The Return of Abortion as a National Issue
King Solomon said in the Book of Ecclesiastes there’s nothing new under the sun. Women have killed or attempted to kill their unborn babies throughout human history, way before 1973, when the Supreme Court found a long-hidden, deeply buried “right of privacy” in the U.S. Constitution to have abortions. Roe v. Wade made the act legal and culturally acceptable.
This Generation X-er can’t recall a time when abortion was as high-profile as it’s been in 2009.
This year, a nut murdered George Tiller, a man nationally known for performing partial-birth abortions. Several months later, another nut murdered pro-life activist Jim Pouillon as he demonstrated outside a school.
This year, the liberal New York Times published a snark-free, A1, above-the-fold story about Pouillon and other pro-life activists, and posted pictures of aborted babies on the web site.
This year, a former Planned Parenthood executive director made national news after quitting her job. Abby Johnson watched an abortion on ultrasound and said on the Christian Broadcasting Network, “I saw that baby trying to get away from the probe that the doctor was using. … I just wanted to make it stop. … I could see it twisting and just saw it crumble. … I will never do this again.”
Although Johnson’s former employer tried to gag her, she revealed that Planned Parenthood ordered her to increase profits to the clinic by performing more abortions. “Abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood’s operations,” she told WorldNet Daily. “Even though they’re two separate corporations, all of the money goes into one pot. With the family planning corporation really suffering, they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company.”
Johnson said her clinic increased the number of patients by doing RU-486 chemical abortions throughout the week. This procedure, which suffocates and starves the unborn baby, costs between $505 and $695, the same as an early first-trimester abortion.
This year, pro-life Democrats in Congress took a stand and voted to bar federal funding for abortions under health care reform, except for cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life. (Read my “extremist” position on two of these exceptions.) Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak and Republican Joseph R. Pitts introduced the amendment, and over 60 Democrats voted for it. The House of Representatives passed the massive health care reform bill by a vote of 220-215.
Hi, LaShawn,
Re “Unfortunately, women will continue to abort, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow and abortion banned in every state,” that is why I think abortion should not be outlawed by the federal government.
But I do think Roe should be reversed. Roe was a terrible decision, both morally and from a Constitutional POV.
I am reluctantly pro-choice. (I know, the term is a euphemism, but I am not “pro-abortion” so I will use it.) Yet I firmly believe most of our problems stem from our infidelity to the principles of limited government as prescribed by our Constitution. For these reasons, I believe sending the matter back to the states is the best way to go.
If we allow abortion to be decided state-by-state, there will be pro-choice states and pro-life states. From there the pro-life side can continue to argue its case, and vice-versa.
This would not be a perfect solution, but it would unquestionably be better than the current mess created by a rogue Supreme Court in 1973.
What do you think?
We win. You lose.
I just got a phone call from a friend of a friend of a senator that we have locked in the 60th closure vote that not only insures passage of
the wonderful new healthcare bill securing medical coverage for America’s uninsured, but also assures that’ll it’ll be available at a competitive price.
Best of all, in the fine type the bill says that abortion is covered comprehensively.
This means partial birth abortions will be covered for poor people though government funding.
It is my understanding that there also is language in this amazing bill that abortions can be performed through the second trimester. It’s a wonderful victory for Planned Parenthood. In fact, according to them, there’s a possibility that the number of abortions performed in America
thanks to President Obama will break the 2 million mark annually. Which will save minorities, especially, the inconvenience of having unwanted children even if their pregnancy, unfortunately, is well on its way.
Needless to say, the great President Obama doesn’t consider a fertilized egg to be a viable life until well into the fourth month of pregnancy. So perhaps twice the number of unwanted fetuses can undergo the procedure that saves the mother from a great deal of discomfort and inconvenience.
My only concern is how the right wing media plays the story.
If they side with the “lifers,” re-election for any Democrat who votes for
closure Saturday (today) becomes a casualty of a brave vote that says the government has no right to tell a mother what to do with her own body.
At least the members of congress who fall on the sword for Harry Reid and Nancy Palosi, who, incidentally, face tough opposition already in their upcoming races, can take comfort knowing they did what Palosi, Reid and Obama wanted them to do. They were good soldiers. They carried out orders.
We Democrats should create some kind of tribute for the Democrats who, at least, temporarily, give up their careers for the good of the party. I hear even President Obama acknowledges that Democrats, especially Democrats from the south, voting to close down discussion of the healthcare bill later today have virtually no chance to win in 2010. Granted, it’s tough pill to swallow, but, at least, they’ll know they did the right thing.
Abortion never went away as an issue. The courts merely hijacked the Constitution. You cannot force these things, which is what they did. You only intensify the opposition. Only when society has reached a general, sincere consensus on something, can a morality law be passed and supported.
The legitimation of abortion worked for awhile for the support of this barbaism, but the trend is moving rapidly back to where it was. The anti-abortion movement is gaining real strength and momentum. Soon, the support will be widespread and deep enough to allow the ending of the practice.
Personally, I’m so proud that two, maybe three southern Democrats are willing to walk the plank to insure passage
of President Obama’s health care bill. A lot of work was put into those 2,000. I’m so happy it was worth it.
I like to extend my personal thanks to those Democrats who made the difference. They’ll be other elections after 2010.
Though your upcoming loss is likely, you’re all winners in my book.
A nation is doomed if it does not severely limit the number of abortions. If nothing else, it will be unable to bring into the world a sufficient number of children to replace those living today. The European countries may have already gone too far. America’s indigenous population has a halfway decent chance of surviving only because a high number of religious couples are willing to give birth to three or more children. Abortion is not an issue that will disappear from the political arena. It is ultimately a matter of civil rights.
Funny when a man has sex and a new life is created, he is given no choice.
