Roe vs. Wade Almost Overturned in 1992

[Cain]

And I get angry at people who think we should have killed our kids instead. For what? A better car?

There's a rather profound difference between a clump of cells and a kid.

 

[Luke T.]

Gotta take issue with you on this one, Luke. Not all methods of birth control are 100% effective.

Don't I know it.

Condoms, for all practical purposes, should be, but we know how quick men are to don those Now, I know what some are going to say. "Well, then, she should refuse to put out until he does" to which I would respond, where is it written that a woman's sexual drive is any less compelling or overwhelming than a man's? Why should the burden of responsible behavior always rest on the woman's shoulders?

So the woman should have all the say on whether the baby lives or dies, and not the dad, but she shouldn't have to bear all the responsibility of birth control?

The Pill is very effective (98%?) but carries long term health risks making it a short term solution at best. Having been in that boat myself, I took the most drastic solution: tubal ligation. But, I don't think that's a reasonable option for all women any more than a vasectomy is for men.

Therefore, until there is a completely safe and effective method of birth control that can be utilized by men and/or women for the length of their productive years, abortion is an unfortunate necessity.

Gee. I guess the spread of AIDS will be a "necessity", too.

 

[Luke T.]

There's a rather profound difference between a clump of cells and a kid.

No more profound a difference than between a newborn and a 42 year old.

 

[Ladyhawk]

So the woman should have all the say on whether the baby lives or dies, and not the dad, but she shouldn't have to bear all the responsibility of birth control?

If that's the impression I gave, I apologize. I didn't mean that at all. I'm saying that conception is a 2 person process but that usually only one person (the female) is held solely responsible for birth control.

Yes, dad should certainly have a say. In a marriage where an abortion is being contemplated, dad has a right to voice his feelings and opinions.

Here's the rub, though, Luke. And, I mean no disrespect. But, it's easy for men to say that women should have to have the baby. Many men skip out of the whole process. ( I'm referring primarily to out-of-wedlock pregnancies, here.) They don't have to worry about keeping their jobs, supporting the child financially, going through 9 months of physical discomfort and who knows how many hours of labor pain. They don't have to give up their freedom or be locked into a permanent relationship for the next 16 to 18 years with their child. They don't have to find babysitters or daycare centers. They just move out of town or challenge the mom to slap a paternity suit on them. Lovely, eh? What kind of loving environment is that to bring a child into?
Sure, she can opt for adoption. But that doesn't solve the job security or health insurance or physical impairment issues, does it?

My opinion is this. Women bare the brunt of the responsibility of any pregnancy. Therefore, it is the mother who should have the ultimate say in whether the pregnancy is terminated or not. Right or wrong, that's just how I feel.

Gee. I guess the spread of AIDS will be a "necessity", too.

If you are saying that based on the fact that there is no 100% cure for AIDS and that, even with the strictest precautions, AIDS is not automatically avoidable (remember there are blood-transfusion issues) then, yes. It's not a 'necessity'. It's an unavoidable fact of life.

 

[Luke T.]

Here's the rub, though, Luke. And, I mean no disrespect. But, it's easy for men to say that women should have to have the baby. Many men skip out of the whole process. ( I'm referring primarily to out-of-wedlock pregnancies, here.) They don't have to worry about keeping their jobs, supporting the child financially, going through 9 months of physical discomfort and who knows how many hours of labor pain. They don't have to give up their freedom or be locked into a permanent relationship for the next 16 to 18 years with their child. They don't have to find babysitters or daycare centers. They just move out of town or challenge the mom to slap a paternity suit on them. Lovely, eh? What kind of loving environment is that to bring a child into?
Sure, she can opt for adoption. But that doesn't solve the job security or health insurance or physical impairment issues, does it?

And so it is any mystery why religious groups see everything connected and express so much anger at what has happened to society? Sex outside of marriage leading to unwanted pregnancies leading to abortions. All signs of an impulsive, self-centered society.

edited to add: Everything you have described about motherhood is an "inconvenience" and expresses no love for children at all. None. Zip. Just self-centered, what-a-pain-in-the-ass-it-is-to-have-kids thinking.

 

[Tricky]

No more profound a difference than between a newborn and a 42 year old.

That is simply wrong.

If I showed you a newborn human baby and a fish, could you tell which one was human? What about a fish embryo and a human embryo? You'd have to say, "it depends on how mature it was", would you not?

Abortion is a permenant solution to a temporary problem.

Having a child is 'temporary'? Sure, they grow up and move away, but I'd say it's pretty permanent.

But we've heard these anti-abortion cliches before. Use your own words.

 

[Cain]

No more profound a difference than between a newborn and a 42 year old.

What morally relevant characteristics does a human embryo possess? Why not compare a chimp with an adult human? We certainly share more in common with them than a blob of tissue.

