Lose the Right to Choose, Lose the Right to Vote?

I haven't read your post (yet), but I had a thought. If a woman takes alternative means to abort an unwanted pregnancy, at a point when a medical abortion is illegal, and she gets caught - what happens? Would she be tried for murder? And if so, wouldn't the resulting jail time cause her to lose her right to vote?

Joe...Sweetie--

Be prepared to roar soprano.

à l'effet contraire mon ami, womens should be vested with the sole authority of suffrage (with proper guidance) for men have the far heavier responsibility of NFL sports monitoring as well as reality t.v. to content with. On the way home from voting the women may be given the further responsibility of replenishing the beer provided they are properly attired.

Well, not really as she would obviously be charged and convicted of a capital offense demanding a minimum of life imprisonment if she managed to avoid the death penality. In such a case, her sperm donor would required to vote twice.

My newspaper reprinted a Marie Cocco essay today that fits this bill.

She discusses the new sex-ed classes and the damsel in distress mentality that they teach.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vpcoc074069868dec07,0,4034527.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

The way I look at it, if I can't be trusted to make decisions about my own body I certainly can't be trusted with something as dangerous as a stove.

If I'm too dumb to chose, I might just be too dumb to vote and cook and raise kids and all that other complicated intellectual type stuff.

I am trying to prepare the country for what is coming.... it is coming you know.

Yes, LittleK, she would go to jail and her doctor would go to jail as well. You know, when Harry Blackmun wrote the Roe decision he stressed his opinion that the right of a doctor to treat her patient with what she saw as the best treatment regimen should reign as the superior right over the state's interests in any other factor. That was clearly in error, according to those who live in the red states, doctor's have no right to practice medicine as they see fit and women do not have the right to control the boundaries of their own bodies. It's so clear now.

Joe (headcase of my family) Nation

Worst possible case, Roe/Wade gets tossed, abortion becomes an issue to be settled by the individual states, and if some girl from Muskogee Oklahoma ends up having to fly or take the bus to NY for abortions more than once, she might decide she'd be better off living in NY and move.

That beats the hell out of dying from anthrax poisoning or radioactive fallout, which is what would happen to the girl if Algor or John Kerry were president.

hahahahaha!

bizarre logic but so it goes.

As a pro choice advocate, I find the comparison of a prohibition on killing one's fetus, which is now legal and I fully support , to a prohibition on voting kinda' ludicrous.

It is like saying because we are prohibited from killing another born human, we should be prohibited from voting as well.

A truly strange "logic".

The logic is painfully....logical.

Women have hormones.

Hormones make them flighty.

Pregnant women have lots of hormones.

Pregnant women can't be trusted.

Pregnant women shouldn't have abortions--their reasoning on the subject is flawed.

Here's the big leap: Women have hormones and their logic is flawed and therefore they shouldn't vote. Why the poor dears can't even control their own bodies!

Brave New World.

That's not that big of a leap .... seems to me that logic makes sense, whether or not abortions are legal.
I'm just kidding, of course.


Courage.

No, it is patently obvious. The State, which all of us conservatives agree should spend the least amount of energy intruding into the lives of men, has the important task of making sure women really don't control their own lives or their own bodies. Those both belong to us men, although the State would like to borrow the mind parts for a few months if reconditioning is necessary, we men still get to have the body parts (oops, poor construction there, sorry) whenever and however we want.

Our belief and faith in family values has taught us that the goal is be fruitful and multiply and we can't stand in the way of our beliefs no matter what the 'opinions' of women may be. It is clear that we have been on a path divergent since early in the past century and it is time to bring women back home to the hearth.

I think it would be a good idea for all us conservative men to start reviewing these ideas with our womenfolk. I've been talking with the guys down at R.J. s and they can't think of a single good reason why women should vote and neither can Sheila the Irish barmaid. So can you?

Why should women have the right to vote if they can't even control their own bodies?

Joe( King of the Castle of his Mind) Nation

"Why should women have the right to vote if they can't even control their own bodies?"

Cute.

The answer is simple. Because the right to vote is independent of one's behavior, including the inability to control same .

Joe said, "Our belief and faith in family values has taught us that the goal is be fruitful and multiply and we can't stand in the way of our beliefs no matter what the 'opinions' of women may be. It is clear that we have been on a path divergent since early in the past century and it is time to bring women back home to the hearth."



Um, what if I don't have a hearth? Shall my husband build one for me to come home to? I'm so confused. Must be the hormones.

Carrying on with Joe's lighthearted spoof of the inabilities of women and the superiority of conservative men.

How many men does it take to open a beer?
None. It should be opened when she brings it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is a Laundromat a really bad place to pick up a woman?
Because a woman who can't even afford a washing machine will probably never be able to support you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do women have smaller feet than men?
It's one of those "evolutionary things" that allows
them to stand closer to the kitchen sink.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know when a woman is about to say something smart?
When she starts a sentence with "A man once told me.."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you fix a woman's watch?
You don't. There is a clock on the oven.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do men fart more than women?
Because women can't shut up long enough to
build up the required pressure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If your dog is barking at the back door and your wife is yelling at the front door, who do you let in first?
The dog, of course. He'll shut up once you let him in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What's worse than a Male Chauvinist Pig?
A woman who won't do what she's told.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I married a Miss Right.
I just didn't know her first name was Always.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists have discovered a food that diminishes< /STRONG>
a woman's sex drive by 90%.
It's called a Wedding Cake.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do men die before their wives?
They want to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Women will never be equal to men until they can
walk down the street with a bald head and a beer
gut, and still think they are sexy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning, God created the earth and rested.
Then God created Man and rested.
Then God created Woman.
Since then, neither God nor Man has rested.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Send this to a few good men who need a laugh and
to the select few women who can handle the truth

And...............If Roe Vs. Wade is overturned, what do we do with the unwanted fetuses that ARE brought to term? I suggest that every person who had advocated the overturn, be given parental rights, and compelled to support these children (in their homes), until they reach maturity. Judges who vote for the overturn, should be assigned double the number of children.

After all, it is only fair that a person is obliged to put his money where his mouth is!

BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

Harry Reid, the new Senate Democratic leader, is moderate to pro-life on abortion. In 1999 he was one of only two Senate Democrats to vote against an amendment expressing "the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade." But when he appeared on "Meet the Press" Sunday and Tim Russert gave him a chance to take a clear position against Roe, Mr. Reid demurred, saying that "it would be pretty difficult for everybody" if the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling.

Actually, it would be far more difficult for the Republicans, for the continued existence of Roe allows the GOP to have it both ways on abortion while forcing the Democrats to take politically untenable positions.

By mostly removing the issue from the democratic process, Roe created the current polarization over abortion, in which both parties are officially committed to extreme positions. The Republican platform calls for a Human Life Amendment, which would presumably ban all or most abortions, while the Democratic platform backs "a woman's right to choose . . . regardless of her ability to pay"--meaning abortion on demand, at taxpayer expense.

Opinion polls consistently show that only a small proportion of Americans favor either of these extremes. But because Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions take off the table any restriction that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort her pregnancy, Republicans are an extreme antiabortion party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest--and popular--regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for 13-year-olds without their parents' knowledge.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe, legislators would have to consider the legality of abortion itself. Antiabortion absolutists would demand action from Republicans--but the GOP would be unable to comply without putting off moderate voters, who are much more numerous. Thus the battle would shift to terrain far more favorable to the Democrats.

Congressional Republicans' smartest response would be to avoid the issue and leave it to the state legislatures. But this would free Democrats as well as Republicans to tailor their positions to match their constituents'. Abortion would likely remain legal in much of the country, and the Democratic Party would find it has nothing to fear from democracy.

More at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005991

The only issue I have with abortion is when it is done at taxpayer expense.

Also, unlikely to occur would be a repeal of R v W. However, if it did occur, I am sure the vast majority of States would enact some form of legislation to continue the practice.

This is just the usual "scare" tactic by the democrats with little or no basis in fact.