Barber:
“Pro-lifers must speak plainly about what abortion entails: snuffing out a precious human life, not merely removing inflamed tonsils.”
george:
I always react to those opposed to a woman’s right to choose an abortion by asking them to consider a hypothetical future. One in which abortion is defined legally as murder.
I point this out:
If the law of the land proscribes abortion…..if it construes abortion to be premeditated murder…what will that mean?
It will mean this: That any woman who opts for a back alley abortion will not only put her life at risk, but will be seen [in the eyes of the law] as someone who can be charged, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison for murder.
And if she does this in a state like Texas, she will be put on death row with all the other murderers.
And this will be so even if her pregnancy was the result of a rape or of incest. After all, that wasn’t the fetus’s fault, right? And if life is construed [again, legally] to start at the point of conception then those who work in fertility clinics or in the field of stem cell research may also be arrested for committing murderer.
It’s amazing how many anti-choice folks never really think it through to this. So I say point it out to them. Note how, in desparation, their daugther, sister, mother, aunt etc. may opt for an abortion in some subterranean office in some subterranean part of town. Note how, should they get caught, they may well be convicted of murder and end up sitting on death row.
This is such a tender topic that I almost didn’t respond out of the fear of offending but…..
While I appreciate your candor and your passion I am reminded of an incident in Ireland some years ago that keeps me from fully supporting the “no abortion for any reason except to save the life of the mother” approach.
Seems a young girl,13 was raped by a friends father. This child did not want to have this baby. She begged and pleaded but in Catholic Ireland there are no options. Finally she attempted suicide. Luckily she was unsuccessful. I guess my point is that some people, in that situation especially the young, are not psychologically equipped to handle it. Having a baby was frightening for me as an adult, and I desperately wanted a baby. I can’t imagine the trauma of rape and on top of that the stress of carrying the seed of that violation.
I know it’s just a baby and I know that baby didn’t do anything wrong. I also know that the 13 year old didn’t do anything wrong either. Who’s life is more important? I can’t answer that, I just don’t know. This is a thorny issue with passionate feelings on every side. Partial birth abortions are an abomination. Abortion used for contraception is a plague. Margaret Sanger should have been a pariah, shunned by everyone who believes all men are created equal.
I enjoy your writings and have great respect for you. I hope you don’t find this reply offensive as I really do value your talent, and hope we can agree to slightly disagree. Oh and I don’t think you are an extremist.
God Bless.
Part of the invalid rhetoric about abortion is the claim that the fetus is ‘the woman’s body’ and thus, the conclusion that the woman has the ‘free choice’ to do whatever she wants with her body.
What pro-abortionists do not acknowledge is that our mammalian species exists within several key physical stages. The first stage of 9 months is as a physical attachment to the mother’s body. As a physical attachment, the individual is not a part of the mother’s body but is a dependent on her.
After birth, the second stage of dependency is where the individual is materially and socially dependent on others for food and care for at least a decade.
Pro-abortionists refuse to acknowledge the reality of the first dependent phase.
a brave vote that says the government has no right to tell a mother what to do with her own body.
ETAB @9 addresses the false claim that a a foetus is just part of a woman’s body (which may be discarded like infected tonsils without any ethical considerations applying).
The issue here is whether the state should pay for a woman’s decision to terminate the life of the human being which is dependent upon her. It’s not surprising to see so-called pro choice people falsely state the issue.
The examples of the pro-abortionists of rape and incest are not valid to the argument, since the vast majority of abortions are not carried out for either reason, or for the health of the mother.
Furthermore, most anti-abortion rules do not cover these incidents but permit abortion in such cases.
Most of the abortions are done on unmarried middle class professional women who do not want to raise or have a child.
That is, it is a form of birth control.
You’re Right Linda, WE LOSE!!!!
LaShawn:
Thank you for this excellent article. I too believe that abortion, no matter how couched, is Murder. The embryo is NOT a parasite, no more than a 1-year old or a 7-year old. There is no right to end its existence for the comfort of another. God Bless you each day and give you the Grace to write on an on about this travesty in the “cultured” world, until it ceases or at the very least becomes anathema in civil societies.
Nancy Pelosi, as reported on January 25/09 ABC News, considers that abortion is essentially contraception. Her agenda to provide millions to Planned Parenthood, which organizes abortions, is, according to her, an economic agenda. It will reduce poverty.
This makes abortion, indeed, an economic item It effectively states that IF you can afford to purchase a private abortion, or, an addendum on your own health insurance plan that covers abortion, then..you get your abortion.
If you have no insurance or are poor, then, Pelosi wants to have it covered. She and other Democrats consider that such abortions are an economic action by the lower class, to necessarily reduce their numbers, to lessen their welfare demands on the state.
Ahh, so, it’s now an economic strategy. BUT, simply enabling abortions-at-will, as a form of no-pay contraception, will not necessarily reduce the population numbers of the ‘impoverished class’. I think that this needs some evdence for such a conclusion.
Are there other means of reducing the population numbers of the poor, than state-sanctioned abortions? What about reducing the number of illegal immigrants who take the low paying jobs away from these people? What about reducing corporate and small business taxes so that these industries could employ more people? What about demanding that a welfare lifestyle cannot become a habit but has a time limit?
Is abortion, as a strategy to lower the population of one class – the solution?
And again, abortion is a key middle class mode of contraception. It is primarily the professional middle class woman who uses abortion in such a manner.
@1. I cannot go the every state decide rout. We have precedence in the treatment of slavery that the federal role is to insure a base level of freedoms for all. Not allowing individual states to deny this base level of freedom.
In slavery the freedom was individual liberty. With abortion, it is a even more essential freedom .. the right of an individual to live, the very essence of a free people.
@7, yes when abortion/murder is outlawed. Those who engage in this practice of murder, most heinous murder at that, will be treated as any other murderer would be. Subject to prosecution and all the penalties of the law. This is just and proper.
