Post Reply
Page 6 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jury doesn't buy "justification"
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 6:57PM #51
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741

Feb 6, 2010 -- 5:28PM, Mmichael wrote:


Thanks! I feel a little better after reading your post! Bei has been trying to convince me that "the tide is turning" and legal abortion will soon be a thing of the past because most young people want abortion to be outlawed. Although it's very hard for me to believe that, the USA Today article was a surprise to me. I didn't know that ANY state was ready to ban ALL abortions, even in the first trimester, even for rape and incest. That was news to me.


I'm from Texas, too. I think it's sad that Hutchison can't simply say, "I support Roe v. Wade because I believe the decision to have or not have an abortion is best left to the woman herself." Her answer in both GOP debates was very bizarre! She said that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then states that restrict abortion right now may not be able to. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't have even ONE family member/friend/campaign worker who will tell her, "Kay, stop giving that answer! It's ridiculous!" Oh well, unfortunately Rick Perry will probably win the nomination, win the election, and keep s***wing Texas for another four years. Hutchison IS correct when she says that Perry is all about "cronyism".


I am certainly not a fan of the "Tea Partiers". The one and only "positive" thing I can say about them, though, is that they may get the GOP to stick to just "economic" issues and lay off the "social issues". My prediction is that there is a huge fight waiting in the wings between this new "Tea Party" and the "Religious Right". And, the "Tea Partiers" will win. Funny how the "Religious Right" will probably be done in by a GOP-dominated, right wing, conservative movement!





I didn't know you were from Texas :) This is only my 4th year here, and I think this is such an interesting race for gov. Medina seems to be rising in the polls, and I would guess that would hurt Perry. What do you think? And yes, I'd think the tea partiers would hold the GOPs to economic issues, but Medina is off-the-charts pro-life-wise. It was great in the first debate how she got Perry to admit that he didn't realize that law allowing hospitals to remove life support was passed while he was Lt. Gov, tho. Nonetheless, most of what she says is alternately goofy and scarey. Unfortunately I have to work monday night so I'll miss the lone Dem. primary debate. I'd like to think Bill White has a chance to win in Nov., but that's probably a pipe dream. I think he'd have a better chance against Perry than Hutchison. Wonder what you think.


Oh, BTW the voters of South Dakota got rid of the ban on abortions in a referendum in the 2008 election (story from the BBC).


Apologies to the other readers for this little tangent.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 9:10PM #52
Mmichael
Posts: 157

Feb 6, 2010 -- 6:57PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Feb 6, 2010 -- 5:28PM, Mmichael wrote:


Thanks! I feel a little better after reading your post! Bei has been trying to convince me that "the tide is turning" and legal abortion will soon be a thing of the past because most young people want abortion to be outlawed. Although it's very hard for me to believe that, the USA Today article was a surprise to me. I didn't know that ANY state was ready to ban ALL abortions, even in the first trimester, even for rape and incest. That was news to me.


I'm from Texas, too. I think it's sad that Hutchison can't simply say, "I support Roe v. Wade because I believe the decision to have or not have an abortion is best left to the woman herself." Her answer in both GOP debates was very bizarre! She said that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then states that restrict abortion right now may not be able to. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't have even ONE family member/friend/campaign worker who will tell her, "Kay, stop giving that answer! It's ridiculous!" Oh well, unfortunately Rick Perry will probably win the nomination, win the election, and keep s***wing Texas for another four years. Hutchison IS correct when she says that Perry is all about "cronyism".


I am certainly not a fan of the "Tea Partiers". The one and only "positive" thing I can say about them, though, is that they may get the GOP to stick to just "economic" issues and lay off the "social issues". My prediction is that there is a huge fight waiting in the wings between this new "Tea Party" and the "Religious Right". And, the "Tea Partiers" will win. Funny how the "Religious Right" will probably be done in by a GOP-dominated, right wing, conservative movement!





