1
   

If Roe v. Wade is overturned.

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 01:00 pm
CJ,
You said..."The percentage of truly concerned men is extremely small
and therefore cannot be considered for the benefit of the
rights for women."

OK,lets change one word and see if you agree.

The percentage of pregnancy from rape or incest is extremely small
and therefore cannot be considered for the benefit of the
rights for women.

Now,that statement is factually true,yet those are two of the reasons some people are pro abortion.
If you allow abortion on those gounds,then you must take the fathers wishes into account.
Also,does every girl/woman tell the BF when she gets pregnant?
NO,they dont.
I think you would find,if you asked that more men then not are concerned and would like their wishes to be heard.
For you to discount them tells me that you arent interested in whats right,you are interested in how many abortions can happen and how do we allow more of them.
IMHO,thats a sad position for you to take.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 01:10 pm
I'm afraid mysteryman, I don't seem to understand
your reasoning.

You're saying on grounds of rape and incest, abortion
needs to be considered, and further you wrote "If you allow abortion on those gounds,then you must take the fathers wishes into account."

Do you mean "fathers" committing these crimes? Or
because it is such a small percentage of women who
are raped or molested through incest? First of all mysteryman, these crimes committed are by no means
a small percentage - I wish it would be, but reality has
different statistics.

Your comparison doesn't add up because abortion is
not granted on rape and incest only.

I do agree that many men don't know of their girlfriends
pregnancy and abortion, but this is something you cannot
regulate by jurisdiction. Until the child is born, "fathers"
have no rights, I'm sorry to say.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 01:56 pm
revel wrote:
This may shock a lot of people but I agree with mysteryman. The father is ignored in the abortion issue.

I am against abortion except in cases a medical emergency.

On the other hand I feel that children should be able to go outside their families when they need help dealing with unwanted pregnancies or any other issue.


The father thing makes it even more murky. If a father can choose to keep the baby, thereby forcing the woman to carry it to term and birth it, can he also force her to abort it if he doesn't want it, but she does?

I understand the concern of men who feel left out of the decision, but the fact of the matter is that it primarily affects the woman.

And for the record, I agree that it doesn't seem necessary to allow abortion after the first trimester. Most women should know by then, unless they are in denial, whether or not they want it. And even if they don't want it, at that point they're a third of the way there anyway. But, I just see it as completely a woman's problem. The responsibilities are all hers, no matter the choice, and I don't want anyone else to be in the position of dictating it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 01:59 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
I'm afraid mysteryman, I don't seem to understand
your reasoning.

You're saying on grounds of rape and incest, abortion
needs to be considered, and further you wrote "If you allow abortion on those gounds,then you must take the fathers wishes into account."

Do you mean "fathers" committing these crimes? Or
because it is such a small percentage of women who
are raped or molested through incest? First of all mysteryman, these crimes committed are by no means
a small percentage - I wish it would be, but reality has
different statistics.

Your comparison doesn't add up because abortion is
not granted on rape and incest only.

I do agree that many men don't know of their girlfriends
pregnancy and abortion, but this is something you cannot
regulate by jurisdiction. Until the child is born, "fathers"
have no rights, I'm sorry to say.


I would then say that if fathers have no rights before the child is born,then the father should have the ability to decide what happens to that child AFTER its born.

For example,if you get pregnant,and dont tell the father,or you refuse to let him know about the child,then you have no right to ask for child support for that child after its born.
You missed my point earlier.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is a small percentage of the abortions,most women use it for birth control.
If birth control is your excuse for having an abortion,then the mans wishes MUST be taken into consideration.
Unless things have changed,the last time I looked it took two people to get pregnant,therefore it should take two people to decide to terminate the pregnancy.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 02:06 pm
mysterman wrote:
Unless things have changed,the last time I looked it took two people to get pregnant,therefore it should take two people to decide to terminate the pregnancy.


While this is a nice idea, last time I checked it only required one person to carry and birth and nurse a child. And it's that person, the one with the greatest burden, who should carry the greatest weight in the decision.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 02:10 pm
Ah mysteryman, you're being chauvinistic!
No woman in her right mind will use abortion as a form
for birth control - trust me on this one.

However, you got a point in knowing of the pregnancy.
This should be implemented that men have a right
to know if their girlfriends are pregnant. Should she
fail to inform him, child support could be forfeited.

In case of an adoption, the father does need to relinquish
his rights as well.

Quote:
Unless things have changed,the last time I looked it took two people to get pregnant,therefore it should take two people to decide to terminate the pregnancy.


Based on the fact that women have the majority of
health risks, lifestyle changes and financial consequences,
I don't agree with you!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 03:11 pm
Why would RvW just arbitrarily be dismissed?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 03:20 pm
CJ,
According to NARAL,abortion is the method of choice for many women for birth control.
And according to planned parenthood,abortion is also a major form of birth control.
0 Replies
 
willow tl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 04:04 pm
Quote:
Unless things have changed,the last time I looked it took two people to get pregnant,therefore it should take two people to decide to terminate the pregnancy.



