TILL YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE DECISION YOURSELF

Abortion, no matter who it is performed by, causes damage to the body and in some cases death. I'm not sure of the statistics, but some women are infertile after the procedure and many more are chronically depressed. When abortion is legal, the damage may not be as severe from the procedure, but it happens to ten times the women. know what the ironic thing is? Many of the women at the pro life rallies are those who have had abortion or those who have had children.

 

[CptStern]

Abortion, no matter who it is performed by, causes damage to the body and in some cases death. I'm not sure of the statistics, but some women are infertile after the procedure and many more are chronically depressed. When abortion is legal, the damage may not be as severe from the procedure, but it happens to ten times the women. know what the ironic thing is? Many of the women at the pro life rallies are those who have had abortion or those who have had children.

again dont talk about something you have no clue about ..the chances are very slim that you'll be damaged for life (except emotional scars)

 

[VictimOfScience]

Well, since its arguable that legalizing abortion in the early 70s had more of an impact on drastically lowering the crime rate of the 90s than did the economy (among other more obvious reasons), I would say that it should stay legal.

Of course, if you look at another famous dictator like Ceauşescu, you might find all too many similarities with our current regime. The biggest one in the interest of staying on topic was his ban on abortion so that the Romanian population would grow by leaps and bounds, thereby strengthening the nation with the New Socialist Man and providing new cannon fodder for the system. The population did indeed grow, but it was a very poor population--the very same poor population that 20 years (or so) later rose up against him and ultimately had him put to death by firing squad. Terrific irony that.

Alito will hopefully not bear such bad news....

 

[Yuri]

Abortion, no matter who it is performed by, causes damage to the body and in some cases death. I'm not sure of the statistics, but some women are infertile after the procedure and many more are chronically depressed. When abortion is legal, the damage may not be as severe from the procedure, but it happens to ten times the women. know what the ironic thing is? Many of the women at the pro life rallies are those who have had abortion or those who have had children.

You have no idea what you are talking about, obviously.

You realize that you can simply take one or two pills to abort in the first six weeks?

 

[Icarusintel]

Roe v. Wade can't be overturned unless it comes before the court in the form of a new case

Honestly, the paranoia about all this confounds me sometimes. I always thought I was a paranoid motherf*cker, but it seems I'm not alone at all.

 

[Yuri]

Roe v. Wade can't be overturned unless it comes before the court in the form of a new case

Honestly, the paranoia about all this confounds me sometimes. I always thought I was a paranoid motherf*cker, but it seems I'm not alone at all.

It won't take long for another abortion case to make its way up to the Supreme Court, you know. Especially if it becomes more public that Alito is still anti-abortion.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Obviously it's nowhere near being perfect, but the simple thing is that the benefits of legalized abortion outweigh the drawbacks.

At least, for now, Canada is reasonably safe in that regard. Harper wouldn't dare such a thing with a minority gov.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Abortion: should be people's own damn choices but there should be pretty strict controls/checks on it - whether or not a baby is a life at that stage, it might end up becoming one. You can't discount the strong possibility that the baby will actually grow up (I mean, what are the alternatives) and a shitty life is better than no life. Altimately however, Mecha is right - it's better legal than not. It should be people's choices to an extent. You just shouldn't be able to make the choice of 'whoops, I'd rather not have a baby tbh I just don't feel like it.'

 

[Last One In]

again dont talk about something you have no clue about ..the chances are very slim that you'll be damaged for life (except emotional scars)

I know that This is somewhat of a bias source, but it cites a very valid article.

"Acute inflammatory conditions occur in 5% of the [abortion] cases, whereas permanent complications such as chronic inflammatory conditions of the female organs, sterility, and ectopic [tubal] pregnancies are registered in 20-30% of all women [who received abortions]. . these are definitely higher in primagravidas [initial abortions]." "Especially striking is an increased incidence in ectopic pregnancies. A high incidence of cervical incompetence resultant from abortion has raised the incidence of spontaneous abortions [miscarriage] to 30-40%. We rather often observe complications such as rigidity of the cervical os, placenta adherens, placenta accreta, and atony of the uterus. "—A. Kodasek, "Artificial Termination of Pregnancy in Czechoslovakia," in International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 1971, vol. 9, no. 3.