I didn't know you were from Texas :) This is only my 4th year here, and I think this is such an interesting race for gov. Medina seems to be rising in the polls, and I would guess that would hurt Perry. What do you think? And yes, I'd think the tea partiers would hold the GOPs to economic issues, but Medina is off-the-charts pro-life-wise. It was great in the first debate how she got Perry to admit that he didn't realize that law allowing hospitals to remove life support was passed while he was Lt. Gov, tho. Nonetheless, most of what she says is alternately goofy and scarey. Unfortunately I have to work monday night so I'll miss the lone Dem. primary debate. I'd like to think Bill White has a chance to win in Nov., but that's probably a pipe dream. I think he'd have a better chance against Perry than Hutchison. Wonder what you think.


Oh, BTW the voters of South Dakota got rid of the ban on abortions in a referendum in the 2008 election (story from the BBC).


Apologies to the other readers for this little tangent.





Welcome to Texas! (4 years ago). I've been a Texan for over 50 years now (Texan at birth. Some who post here would say "Texan at conception").


I wish Medina would hurt Perry's chances, but I recently read in the Austin American-Statesman that for some reason it looks like she's helping Perry and hurting Hutchison. Something about the anti-Perry Republicans prefer Medina over Hutchison. I, too, would like to see Bill White win. I just don't think a Democrat can win in Texas this year. I'm not a fan of Kay's, but she would be MUCH better than Perry. If I thought Medina could actually WIN, I would be scared. But, since I really don't think she can win, I'm at least enjoying her jabs at Perry. I still haven't decided if she is sincere in her over-the-top beliefs, or if she has simply joined the "tea-party bandwagon" to make a name for herself and make money doing speaking engagements for the next 10 years. It does bother me that she is a Registered Nurse and yet so callous toward the struggling and poor of our great state.


Thanks for the link to the South Dakota referendum. I forgot which state it was when I was mentioning it to Bei. Good for South Dakota!!! Bei thinks the polls prove that support for abortion rights is eroding more and more each year. I have trouble with polls on the abortion issue because there are so many people who label themselves Pro-Life because they are "personally" against abortion, yet they do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't see them very often, but the poll questions on abortion that make the most sense to me are those that ask, "Who is the best person to decide if an abortion is the right choice?" In THOSE polls, an overwhelming majority choose "the pregnant woman herself" over judges, legislators, and others. There are also polls that show that women who are Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, "conservative", and even "Pro-Life" have abortion rates no different from women of more "liberal" religions and political backgrounds. It wouldn't surprise me if many women in South Dakota told their family members and friends that they were voting to KEEP the abortion ban, but in the privacy of the voting booth voted to END the abortion ban. I think such a thing probably happens quite often. (But, no, Bei, I don't have any "proof" about that. It's just my "opinion" and "belief".)


I plan to watch the Democratic primary debate Monday night. I wonder if the abortion issue will even come up. If it does, I hope someone comments on Hutchison's bizarre answer!

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 10:53PM #53
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Feb 6, 2010 -- 9:10PM, Mmichael wrote:

Thanks for the link to the South Dakota referendum. I forgot which state it was when I was mentioning it to Bei. Good for South Dakota!!! Bei thinks the polls prove that support for abortion rights is eroding more and more each year. I have trouble with polls on the abortion issue because there are so many people who label themselves Pro-Life because they are "personally" against abortion, yet they do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't see them very often, but the poll questions on abortion that make the most sense to me are those that ask, "Who is the best person to decide if an abortion is the right choice?" In THOSE polls, an overwhelming majority choose "the pregnant woman herself" over judges, legislators, and others. There are also polls that show that women who are Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, "conservative", and even "Pro-Life" have abortion rates no different from women of more "liberal" religions and political backgrounds. It wouldn't surprise me if many women in South Dakota told their family members and friends that they were voting to KEEP the abortion ban, but in the privacy of the voting booth voted to END the abortion ban. I think such a thing probably happens quite often. (But, no, Bei, I don't have any "proof" about that. It's just my "opinion" and "belief".)



I see my 0 - 31 comment went totally unheeded. Either that, or the reference escapes some people (Maybe I should be more blatant with these things?). Ah well. Good thing pro-lifers aren't 0-fer in polls ;)


...And I can't even believe I'm going to do this, but the following statement: ---> "There are also polls that show that women who are Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, "conservative", and even "Pro-Life" have abortion rates no different from women of more "liberal" religions and political backgrounds." is, well... Untrue.


