BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 13 - 01:43 AM

Sanity, your wasting your breath on these blokes.

The fact that they are clueless to who the quote and author they are bashing is, exposes their ignorance on this issue. The fact that SHE is one of the most highly revered academics' by the Pro-Choice movement, both in the States and here, as well as one highly respected on the Pro-Life side of this issue; reveals all one need know about the true source of their juvenile opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith
Date: 09 May 13 - 12:51 AM

Steve, perhaps I should have gone back and read some of your previous post before I offered you any kind of commendation for your earlier remark. You are clearly not only a self aggrandizing know-it all sexist bigot, but a poser and a fraud as well.

It's one thing to imply that women are somehow, even when educated; lacking in intelligence, but to have made some of the most callus and insensitive remarks as you have about women like myself that have in our life been faced with such a decision to terminate a pregnancy, but also carry two to full term I find not only offensive but even more despicable than any I've heard from Pro-Life extremist. More despicable because you have the unmitigated gall to assume a position of choice.

"The world we live in consists of people who (once you've discounted lunatics and idiots) are 100% against abortion."

Many women who choose to terminate a pregnancy must struggle hard to come to terms with that being the best solution, and then spend the rest of our lives dealing with the self doubt by reassuring ourselves that we would if confronted with that same set of circumstances make that same choice. We do not believe that decision is 100% wrong. To imply that millions of women who believe that are somehow "lunatics and idiots" is utterly despicable.

The statement you were remarking on describes the very struggle that I personally dealt with, "Abortion is one of the rare issues in a civilized society that(finds Civil Rights and Human Rights justifiably and sincerely at odds with one another)."

"You will not meet a single sane person on earth who thinks abortion is a good thing."

To again imply that millions of us who believe that the right and decision to make that choice is a good thing, some how renders us less sane than all on earth who believe to the contrary is beyond outrageous.

"We all hate abortion. No-one loves abortion. Abortion is a failure every time."

You clearly harbor absolutely no empathy for just how much of a challenge we faced in coming to terms with such a decision, yet you would deem us all a failure for believing our choice was just and true...how pathetic...talk about moralizing."

"I think the boundaries are so blurred as to make the distinction almost useless...I also think that the debate about "when life actually begins" is futile and depressing."

Well of course you would your a bloody bloke, you haven't got the slightest clue as to what goes on in a woman's body during pregnancy, although you spout your mouth off about it like you do.

Having terminated my first pregnancy early and carried two to full term I can tell you Stevie there is no blurring of the boundaries nor is when life begins some kind of futile quest; less it be to describe the experience to a man or even a women who has never experienced it.

That moment when for the first time you feel what before were nothing more than a flood of cascading emotional swings and nausea actually come to life inside you. To describe the wash of joy and wonder that floods your ever sense when what before you had considered a discomforting condition first comes to life inside you, and you know that what before was a thing is in fact a living being is indescribable and without question undeniable to the woman who experiences it, especially for the first time.

If anyone is qualified to make a distinction of when life begins, it would be the women who have been there and felt its emergence. And I among many others concur that it serves to be the one most profound reasons as to why we and so few other women seek (sought)legal late term abortions in comparison to early terminations of pregnancy.

If the likes of someone who could make such ludicrous and insensitive remarks without considering what they say about the women who have faced these struggles, is to be a self declared know-it all championing our cause, we would be better off with those who declare themselves our enemies.

You Stevie boy are no more a champion for the cause of choice, than the likes of a David Duke is a champion for the cause of Civil Rights. You both are equally pathetic, self-aggrandizing, arrogant bigots.

Now you and your mates can banter about your adolescent chauvinistic babble about your uninformed and ignorant opinions on abortion and choice from now to dooms day, and it will never make the truth about you any less true.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 13 - 11:52 PM

Richard Bridge: "Anyone believing that the need for abortions can be removed is living in la-la land, and the irony (maybe I should say the vileness) of it is that most of those who seek to reduce the availability of abortion or to terrorise women out of having abortions, or to terrorise the providers of abortions are men -..."

Good luck...read it carefully!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 10:47 PM

FFS - I have indeed had those conversations. I have had them with good friends who were never sexual partners of mine but who were let down by selfish lovers, with partners from time to time of mine who had been let down by previous lovers at previous times, and with one then current partner who had been unable until very much the last minute to get the arrogant medical profession to believe her that there was something badly wrong.

And I would comment that the belief that should a "pro-choice" view prevail, no woman will ever be forced by the existence of choice to have an abortion so it is a senseless attempt to create a verbal equivalence to assert that antiabortionists would see a devaluation of THEIR lives and resources. They would merely have been prevented from forcing their views on others.

Women should have abortions if they want them. And, of course, they should be free not to have them if they don't want to.   Anyone believing that the need for abortions can be removed is living in la-la land, and the irony (maybe I should say the vileness) of it is that most of those who seek to reduce the availability of abortion or to terrorise women out of having abortions, or to terrorise the providers of abortions are men - so will never truly know what suffering an unwanted pregnancy can create - and ALSO seek to reduce the availability of contraception, to reduce support for a mother of an unwanted child, and to reduce support for the unwanted child.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:06 PM

Yes, Angela, but here I go, stepping into territory into which blokes really ought to fear to tread... Knowing your body is not the same as knowing how to not get pregnant. I was involved, for my sins, in "sex education" in secondary schools for 25 years. Believe me, no matter how important it is to respect the fact that girls/women know their own bodies, I found it to be just as urgently important to ensure that both girls and boys knew that you could get pregnant first time, that you couldn't avoid pregnancy by jumping on and off your bed afterwards, that washing your vagina out with vinegar wouldn't stop you getting pregnant, that the rhythm method would almost certainly "get you into trouble", that the lad pulling out his willy at the last minute wasn't the ideal way to avoid pregnancy (and so on, ad nauseam). And I don't agree with your pro-life/pro-choice quote. My standpoint is predicated on practicality, not morality. I'll leave the latter to the religious among us, thanks. Moralising has got us where we are, with horribly-high abortion figures. Moralisers are abortion's greatest champions. I hardly ever hear moralisers (pro-lifers if you like) promoting education for sexual knowledge and self-respect and promoting social equality (they're always far too right-wing for that). Abortion's greatest enemies are those who seek genuine solutions, not just more of the same. Education and open-mindedness trump silly laws and time limits any day. As for your gallant men thing, well we blokes who can think genuine thoughts about this stuff hardly need your matronising, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith
Date: 08 May 13 - 12:52 PM

Steve, I must commend you for correcting yourself with dignity about the intelligence of UK women. I would suggest to you that all women no matter where they are in the world are equally intelligent when it comes to knowing their own bodies and are more than capable of making self informed choices in that regard. We know things that no man could ever know or book could ever teach about what we feel when it comes to our own bodies, no matter how gallantly the man may fight, or educator may seek to inform others for our cause of choice.

Just as there are many women who have never felt that overwhelming feeling of joy and wonder that comes with becoming a mother, but the choice of when or even when not should never be anyone's but their own, and none should ever be subjected to the despotic likes of a Kermit Gosnell and the many others like him who deceitfully claim to champion for our cause. They should be exposed and held in the highest of disdain, not hidden away for our own self-serving reasons.

I can only hope that we as women never become so detached by the cause that we forget that the choice we make must be for two, and ours alone. Only then can we deem to ourselves that our choice be true and just, no matter what that choice may be, no further proof is needed.

There is a wonderful book I read while at University and contains one of my favorite quotes that I think you would find profoundly intriguing, I know that I did.
Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood
by Kristin Luker

"Pro-choice and pro-life activists live in different worlds, and the scope of their lives, as both adults and children, fortifies them in their belief that their own views on abortion are the more correct, the more moral, and more reasonable. When added to this is the fact that should 'the other side' win, one group of women will see the very real devaluation of their lives and life resources, it is not surprising that the abortion debate has generated so much heat and so little light."


Of course we shall always be grateful to all gallant men who stand for the causes of our convictions, be they whatever they may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 13 - 11:01 AM

Richard Bridge: "How anyone can assert that a 33% reduction in abortion availability is anything other than an attack on women baffles me."

I'm sure it would baffle you....being as the women are not the ones being attacked....try thinking of an innocent, defenseless child, or fetus. Don't you think some THOUGHTFULNESS BEFORE one gets careless would be an attack on no one????......
.......or do we always have to compensate for the reckless....enabling them to continue to be reckless?.....
.....and BTW, abortion on demand, may SEEM like a quick fix solution, but then have you ever talked in depth, to a woman who has had one, and then reflects back about what she thinks about...for years later???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:03 AM

I acknowledge what you say as a correction to my somewhat outdated opinion, Angela. However, if you look at the statistics, there has been a vast improvement in the last ten years in getting abortions carried out early. That is excellent. And I'd point out that 89% of abortions within 13 weeks still means 2000 abortions a year after that. I'm guessing (correct me) that the bulk of those will be young women from poorer backgrounds. And the bureaucracy is still quite daunting. The numbers of women having extremely late abortions is very small. We simply don't need time limits. We need lots of other things, but not time limits. The other thing, is, OK, I might have been underestimating UK women (never wise, I've oft discovered :-( ) - but it won't be the same everywhere, will it?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:19 AM

Steve Shaw is right. How anyone can assert that a 33% reduction in abortion availability is anything other than an attack on women baffles me. And of course the most vulnerable are those least likely to be able to get within a 12 or 13 week time limit. Women should have abortions if they want them.

FFS, you are as offensive as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 13 - 01:09 AM

Ever notice that all those who are FOR abortion, have already been born???
Ever notice, that those same people avoid personal responsibility for their actions?
Ever notice that Women are supposed to have the corner on 'intuition'...and want control over their own bodies......how come they can't keep their legs closed to someone their intuition should have told them was a flaky asshole??? and to remedy it, something has to die???
Just a thought...........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith
Date: 08 May 13 - 12:03 AM

"There are very good reasons (once you have a law permitting abortion) why you must extend the right to way beyond (?) the first three months of pregnancy. Even women who are educated in such matters may not realise they are pregnant within three months. As things stand, If you discover you're pregnant at ten weeks you will find it almost impossible to get the medical attention and bureaucracy sorted out before twelve weeks."

That's some what of an odd and uniformed observation on your part. Especially when our on countries NSH statistics clearly state that 89% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 67% were at under 10 weeks.

I guess our bureaucracy is far more efficient, and the women of the UK are far more intelligent than you give us credit as being, or perhaps we are just far better informed, and just more intelligent than you?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 08:42 PM

Ah, the joys of anonymity...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 08:41 PM

There are very good reasons (once you have a law permitting abortion) why you must extend the right to way beyond the first three months of pregnancy. Even women who are educated in such matters may not realise they are pregnant within three months. As things stand, If you discover you're pregnant at ten weeks you will find it almost impossible to get the medical attention and bureaucracy sorted out before twelve weeks. A twelve-week rule would be tantamount to telling women they can rarely get a legal abortion (which is the whole dishonest point, of course). I have little respect for the anti-abortion lobby, but I'd have a bit more if they at least went about their crusade in honest fashion. They oppose abortion, so that should be their unwavering stand, not forever chipping away at getting a week off the limit here and there or making the medical conditions more stringent. You will not reduce abortion numbers by harassing women in this way. You drive abortion underground and that results in untold misery. Abortion must be freely available on demand, and, at the same time, as a society we must address the root causes of unwanted pregnancies and help people to avoid them. So who's more anti-abortion, me or the Pope?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 13 - 08:36 PM

"You could try the same, once you get over your tirades"

Wow Steve, after reading the rambling ranting diatribe you spew in most of your post, perhaps you should take a big dose of your own advice before someone mistakes "Stupid" as your permanent middle name.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,OK Hicks
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:58 PM

"The fundamentalist extremists on this issue are all in the anti-abortion camp."

The parameter's for fundamental extremism that I make reference to are those set forth in the actual SCOTUS decision, which is what this thread is titled to be about, I do not venture into the realm of my beliefs nor anyone else's.

The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests (thus two sides to the issue)– protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life".

In the second rehearing of the case the court followed its earlier logic stated at the conclusion of the initial hearing of the case. The Court stated that during the first trimester (up to 12 weeks), when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. There are those on both sides of this issue that seek to by-pass the 1st trimester parameter set forth in the ruling.

Agree with it or not, or like it or not; there are those on the Civil Rights (Pro-Choice?)side of this issue who advocate for the abortive rights of women to extend through the full term of the pregnancy. While others (our current POTUS included)advocate for that right to be extended to include live births resulting from failed abortions. While there are some who are now ethically advocating for the rights of mothers to allow for the euthanizing of unwanted children up to the age of 3 years and beyond.