Just as this murder will face two charges of murder, so should any who abort/murder a unborn child also be charged.
http://www.lifenews.com/state4464.html
“the government has no right to tell a mother what to do with her own body.”
You obviously support the legalization of drugs and prostitution as well as the murder of unborn children. The government tells you what to do with your body every day, in dozens of ways you aren’t smart enough to recognize.
This may come as a shock, but it isn’t all about you.
It is about the unborn baby in your womb.
Here is my question for you. If that baby has no rights, why should you?
The ONLY difference between that unborn baby and you is you weren’t aborted.
I personally don’t care. Abort your unborn children. The more the merrier. I appreciate and applaud your contribution to the gene pool.
I just regret the assault on the Constitution that Roe vs Wade represents. If the baby killers had gotten a Constitutional amendment passed, then there would no issue now. Backdooring it thru the Supreme Court is the real issue here.
As far as it being a political hot potato, any time the Judiciary acts as the Legislature, it should be an issue. That is a direct assault on America.
Politically, the most important thing about the Health Fraud bill is the opportunity it gives conservatives. The 10th Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from doing what it is trying to do. It WILL go to the Supreme Court.
Not only that, but it will usher in another CONSERVATIVE Congress. Not Republican, but Conservative.
The Republican congress and President Bush tried to compromise with the Left, which is why Roe vs Wade wasn’t overturned in Bush’s second term.
Compromise means giving up principals. Giving up your principals means you have none. A politician with no principals is commonly know as a “crook”.
The last thing D.C needs is more crooks.
Thank you for the courageous article.
Let’s work for a society in which the “choice” will be to keep the baby or to allow the baby to be adopted.
Let’s stop the madness: children are being murdered and women are being used by the nihilists to foster a society whose ideal model is… hell.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Those who do not want to have children should not engage in unprotected sex. There are myriad ways of preventing pregnancy.
If we are going to allow abortions, perhaps we should just kill the mother, after the child is born. It’s just a life after all. So we are protecting the childs right to live.
Intentional abortion of an unborn child is murder, pure and simple! In instances where the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, abortion of the child can well be a judgment call as the lesser of two evils. In all other instances, “right of privacy”, “freedom of choice”, and similar shiboleths are disguises used to mask the fact that intentional abortion is murder. It is fascinating contemplate why such terms as “right to privacy” and “freedom of choice” are in use. Plainly and simply, the pro abortionist uses them because implicitly he (she) knows what a horrible act the aborton of an unborn child is and by using those terms hopes to avoid remorse, something that cannot be accomplished no matter what term is used instead of the word “abortion.”
Well, there is this matter of people going through various stages of life. Everyone reading this was at the stage of life where there were just a few cells, and this stage took place before birth. Therefore, a double standard is employed by those who want the power of life and death which government reserves to itself, placed in the hands of pregnant women.
Either our actions count for something, or they don’t. The defenders of autocracy concluded that the actions of the sweepings don’t account for anything. Are those who want the power of life and death placed in the hands of pregnant
women, are they saying the actions of sweepings don’t account for anything.
After all, those referred to as sweepings by those who defend autocracy, the sweepings are those who do not exercise power – for power is to be exercised only by the autocrat or autocracy.
The more apathy a society feels towards the most innocent of new life, one can only imagine how quickly and easily that same society would kill others deemed ‘unworthy’ of life, including the old, the sickly, the crippled and so on.
Look what legal abortion has already lead to? PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.
When a child ripped from a womb can legally be left to die a horrible death without life-saving intervention, we as a society of people have some real soul-searching to do.
What kind of monsters have we become?
Some women truly disgust me. The fairer sex? HA!
From what I can read, there seem to be a few arguments from those who favor abortion. [By the way, #14 anonymous is my comment; I don't know how it missed my name.]
1) The first argument, made by so many on the left, socialist to marxist, is that rejecting abortion is an act of the ‘imperialistic control by the govt of the people’. This is the political argument. Framed in marxist rhetoric of the hapless enslaved (always female) vs the govt (and husband, lover) as Master.
2) The economic argument. This is Pelosi’s argument, focused solely on ‘the welfare class’ whom she considers must be prevented from reproduction because they are an economic drain on the taxpayers.
3)The feminist argument, which considers that children impede the basic ‘human right’ of a woman to have a career. [One reason why the feminists of this mindset hate Palin is because her very existence denies this assertion.]
So- are they valid?
The first, the political argument, framed in traditional marxist and Hegelian terms of ‘master/slave’ themes is invalid because it ignores biological reality. The biological reality is that phase 1 of our species is a 9 month embryonic stage. Nothing to do with master/slave, or political authoritarianism or patriarchy. It’s pure biology
The second, Pelosi’s economic argument is invalid for the reasons I outlined in #14; there are better ways to lower the demographics of the welfare class. Plus, most abortions are carried out by that third group, the middle class career woman.
This third group, who are the primary supporters of abortion, deny biological reality [Pelosi's botox is a minor example of her rejection of biological reality]. Their focus is purely on themselves, their personal agendas, lifestyle and careers. To them, abortion is a mode of contraception.
#18 Gernot: “there are myriad ways of preventing pregnancy.” Perhaps. Last election (’08), the Colorado electorate was wise enough to overwhelmingly defeat a ballot initiative to declare a fertilized egg as a person, with all the rights thereon. Rumor has it a similar initiative, worded a bit differently, will return in ’10. Problem is; much of the rhetoric in support of the initiative centered on making illegal use of anything to prevent the fertilization from occurring (in other words, banning birth control). “Logic” was that the “person” must be allowed to come into existence.
The initiative was supported by many citizens who espouse small, limited government on the one hand, but then espoused a form of big government, nanny-state socialism, intrusion into citizens’ private lives, with the other hand.
#13 Francesco: “I too believe that abortion, no matter how couched, is murder…..there is no right to end its existence for the comfort of another.” May we assume that you then support retaining access for women to birth control devices; and that men should still have access to condoms?
