BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:51 AM

Oh. That explains it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 10:04 AM

As for the subject...
When life begins has never been in question. Roe v. Wade was about a woman being able to get an abortion until a fetus is viable. No debate on "when life begins". But we have an awful lot of "life" inside us that can't become a person and can't live outside our bodies. Which matters mostly to Republicans and other parasites.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 11:10 AM

It's quite interesting that many of those who oppose abortion because of the sanctity of life also support the death penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 12:33 PM

It's equally interesting that many people who like jello don't really care for peanut butter.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 12:42 PM

I too like pine trees. :) My idea of heaven used to be living alone in a mountain cabin set in and surrounded by a dense forest of conifers.

Then I learned to love people and discovered that I need them. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 01:17 PM

Are you sure it wasn't the mozzies?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 07:17 PM

I find it fascinating that frequently the "pro-lifers" who are most opposed to abortion are also opposed to such things as welfare for dependent children or, God forbid, single mothers. Get 'em born, then to hell with them!
=======
I understand that Sarah Palin thought Roe vs. Wade had to do with a discussion between General George Washington and his men over how best to cross the Delaware River.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:04 PM

I will not use the term "pro-life." That is an entirely inaccurate way of describing the people involved. The only correct term is anti-abortion. It accurately describes their stance without obfuscation or euphemism. "Pro-life" is utterly hypocritical. I don't know anyone who is anti-life. "Pro-choice" is a good way of describing those humane people who support women's right to decide what they do with their own bodies. "Pro-abortion" would be entirely inaccurate. We have a very high abortion rate in most parts of the world because of religions opposing sex education, banning contraception and belittling women. By that measure, the Catholic church, to give one example, is just about the most pro-abortion organisation on the planet. By promoting ignorance and dissing birth control, the Catholic church is a champion of abortion. I actually think that is quite deliberate. The people who are pro-choice are actually the people who genuinely oppose abortion, in that their philosophy, if employed, would reduce abortions drastically. Most pro-choice people I know want equality for women, good sex education and freely-available contraception and contraception advice. If that were enacted, we would cut the numbers of abortions spectacularly, without preaching and without moralising at women.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: ragdall
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:44 AM

Funny you should mention this.
As I was driving through a major intersection on Thursday, there were several people standing on a corner sidewalk holding full colour posters, about three feet (one metre) high, photos of aborted fetuses.
I'd heard of people doing this, but had never seen it before. I can't imagine it brought a lot of warm fuzzy feelings toward the people holding up the photos, or support for their cause.

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:13 AM

Is it true that someone asked President Bush to define Roe v Wade and his answer was "That's the decision George Washington had to make to cross the Delaware."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:40 AM

As I was driving through a major intersection on Thursday, there were several people standing on a corner sidewalk holding full colour posters, about three feet (one metre) high, photos of aborted fetuses.
I'd heard of people doing this, but had never seen it before. I can't imagine it brought a lot of warm fuzzy feelings toward the people holding up the photos, or support for their cause.

They should have been arrested on public order charges.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:17 AM

Kendall.. Don Firth used that line 4 posts above.

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

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: kendall
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 03:02 PM

Bill D, no problem.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:45 AM

don't do

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?