 

[satch919]

I know that This is somewhat of a bias source, but it cites a very valid article.

It looks like it was a study done in Czechoslovakia. Not only that but it was 35 years ago. I think American practices and standards are a bit better than the Czechs back in 1971.

 

[Last One In]

It looks like it was a study done in Czechoslovakia. Not only that but it was 35 years ago. I think American practices and standards are a bit better than the Czechs back in 1971.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion does physical damage to the woman.

 

[CptStern]

I know that This is somewhat of a bias source, but it cites a very valid article.

I dont mean to be an ass but that's hardly a reputable article ..it's only a risk during the 3rd trimester (the majority of abortions are performed before 2nd trimester so that article point to women who have to terminate their pregnancy due to health problems)

.. for some reason this article seems to be prominent in many pro-life sites:

http://www.google.ca/search?client=...ultant+from+abortion&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

which is not only inaccurate but highly misleading ..because the majority of abortions are performed during the first and second tri-mester ..third trimester abortions are restricted and seldom performed unless for medical reasons or special circumstances

 

[satch919]

True, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion does physical damage to the woman.

Find me a newer study from the U.S. that says that ladies are being harmed in large numbers. Use a reputable source too.

 

[CptStern]

True, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion does physical damage to the woman.

no it doesnt STOP SAYING THAT ..I have absolute proof it doesnt. Your case is from 3rd trimester abortions which are very rare

 

[OCybrManO]

True, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion does physical damage to the woman.

Uhhh... yeah... it can change that "fact." You can't cite the ineffectiveness and damage done by bloodletting and similar barbaric practices as an argument for modern medical science being a stupid idea. Things change. Also, there's a difference between the quality of medical care in areas of varying wealth. Those two factors combine to make it useless when talking about modern science in the USA. Plus, as CptStern said, the abortions were very late into the pregnancy. So, unless you find some better evidence... I suggest you try a different strategy.

 

[Last One In]

no it doesnt STOP SAYING THAT ..I have absolute proof it doesnt. Your case is from 3rd trimester abortions which are very rare

And where is your absolute proof that abortion does no damage again? BTW only sith deal in absolutes.(hehe)

 

[Nat Turner]

I know that This is somewhat of a bias source, but it cites a very valid article.

LOL your source is from 1971. And it's biased.

Abortion is not bad at all for you, except emotionally. You have NO valid sources to claim that it has a high chance of physical harm.

 

[Nat Turner]

And where is your absolute proof that abortion does no damage again? BTW only sith deal in absolutes.(hehe)

Let's see... the AMA (American Medical Association) supports the right to abortion for medical reasons. You wouldn't think they're wrong now, right?

 

[Last One In]

Let's see... the AMA (American Medical Association) supports the right to abortion for medical reasons. You wouldn't think they're wrong now, right?

What do they define as medical reasons? And this isn't about whose right or wrong, but about protecting the life of an unborn child. BTW Alito was just sworn in before we get too off track.

 

[JNightshade]

First off, IMO whether or not something is in the constitution has NOTHING to do with whether it should be a national issue today. The constitution lays down the core values of the US, yes, but it's not the limit to them. Abortion is a national issue.

Also, the whole "life of an unborn child" argument is extremely controversial. I wouldn't be so sure of that protection.

Finally, there are a whole menagerie of medical reasons for abortion. Try googling it.

 

[CptStern]

What do they define as medical reasons? And this isn't about whose right or wrong, but about protecting the life of an unborn child. BTW Alito was just sworn in before we get too off track.

even after I said what I said, you STILL cling to those ideas?

/me walks away from thread

 

[bryanf445]

i was at the prolife march, and it would be nice to see roe v wade overturned

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Might I ask why?

 

[OCybrManO]

... maybe in an ideal world.

 

[Eg.]