 

[Ladyhawk]

And so it is any mystery why religious groups see everything connected and express so much anger at what has happened to society? Sex outside of marriage leading to unwanted pregnancies leading to abortions. All signs of an impulsive, self-centered society.

Hell with religious groups. I'm an atheist and I'm disgusted with it, too.

edited to add: Everything you have described about motherhood is an "inconvenience" and expresses no love for children at all. None. Zip. Just self-centered, what-a-pain-in-the-ass-it-is-to-have-kids thinking.

Luke....take a breath. If a woman has to support her child on her own and risks losing her job, it is hardly just an inconvenience. We're talking ability to provide, here. And, since as a man, you can't possibly draw a comparison to childbirth, you aren't in a position to call the woman's pain inconvenience . Loss of liberty and freedom for the next 16 years is not an inconvenience ...it's a life changing decision; one that cannot be reversed. I admire you and your wife's decision to have your children. But, put yourself in a position where you had to do it alone....completely alone. Would you call that an inconvenience or a serious challenge worth considering before adopting?

And, if everything I've described about 'motherhood' is merely inconvenience, what is the deadbeat dad's excuse?

Look, if people want abortion to go away, then medicine needs to develop a 100% effective and safe birth control method that doesn't need a prescription and that is convenient for either partner to use. Maybe if all the money that is spent to develop products like Viagara and Rogaine , was used for such a purpose, there could be success. But, you can easily see which products were developed first. Is it possible because these solve what men perceived to be the biggest health issues society is faced with?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Why should the burden of responsible behavior always rest on the woman's shoulders?

It's the flipside of the "it's my body, my choice" claim. Your choice, your responsibility.

Therefore, until there is a completely safe and effective method of birth control that can be utilized by men and/or women for the length of their productive years, abortion is an unfortunate necessity.

Surgical sterilization works pretty well.

 

[Ladyhawk]

It's the flipside of the "it's my body, my choice" claim. Your choice, your responsibility.

As long as the choice remains ours, but that could change any moment. Then what? Will men step up to the plate any more than they have in the past? For that matter, if it truly is 'my body, my choice', why should any man, Supreme Court judge or not, have any vote in it? Still, this double standard has always existed. Men who have multiple partners are playboys. Women who have multiple partners are "whores".

Surgical sterilization works pretty well.

As I've stated, I've taken that option but it's not a practical one, for men or women. It hardly seems rational to impede one's ability to ever have children simply because the current time isn't a favorable one. But, certainly, it is an effective method.

 

[Dancing David]

I am a rather typical liberal, I myself would not have an abortion, nor would my wife, that is our personal conviction about the way we live our lives.

But where is it that says any one else has to do what i think is right. I am sorry, there are times that having another child or a child is more than an inconveinance. I have know two women who terminated thier prenancies and neither one just woke up and said "I think I will kill a baby today."

they both made the choice on the best choice for themselves at that point in thier live's and thier percieved inability to deal with a child at that time. It was a difficult decision for them to make and it was not an alternative to birth control.

then there is the whole issue of domestic violence do you think that aman who won't let his wife out of thehouse or use the phone is going to wear a condom?

The thing that gets to me (Luke I do not mean you!) is the people who care about an unborn baby but then just don't give a crap after it's birth. Lets it live in a ghetto with abusive parenst and be xposed to all sorts of crap. Maybe the people who care som uch about unborn babies should help the millions of children that are already here.

 

[Luke T.]

That is simply wrong.

If I showed you a newborn human baby and a fish, could you tell which one was human? What about a fish embryo and a human embryo? You'd have to say, "it depends on how mature it was", would you not?

So "appearance" is more profound a difference to you than infancy and adulthood?

Having a child is 'temporary'? Sure, they grow up and move away, but I'd say it's pretty permanent.

A lot less permanent than death.

But we've heard these anti-abortion cliches before. Use your own words.

I've never heard the newborn/42 year old "cliche" before. I am using my own words.

 

[Luke T.]

If you are saying that based on the fact that there is no 100% cure for AIDS and that, even with the strictest precautions, AIDS is not automatically avoidable (remember there are blood-transfusion issues) then, yes. It's not a 'necessity'. It's an unavoidable fact of life.

I've never heard anyone say that AIDS was unavoidable before. But I've never heard anyone say pregnancy was unavoidable before, either.

 

[Luke T.]

Luke....take a breath. If a woman has to support her child on her own and risks losing her job, it is hardly just an inconvenience. We're talking ability to provide, here.

What excuses do you have at hand for all those white suburban people who get abortions?

And, since as a man, you can't possibly draw a comparison to childbirth, you aren't in a position to call the woman's pain inconvenience . Loss of liberty and freedom for the next 16 years is not an inconvenience ...it's a life changing decision; one that cannot be reversed. I admire you and your wife's decision to have your children. But, put yourself in a position where you had to do it alone....completely alone. Would you call that an inconvenience or a serious challenge worth considering before adopting?

Loss of liberty and freedom. Kids are such a pain in the ass. So should we be able to kill them at 9 months of pregnancy then? How about right after birth?

And I have never seen a life dismissed and extinguished so casually so as to avoid a few moments of labor pain!

And, if everything I've described about 'motherhood' is merely inconvenience, what is the deadbeat dad's excuse?

There is no excuse. You won't see me offering one for them.

Look, if people want abortion to go away, then medicine needs to develop a 100% effective and safe birth control method that doesn't need a prescription and that is convenient for either partner to use. Maybe if all the money that is spent to develop products like Viagara and Rogaine , was used for such a purpose, there could be success. But, you can easily see which products were developed first. Is it possible because these solve what men perceived to be the biggest health issues society is faced with?

A lot of abortions, and AIDS for that matter, would go away if people stayed with the same partner for life.

 

[Tony]

A lot of abortions, and AIDS for that matter, would go away if people stayed with the same partner for life.

But dammit, that wouldn't be fun. Part of the joy of being human is having sex with lots of people.

 

[Tricky]

So "appearance" is more profound a difference to you than infancy and adulthood?

The appearance is just one attribute. There are many more changes between a zygote and a newborn than there are between a newborn and an adult. Surely you are aware of this.

A lot less permanent than death.

Not a bit. Most people die before their children do. So in essence, the solution you propose is likely to last the rest of your life. Maybe that is not mathematically permanent, but most likely it is from the standpoint of the person making the choice.

I've never heard the newborn/42 year old "cliche" before. I am using my own words.

No, that one was your own. I was referring to the "temporary problem" one, which I have seen in anti-choice ads for quite some time. Oh, I forgot. "It's a child, not a choice."

 

[Ladyhawk]

What excuses do you have at hand for all those white suburban people who get abortions?

The exact same. Physical, financial and emotional reasons. How about the fact that maybe some 14 year old girls aren't just ready to become mothers yet?

Loss of liberty and freedom. Kids are such a pain in the ass. So should we be able to kill them at 9 months of pregnancy then? How about right after birth?

You're echoing some of my words, putting others in my mouth and but still not answering my question.

And I have never seen a life dismissed and extinguished so casually so as to avoid a few moments of labor pain!

Again... a few moments ? Labor typically lasts hours and I'm also referring to the 9 months of nausea, loss of appetite, then reversal and major weight gain, stress on the body, etc. 9 months...not moments.


There is no excuse. You won't see me offering one for them.

Thank you for that.

A lot of abortions, and AIDS for that matter, would go away if people stayed with the same partner for life.

I fail to see how. We have to face the facts that many married couples seek abortions also. It's not only single-moms. As for AIDS, I fail to see how a drug-using couple avoids AIDS because they're married. Although, I'm sure what you meant was that having a more solid foundation for a relationship should contribute to more responsibility by each partner, thereby, practicing birth control. But, remember, all of those methods aren't fool proof. Sounds to me like you're saying that because you're willing to endure the 'inconveniences' ,everyone should.

Dancing David said it aptly. It's not something he or his wife would likely opt for but he would not deny that right to someone else.

I had a tubal ligation because I didn't want to risk the men of this country ever having the right to dictate to me when I had to carry one of their children to term. Sad that I had to go that route. Voluntarily submit to a surgical procedure that ripped up my insides pretty good. And why? Because medical science can't offer a safer alternative, men won't support the children they father and the religious right feel that they have more of a say in how my life should be lived than I do. And you think abortion is barbaric?????

 

[Segnosaur]

And so it is any mystery why religious groups see everything connected and express so much anger at what has happened to society? Sex outside of marriage leading to unwanted pregnancies leading to abortions. All signs of an impulsive, self-centered society.

It could also be that religious groups use abortion (as well as opposition to other 'liberal' ideals) as a way to impose their views on others with the underlying goal to increase their own power base. But nah, that's just cynical.

edited to add: Everything you have described about motherhood is an "inconvenience" and expresses no love for children at all. None. Zip. Just self-centered, what-a-pain-in-the-ass-it-is-to-have-kids thinking.

Did you ever think that the woman who views kids as just an 'inconvenience' probably wouldn't be the best person to be a mom anyways?

 

[Ladyhawk]

I'd also add that many anti-choice supporters seem to care far more about the unborn child than they do the already living mother bearing it. Used to be we were worth more dead than alive. Now, we're worth more before we're even born than alive...

 

[Luke T.]

No, that one was your own. I was referring to the "temporary problem" one, which I have seen in anti-choice ads for quite some time. Oh, I forgot. "It's a child, not a choice."

Well, that is what the abortion issue boils down to. Whether or not a person thinks a fetus is a person, too. That belief or unbelief is the deadlock.