In an article recently written by Pro-Choice advocates and medical ethicists Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva published in the Journal of Medical Ethics by Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, and entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?", in which they argue: Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are "morally irrelevant" and ending their lives is no different to abortion

"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."..."Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life"..."We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

This was defended by the editor Prof Savulescu in a British Medical Journal blog, where he stated that arguments in favor of killing newborns were "largely not new".

Now I'm not sure where you draw the line concerning fundamental extremism, but my conscience could never extend it to include or excuse such limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 06:00 PM

Unless I'm "hearing" completely wrong, Shaniqua's position is that abortion should absolutely never be legal, under any circumstances whatever.

Then Shaniqua is a true champion of abortion too, to stand proudly alongside the likes of the Pope and Mother Teresa. True champions of abortion are those people who prescribe "solutions" that do nothing save keep the numbers high. But they want their abortion with spice: infection, bleeding to death, sterility and agony for women will do nicely for starters. Naturally, they'll tell you that they're really on women's side.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: John P
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:16 PM

it will never be resolved as long as we allow it to be used like a political football, and leave it to those who espouse their fundamentalist extremes to set the terms for a solution

This isn't really what's happening. Most of us just want to be left alone to get on with our lives. The fundamentalist extremists on this issue are all in the anti-abortion camp. The only reason it's a political football is because the anti-abortion camp keeps trying to pass laws about what other people can do with their own bodies. There is no balanced "both sides are at fault" here. Why do you think there is? Are there pro-abortion fundamentalists telling people that they have to have abortions? Are there pro-abortionists telling people that not having an abortion is an offense against God, so we need to make a law to make sure we all follow God's rules?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: frogprince
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:11 PM

Unless I'm "hearing" completely wrong, Shaniqua's position is that abortion should absolutely never be legal, under any circumstances whatever. We've lived in a world like that in the past; I don't know that I can even empathize with someone who wants to go back there.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 04:32 PM

Well, Shaniqua Jones, thanks for the utterly unfocussed polemic. After all that I haven't a clue where you stand (except that you think I'm a Nazi). I should like to ask you a straightforward question, then a supplementary or two. Do you think abortion is a good thing or not? If not, what do you think we should do to reduce the horribly high figures? Pass a law? Make legal abortions even harder to get? Do you think that that will ever give us a world in which abortion is hardly an issue? It's all been tried, Shaniqua Jones, and it don't work. They say the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the thing that fails over and over again. I'm trying to think again about all this. You could try the same, once you get over your tirades against white blokes (I should like to remind you that neither being white nor being a bloke necessarily makes me a bad person, in the same way that whatever your colour and gender attributes are make you a good one). I have some advice. Keep your head. You just lost it there and it made you look stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 13 - 04:14 PM

This is what Steve Shaw said. Is there ANYONE here who disagrees with a word of it?

"The world we live in consists of people who (once you've discounted lunatics and idiots) are 100% against abortion. The distinction between so-called pro-choice and pro-life (ugh) is utterly bogus. You will not meet a single sane person on earth who thinks abortion is a good thing. You know, we all have that very strong conviction in common. But we are stupid enough to completely miss that as our glaringly-obvious (and only possible) starting point. We all hate abortion. No-one loves abortion. Abortion is a failure every time. Stop me when you cease to agree.


"1. So let's accept that we don't want to go down the road of failure, the one that ends in an abortion clinic.
2. Let's talk about education for self-respect.
3. Let's talk about social equality.
4. let's talk about contraception and responsible family planning.
5. Let's get every teacher in every school involved in good socialisation of children ("I don't do social stuff - I'm the physics specialist" - sack that man!).
6. Let's educate parents.
7. Let's keep religion strictly out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,OK Hicks
Date: 07 May 13 - 04:13 PM

(unless it's amended or re-interpreted by the Supreme Court.)

Very true Dick, but there in lies the rub. Since 9/11 the court has gotten very wishy-washy in regards to their consistency on issues concerning the scope of "Right to Privacy", which is why I think their has been such a concerted effort toward calling for a reinterpretation of the original ruling.

I grow more concerned everyday that no matter which side one might take on this issue, it will never be resolved as long as we allow it to be used like a political football, and leave it to those who espouse their fundamentalist extremes to set the terms for a solution. Without a solution it will forever divide us as a people, and if history has taught us anything; it is nothing good can come of such a festering dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: John P
Date: 07 May 13 - 03:34 PM

In the US, our Constitution states that we shall not make any laws respecting the establishment of a religion. Since 99.999% of the people are and arguments I've heard from from anti-abortion crowd are based on religion, I have to conclude that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. These laws also, as has been noted, run afoul of what is generally believed to be a right of privacy.

