Abortion: Here we Go...

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: JedMarum
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 10:47 AM

It seems very simple, it IS the law of the land. it is supported by a significant majority of Americans. it has been practiced with a high degree of safety for nearly 30 years. while a small majority have an opinion that some limits may be placed upon it - late term abortions, parental notifications, governmental funding - these are the only legal battles of the future that will see change. It is conceiveable (however unlikely) that Roe v Wade will be overturned based upon its application of constitutional law (Roe v Wade decision is based upon a right to privacy) but that is in no way the end of legal abortion. It simply puts the pressure back on the legislature to resolve the issue - and with the strong majority opinion in this country supporting abortion rights, it will be resolved.

Spaw - I doubt very seriously that Bush really wants to appoint a supreme court that defeats abortion. The issue has simply never been that high a priority to Bush. He wishes to be counted among the anti-abortion crowd - but as a man of power and influence in Texas, he has never championed that cause. But even if he did; I am certain that it is beyond his control. The supreme court has always surprised its presidents ... the supreme court is truly autonomous ... there are several strong individuals who are charged with judging the constitution according to their very best skill and conscience. I don't believe Bush or any other president, could stack the supreme court.

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 10:55 AM

continued CLICK HERE

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: Susan from California
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 10:56 AM

BTW, when we look at history, we need to look at the huge number of "exposed" babies in the past. Babies that were born alive and left "exposed" to the elements to die were very common from the days of the Roman Empire (and probably before)until much more recent history. An interesting book on the subject is "The Kindness of Strangers" by John Boswell. Boswell argues that up until the 2nd half of the 18th c. that 25-33% of all babies were abandonded in many European cities. Most of these babies died.

Kate, I must respectfully say that because any decision a woman makes when faced with unplanned pregnancy is going to be with her for the rest of her life, then the answer is to let her make it herself. To go back to a time when women were forced by circumstance to carry a pregnancy to term, to act as a brood mare for someone who wants to adopt, is abusive and cruel. To have women faced with unsafe, sometimes mutilating, sometimes fatal, illegal abortions is ridiculous. Let's all work together to make abortion rare. But please, let individuals decide for themselves when faced with these difficult issues. To do otherwise is to play God. I know that I am not qualified to do that.

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: JedMarum
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 11:29 AM

exactly susan! I keep hearing that this issue is brand new, and 'inhuman' ... NONESENSE! People have been faced with making this difficult decision as long as they have been having babies - and they have been deciding both ways, as long as they have been having babies.

As a parent, it is my responsibility to make a decision that is best for the family. All of my instinct and my upbringing normally favor deciding for the baby - but there are occasions when I would not. That decision is the parent's alone - and as we have seen, no matter what the laws are, people will make that decision. There are few decisions in the world that are completely balck and white, maybe none.

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: flattop
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:03 PM

Although you raised very interesting issues, Colwyn, it takes a rather long projectile to link Roman vomitoriums to the onset of the Dark Ages. Historians attribute the Dark Ages to other causes like plagues that killed up to two thirds of the population in some areas and the difficulty of continually extending Roman technology and control over everyone else's territory. Even consubstantiation versus transubstantiation played a role. Hundreds of thousands of sincere Christians killed other sincere Christians and the Holy Roman Empire was divided into east and west over arguments about whether someone eating the bread was actually munching on Jesus or just having a symbolic chew on him.

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: Susan A-R
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:35 PM

I guess that, until men have as much chance of getting pregnant as women do, I'd rather see votes on this one given over to us. We're the ones left holding the bag, so to speak. I know that this will make some folks angry, but frankly, the thought that someone who doesn't have even a chance of getting pregnant has any choice as to whether I will or will not have a child, makes me so angry that I shake. I'm not ood with this one, nor "reasonable" nor flexible. It's my body, and my life stretcing out in front of me. Are there other such major life decisions over which anyone, male or female, would give up control? I don't THINK so.