When men can carry a fetus to full term, you may have a point...until then I don't think you should have a say..
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 04:18 pm
mysteryman wrote:
CJ,
According to NARAL,abortion is the method of choice for many women for birth control.
And according to planned parenthood,abortion is also a major form of birth control.


mysteryman,
I went up and down of the official NARAL website and could not find
anything supporting your claim. Dto. for Planned Parenthood. Perhaps
you'd like to share the professional source, where you got your
information from. Thank you!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:36 pm
Lash - and safe sex is something that the Bush team is good at pushing.......? And don't give me the abstinance crap, you know that that is a losing path.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:49 pm
CJ,
If this is true..."No woman in her right mind will use abortion as a form
for birth control - trust me on this one."
Then why are we having this discussion?

If no sane woman will have an abortion,then why is it that big a deal?
Why are you fighting so hard for something that sane women wont do?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:56 pm
I don't think you can say "it's never happened".

A few years ago Oprah Winfrey had a show in which I remember her admonishing a young, black woman who'd just admitted to multiple abortions. Oprah said "haven't you ever heard of birth control?" - to which the young woman replied "abortion is my method of birth control".
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:06 pm
@ mysteryman
It can happen! Women get pregnant despite birth control,
women get pregnant despite other contraceptives and
women get pregnant during menopause after a spout
of hormones comes back. Women get for all kinds of reason pregnant and to be honest, most of them are surprised,
very few deliberately work toward a child. The norm is:
it just happens!

Think: having sex 300 days out of the year and multiplied
by the the number of years being fertile, chances are,
that a woman can get pregnant without wanting it. That
doesn't mean, she's insane and irresponsible towards
birth control and using abortion as an alternative. Very
few women have more than one abortion and I do have
enough trust in womanhood that they don't take this
undertaking lightly either. Besides ist cost around 350 Dollar to abort versus 30 Dollars for birthcontrol. This shouldn't
be a brainer.

@ JustWonders,
I'm sorry, but this woman must have been of very low IQ
if you consider the cost I've mentioned above.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:11 pm
CJ - let's hope. After the audience finished gasping at her reply, she went on to explain that the pill made her fat and had excuses for several other methods as well.

She seemed perfectly normal and articulate, which is why, I think, the audience had such a reaction. Even Oprah was stunned and continued to pressure this woman to rethink her "preferred" method.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:32 pm
Actually, abortion as a means of contraception may be more prevalent than we think. Numerous articles have been published, apparently:

Shepard, et al., "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science, 11:289-302 (1979); M. Bracken, "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Delay," J. Biosocial Science, 7:473-491 1975) S. Honcho, "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives, 20(4):158-168 (1986); D. Sherman, et al., 'The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives, ed. W.F. Finn et al., (New York: Fraeger Publ. 1985), pp. 98-107: E. M. Belsey, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study -- IV," Social Science and Medicine, 11:71-82 (1977): E. Freeman, et al., "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 55(5):630-636 (1980); C. Berger, et al., "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives 16(2):70-75 (1984).
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:59 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Why would RvW just arbitrarily be dismissed?


McG, I think the idea is that once the Supreme Court configuration looks favorable, someone will bring a case that will give them the opportunity to overturn it.
0 Replies
 
jsm30625
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2004 11:07 pm
When does life begin?
The pro-murder/pro-life debate comes down to: When is a human being considered a "person" under the United States Constitution?

Do doctors really need to kill the baby for the "life of the mother?"

http://www.abortiontv.com/LifeOfMotherException.htm
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 06:34 am
Abortion rights are the one major issue on which the democrats appears to be within striking distance of being right in my estimation. I honestly wish I'd never heard the term "Right to life". I sometimes ask fellow republicans if there is such a thing in the world as a "right to life", then why are there predators?? Their faces just go blank.

Nonetheless, surely democrats and liberals can grasp the idea that if they have ENOUGH abortions, they won't have the voting power to keep abortions legal, i.e. that unless they hold to the idea of keeping abortions very rare, the whole idea is self defeating. Moreover, aside from red-staters who won't be limiting their own voting numbers that way, when you get the birth rate of a country low enough, you force the government to import third-worlders just to keep the country running, and those guys sure as hell won't be having a whole lot of abortions...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 06:53 am
Re: If Roe v. Wade is overturned.
(Jumping in late, not having read anything except the initial post)

ebrown_p wrote:
My understanding is that legally is that this would mean each state would legislate whether abortion is banned or how it is limited. I am quite sure that my state (Massachussets) would stay exactly how it is.

I believe this is true. The most convincing legal argument I have heard against Roe vs. Wade is that the constitution does not protect a right to abort, that it does not confer the power to regulate abortions to the federal government, and that the power to regulate is therefore reserved to the states under the tenth amendment.

ebrown_p wrote:
What states would outlaw or severely outlaw abortion? Would it be the "red" states?

I would guess that red states are much more likely to outlaw than blue states, and that Southern red states are much more likely to outlaw than Western red states. But I have no data to back up that guess.

ebrown_p wrote:
What effects would this have on these states? I know that many people have very deep emotions about this issue, how many people would relocate? Would this have real social and economic effects on regions of our country?

In my own country, the federal constitution outlaws abortion from the day of conception and abortion is nevertheless legal in practice unil the 12th week of pregnancy. Based on this experience, I expect that overriding Roe v. Wade would change things in a much more gradual way than pundids on both sides of the fence currently think it will. The significance of Roe vs. Wade is mostly as a shibboleth for both camps. Its impact on actual legislation is important too, but much less important.

ebrown_p wrote:
I suspect if this happens, it would divide us even further.

You may well be right, but I don't think that's a valid reason not to overrule it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 06:06:57