We don't need to talk about when life begins. It really doesn't matter to whether or not anti-abortion laws are legal. It's just playing the game of the people who want to control other people for religious reasons. Why don't they get the concept of JUST LEAVE US ALONE!!! Why do they bleat so much about the land of the free and then spend so much time and so many millions of dollars trying to limit the freedoms of our citizenry?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,OK Hicks
Date: 07 May 13 - 03:27 PM

Richard...KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR HA'PENNY

I haven't heard that in many a year now, not since I was stationed overseas. It does bring back very fond memories of an old Irish rascal and friend of mine from county Kent by the name of Ben McManigan; who I fondly called "Twin Ben".

It was in fact the first song I thought of when I learned of his passing in 95. It sure brought back a real hankering for the Sweeps and enough Guinness to set a record while gagging on one of Bens' old Capstans.

Thanks for the truly fond memory, for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Shaniqua Jones
Date: 07 May 13 - 02:36 PM

Spoken like the truly delusional sociopathic adolescent Liberal Nazi that you expose yourself and those who think like you to be Steve. Now run along and cheer on your beloved hero Gosnell before he is put to death by our incarcerated Brothers for butchering not only hundreds if not thousands babies, but the women in the same fashion as those butchered before Roe v Wade.

Gosnell is but the tip of the despotic multibillion dollar abortion slaughter industry. There are far more like him carrying out their Democratic Nazi style racialist genocide on our people in every one of our Black Communities. The very communities where the loving liberal democraps build the vast majority of their butcher shops of loving kinetic compassion. All with the full blessing of pasty faced self-aggrandizing little white boys @ girls like yourself (terminology gives that away), as well as The Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Choice (no choice) movement.

I found the phraseology you used in an early post to be profoundly ironic and equally telling, in that it so closely mirrored those I have read many times before. Those used over 150 years ago in America.

"it's their baby, it's in their body, not yours, mine, or any other man's. What right do you suppose you have to tell her what to do? You speak from the luxury of being a bloke. How easy it is for you to pontificate to women from that position!"

"it's their property, it's their slave, not yours, mine, or any other man's. What right do you suppose you have to tell them what to do with their property? You speak from the luxury of preaching from the sanctity of your pious pulpit. How easy it is for you to pontificate to us from that position!".

Who the hell do you and those like you think you truly are, to so flippantly proclaim that anyone should hold the proprietary rights over another's wellbeing, much less their life. How easy it seems to be for those of a Slavers mentality to reduce the worthiness of another's life to that of calling them an "It", to lessen the value of one so much as to deny them of any value worth more than what another might afford them.

A women has every right to the choices concerning her own body, the problem is that it is not her body that's being sacrificed for no other purpose than a matter of self-serving convenience. Before the vast majority of women (not all) ever reach the door of an "Abortion Clinic" they have made many choices concerning their own body, and those choices were by their need to be there; admittedly bad ones.

Abortion for so many of these women is no longer their "Choice" alone, it has become nothing more than another groups justifiable social excuse for them making so many bad ones.

Where are those like yourself and the Pro-Choicers when it comes to speaking up for the women who spend a lifetime confronting the tormenting anguish of post-partum depression that follows so many after such an act? Where are the so called do-gooder services from Planned Parenthood for these women? Why do you turn a deaf ear to their voices once your mission is accomplished?

"In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape."

To this day Norma remains profoundly thankful that her attempt failed, and testified before Congress to that affect. She is today one of the most profound voices in opposition of the decision made in her favor under her court given alias of Jane Roe.

If the so called Pro-Lifers really want to stop abortions, then hold up signs and scream what the Liberal Democraps are saying in their brand of "Double Speak", "Thank you for making the "Choice" to get rid of that worthless piece gutter trash garbage before it drains our wallets and pollutes our streets".

They'd have to hold a gun to the head of a Sister to even get her near one of their genocidal butcher shops.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 13 - 12:39 PM

What is it with these "hand on the ha'penny" idiots? Why do they hate people so?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 May 13 - 12:31 PM

"The Roe v Wade decision was not based on an enumerated constitutional guarantee, "

True---just as it's true of every amendment. Still as binding as any other Constitutional provision (unless it's amendeded or re-interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 13 - 11:35 AM

Well put, Steve Shaw. Reasonable people will agree with every word.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:45 AM

don't do

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:24 PM

Abortion is one of the rare issues in a civilized society that finds Civil Rights and Human Rights justifiably and sincerely at odds with one another

Well that's an interesting point, but you seem to be implying (do correct me) that civil rights equals woman and human rights equals foetus. I think the boundaries are so blurred as to make the distinction almost useless.

