SubscribeWhat? God's not on my side? Well, let's just re-define god.
There is a sober, profoundly difficult public conversation to be had about second- and third-trimester abortion in this country ... part of the Roe v. Wade legacy has been warring camps whose all-or-nothing agendas—the sanctity of prenatal life, or the inviolability of the pregnant woman’s autonomy—work against our being able to have it. Bring up the European model with an American pro-choice leader, and the conversation makes two quick turns: first, to the observation that most American states have ended public abortion funding, so that poor women trying to come up with payment money are sometimes pushed into later abortion by the very system right-to-lifers helped create. But there’s something deeper than that at work.There are two main reasons why the argument is 'un-nuanced' in the US: the legal basis, and the inadequate healthcare system. Both will need to fall, I suspect, before abortion truly becomes settled law, whether on the limited European model, or the Canadian one.
Roe was a privacy ruling, declaring that the right to abortion was part of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, and over the years defending Roe has come to mean defending that privacy so completely and so ferociously that almost any expression of public concern for the fetus is received as a threat, a step onto the famous slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie the septic abortion wards of the pre-legalization years. Right-to-life strategists knew how well this adamancy would work in their favor when they rolled out the first partial-birth legislation, and they will try to capitalize on it again...
I'm not sure where I standon [sic] abortion; whether it should be kept as it is, or should be more regulated.That's actually very reasonable and open minded. In fact, it closely mirrors the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.
EITHER the woman has the final choice on abortion OR she does not.While that may be the accepted and possibly the legal absolute terms, I'd argue that "EITHER the parents have the final choice on abortion OR they do not" Then again, it's safe in the current cultural and legal contexts to assume this is an issue where men have no rights between ejaculation and birth, but fifty percent of the financial obligation after birth.
Guys arguing and deciding on women rights amuse the hell out of me.Anyone arguing that men have no rights on this matter infuriates me. I understand that codifying men's rights into law would be frought with complexity and pitfalls. Furthermore, I understand codifying it as women's rights is an acceptable solution as long as the alternative is the denial of access to legal abortions. However, it's intellectually dishonest to infer that pregnancy and abortion are issues that preclude men.
The assumption that under US law ANYONE should be given non-consentual power over someone ELSE'S body.That's not my assumption.
I expect most of you believe Roe legalized abortion only in the first trimester, allowing it to be restricted in the second and banned in the third. However, Doe v. Bolton, handed down the same day as Roe, took back those concessions.This is probably semantic, but the decision in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are intended to be read together. One does not dispute the other. Instead, Doe v. Bolton further defines the restrictions that can be placed on abortion.
To summarize and to repeat:There is no concise summary of Doe v. Bolton. You can read the opinions here, but it is likely sufficient to say that it limits the types of restrictions that can be placed on abortion. For example, Doe v. Bolton struck down provisions of the Georgia law which required three separate doctors approval before the abortion could be legally performed.
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life 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.
2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. (1)
Neither in this opinion nor in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, do we discuss the father's rights, if any exist in the constitutional context, in the abortion decision. No paternal right has been asserted in either of the cases, and the Texas and the Georgia statutes on their face take no cognizance of the father. We are aware that some statutes recognize the father under certain circumstances. North Carolina, for example, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-45.1 (Supp. 1971), requires written permission for the abortion from the husband when the woman is a married minor, that is, when she is less than 18 years of age, 41 N. C. A. G. 489 (1971); if the woman is an unmarried minor, written permission from the parents is required. We need not now decide whether provisions of this kind are constitutional. (2)
Actually this is probably a self-correcting problem because the people who favor abortion are having abortions, while the people who oppose it are having babies. Basically, all the right people are having abortions.Having an abortion is not sufficiently heritable. We could probably argue the point until we were blue in the face, but there are children of "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" parents who have abortions. This directly contrasts your assertion that this is a self-correcting problem unless you don't believe that the difference of opinion and action would cause any problems between the parents and the child who has had the abortion.
How is that assumption not implicit in your position?My position is that fathers, between ejaculation and birth, have a certain set of rights that counterbalance those of the mother's. This is in direct contradiction to the law, which does not recognize, if my understanding is correct, any father's rights until birth. (Despite having made light of father's rights as being to pay the bill after birth, that is not the case. Father's have significant rights, but a higher bar to overcome in asserting them.)
it's about time to vote a Special Lifetime Achievement Darwin Award to the whole abortion-rights movement.Steven D. Levitt makes a convincing argument that given the choice to terminate a pregnancy, women make the right choice more often than if there were restrictions that removed women from making any choice. Though I don't know the specific circumstances of the people in the article you link to, it doesn't take a great deal of (sociological) imagination to imagine why this is the case.
Them high AH SAY them high fast'uns go right over that boy's haid.Sorry, I was aiming for your head.
But you shouldn't bad-mouth insensitivity.Nor should you put words in my mouth. I'm not bad-mouthing insensitivity; I'm pointing out that you are being insensitive. It is nice to have you affirm, though, that anything associated with you is "bad".
It's a real resource--allowing one, as it does, to resist the temptation to join the love-in and stick to being correct.Here's a news flash for you. If you're only source of commenting in this thread is insensitivity, then you're trolling, not commenting.
how do we feel about the abortion rate?I don't believe you'll get answers about the effectiveness of Roe v. Wade by asking about the historical abortion rate. Many things bias the rate at which women get abortions, but the rate, especially in America, doesn't directly indicate it's social impact.
Ah, but roe v wade is the variable in question no?Actually, no, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are not the variables in question. Access to medical care, which is, in theory, available to everyone, has significant barriers for people who can not afford it, don't know about it or even simply have a fear of it. There are many other variables.
Surely no one will attempt to make a case for roe v wade reducing the abortion rate?I believe one can make a case that Roe v. Wade decreased the number of abortions that resulted in death or serious injury to the mother. At the same time, I don't believe anyone is arguing that Roe v. Wade has reduced the number of abortions, though the number was trending lower until recently.
They'd like to see the rate reduced 'globally' but not 'locally'.What, in your experience, leads you to believe this is true. There's nothing I'd want more than for contraception to be foolproof, for men and women to seriously consider the consequences of recreational sex, for health care to be universally accessible, and for sexual education to be mandatory. These things, and probably more, would lead to a reduced abortion rate. No woman should have to go through an abortion, but they should have the right to choose to go through one if she believes the pregnancy is not in the best interest of the child or the parents.
They'd see it going down overall as a good thing, but want everyone to retain the unilateral right to make it go up as individuals.I don't see how this is contradictory. If people don't have to make the decision because of better education, then the system is working. If people have the right, but do not exercise it, why does that make them for an increased rate of abortion?
I'm not sure how they manage to compartmentalize these two competing notions.The abortion rate, if it is measured per capita, measures number of abortions per thousand women. The abortion rate can also be calculated in year end totals. A trend can be identified over periods of time. If it is trending downward, that does not imply that the right to sexual privacy has been revoked. There are many other factors that actually cause a downward trend in the abortion rate.
You're right. They don't. And they can have it as soon as they have the shared responsibility of carrying the pregnancy. When the growth is in your body, you can have the same say as I do. Until then, IT'S MY BODY; IT'S MY CHOICE.Your antagonism and your conclusion are why I'm careful not to align myself too closely with women's rights groups. Don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly for women's rights in every aspect. I don't propose, as I've said in this thread at least once, men have any authority over a woman's body in any circumstance.
« Older Ghosts:... | One officer and two non-commis... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
As for Second Baptist Houston jumping into the game early and hard and with cash, it would seem to me that this could be an opportunity for the Muslim (is there one of a reasonable size in Texas?) and other non-fundamentalist Christian communities to step up.
It (the ascent of the fundamentalist religious conservatives - or is that a redundancy?) feels like tyranny of the majority but I really hope that's not the case but rather just the piercing screams of a vocal minority.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:42 PM on September 23, 2005