1.) 43% of women obtaining an abortion identify themselves as Protestant; 27% of women obtaining an abortion identify themselves as Catholic; 8% of women obtaining an abortion identify themselves as a member of another religion; and 22% reported no religious affiliation (Link). Now, approximately 51.3% of the population identify themselves as Protestant; 23.9% as Catholic; 4.7% other religions; and 16.1% with no religious affiliation (Link). If you were going to extrapolate, based on those numbers the least likely group to obtain an abortion would be Protestants, followed by Catholics, those professing no religious affiliation and then those with other religious beliefs. In fact, using Protestants as the baseline, Catholics would be about 1.46 times as likely as a Protestant to obtain an abortion; those professing no beliefs about 1.63 times as likely as a Protestant to obtain an abortion; and those professing other religious beliefs would be about 2.03 times as likely as a Protestant to obtain an abortion.


2.) Of women obtaining abortions, 41% were non-Hispanic white, 32% were non-Hispanic black and 20% were Hispanic. The remaining women were Asian or Pacific Islander (6%) or Native American (1%) (Link). Furthermore, blacks tend to vote Democrat about 90% of the time (Since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, no Republican presidential candidate has received more than 15% of the black vote); Hispanics around 60% of the time; and whites vote for Democrats at somewhere around 40%. Even assuming an absolute perfect representation of the population when it comes to abortion decisions (That is, assuming that for every 100 black women who receive an abortion, 90 are Democrats and 10 are Republicans), Democrats would account for about 57.2% of all abortions, give or take, while Republicans would account for 35.8% of all abortions, give or take. Of course, that's just a rough estimate based on equal distribution, which is absurd, and ignoring all other races and other factors (Such as religion), which isn't very scientific. But, hey, the aforementioned is just a quick rundown and I'm too lazy to crank out R (And pretty much unwilling to do so).


...And I've too much time on my hands <_<

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2010 - 2:08AM #54
Mmichael
Posts: 157

Feb 6, 2010 -- 10:53PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Feb 6, 2010 -- 9:10PM, Mmichael wrote:

Thanks for the link to the South Dakota referendum. I forgot which state it was when I was mentioning it to Bei. Good for South Dakota!!! Bei thinks the polls prove that support for abortion rights is eroding more and more each year. I have trouble with polls on the abortion issue because there are so many people who label themselves Pro-Life because they are "personally" against abortion, yet they do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't see them very often, but the poll questions on abortion that make the most sense to me are those that ask, "Who is the best person to decide if an abortion is the right choice?" In THOSE polls, an overwhelming majority choose "the pregnant woman herself" over judges, legislators, and others. There are also polls that show that women who are Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, "conservative", and even "Pro-Life" have abortion rates no different from women of more "liberal" religions and political backgrounds. It wouldn't surprise me if many women in South Dakota told their family members and friends that they were voting to KEEP the abortion ban, but in the privacy of the voting booth voted to END the abortion ban. I think such a thing probably happens quite often. (But, no, Bei, I don't have any "proof" about that. It's just my "opinion" and "belief".)



I see my 0 - 31 comment went totally unheeded. Either that, or the reference escapes some people (Maybe I should be more blatant with these things?). Ah well. Good thing pro-lifers aren't 0-fer in polls ;)


...And I can't even believe I'm going to do this, but the following statement: ---> "There are also polls that show that women who are Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, "conservative", and even "Pro-Life" have abortion rates no different from women of more "liberal" religions and political backgrounds." is, well... Untrue.


1.) 43% of women obtaining an abortion identify themselves as Protestant; 27% of women obtaining an abortion identify themselves as Catholic; 8% of women obtaining an abortion identify themselves as a member of another religion; and 22% reported no religious affiliation (Link). Now, approximately 51.3% of the population identify themselves as Protestant; 23.9% as Catholic; 4.7% other religions; and 16.1% with no religious affiliation (Link). If you were going to extrapolate, based on those numbers the least likely group to obtain an abortion would be Protestants, followed by Catholics, those professing no religious affiliation and then those with other religious beliefs. In fact, using Protestants as the baseline, Catholics would be about 1.46 times as likely as a Protestant to obtain an abortion; those professing no beliefs about 1.63 times as likely as a Protestant to obtain an abortion; and those professing other religious beliefs would be about 2.03 times as likely as a Protestant to obtain an abortion.


2.) Of women obtaining abortions, 41% were non-Hispanic white, 32% were non-Hispanic black and 20% were Hispanic. The remaining women were Asian or Pacific Islander (6%) or Native American (1%) (Link). Furthermore, blacks tend to vote Democrat about 90% of the time (Since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, no Republican presidential candidate has received more than 15% of the black vote) ; Hispanics around 60% of the time; and whites vote for Democrats at somewhere around 40%. Even assuming an absolute perfect representation of the population when it comes to abortion decisions (That is, assuming that for every 100 black women who receive an abortion, 90 are Democrats and 10 are Republicans), Democrats would account for about 57.2% of all abortions, give or take, while Republicans would account for 35.8% of all abortions, give or take. Of course, that's just a rough estimate based on equal distribution, which is absurd, and ignoring all other races and other factors (Such as religion), which isn't very scientific. But, hey, the aforementioned is just a quick rundown and I'm too lazy to crank out R (And pretty much unwilling to do so).


...And I've too much time on my hands <_<




The batteries in my calculator wore out before I got to the third line of #1!!! So, I will just accept that all of your calculations are correct.


I'm surprised, though, that you forgot to mention that all of those Protestant women, Catholic women, women of other faiths, women of no faith, non-Hispanic white women, non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic women, Asian women, Native-American women, Pacific Islander women, Democratic women, and Republican women are no better than people who support slavery/rape/murder/and stealing!


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2010 - 3:14AM #55
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Feb 7, 2010 -- 2:08AM, Mmichael wrote:

The batteries in my calculator wore out before I got to the third line of #1!!! So, I will just accept that all of your calculations are correct.



Use the calculator on your computer.


I'm surprised, though, that you forgot to mention that all of those Protestant women, Catholic women, women of other faiths, women of no faith, non-Hispanic white women, non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic women, Asian women, Native-American women, Pacific Islander women, Democratic women, and Republican women are no better than people who support slavery/rape/murder/and stealing!



Oh... Was I supposed to?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 09, 2010 - 9:24AM #56
Jocephas2
Posts: 19

Someone wrote in response to a statement I made:


“Given everything I've read and heard from the religious right, I believe that they would disagree with the thought that "it is not God's will that anyone be forced to do His will."  Their whole ideology is about forcing everyone else to conform to what they believe to be God's will.”


I am interested in comments that would help me and others understand the difference between what should be perceived as a legitimate right and forcing one’s belief upon others. I would not deprive anyone of the right to work (by legal means) to bring about that which he or she believes to be best. This is a right that we should ALL have. If we can all grant to each other this right, perhaps we can make progress in understanding and avoiding what it is that makes people feel others are trying to force their views upon them. I suspect it may be very difficult. I suspect someone is going to feel forced regardless of what is done, but perhaps discussion will result in better understanding.


I do not think anyone should be ridiculed for their belief. I understand that we come from different backgrounds, have different experiences and opportunities. A number of things influence what we believe, some of which are beyond our control. Therefore, I can disagree with someone yet be understanding and respectful toward that person.


Jocephas2

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 09, 2010 - 8:27PM #57
DGMelby
Posts: 969

Jocephas2,


Since I was the one who wrote it, I'll try to expand upon it...


Part of the religious right's modus operandi is to pass (or preserve) laws against anything they deem "sinful."  They believe homosexuality to be sinful, so they fight to keep sodomy laws on the books.  They fight to outlaw marriage.  And because the constitution protects the rights of GLBTs just as much as it does "normal" people, they also fight to pass Constitutional amendments so that they can pass laws to make life miserable for those who "choose" to be homosexual.


To borrow from the Simpsons:


o/` Oh I'm an Amendment to be,
o/` Yes an Amendment to be,
o/` And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.


o/` Oh there's a lot of gay people
o/` Who have too much freedom
o/` We want to make it legal
o/` For Policemen to beat them
o/` 'Cause there's limits to our liberty!


o/` At least I hope and pray that there are
o/` 'Cause those liberal freaks go to far!


They've also promoted laws against non-Christian religions, while attempting to create or preserve special privalges to the Christian religion.  The vice laws we have in this country, against prostitution, gambling, and drugs, and in the past alchohol as well, are because the religious right deemed these behaviours "sinful" and decided "there aughtta be a law."


(Did you know that adultary was once against the law as well as sodomy?  I believe sex outside of marriage was also against the law.  Even sex positions besides missionary were illegal.  Some of them are still on the books.)


But the problem is that this type of forced "morality" doesn't work.  It has never worked, and I sincerely doubt it will ever work.  The problem is that it doesn't eliminate the behaviour, it merely drives it underground.  It's like slapping a new coat of paint on a rotting house:  it looks nice on the surface, but the rot remains.  And because the rot is out of sight, it gets worse since it's not being repaired like it would if it was out in the open.


I am not a fan of prostitution, but I'd rather save the efforts of the police, and jail cells, for violent criminals and other predators, rather than prostitutes and their clients, whose only "crime" was to "sin" in the eyes of the so-called "moral majority."  If prostitution was legal, then criminals couldn't prey on prostitutes as easily, since they'd be protected by the law like everyone else, rather than outlaws.


I'm not a fan of alchohol or drugs either, but we should've learned our lesson almost a century ago.  After 40 years, and hundreds of billions of dollars, the "War on Drugs" has not only failed to keep a small minority from getting the drugs (mostly marajuana) they want, but we've got gang warfare on our streets.  Because drugs are illegal, which means they're "off the radar" and highly profitable, warlords, gangsters, and terrorists get their funding from them.


And I'm quite aware that the same protections given to Larry Flynt also protect my erotica of choice:  trashy romance novels and ero-doujinshi, both of which would be illegal if the religious right had their way.


Prohibition doesn't work.  It is ineffective when it comes to suppressing "sinful" behaviours, and creates an entire underclass of "outlaws," who genuine criminals can prey upon freely, because their victims don't dare go to the police, lest they get arrested themselves.  But the money lost and lives destroyed are a small price to pay for a the warm glow of self-righteousness.


The same is true of abortion.  The laws against abortion pre-Roe-vs-Wade appear to have been ineffective in significantly reducing the total number of abortions, and heavy restrictions on legal abortions after Roe-vs-Wade simply causes those who can afford it to go on vacation to a less restrictive state, and those who can't get an illegal, untracked, and less safe, abortion using those time honored methods of the back-alley abortion, paying a sympathetic doctor under the table, overdosing on herbs, a fall down the stairs or a punch in the gut, or a coat-hanger up a woman's most private place.


edited by justme333 to conform to local board guidelines

Moderated by Justme333 on Feb 10, 2010 - 08:30PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2010 - 5:09PM #58
Jocephas2
Posts: 19

Thank you for your reply. It is helpful. My reply follows:


“But the problem is that this type of forced "morality" doesn't work.” (dgmelby)


I agree with you that forced morality doesn’t work. Whether it works or not, it is my conviction that it is not something the Christian community should promote.  


On the other hand, I maintain that every citizen should have the right to work (within limits) to bring about that which he or she believes. If we deny this right to those who hold certain convictions, it seems we are denying them basic constitutional rights.


“Part of the religious right's modus operandi is to pass (or preserve) laws against anything they deem ‘sinful.’ " (dgmelby)


Those whom we deem to be the “religious right” should have the right to work (within limits) to bring about what they believe is best. But perhaps you have a point here. What if some of the problem is in the perception that the issue is “sin?” I am a Christian who accepts the Jewish Bible as my guide. However, I question whether the Christian community can (rightly) ask the government to pass laws for something, or against something, because it is sin. In my opinion, that would be trying to force one’s belief on others. However, if the Christian community asks the government to pass the same laws because they would be detrimental to society, then I feel that is legitimate. If I am correct then perhaps the Christian community can learn from this discussion—and that would be progress.


In looking at Roe v Wade it appears to me that the following statement indicates that the State can prohibit abortions during the 3rd trimester, unless continued pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother.