Pro-abortionists are all unaware of one simple little thing;
Large things are made from small things.
Earth, Fire, Water or Wind. All made from small things. It matters not the size of the Earth, or Fire, the amount of water or the volume of wind. They are made from smaller things.
Signifficance is cumulative, but not always obvious.
Drops of ink are shaped into letters, letters form words, words make sentences, sentences combine to express thought.
The beginning of wisdom is realizing one knows nothing. The beginning of understanding is the one simple basic truth; Large things are made of smaller things.
1.5 million abortions a year. Was the next Mozart, the next Picaso, the next Einstien aborted? Was the brain that could have invented a better energy source sucked out of it’s tiny little skull and disposed of in the proper biological waste container?
Any woman aborting her child should be charged with murder. If the punishment in that state is death, then she should be put to death. If that is a problem to you, don’t murder your unborn baby. If you don’t want a baby, then put it up for adoption. There are those that want children and cannot produce them in the usual manner. Let them gain from your loss.
#2 linda g – Wow. I mean, just, wow. You are celebrating the idea that we might finally achieve 2,000,000 abortions per year? This is a goal to be achieved? WTF? Do you not understand how that sounds?
Oh, and let’s save the minorities the inconvenience of unwanted children! Isn’t that a different spin on what Justice Ginsburg said about Roe v. Wade, that one of its intended purposes was to reduce the breeding of minorities? Seems to have worked, since 52% of black pregnancies end in abortion. Can’t have those pickaninnies overbreeding, can we?
And they accuse Republicans of racism. Sheesh!
Let me ask you, linda g, what kind of sick freak woman kills her own baby?
I do. It was the last time the republicans were out of power.
Funny thing is when the GOP is in power they don’t even try to change anything.
Abortion is simply a tool for the GOP to rally the ignorant redneck snake handlers.
Paul M Hupf:
“Intentional abortion of an unborn child is murder, pure and simple!”
Wrong. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. That is the law. If you don’t like it, MOVE. There are plenty of backwater third would countries that ban it.
As Ronald Reagan would day “Well jharp there you go again.” Why do disagreements have to get to this point? I realize this is a tender issue. I realize that people are passionate but we are supposed to be living in a civil society. I guess what I really want to know is why people can’t act like mature adults instead of three year olds.
If you have something constructive to say, say it. If you have nothing constructive to say and can’t say anything without being nasty, take a valium or a drink or whatever you do to get yourself under control.
Prov. 17: 28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
steveb and jharp – I’d like to point out some factual and logical errors.
First, your assertion that the Colorado judgment was ‘wise’ is your opinion and is not a fact.
Once an egg is fertilized, it IS, empirically, a person because its embryonic stage is the first phase of its biological life span.
Birth control is a method to prevent the occurrence of this first embryonic stage and therefore, can’t be compared to abortion.
I’m sorry, but the state DOES have a right to be involved in the welfare of its citizens. This means protecting their life from harm, and that includes the first phase of their life. This right-to-life is not a private decision.
jharp – no, abortion is not a symptom of a modern society as opposed to a ‘backwater society’. And it is not a medical procedure in the sense in which you are trying to trivialize it as simply and only medical with no morality or ethics or even admission of the embryonic phase as relevan. After all, lethal injection is also a ‘legal medical procedure’ and is banned in any number of backwater third world countries.
Does a male point of view even count in this conversation?
From the first time I thought about this as a teen until just a few years ago I thought it did not; or I rationalized that it did not and took the opportunity to not even think about it. I now think that I did take the cowards way out to not HAVE to take a stand.
That is one of the best things about this bill, it forces those that took my path previously into taking a stand into either paying for it or not.
How do I stand now? For the record, any woman that chose to have an abortion IS a mother she just does not have any children that are alive.
Tom_Ohio
30. Tom_Ohio:
Exactly. If all of us posting on this blog had mothers who had decided to have the cells that were the beginnings of our mortal existence scraped out of her uterus, we would have ceased to exist and our lives would have been snuffed out.
5@David Thomson:
Yeah Dave please explain how the burgeoning US population at 300million growing toward 500million square with your ‘endangered indigenous population’ quackery.
9@ETAB:
Yes it is a parasite/host relationship, which explains spontaneous abortion.
>Once an egg is fertilized, it IS, empirically, a
>person because its embryonic stage is the first
>phase of its biological life span.
What about spermless conception, ETAB? You mean to say they are not people? I mean they were never fertilized. For that matter, neither are clones. So they are inhuman and just fodder for your oil wars against Islam?
Which is it? You can’t have it both ways: that would mean you are a commie pinko liberal.
kochevnik, the biological definition of a parasite is an organism that lives on or inside another organism, the host, that impairs or threatens to impair the host’s evolutionary fitness. What is the definition of evolutionary fitness? Leaving fertile offspring that survive to maturity in order to leave offspring of their own. Therefore, by definition, one’s own offspring CANNNOT be a parasite, because they BY DEFINITION INCREASE OR LEAVE UNCHANGED one’s evolutionary fitness, the exact opposite of what a parasite does.
27. No. You don’t want to move to get away from our lack of universal socialized medicine; neither shall we run away from this country because abortion is legal. Instead, we shall fight to change the law, and if you don’t like it YOU can leave.
Fantom:
Re “@1. I cannot go the every state decide rout. We have precedence in the treatment of slavery that the federal role is to insure a base level of freedoms for all. Not allowing individual states to deny this base level of freedom.”
Well, that is too bad, because returning the issue to the states is an argument that could be won.
Per the Constitution, Roe v. Wade should be reversed. Again, I say this as a reluctantly pro-choice individual. I don’t think abortion should be illegal, yet I respect those who believe abortion to be murder, and am willing to accept that in some states the practice will be prohibited by law. Yet that also means the pro-lifers must accept that many states will not outlaw abortion. That doesn’t mean they will cease advocating against abortion in such states, rather that they will accept that the issue will be decided legislatively, state-by-state — not by the Federal government.
In any event, I don’t see the Federal government outlawing abortion any time soon, if ever. Thus
it would be a huge victory for the pro-life movement, and for strict Constitutionalists, if abortion were to go back to the states.
The lesson is, I think, that we must take what victories we can get, as we are able. And federalism provides the best means for us to do this on the abortion issue, whether one is pro-life or pro-choice.
I think one thing that led up to this renewed focus on abortion was National Geograph’s In the Womb and related advances in ultrasound, including 3D. Once you look at a 13 week “fetus” it’s pretty obvious there’s a living, breathing, kicking, thinking, human being in there who, if just given another couple of months, could survive just fine outside the womb. I haven’t seen any studies, but I would bet that support for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions has fallen significantly.
And the second issue is how any legal restrictions would be enforced. I think its an easier sell and probably more effective to enforce them at the medical professional level rather than prosecuting individual women.
However, political support for this or that is meaningless, isn’t it? The court has already invented the right for abortion up until the last minute, something virtually no American supports. (Aside from Barack Obama, who voted for Born Alive.)
Funny when a man has sex and a new life is created, he is given no choice.
It’s called a condom. If you aren’t prepared to handle the responsibilities of fatherhood, use a condom.
In slavery the freedom was individual liberty. With abortion, it is a even more essential freedom .. the right of an individual to live, the very essence of a free people.
The definition and punishment of murder within the states is under the police power of the states–guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. In practice, if there isn’t a majority within a state in favor of banning abortion, a federal law banning it will be hard to enforce. Even before Roe v. Wade, many states prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother–and still had enormous numbers of abortions. Oregon, for example, in 1970, had 199 abortions for every 1000 live births–even though this was illegal.
I am quite confident that a majority of states would either prohibit abortion, or severely restrict it, if Roe v. Wade were repealed. California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Hawaii, and some of the other liberal states would keep it lawful. I’m not thrilled about this, but the cost to liberals to keep paying for airfare or bus tickets would eventually cause them to rethink whether this evil is worth the self-righteous feeling they get from it.
#2 linda g.
I think you must be the devil.
#36 Cramer – You missed the point on this. The father is given no choice as to keeping the kid. It’s not about NOT willing to be a father. What if he IS willing to be a father? Can he veto the abortion? No.
Personally, I think that would be great test law. No abortion unless both parents approve. We’d see where people really stand on the issue. Literally, put your money where your mouth is. Women might be really surprised with men’s decisions in this. A man who decides to keep the kid, regardless of what she thinks, would look suddenly very different to her, methinks.
I think many men have gone along with abortions, because they have never REALLY had to face the decision themselves. It might be very different, if they had to actually decide.
When it comes to abortion, liberals claim to be defending the “Right of a Mother to Choose” whether or not she wants to kill her unborn baby. Liberals care nothing about the choice of the baby, who cannot speak for itself. However, it is the liberals who most often claim to be on the side of “The Children” in just about every other political and social issue in America.
The Abortion issue never went away. But the issue is heating up and with some work, we can a will overturn Roe-v-Wade. There is a strong movement out there that’s for sure!
Really, good points Marc Malone.
Condoms and ‘the pill’ aren’t a 100% guarantee of birth-control.
The only 100% guaranteed form of birth-control is keeping the proximity of a penis as far away from a vagina as necessary.
I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘accidental sex’ [?] and if men and women engage in heterosexual coitus there is always the real chance you could end up being a parent as a result of that ‘union’ no matter if the ‘intention’ behind that activity was for pure ‘pleasure’. Children aren’t ‘accidents’ if one knowingly engages in consensual sex and you should know that you always run the risk of being ‘mama’ and ‘dada’. Humans who aren’t mature enough for the responsibility of having a child should keep their genitals to themselves until they are ready to face the consequences of procreation. Personal responsibility for one’s actions certainly would spare people a lot of unnecessary human carnage and grief but promiscuity is unfortunately rampant in our society and ‘abortion’ is an easy way for people to cover-up their sexual indiscretions rather than face up to them and change their behavior.
SteveB/Colorado @ #23.
You are quite mistaken. The Colorado ballot initiative was concerned only with protecting persons already conceived. (Neither an ovum nor a sperm is a person!!!) The reason you’re confused is probably that you, like the vast majority of people, do not realize that all hormonal forms of contraception, including the Pill, are abortifacient to some extent. Preventing ovulation is the primary pharmacological mechanism; however, current formulations of the Pill allow “breakthrough ovulation” in 2 to 10 percent of a woman’s monthly cycles–meaning there is a possibility of conception. If that happens, the second mechanism will kill the new embryo: The Pill alters the uterine lining so that the newly conceived human being cannot implant in the uterine wall, and therefore dies, then passes out of the mother’s body—without her ever even knowing she waas pregnant. The IUD is even worse—it is 100% abortifacient in its operation—it prevents pregnancy by preventing implantation of an already conceived new person. Thus it is in no way contraceptive–preventing conception–rather, it operates by killing someone already conceived.
Back to #2, Linda, is clearly a satirist- pointing out the craziness of Planned Parenthood and the Obama Admin. One point about the “fearless leaders”- Harry Reid had nothing to loose. He has no chance of winning the next election so why not go all the way?
33@myth buster:
>kochevnik, the biological definition of a parasite is
>an organism that lives on or inside another organism,
>the host, that impairs or threatens to impair the
>host’s evolutionary fitness. What is the definition of
>evolutionary fitness? Leaving fertile offspring that
>survive to maturity in order to leave offspring of
>their own. Therefore, by definition, one’s own
>offspring CANNNOT be a parasite….
It’s easy to rebut a fundie, due to their pretzel logic. MB, you fail to distinguish litter size and survivability of offspring. By your argument humans should spawn thousands of offspring, that being a marker of fitness. Of course in the real world humans have a critical stake and investment in children, so they have FEW offspring with survivability ensured by maximum quality of life. Were women to be octomoms their bodies would shortly be consumed by their progeny, and they would all die. So zygotes can be parasites or progeny, with quality of life hanging in the balance.
Good luck changing the law. It’s determined by the shadow government running your country and abortion is good for business. Also the lowered crime and war rate due to feral aggression and religious feeblemindness are flushed from the gene pool. Ironically you support war which is simply another abortion method, given that rape and torture and quality of life issues don’t trouble repubs.
#36 Cramer – You missed the point on this. The father is given no choice as to keeping the kid. It’s not about NOT willing to be a father. What if he IS willing to be a father? Can he veto the abortion? No.
I guess that it didn’t occur to me that there were fathers who would veto the abortion, since from what I have seen, much of the enthusiasm for abortion seems to come from men who won’t use a condom–but also don’t want to get stuck with child support payments. (Marriage? You must be kidding.)
44. How is abortion good for business? The only business that abortion is good for is abortion clinics, and maybe hospitals who are called on to treat the injuries and infections that women receive in abortion clinics. Yes, safe abortion is a lie- more women die of abortion related causes today than before Roe v. Wade, if only because of the sheer volume of abortions. As for all the other businesses, abortion has robbed our economy of over $35 Trillion in output since Roe (www.movementforabetteramerica.org/economicimpact.html).
45. You’re right, most fathers in that situation are pressuring for abortion, but there are plenty of instances of fathers who beg their girlfriends not to abort, even if it means that he’d have to raise the baby by himself, only to be told they have no say in the matter. I certainly believe there shouldn’t be any question that a married woman should not be able to procure an abortion without her husband’s consent, for the same reason a married man can’t get a vasectomy without his wife’s consent- because your reproductive system belongs to your spouse as much as it belongs to you.
The Supreme Court will never overturn Roe.
Seems I have to disagree with the author and a good bit of of the regular posters.
I do not believe that abortion should be completely illegal, nor do I believe that it should in today’s society with our readily availiable birth control should it be used for birth control.
The author takes a stance that in no case should a abortion be preformed, I feel that this is wrong. In the case of rape or incest forcing the woman to carry that child to term is probably tantamount to torture, a reminder of the crime committed against her every day. Now that doesn’t mean the woman HAS to have an abortion in these cases, just that she has the option. In addition what does it do to the child, kids already freak out if they find out they were an “accident”, imagine them finding out that they were the product of a crime. Then you have issues with adoption too, children of incest may have genetic defects even if they are recessive in the child. How many people are willing to adopt a child whose father was a rapist?
Then in the issue of the pregnancy being a threat to the mother’s life, how can you decree that the mother should die to adhere to your ideology? Sorry but I couldn’t condemn my wife to death like that, in my mind we can try again or adopt. Sad but real fact, babies die all the time to disease and things like SIDS.
Finally there is the issue of quality of life which is connected to the rape incest issue and deformity/birth defects, and severe mental disability. There is life, which is the beating of the heart, functioning of the brain, and breathing of the lungs; then there is “life” which is the person’s physical, emotional, and mental well being. Can the child ever have a normal life and be a functioning member of society? People rail against women having welfare babies, but how is having a child that can in no way take care of itself any different? If you’re well enough off to support that child with no government assistance and provide for their care when you are gone then have at it, otherwise you’re forcing others to bear your burden.
Too much is involved, too many variables to have a binary position. Also many claim to be people of faith who support the “no abortions at all policy”. Where is your faith in God’s plan? If God wills a child to be born they will be, no doubts about it. God also allows Death to claim tens of thousands of babies and children each year to accident, disease, etc. this is His plan too. I support change on our abortion policies, but don’t believe that all is black and white either.
“The Supreme Court will never overturn Roe.”
Delusional. THIS Supreme Court won’t, but Impeachment works on USSC justices too.
I’m mildly surprised upholding the 2nd amendment didn’t lead to impeachment of several Justices.
Gather two trial cases, send one up. If the Court refuses it, impeach the lot of them. If they accept and sustain abortion impeach the ones that voted wrong.
Then bring up the second case.
The ENTIRE problem with the judiciary is that Congress doesn’t impeach one (a USSC Justice) often enough. The Constitution gave the USSC justices life terms and Congress the power to impeach them as part of the checks and balances so critical to American Government. By ignoring their DUTY to impeach Justices, Congress has allowed the Judiciary to take over the government. Look up FDR and ‘packing the court’. Never mind, I’ll do it for you. As long as you don’t think I’m a nice guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-packing
FDR should have had the Justices blocking him impeached. I guess he didn’t have the votes in the Senate for a conviction. If you can’t getthe votes to convict in the Senate, or the votes to impeach in the House, then it means you are wrong on the issue and need to adjust your opinion. Checks and Balances.
46@myth buster
>How is abortion good for business?
It’s good the way discrimination laws also make workers more productive, and hence line the pockets of the elite. They own all branches of government, while you are merely a ‘useful idiot’ for them. Your figures ignore quality of life issues and instead sum up total economic size. So if a bunch of religious and feral nutters were running amok starting wars, instead of being aborted, there would be another $35trillion of destruction on this planet? That’s your point?
51. Huh? That’s even more incoherent than your normal posts. The overwhelming majority of people who take their religion seriously don’t abort their babies, so that’s a non sequitur. Those figures don’t adjust for quality of life issues because 1. It’s not mine or any economist’s job to determine the quality of another individual’s life; only the individual in question can do that, and 2. There’s no reliable way to calculate that figure anyway. I don’t even understand what your first sentence is supposed to mean.
49. That is not your call! You don’t get to decide what somebody else’s quality of life is and then pass judgment on that person’s right to live based on it! Only God has that authority, and rest assured, He does not judge whether a person lives or dies based on so-called “quality of life,” but rather on His Righteous Judgment. Death claims the believer when his/her mission is accomplished, and the unbeliever when his/her time has run out; death claims both in accord with God’s perfect plan, not based on something as subjective as “quality of life,” and certainly not arbitrarily.
The Lord does not deal arbitrarily with people, though we, lacking all the facts, may mistake His actions for being arbitrary. You, however, would arbitrarily deny a child the right to life based on the crime of his father, a practice condemned both in our law and in Scripture, and then you have the audacity to claim that this is in the best interests of the child! Where do you get off? If rape is as heinous as you say it is, and I don’t dispute that it is, you should push for the rapist to be executed, not his offspring, who has committed no crime.
Let’s tear the USSC’s so-called constitutional rights to privacy and abortion to pieces.
To begin with, what the Court wrongly ignored when it used its magic glasses to find abortion and privacy rights in the Constitution is this. Given the Constitution is silent about privacy and abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to regulate these issues to the states, not the federal government. Indeed, special-interest justices “inadvertently overlooked” that the Article V state majority uniquely has the power to amend privacy and abortion rights into the Constitution at its pleasure as the states have done for our other basic rights.
So right off the bat, privacy and abortion rights were established by outcome-driven justices who wrongly legislated these so-called rights from the bench, scandalously ignoring the unique, Article V powers of the states to legislate such rights. Indeed, let’s take a look at how the Court perverted lawmaker’s intentions for the 14th A., wrongly using that amendment to apply the constitutionally non-existent rights of privacy and abortion to the states.
John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had officially clarified before the HoR that the 14th A. applied only enumerated constitutional rights to the states. See for yourself.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution.” –John Bingham, Congressional Globe (1871) http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
So based on Bingham’s words, the only way that the USSC could have applied abortion rights, for example, to the states through the 14th A. is if the states had amended the Constitution prior to Roe v. Wade to expressly protect abortion rights, IMO.
Also, in stark contrast to the Court finding abortion rights in the “wild card” 9th A., note that when Bingham clarified the scope and purpose of the 14th A. for the HoR, he read only the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing rights which the 14th applied to the states, ignoring the 9 A. altogether.
Again, the USSC’s so-called rights to privacy and abortion are bogus constitutional rights, IMO. These fictitious rights were established by corrupt justices who not only scandalously usurped legislative powers to establish basic rights, but usurped state legislative powers, breaching the Founder’s division of federal and state government powers.
What a mess! :^(
52@myth buster:
First sentence means that corporations set the law, not you. Woman’s rights and discrimination laws make more profits for corporations. You and your imaginary invisible superfriend living in the sky don’t factor in the equation.
@ 53
I never claimed it was, unless of course we’re talking about the victim being my wife. Then it absolutely is my call as to whether or not I will raise and support that child, if my wife even wants to keep it. You seem to be reading comprehension deficient as I clearly stated “Now that doesn’t mean the woman HAS to have an abortion in these cases, just that she has the option.”
Also who are YOU to force a woman to carry for 9 months and possibly raise a constant reminder of a heinous crime? Which BTW I DO support the death penalty for all proven violent rapists and pedophiles. Would you want to carry that reminder? How about your wife?
As to sins of the father:
Leviticus 26:39 – Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their fathers’ sins they will waste away.
Jeremiah 32:18 – You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the fathers’ sins into the laps of their children after them. O great and powerful God, whose name is the Lord Almighty,
Exodus 20:5 – Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Those quotes speak of national crimes, the wickedness of an entire nation; the third quote on your list isn’t even relevant, as it speaks of iniquity, not punishment. Iniquity is lawlessness; in this case, it refers to the corrupting effect of the bad example of a father. There is a specific commandment not to put to a son to death for the crime of his father, nor the father for the crime of the son. Likewise, Ezekiel prophesies that men shall be judged based on their own works, not those of their fathers.
I concur about the death penalty for rapists. I believe if a crime is heinous enough to justify lethal force to stop it, it is heinous enough for the State to put the perpetrator to death.
55. You still didn’t answer how depriving corporations of customers and workers is good for them, and I am not a useful idiot. Unlike you, I believe that man was made in the image of God, and is therefore intrinsically valuable. Unlike you, I recognize the FACT that an increased population is good for the economy, bringing with it expanded productivity, vast technological advancements and a longer life span. There is no such thing as overpopulation, insofar as we are unable to adapt to it. Get out of the way, and America can and will feed the world. Technology is the solution to any so-called population crisis, and technology comes from human ingenuity. Your backward, badthink leads to the gas chambers.
Know this, Voltaire could not deny the existence of God while he was dying, but not because he was afraid of ceasing to exist. Rather, it was because he knew he was going to Hell, and he knew it was too late. He knew that God is real, but he himself was unable to pray. Voltaire’s deathbed testimony aught to send a chill down anyone’s spine, because it a testimony to the reality of Hell, and it comes out of the mouth of a man who knew that he was going there, because his heart was too hardened to bring the words to his lips, “Jesus Christ is Lord.”
RE: 50. John “birther” Samford
If the Court ever were to overturn Roe I will gladly eat crow John. you will never see impeachment and convection over the court refusing to hear a case. impeachment is for crimes, and refusing to hear a case is not a crime, its their job.
Ask IVF Canada and USA to do
Transfer child in stomach of women who does not wish to have a child to transfer to other women who wish to have child and not able to have one
Usually they do it in early egg sperm not when child is a month or 3 month old can not transfer need more research to up date this
They can jail women if they kill their children and hand cop them in jail for 9 month when baby born they will take baby to foster house or some one to take care of infants
By force the law
They can do more prevention program to
They can cut porn and ban from top level all porn and all X video to increase all adultery by law and this way decrease all crime
They can add more education about killing small kid is crime too
They can stop all future research and find out mental ill behind all 1/3 abortions is sick mind
Hope for have child and have fun is decrease by replacing false happiness
57@myth buster:
Nice dodge. Your entire opposition to abortion rights is based upon mythology and superstition and dogma from a cult that molested and murdered children in a Roman pagan temple built over a necropolis. Your religion was so sick and perverted it disgusted even the Romans, who had the cult heads executed and took over management in 300AD.
But your handle alone is a red flag. It is a complete misnomer.
To Dogman: Abortion is either right or wrong; not optional. Any precisely stated proposition is either true or false.NB:, “precisely stated”.
And there is no right way to do wrong.
It seems to me that the deaths of 11.5 million people, including six million Jews, was termed a “crime against humanity”, and the perpetrators were put to death by the Allies. This, in spite of the fact that the killings were “legal”. “I was ordered to …” didn’t wash, as I recall.
And now, I live only a few blocks away from another death camp, where humans arbitrarily are stripped of their humanness and murdered. It’s called, “Planned Parenthood”.
When will the trials begin, and if they don’t, how long will God allow this to go on?
61@white tiger:
Wow that’s so 16th century! Did you build a time machine and come into a cybercafe to post here? Yeah forget duality and the third way. Instead let’s employ barbaric christian dualism to smite all those who question our ends!
Bad news: quantum computers are the next hot thing, not you.
60. That is a lie, and you know it is a lie. Christians were massacred by the Romans because Christians refused to worship the Emperor. It’s not that Christianity was so evil it disgusted even the Romans, but that Christianity is so pure that pagans cannot tolerate its existence. Evil cannot tolerate the presence of good, as you personally attest by your actions. Liars cannot tolerate the presence of the Truth. Here’s a bit of irony you ought to appreciate- killing Christians does not shrink the Church; in fact, it makes the Church grow faster. Kill one Christian, and three more people convert to Christianity because of the martyr’s testimony. So go ahead and try to persecute Christians; you’ll only increase our numbers
Also, how can I dodge a question that you never asked? Your last post wasn’t even a question. You have been warned, kochevnik, you will burn in Hell for all eternity for your lies, your blasphemies, and your wicked, murderous desires, unless you repent and embrace Truth. Your own words testify against you.
64@myth buster:
The word “christianity” was coined 300 years after the alleged Jesus walked. The Vatican was built over Roman catacombs. Using secret tunnels from a network of Necropolis around the region of Vatican Hill, the secret ceremonies of Cybele, including Paulinity of child sacrifice and worship continued within the catacombs.
Pope Victor I and his son Pope Zephinrynus I (199-205) and his son Pope Callixtus I (217-222) were far from Christian. Instead of the traditional sacrifice of children at major feast events, Victor instituted the sacrifice of children every time Mass was conducted. So bloodthirsty was their reign in the number of innocents sacrificed and corruption of office that in 222, Emperor Marcus Severus Alexander (222-235) had Callixtus executed.
After the execution of Callixtus in 222, the Phrygianum returned into the hands of purely pagan priest families and regained its importance as a pagan shrine.
During the reign of Pope Fabian (236-250), it is certain he did not have control of the restored Phrygianum, nor Pope Novation (250-252) nor any of the following intermittent reigns of Popes including Eusebius of Caesaria (309-310).
An Altar to Cybele [Pantheist Earth Mother] which was originally housed in the Phrygianum and dedicated to Cybele in 374 CE supports with certainty that Vatican Hill remained firmly a pagan temple to Cybele right up until the arrival of Pope Damasus (366-384). The absence of any Pope attending the first Council of Nicaea can also be explained by the probable non existence of any “Christian” Bishop (Pope) of Rome during this period until Julius (later Pope Julius 337-352) was sent by Constantine as a Christian envoy around 337 after the council had voted to created Christianity.
Under Emperor Domitian (81-96 CE) a decree was issued across the Roman Empire that human sacrifice was considered a capital crime (death penalty). Domitian was influenced in his decision upon the revelations of the elderly Flavius Josephus also known as St. Luke, who before his death rejected the counterfeit movement later known as Christianity and reverted to the original Nazarene/Gnostic gospels of the person we know as Jesus Christ.
All temples that participated in human sacrifice were closed down, including the Phrygianum. [Now St. Peter's Basillica] The priest families were banished from Rome and re-settled around Tusculum, south west of Rome.
Christianity is outright Roman Fascism
None of that ever happened. The term “Christian” dates back to ~40 AD at Antioch. Flavis Josephus was a Jewish historian, whereas St. Luke was a Greek Physician. Child sacrifice was certainly not Pauline; Paul warned that murderers and the sexually immoral would not inherit the Kingdom of God, but rather be subject to everlasting hell fire. The Gnostic “gospels” were heresies that claimed that the human body was wicked and that salvation was attained not by submitting oneself to Christ for the forgiveness of sins, but by the attainment of some “secret knowledge.” This heresy lives on today in the form of the illuminati. Yes, the banksters you so despise are the ones who false doctrines you believe are good. Christians were, however, often falsely accused of cannibalism because we refer to the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. Furthermore, even if such wickedness did occur in the Papacy, and certainly the Papacy became quite corrupt in the middle ages, so the charge stands, that in no way invalidates Christianity.
I read one time that one of the excuses is poor people can’t afford birthcontrol pills or condoms.I am not willing to pay for Abortion at all. But if we can stop the excuses and ask for some cense of accountability then we can have less Abortion and more people able to go to Heaven instead of this Sin.I would be willing to pay for Condoms and birthcontrol for anyone to help them keep from this Sin.It is to be noted that any form of Fornication Man and woman,men and men,women and women is still sinful.Anyone who has an Abortion should pay for it and have themselves neutered for Life.The blight that rests on America is outrageous.