Abortion

I recently read that something like 48% of the women who have had abortions, have had more than one.

This has shaken to the core my belief that a women's decision about continuing a pregnancy is one which is taken with the most profound deliberation.

If almost half of the women having abortions are on their second abortion, in a world where contraceptives are incredibly easy to obtain, what does this tell us about the current societal application of abortion?

If this statistic is valid then I utterly reject the histrionics of Senator Fienstein concerning back alley abortions using rusted hangers.

Anyone who goes back to the abortion clinic for a second time, did not have a life altering experience with the first one.

If this statistic is accurate (and I am researching it as we post) then it has moved a Pro-Choice Conservative to the Pro-Life camp.

Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. . . .

. . . It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992). . . .

In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens came to these conclusions:

“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).

Justice Stevens’ analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here.

You're right MOAN, I wrote "a fundamential Christian"
instead of "some" - there are exceptions with Christians,
with pro life activists, and with any other group too.
Did I cover my back now?

I say we should sterilize any woman that comes back for a second abortion. F#ck 'em.

Manche Menschen wollen immer glänzen, obwohl sie keinen Schimmer haben.

Of course abortion is not the root problem. The root problem is people not taking responsibility for their actions in the first place. If there was no conception, there would be no abortion.

but it doesn't seem logical to me to withold any kind of information about these things from young people, because of some uptight morality issue, and then harangue the daylights out of them when something unwanted happens.

that's like blaming the puppy for going in the house when you didn't teach him or walk him.

I just don't think they exercise that control.[/b]