I also think that the debate about "when life actually begins" is futile and depressing. We are going at this from entirely the wrong angle. The world we live in consists of people who (once you've discounted lunatics and idiots) are 100% against abortion. The distinction between so-called pro-choice and pro-life (ugh) is utterly bogus. You will not meet a single sane person on earth who thinks abortion is a good thing. You know, we all have that very strong conviction in common. But we are stupid enough to completely miss that as our glaringly-obvious (and only possible) starting point. We all hate abortion. No-one loves abortion. Abortion is a failure every time. Stop me when you cease to agree. Next stubborn fact - before you need an abortion, you have to get pregnant, and you have to not want that pregnancy.

So let's accept that we don't want to go down the road of failure, the one that ends in an abortion clinic. Let's work out, without religion, without moralising, how we can help people to not get pregnant when they're not ready (and I said people, not women). Let's talk about education for self-respect. Let's talk about social equality. let's talk about contraception and responsible family planning. Let's get every teacher in every school involved in good socialisation of children ("I don't don't social stuff - I'm the physics specialist" - sack that man!). Let's educate parents. Let's keep religion strictly out of it. Religion is the champion of abortion. Religion deals in the ignorance and silly rules that will keep the abortion numbers high forever. The Pope and Mother Teresa are abortion's greatest friends. They preach ignorance in schools and they ban contraception. They forget that real live human beings love to shag!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bobert
Date: 06 May 13 - 07:53 PM

Yes, GfinS, let's force all those children to be born to women who either don't want them or can't afford them...

Sounds like Big Brother, to me...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 13 - 07:41 PM

Although, I did neglect to delete "the" when I replaced it with "our", I would never use such a term when addressing such a serious issue. However, I must confess that I do personally find fundamental extremists views to often be quite "infantile" in nature.

Having spent nearly four decades tracking and exposing the human rights atrocities associated with the modern day institution of International Slavery, I have learned that viable solutions can only become relevant if one sticks to addressing the substantive issues at hand.

Especially, when the policies concerning the issues are being dictated by the pseud-intellectual outliers that far to often taut fundamental extremism as a just cause.

Abortion is one of the rare issues in a civilized society that finds Civil Rights and Human Rights justifiably and sincerely at odds with one another, and is an issue with far to serious of consequences to be addressed from such a dismissive and petty perspective, no matter how true it may be. Even though I must admit I often find myself tempted to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:54 PM

it will forever remain an issue of infinite controversy before our the courts.

I mis-read that first time as "infantile" controversy - but maybe that's not so far wrong after all about both the object of the controversy as well as the participants.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: frogprince
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:22 PM

Too bad your granny didn't think of that, Gfs.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 13 - 03:12 PM

Hey...Mother's Day is coming up soon!....so, for a Mother's Day present, every mom should get their daughter a free gift certificate for a free abortion!

Something wrong with that???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,OK Hicks
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:24 PM

Although, I like yourself would agree that the Right to Privacy should be deemed a constitutional right, the U. S. Constitution does not guarantee an enumerated "express" right to privacy. However, it does contain the "express" right" to keep and bear arms.

The Roe v Wade decision was not based on an enumerated constitutional guarantee, it is solely based on the courts interpretation of other "express" rights set forth in our constitutions "Bill of Rights".

Such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the 9th Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people", as well as; the "Liberty Clause" set forth in the 14th Amendment as it was defined by Justice McReynolds when he wrote in the courts 7-2 decision in the case of Meyer v Nebraska.:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Constitutional interpretation has long remained a highly controversial issue since the very outset of our nation, and for all intents and purposes; will most likely remain as such throughout our nations history.

Until a lawful definition of life is addressed, or there is a constitutional amendment that "expressly" guarantees the right of abortion, it will forever remain an issue of infinite controversy before our the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 May 13 - 12:08 PM

Just to point out that, legally, Roe v. Wade is as much a constitutional guarantee as is the right to bear arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Marionette Hicks
Date: 06 May 13 - 03:42 AM

Until the true majority in our civilized society cease to allow the fundamental extremist on both sides of this issue to dictate the absolutist terms by which it is resolved, a comparable solution will never see the light of day.