My problem with the issue is not whether or not abortion is legal, but how the laws and associated issues surrounding it are treated.

In the South, its nearly impossible in some states to get an abortion due to quality of care, and fear due to protesters. I think its Georgia that only has ONE abortion clinic. ONE.

Secondly, one of the major issues are abortions for minors, aka parent notifictation. While a 16 year old should be able to get an abortion for one reason or another, the parents need to be notified. Why you ask? Besides the point that their damn daughter is getting an abortion, shes doing things a 16 year old shouldnt be doing, or at least without protection. Shes putting herself at risks for other things, such as STD's.


Lastly, the sex-ed department needs to have a big rework. I go to school in New York, and we get pretty good stuff, but Im worried about the rest of the nation. Mind you, in my sex ed class we were informed of condoms that can be used for anal or oral sex(when the hell did this get added?), something that is replaced with "abstinance" in the South. Im sorry boys and girls, it doesnt work. You are going to hump something, sooner or later, might as well learn how to wear a jimmy hat, so you dont have to argue over teen abortions later.

Also, the way I see America, its the Freedom "OF", not "FROM".

 

[Cooper]

Nat Turner, thank you for saying something with law behind it in this thread. I want to hug you and your logical thinking.

It should be a state issue, not a federal one.

Now, before all the naysayers start coming in here whining about Alito somebody should do some research. Alito is for precedent and the right to privacy. Do any of you have any idea what that means? In other words, this entire thread is pointless. Funny how only one person points this out. I want to hug you too, Erestheux.

When Kennedy wrote his supporting opinion in Laurence v. Texas he pretty much spelled out the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade did nothing but confirm this. It won't be overturned. First off a new abortion cass must reach the Supreme Court (which is a lengthy process) while at the same time someone must prove that abortions harm them. Again, hard to do. And then your going to have to convice the justices of that, which will be harder then many of you seem to think. Once appointed as a Justice politics do not have as much affect on a Justice, afterall, they don't have to run again. And Alito has already stated that he respects privacy and precedent. I don't really expect Roe v. Wade to change, especially if the majority of Americans are against it. Unless of course they decided to go the same that Brown v. Board did and just flat out tell the general public they are wrong.

Question: Whats the point of contraceptives? Why bother with pills that change hormones or condoms? Doesn't the natural way feel 'better'? Afterall, she can just "abort" the baby if she gets pregnant. Something I have always wondered.

As far as parental notification is concerned, I still don't understand the reasoning behind it not being passed. To protect a girl in a abusive family is what I am told. But seeing as how most teenage girls get pregnant through their own stupidity I don't really see that as a plausible justification. I'm sorry, but what parent wouldn't want to know if their daughter (who is a minor) got pregnant? If we follow the logic of it being the daughter's right then we should dismiss the idea of minors all together and treat them as adults in court and other aspects of life. Obviously if they are capable of getting pregnant then choosing to 'abort' their baby (babies are kind of like computer processess now) then they should be expected to be treated like an adult.

 

[satch919]

i was at the prolife march, and it would be nice to see roe v wade overturned

I don't know about you but I've known quite a few kids who have had abortions. Some were because of stupidity and others because there were mistakes made. Should they not be allowed to say what they want to do with their own body? Should the female be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want?

Just because your personal ideology says it's wrong doesn't mean that it should be forced on others. People should always have the OPTION of having one done if they feel they want one. No one is forcing you or your loved ones to have an abortion.

Question: Whats the point of contraceptives? Why bother with pills that change hormones or condoms? Doesn't the natural way feel 'better'? Afterall, she can just "abort" the baby if she gets pregnant. Something I have always wondered.

You applaud logic and you post a question like that? Where's your logic? People use condoms not only to keep from getting pregnant but also because it might lower the risk of contracting an STD. It's been shown that people that have an HIV infected partner and use condoms significantly lower their chances of getting the disease.

In addition, abortions cost money. I'd rather save the time, money, and hassle just by picking up a pack of Trojans instead of having to take my girlfriend to the doctor after everytime we had sex.