If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

[palerider]

Yeah, you can never charge Pale with being emotional--he's as cold as a witch's heart!

Other parts too.

 

[palerider]

No further attempts to get to the root of the problem and actually reduce the reasons for abortions and thus, the actual number of abortions. Logistically the anti-abortion laws will be nearly impossible to enforce.

The root of the problem is that certain people are not willing to face the consequences of their actions and prefer instead to kill a human being rather than face them.

I suggest we work on the infection first.

It is the killing that is the infection

 

[Coyote]

Other parts too.

alright...at least I knew better then to have a mouth full of liquid this time.

 

[Coyote]

Assume abortion becomes illegal - across the board except when a woman's life is threatened. There is no more argument about whether or not abortion is murder or whether you are killing someone.

These hypothetical problems could become a reality.

How will we, as a society deal with them? Will we be compassionate or will we just say screw it - she should of kept her legs closed, it's her problem now?

 

[Coyote]

I don't see a reason that a drug can't be developed that would simply prevent ovulation. If abortion is no longer legal, there will be a profit motive for developing the "perfect" contraceptive.

Maybe. Maybe not. The thing is when the pill was first developed it was hyped tremendously. Years later - many years later - it was discovered to have some serious long term health effects. Eventually they decreased the amounts and ratios of the hormones involved and it became safer. It took a long time and it takes a long time for side effects to show up when you are fooling around with hormones. I would hate to see something rushed on the market (and no doubt it would be given the greed of the pharma industry and it's disdain for safety) - but would I want to trust my life to it in the beginning when there is something safer and proven already?

 

[9sublime]

Let me tell you again. I want to see abortion banned because it is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment of our constitution protects the lives of human beings until such time as they denied that right via due process of the law.

Shouldn't you be voting for Ron 'Dr. No' Paul? Just because the constitution says we shouldn't do it, doesn't make it right... laws can and should, if needs be, changed.

And once again, you make a pitiful argument. You claim that if abortion is banned, that children will die. Hello? 9sublime? Children are already dying in the millions. Every time an abortion is performed a child dies. And I am not particularly concerned about the safety of a woman who sets out to kill a child any more than I am concerned for the safety of arsonists, wife beaters, robbers, or any other lawbreakers.

I'm not going to be able to change anything, there's already been huge threads about this and I give up. I'll just say, I believe abortion is wrong a lot of the time, but to truely understand why abortion should sometimes be allowed, and to understand that some mothers who choose to have abortions are not at all in the same league as arsonists, wife beaters etc. INVOLVES EMOTION, not just the constituion and science.

 

[JavaBlack]

...

How? They're is no way to prevent girls from dropping their panties without thinking of the consequences. With condoms, the pill, sex ed, etc. there's not much more we can do.

We could do a betterjob of teaching the consequences... but really you are correct if what you mean is that government can do nothing more.
It is a cultural and social problem.
Part of it is indicative in your only blaming the girls. Boys are just as responsible and our culture makes a game of boys looking for meaningless sex... By default this makes girls socially expected to get involved. Our society encourages sex but stigmatizes the consequences. This is a schitzophrenic society... Any doubt such a social manifestation would result in confusion and chaos?
Instead of blaming the kids, perhaps we should look at the parents of the kids and the other adults that are involved in their lives.
Note Asian kids don't seem to have a premarital sex problem... but strangely Catholics and evangelicals do.

Of course once we bring up the government solution (illegalize abortion), we will continue to sweep the social problems under the mat. We will continue creating a society that encourages irresponsible pleasure but discourages people from taking responsibility for the consequences... or seeking guidance when a consequence occurs.
Illegalization will only increase that latter part by pushing everything underground.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Big sigh... Here I go!

I am PRO-LIFE, but not totally ANTI-CHOICE. For me, I believe that from conception a baby is a live, individual human being. No matter what the biological terms are for the different stages of development.

Because I am pro-life, and this developing human is totally defenseless, it should be protected. And like Pale, I do believe that this life IS Constitutionally protected. Therefore, I believe that the original Roe vs Wade ruling and all since regarding this upholding abortion as a right are in error. And the error should be corrected.

Laws can be made, but on a national scale especially, anything in violation of the Constitution should be struck down. That is why we have an amendment process. The whole abortion issue has circumvented that process that should have occurred to bring it to it's current position.

This is another situation of a whole industry driving the national sentiment. There IS an abortion industry out there, and it's been fighting tooth and nail against partial birth or late-term abortions. (An abhorrent act in itself, which should be totally banned nationwide.) Second trimester, I think, should also be banned. When our medical technology has come to the point that premature babies are being saved as early as mid-fourth month it becomes apparent that there is something to this "living being" thing. While fourth and fifth month babies are still very touch and go, sixth month (still 2nd trimester folks!) and on are becoming very commonly viable.

The whole issue is not nearly as "either-or" as it once was. With DNA, we've found that the fetus is individual from the mother. We're finding earlier and earlier survival outside the womb. We're seeing manslaughter and even murder charges and convictions concerning acts against pregnant women.

In some ways, we've come full circle in recognizing and honoring this new life.
Yet it makes no sense: a woman can walk into a clinic and have the baby ripped from her body, yet if she were hit by a drunk driver crossing the road to the clinic, he could be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for at least vehicular manslaughter for killing her baby? This is insane!

Because of the status of the issue, where it has been for the last 35 years or so, etc., I believe that a fair settlement would be for the Federal government to remain passive on it, allowing states to set their own regulations. And at the same time, work on improving options, education and prevention to make this a truly rare situation.

 

[top gun]

palerider;17442]And killing an old man is not the same thing as killing a newborn, and killing a teenager isn't the same as killing an embryo and killing a man isn't the same as killing a woman. They are all different, but they are all killing a living human being. If you can demonstrate that they (unborns) are not human beings, then your argument has merit. If you can't then why bother making it in the first place since it is completely invalid.

Again I challenge you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

And of course we've been down this road many times before my friend. And as always I'm certainly not even trying to say that a bioplast or a fetus is ever anything but the human being building blocks that might, if not miscarried or still born, become a self supporting walking talking human being at some point.

Still doesn't change a single solitary thing about my pro-choice position of...

Isn't fully developed where it could survive outside of the womb.

Woman has to be allowed control over her own body and anything therein.

Cannot force a woman to carry a child to term.

The United States Supreme Court after thorough investigation & debate recognised this legal right decades ago.

 

[palerider]

And of course we've been down this road many times before my friend. And as always I'm certainly not even trying to say that a bioplast or a fetus is ever anything but the human being building blocks that might, if not miscarried or still born, become a self supporting walking talking human being at some point.

They are not building blocks. They are human beings. Immature, sure. Dependent, of course. Are you saying that immaturity and dependence are valid reasons to kill?

The United States Supreme Court after thorough investigation & debate recognised this legal right decades ago. [/COLOR]

Is that just a sentence you memorized and parrot whenever you get the chance? The purpose of the supreme court is to declare constitutional, unconstitutional legal decisions. Actions they declare constitutional must jibe with the constitution. You claim that they thoroughly investigated the issue and found the right in the constitution. Show it to me in the constitution. Show me anyting that resembles a right to abort a child in the constitution.

The supreme court has reversed itself some 280 times clearly proving that they are not infallable. The roe decison was not thoroughly researched, it was a despicable partisan move designed to relieve the democrat majoritiy in the house and senate from having to do their jobs and legislate the issue.

 

[palerider]

We could do a betterjob of teaching the consequences... .

Nothing teaches consequences like experience.

 

[palerider]

Shouldn't you be voting for Ron 'Dr. No' Paul? Just because the constitution says we shouldn't do it, doesn't make it right... laws can and should, if needs be, changed.[/'quote]

Are you arguing that we should drop the idea that all rights are secondary to the right to live? If you don't have the right to live, exactly what value do any other rights you claim have?

 

[vyo476]

Show it to me in the constitution. Show me anyting that resembles a right to abort a child in the constitution.

I believe they based the decision in Roe vs. Wade on the 9th Amendment.

 

[top gun]

palerider;17534]They are not building blocks. They are human beings. Immature, sure. Dependent, of course. Are you saying that immaturity and dependence are valid reasons to kill?

I think I explained by position in great detail! I'm sorry you don't agree but I've obviously said I agree with abortion being legal. Do the math... I believe the woman has the right to choose whether to carry something inside of her body... or not. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

Is that just a sentence you memorized and parrot whenever you get the chance? The purpose of the supreme court is to declare constitutional, unconstitutional legal decisions. Actions they declare constitutional must jibe with the constitution. You claim that they thoroughly investigated the issue and found the right in the constitution. Show it to me in the constitution. Show me anyting that resembles a right to abort a child in the constitution.

The supreme court has reversed itself some 280 times clearly proving that they are not infallable. The roe decison was not thoroughly researched, it was a despicable partisan move designed to relieve the democrat majoritiy in the house and senate from having to do their jobs and legislate the issue.

Don't have to show it to you in the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has stated for decades... abortion is Constitutional. They know better than I.

Like I said before my friend... Get back to me when they do reverse themselves. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I believe the woman has the right to choose whether to carry something inside of her body... or not.

So does Palerider. What he (and I) don't believe is that the woman can chose to carry the unborn in her body and then all of the sudden decide that she doesn't want it anymore and have it killed.