Until we can come to terms with what should dictate the middle ground that defines the border (like it or not), which distinguishes our individual rights from our civilized responsibilities; then the extremist will continue to dictate their outrageous absolutist terms.

We live in a complex world, which grows more complex each day; requiring us to make decisions equally complex. To seek by some law to limit an individual the right to make those decisions would be unjust. However, to grant someone by law the absolute proprietary rights over the life of another would be equally unjust. To apply Solomons proverbial rule of splitting such a law down the middle seems the only just and comparable solution.

The word fetus (Latin: offspring) is used today to describe the growing organism from the beginning of the third month of its life to the moment of birth.

At approximately four and a half to five months, the fetal movements become pronounced enough to be felt by the expectant mother. This was formerly known well before even the pre-abortion era as the "quickening", and was widely accepted by both a medical and social consensus to be the moment when life entered the new body.

Four and a half months would satisfy that proverbial rule, if for no other reason than to grant each an equal share of common ground. Every act prior would be deemed lawful, while every act after must be deemed "murder".

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 07:12 PM

Well, it's pete's way of being politically correct. Either that or it just saves him ink in that he doesn't have to say "boyhood or girlhood of the unborn". The hypocrisy of his stance is that fundamentalism in religion, such as he preaches himself, is exactly what is responsible for high rates of abortion. Fundamentalism and evangelism support ignorance (as abundantly revealed by any of pete's ludicrous utterances about science, if you've ever seen any of them), they oppose proper sex education, they teach that contraception is wrong and they treat women as second-class citizens, fit only to be moralised at. Sensible people know exactly how we can humanely reduce abortion without driving women to the back streets, as pete would have it, and without pontificating to and moralising at them, as pete has just done.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 06:24 PM

personhood of the unborn

Oxymoron. Or just more fundagelical blather.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 05:07 PM

No problem "in principle"? What does that mean? What kind of "sex ed" do you advocate then? I'll tell you what I advocate. "Sex ed" that is so good that no-one would need to agonise over the "personhood" of the baby, still less kill it. Details on request, though I've trotted it out several times before. Now I believe that my recipe for good "sex ed" would reduce abortions to next to nothing. That would be rather inconvenient for the likes of fundamentalists such as yourself, as you'd then have one less moralistic stick to beat us with. Religion and rotten education can share the blame equally for abortions, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: kendall
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 03:02 PM

Bill D, no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 02:55 PM

i got no problem with birth control steve.i have no problem with sex ed either in principle.in fact if poeple were fully informed of the personhood of the unborn they would think twice about killing the baby.and before you start screaming about emotive language ,i suggest you clean up your own backyard first.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 10:09 PM

Huh? That first line was meant to be in italics.

[there was a dot instead of closing bracket in both instances... fixed]

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 10:04 PM

"..what women do with their own bodies...."
not to mention the body of the baby inside them !

Well pete, it's their baby, it's in their body, not yours, mine, or any other man's. What right do you suppose you have to tell her what to do? You speak from the luxury of being a bloke. How easy it is for you to pontificate to women from that position! How easy for you to get all judgemental about the circumstances of the pregnancy she no longer wants, to go all broad-brush and ignore individual dilemmas, without knowing the facts of individual cases. Tell me, pete: what does your particular brand of faith teach about contraception, birth control in general, the promotion of good sex education, the promotion of equality for women? Why don't you just quit your lazy sloganising and actually put some thought into what you are proposing for real, live human beings?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 08:33 PM

Kendall- I just was reading a couple old joke and limerick threads where the same ones were posted 3-4 times. I guess I was just being too sensitive.... and I suppose this post should be "no comment" ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: kendall
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:40 PM

I don't know how I missed that post by Don, not sure why Bill had to comment on it. Commenting on the obvious adds little to the discussion.

\Jeri, you hit the nail on the head..again.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: kendall
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:32 PM

Oh yeah? well I was with Washington.And, he was NOT standing up in that boat!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:25 PM

"..what women do with their own bodies...."
not to mention the body of the baby inside them !

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:50 PM

The Roe vs. Wade gag wasn't original with me, I just passed it along. I guess one could say it's entered the folk process. Bears repeating, often.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:33 AM

Yeah, but its a GOOD line..........