Susan A-R

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: Naemanson
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM

Actually the fall of the Roman Empire can be attributed to throwing over the two party system for a three party system.

*BG*

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 02:15 PM

Colwyn, I find your history lesson to be, well, Sunday school propaganda. Follow it to fascism. Very one sided research... which may be enough for you... but please do not preach so elequently on such skimpy research!

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: Bernard
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 02:55 PM

Having beliefs is everyone's right and privilege. Firmly adhering to one's convictions is commendable, and worthy of admiration.

What is less worthy of admiration, and certainly not commendable is when one tries to force those beliefs upon someone else, with the attitude 'I am right, and if you disagree with me, then you must be wrong'...

Mudcat provides a healthy platform for us to air our views - not to insult the intelligence of those whose opinion differs from our own...

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 03:06 PM

"I guess that, until men have as much chance of getting pregnant as women do, I'd rather see votes on this one given over to us."

I'd be happy with that. In fact I'd be happy to have all the votes on everything given over to women for a few generations. Seriously. All right there's the occasional raving homicidal maniac like Maggie Thatcher, but, by and large women politicians seem more like human beings.

I also suspect that under that set up there'd be fewerr pressures on women to have abortions they don't want to have.

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: flattop
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 03:34 PM

Many messages on this thread are one sided. Colwyn may be passionate about everything in the message and may have supporting evidence. This is a discussion. We shouldn't care all that much how any point of views is written. Personally, I prefer passionate, well-written messages to toadies agreeing with me. To each his own. Too often we accept the messages that share our point of view and pick apart the others.

Infanticide was legal for hundreds of years in Roman society. Roman men completely controlled the society and the laws. The men tended to have sex with their female slaves and they would throw their babies on refuse heaps to die. The heaps contained human excrement as well as garbage. Some women on this thread have suggested that they have better ideas than the ones the boys came up with when they were in charge. How dare they!

A one point, Roman men had so few children with their wives that the government offered cash bonuses to anyone who would have a proper Roman child. I believe we have a law like that in Quebec at the moment.

One of the Constantines ended the right of Roman men to murder their own children. He was the first Christian emperor. He decided against infanticide after killing children on his own. According to Eddy Gibbons in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Constantines was first attracted to Christianity when he discovered that Christian soldiers were far more willing to die than non-Christians. When Constantine got someone holding up a cross to lead the Christian troops, they would rush into the slaughter.

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:31 PM

I'd be happy to give over all the decisions to women. As long as they are happy to have a 100% female military, until, say, as many women are killed in wars as men have been down through the ages.

And don't give me the argument that women aren't as brutal and war-like as men. In answer I will respond: Elizabeth I of England. Queen Victoria. Golda Meir. Indiri Ghandi. These women sent more men to their deaths than I ever will.

Enough of this thread drift. Back to abortion.

Frighteningly, almost every pro-abortion argument used here has an analogue in the arguments for and against slavery in this country 150 years ago. It was a religious issue, and the state should stay out of religion. "If you're opposed to slavery, don't own slaves. But don't tell me what to do with my own property." And so forth.

Fact is, a newborn CANNOT exist without its mother, or SOME adult, to feed clothe and shelter it, so the "viability outside the mother is where human life starts" rule is hardly convincing. A fully-formed newborn could exist without care for maybe 24 hours, tops. Therefore it's not a human? It's a temporary human? A 24-hour human?

"It's none of your business what I do with my body." Yes it is. If you use your body to pull the trigger of a gun that shoots another human, it's society's business. This "it's my body" argument begs the question. The whole question is whether it's just your body, or yours and another human's (viz the unborn child). Thus, "it's my body" is the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

The "people from crummy homes grow up crummy" argument is a bit question-begging also. Should we shoot all 5-year-olds from crummy homes, to prevent them from growing up twisted and angry and bitter and what-not? No? This is how the argument sounds to someone who believes an unborn child is a human life. Until we decide whether abortion is the taking of a human life, then, this argument is begging the question.

There's no doubt it's a difficult question.

I also decry the politics of personal relationships that make women feel powerless and unable to have their wants and desires respected and acted upon. I'm not at all sure what I can do about this, except teach my children to respect other human beings, and act accordingly.

I agree with whoever it was that said that the anti-abortion forces can and should spend more time and effort and money making abortions UNNECESSARY. This is why I generally do not support making abortion illegal. I would rather people --from both sides-- work toward making abortions unnecessary. (I wonder however if a counsellor who is employed by a business which makes its income from providing abortions isn't in a position of conflict-of-interest?) I would prefer to see a society in which abortion is legal, but very, very few women take advantage of the fact. Someday, someday...

Amazingly civil discussion on a very explosive topic.

Okay, I've had my say. Flame away.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: GUEST,Matt_R
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:44 PM

Well said, Colwyn!

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:46 PM

Sheesh, I go away for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose!
I didn't think this debate would ever get brought out into the open, and I'm quite sorry it has. It's not particularly constructive and it's going to hurt a lot of people over what is an intensely personal matter.

Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, and the new Assembly have gone on record as very much pro-life. There is an extremely active pro-lifers group here, and worryingly they choose to picket places such as the Brooke Clinic (a young person's clinic - under 24 - dealing with sexual health/contraception but NOT abortion). Now it would seem to a logical mind that you can't be anti-abortion AND anti-contraception. And that's not just the Vatican's view - the picketing of the Brooke clinic is done by DUP and purveyors of miraculous medals alike (they kept offering them to me as I walked out with a bag of condoms...I suppose I could've swapped). It never bothered me walking past protestors, but I'm sure it's scared the hell out of shyer people.

Interestingly, in Italy at the moment the Pope is giving out about the Morning After Pill, condemning it as abortive (biologically it's not - it stops an implantation of the egg). I have no qualms about the Morning After Pill, and have taken it before, because accidents happen, condoms split, Pills can stop working if you're sick. I have not had to go through an abortion, but people I know and love have, and I have witnessed the effects first hand. There is less choice in Northern Ireland because you must make the decision more quickly - do you pay to travel to England before it is too late? In the past I've been lucky and any risky situations have turned out okay. Now I don't feel worried if I become pregnant - I'm in a very caring relationship with a bloke I plan on keeping for good. We intend to have children some time in our future, so if it happens (by accident) sooner, so be it. But I would NEVER condemn anyone for choosing abortion. And I would NEVER EVER force my opinions on someone else and insist I knew best. Pro-choice means exactly that - the right to CHOOSE, to have an option. It's a traumatic and personal decision, and I just hope that if you or anyone you love have to face it, you'll support them and keep whatever you personally feel to yourself.
Rant ends!

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:53 PM

"The argument that women aren't as brutal and war-like as men." If you noticed, mouse, I specifically mentioned Maggie Thatcher, and they don't come much more brutal and war-like than that.

As of now, women like that are the exception, but I imagine that in a society where women ruled, they'd properly rapidly enough reach the same level as men have. (Levelling down that is.) But I can't imagine myself becoming a militant suffraget (I think that's be the male ending wouldn't it?)in a hurry.

But while that might be an interesting topic of discussion, this thread isn't the best place for it.

In any case, I suspect that in such a society the controversy about abortion would be at least as heated as it is today (in America that is).

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 01:01 PM

Right. Sorry I forgot Iron Maggie.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 09:10 AM

I did not want to wreck the thread about abortion songs with O/T opinions (like a few others had started to do, already). But since the issue is more alive than ever and sooo timely with the allignment of the White House and both houses of Congress, I am refreshing this one. I will weigh in shortly.

Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 09:11 AM

Joe/Max, please note that this thread was already created without the "BS" tag, so it went to the songs part. BTW, great idea splitting the board into "BS" and "music" sections. Thanks for that.