“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [*165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”       (Roe V Wade Section XI)


 


If I correctly interpret Roe v Wade, laws prohibiting abortion in the 3rd trimester are perfectly acceptable to Roe v Wade if they allow this one condition. Therefore, it should be the right of any group or individual to work to bring about laws prohibiting or allowing abortions that meet this criteria. Even with the best of intentions the losing side may feel the other side is forcing their views upon them.


Jocephas2

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2010 - 5:21PM #59
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741

Feb 10, 2010 -- 5:09PM, Jocephas2 wrote:


Thank you for your reply. It is helpful. My reply follows:


“But the problem is that this type of forced "morality" doesn't work.” (dgmelby)


I agree with you that forced morality doesn’t work. Whether it works or not, it is my conviction that it is not something the Christian community should promote.  


On the other hand, I maintain that every citizen should have the right to work (within limits) to bring about that which he or she believes. If we deny this right to those who hold certain convictions, it seems we are denying them basic constitutional rights.


“Part of the religious right's modus operandi is to pass (or preserve) laws against anything they deem ‘sinful.’ " (dgmelby)


Those whom we deem to be the “religious right” should have the right to work (within limits) to bring about what they believe is best. But perhaps you have a point here. What if some of the problem is in the perception that the issue is “sin?” I am a Christian who accepts the Jewish Bible as my guide. However, I question whether the Christian community can (rightly) ask the government to pass laws for something, or against something, because it is sin. In my opinion, that would be trying to force one’s belief on others. However, if the Christian community asks the government to pass the same laws because they would be detrimental to society, then I feel that is legitimate. If I am correct then perhaps the Christian community can learn from this discussion—and that would be progress.


In looking at Roe v Wade it appears to me that the following statement indicates that the State can prohibit abortions during the 3rd trimester, unless continued pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother.


“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [*165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”       (Roe V Wade Section XI)


 


If I correctly interpret Roe v Wade, laws prohibiting abortion in the 3rd trimester are perfectly acceptable to Roe v Wade if they allow this one condition. Therefore, it should be the right of any group or individual to work to bring about laws prohibiting or allowing abortions that meet this criteria. Even with the best of intentions the losing side may feel the other side is forcing their views upon them.


Jocephas2




Hi Jocephas,


Most states have laws restricting 3rd term or post-viability abortions. You can see a table here  that shows which states have these laws.


newsjunkie

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2010 - 7:25PM #60
Marysara722
Posts: 2,548

Feb 10, 2010 -- 5:09PM, Jocephas2 wrote:

In looking at Roe v Wade it appears to me that the following statement indicates that the State can prohibit abortions during the 3rd trimester, unless continued pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother.


“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [*165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”       (Roe V Wade Section XI)


If I correctly interpret Roe v Wade, laws prohibiting abortion in the 3rd trimester are perfectly acceptable to Roe v Wade if they allow this one condition.


Yes, that's the way it reads regarding that "one condition."


<< Therefore, it should be the right of any group or individual to work to bring about laws prohibiting or allowing abortions that meet this criteria.


Really?  Why should you want that "condition" to now become "prohibited" considering that it's presently "allowed"?  And as been that way throughout time as we know it.
Are "you" or "any group or individual" part of each individual woman's medical team if any medical problems occur to fall under the "condition" of when the woman's health and/or life is to be "preserved" where you can "interfere" in such decisions and to specifically "prohibit" abortion for that "one condition"?
Like with "losing" where her health would be comprised perhaps for the rest of her life or her life would be lost because you and the PLM want to remove
that "one condition"? 
Where do your "rights" end and where does a woman whose health and/or life is on the line, begin when we take into account that it doesn't involve "your" body or "your" health and/or life but it DOES involve her body, her health and/or her life?
 


<< Even with the best of intentions the losing side may feel the other side is forcing their views upon them.


And who is it whose health and/or life would be in jeopardy and need saving to "preserve" it? ---You? ---"any group"? --or any other "individual"?  --any prolifer? ---any PL group? ---any prochoicer? ---or any PC group? ---that would REALLY be "losing" anything here at all?
Or is it each individual woman that would REAALY be on the "losing side" if abortion under that "one condition" would now be "prohibited"?


Do you want some political "group" with a personal bias political agenda making your medical decisions for you?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook