Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 89

Thread: I Had an Abortion. Itís None of Your Business Why.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 17th, 2019 @ 7:50 AM
    Posts
    10,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    This is different. SHE was complicit in creating that life. She has made her choice.

    Mark
    And...ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ the sperm furnisher which from what that life was created...ÖÖÖÖÖÖ.rides off into the sunset, free and clear to do as he chooses with his own body.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:59 AM
    Posts
    10,970
    Post Thanks / Like
    In answer to LM, not if society would hold him and her accountable, like they should be doing. I was doing some genealogy research in my local paper from the 1980's, and while skimming, I noticed an article about a woman that wouldn't name the father of her baby. The state simply said they wouldn't provide her and the baby any benefits without it.

    As it should be.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. Itís the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 17th, 2019 @ 7:50 AM
    Posts
    10,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post

    harvested organs do come to mind,
    Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will could be looked at as harvesting babies.
    Guess that's good for old age social security.

  4. Likes Newman liked this post
  5. #64
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    And...………………… the sperm furnisher which from what that life was created...……………….rides off into the sunset, free and clear to do as he chooses with his own body.
    It's not fair. And if you make it economically rational for the woman to do better on her own than tied up with the father, you'll get a helluva lot more of those fine fellows traipsing off into the sunset, or to a nearby stoop, whichever is more convenient.

    And the mother is left to make it on her own, not quite the scenario Mary Tyler Moore celebrated by tossing her beret into the air.

    Anyway, LM, I consider this a very serious problem for our society. We are raising men who cannot support a family. I'd like a decade of steady wage growth at the low end, and a cessation of millions of illegal competitors for jobs, plus a friggin attitude adjustment,

    for starters. Then we'll see. Back to your reply above.

    Life isn't fair; and then you die.

    It may be that the traditional family structure, enshrouded by myth, of the breadwinner and the homemaker, with powerful social and legal pressures to maintain that relationship, is as close as we'll come to fair.

    And obviously, it was imperfect enough, especially in its deviations from myth, that we quite happily tore it apart. I think we've discovered, in less than a generation, that our vainglorious attempts to cobble together a substitute, with W.I.C. and a village of bureaucrats, have not been the success we presumed. At least not for millions of children, millions who are not here (I'm thinking of African Americans primarily here), and society as a whole.

    The resolution of this debate is part of our answer, for better or worse.

    But let me ask you a question. It's been commonly said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. In her 2008 campaign, Hilary Clinton would emphasize the last word, "safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I mean rare."

    Should we be trying to make abortions rare? How?

    Will rescinding the Hyde Amendment do it?

    Will government subsidized health care do it? A basket of new rights, such as free housing?

    Do we really want abortion to be rare? Planned Parenthood sure as hell does NOT.

    Just wondering.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:59 AM
    Posts
    10,970
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will could be looked at as harvesting babies.
    Guess that's good for old age social security.
    Unless it was rape, the woman was not forced to have sex. Forcing her to be responsible for her actions makes a slave of no one.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. Itís the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Newman:

    Do you disagree with Roe v Wade, that the State has an interest in the potentiality of human life?
    As I pointed out, Roe actually holds that the State has no such interest before viability. I agree with that. With viability come competing interests, and balancing of those interests is both difficult and necessary.

    What are the consequences of accepting or rejecting that assertion?

    I myself accept it. I think it's the reason Roe v Wade isn't and could never be the black & white decision the current run of "pro-choice" bills are, as in VT and IL. And it's the reason abortion remains such a contentious issue half a century later.

    I've long felt Roe should be overturned and the issue left to the states, and lo and behold, as tech has advanced, that's exactly what is happening. Roe v Wade is being obviated by technology. Look at it this way: For decades the primary significance of Roe was the "privacy" part, the guaranteed right to early abortion; but now that's being eclipsed by the "potential human" part, allowing restrictions on abortions not anticipated by Roe supporters.
    I have no idea what you're on about here. There is no reason the individual states would be better qualified to make the determination than the Court or, more logically, the individual most intimately involved, in consultation with her doctor.

    If the State has a legitimate interest in the potentiality of human lifeóif you accept that premise in Roe v Wadeóthen the rights of an emerging human will conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman. (I'm skipping over trans-pregnancies; I don't think it affects the argument.)
    No clue what you mean by "trans-pregnancies." Roe holds there is no conflict of rights until viability.

    Society has always acknowledged this, mostly by catering to the limitations advancing pregnancy imposes. Even trivial courtesies like offering one's seat to an obviously pregnant woman confirm this.
    I may have encountered a greater irrelevancy at some time, but I don't think so.

    But our zeitgeist, at least its progressive edge, is extremely intolerant of any infringement of personal autonomy. The whole array of lifestyle issues, from micro-aggression, trigger warnings, and limitations on "hate speech," to legalization of various drugs, and the proliferation of "rights" ŗ la Bernie Sanders, even AOC's "right to migrate"óall this revolves around the inviolability of the personal being, one's unrestrained freedom and agency, even extending to one's feelings and indulgences.

    That's not an easily encapsulated topic, but it clearly leads to the difficult notion that an individual female should no more than a male have her agency compromised by anything whatsoever, least of all big government run mostly by men.

    I think the severity of this perceived offense is commensurate with the ferocity of the protest.
    The curse of pedantry. One more coat of wax and that philosophy will be totally obscured.

    And one answer is absolutism: a "baby" doesn't exist pre-partum, and there shall be no restrictions of any sort whatsoever imposed on a person carrying a fetus. And any State interest in "potential" human life doesn't extend into my body, no exceptions.
    And one counter-argument is absolutism: a "baby" exists the instant the sperm unites with an egg, despite the fact that all but a few such unions result in nothing more than a heavy menstrual flow.

    That's NOT what Roe v Wade says, however. Its blessing on early abortion came with a caveat some now reject. That's the collision Justice O'Connor foresaw.

    I personally take a different view, one without the easy answers of absolutism. In fact I don't have many, maybe none. I think the "State" has a vital interest (pun embedded in the language) in potential human life, in children, and in families. Trading these in for an unalloyed individualism has come at tremendous cost to society.
    I think the State has a legitimate interest in existing human life, in healthy families and strong communities, and in protecting children from the sometimes tragic circumstances into which they're born. I also think that gives the State about all it can say grace over. I also don't think it's a good use of resources to force people who don't want to be parents to have children, not to mention unlikely to achieve the goal of healthy families.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    As I pointed out, Roe actually holds that the State has no such interest before viability. I agree with that. With viability come competing interests, and balancing of those interests is both difficult and necessary.
    We agree. I probably should stop there, because that's the bottom line, too.

    This needs a separate reply:
    I have no idea what you're on about here. There is no reason the individual states would be better qualified to make the determination than the Court or, more logically, the individual most intimately involved, in consultation with her doctor.
    No clue what you mean by "trans-pregnancies."
    Trans-pregnancy would be a trans-male who is pregnant. There was a case recently of one such person who died (I think) and there was a kerfuffle about nomenclature.

    I may have encountered a greater irrelevancy at some time, but I don't think so.
    Just you 'ait, 'enry 'iggins.

    The curse of pedantry. One more coat of wax and that philosophy will be totally obscured.



    And one counter-argument is absolutism: a "baby" exists the instant the sperm unites with an egg, despite the fact that all but a few such unions result in nothing more than a heavy menstrual flow.
    I'm not a pro-life absolutist.

    I think the State has a legitimate interest in existing human life, in healthy families and strong communities, and in protecting children from the sometimes tragic circumstances into which they're born. I also think that gives the State about all it can say grace over. I also don't think it's a good use of resources to force people who don't want to be parents to have children, not to mention unlikely to achieve the goal of healthy families.
    Is that meant to restrict potential?

    The SCOTUS was plain-spoken about the interest of the State intruding into the mother's life before giving birth. As you and I agree, that raises "difficult and necessary" questions.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Posts
    8,650
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    What are the consequences of accepting or rejecting that assertion?

    I myself accept it. I think it's the reason Roe v Wade isn't and could never be the black & white decision the current run of "pro-choice" bills are, as in VT and IL. And it's the reason abortion remains such a contentious issue half a century later.

    I've long felt Roe should be overturned and the issue left to the states, and lo and behold, as tech has advanced, that's exactly what is happening. Roe v Wade is being obviated by technology. Look at it this way: For decades the primary significance of Roe was the "privacy" part, the guaranteed right to early abortion; but now that's being eclipsed by the "potential human" part, allowing restrictions on abortions not anticipated by Roe supporters.
    I have no idea what you're on about here. There is no reason the individual states would be better qualified to make the determination than the Court or, more logically, the individual most intimately involved, in consultation with her doctor.
    Roe can't be black & white because of those "difficult and necessary" unresolved questions.

    My "long felt" opinion that Roe should be overturned wasn't based on those questions, however, but on the politics of our federal system. That system allows different solutions in different jurisdictions (the states), and thus allows variations in popular will to be expressed in the law. The net effect is a more stable society.

    I got this from James Taranto years ago. Take two states of equal size, and the issue of cigarette smoking in the boys room. One state oppose it 60-40%, the other is the reverse. If you hand down one law from D.C.óone law fits allówhichever way you go you'll have 50% unhappy people. If you allow each state to satisfy its majority, however, you'll have only 40% unhappy. And 60% happy, and less chance of civil unrest!

    Same with Roe v Wade, I thought.

    But circumstances have changed. Tech has advanced and the collision O'Connor foresaw is upon us.

    The Courts don't write law, States do, and here the Supreme Court sets out the areas where the States may make no law (early on in pregnancy) and where they may (post "viability").

    When Roe v Wade was handed down, the news was in the former, that early abortion was hereby allowed, fetter free. Much less attention, if any at all, was paid to the latter, because preponderant public opinion opposed late term abortion, the SCOTUS decision pretty much conformed with uncontroversial laws already in place, and because "viability" was nowhere near a question during early pregnancies. The provinces of "early" and "late" were far apart, and not bridged by technology.

    That has changed, with "viability," and at what point it kicks in. (Kicks in literally, you might say. As I recall the decision includes discussion of the "quickening," but it was set aside.)

    In this context I hope my sentence makes more sense:
    For decades the primary significance of Roe was the "privacy" part, the guaranteed right to early abortion; but now that's being eclipsed by the "potential human" part, allowing restrictions on abortions not anticipated by Roe supporters.

    By the way, I suspect I'm wrong to say, "Roe v Wade is being obviated by technology." Maybe overtaken, out-dated or even vacated would be right. The SCOTUS needs to do this one over.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    In answer to LM, not if society would hold him and her accountable, like they should be doing. I was doing some genealogy research in my local paper from the 1980's, and while skimming, I noticed an article about a woman that wouldn't name the father of her baby. The state simply said they wouldn't provide her and the baby any benefits without it.

    As it should be.

    Mark
    I assumed that's how all states were, but realize that is just an assumption. In Pennsylvania, absent a compelling reason, a requirement to receive state welfare benefits for a child is to name the child's father and he is brought to court. His payments then go to the State to repay the state for the benefits. So, if a woman gets more money by being on welfare than what the father of the child could provide, she still gets the welfare money and his support goes to the state as partial repayment. In this way, she is not "choosing" welfare over the child's father.

    I do not believe for one minute that any significant number of women purposely get pregnant in order to receive state benefits. The financial detriment that occurs by having a child while in poverty is too great for it to be a real incentive.
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    8,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe the best we (people who don't believe abortion should be legal up until the moment before birth) can hope for is something like the restrictions in most of Europe - abortion on request in the first trimester and/or a few weeks into the second with all the special circumstances as exceptions. The majority of abortions seem to be done within that time period.

    Abortion isn't going anywhere. Even if it goes back to SCOTUS, Roberts will not vote to undo it because it would forever define his court just as throwing out Obamacare would have and I doubt Kavanaugh would vote differently than Roberts. I go back to the article that I read about why we are (and have been) stuck in such a corrosive debate over abortion...our country as a whole never got to discuss and pass our abortion law.
    May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
    Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
    And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
    may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •