Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"Roe" wants Roe v. Wade reversed

Roe Vs. Wade Abortion

  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#41 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 03:10 AM

Drew, on Jun 18 2003, 08:53 AM, said:

We also know a lot more about the effects of an abortion on the woman. As sierraleone pointed out, there seems to be a correlation between abortion and breast cancer.
To me, that one is a non-starter.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, so apologies if I've misunderstood you, but the effect on the woman really shouldn't factor into any legal decision. The woman is, by definition, a willing participant. She should be given full disclosure of all the effects that are known in a neutral way. For instance, "x% of woman who had an abortion got breast cancer, compared to y% of those who didn't.".

It's also a double-edged sword for pro-lifers. If they use, "Abortion causes breast cancer!" as their argument, then they run the risk that it actually doesn't.

The *other* issue-- of where life begins-- is, I think, the valid argument to make. Of course, it's as murky as hell.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#42 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 03:26 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 18 2003, 08:11 AM, said:

Drew, on Jun 18 2003, 08:53 AM, said:

We also know a lot more about the effects of an abortion on the woman. As sierraleone pointed out, there seems to be a correlation between abortion and breast cancer.
To me, that one is a non-starter.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, so apologies if I've misunderstood you, but the effect on the woman really shouldn't factor into any legal decision. The woman is, by definition, a willing participant. She should be given full disclosure of all the effects that are known in a neutral way. For instance, "x% of woman who had an abortion got breast cancer, compared to y% of those who didn't.".

It's also a double-edged sword for pro-lifers. If they use, "Abortion causes breast cancer!" as their argument, then they run the risk that it actually doesn't.

The *other* issue-- of where life begins-- is, I think, the valid argument to make. Of course, it's as murky as hell.
I have to agree with Rov, on the women being willing participants. I just think they need to be informed on all the risks, and the likely hood of those risks. And there wasn't enough information at the time to say much of anything on the long-term effects of abortion, physically, emotionally, etc. People knowingly do hazardous things. Some people make *careers* out of doing things that are dangerous, or potentially dangerous. Heck, most operations have a chance of the person dying on the operating table. That is nothing new. The only difference is, in most kinds of operations, the person will/might die if they don't get it either. Heck, one could argue a woman could die in pregnancy/child-birth/complications there of. Though those kind of risks are serverly down from what they were in the past.

Thanks TT, for fixing the link  :D

Edited by sierraleone, 19 June 2003 - 03:27 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#43 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 03:33 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 18 2003, 11:11 AM, said:

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, so apologies if I've misunderstood you, but the effect on the woman really shouldn't factor into any legal decision.
If you discount the addiction factor (which isn't a factor when they first start) smokers were willing participants, too. The effects of cigarettes on their health was the raison d´ętre for all those tobacco lawsuits. And not all smokers get lung cancer.

Now, if you want to argue that those lawsuits were just a cynical attempt by states to fill their coffers, of course I'm with you all the way.  ;)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#44 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 03:36 AM

sierraleone, on Jun 18 2003, 11:27 AM, said:

And there wasn't enough information at the time to say much of anything on the long-term effects of abortion, physically, emotionally, etc. People knowingly do hazardous things.
Like smoking. Remember, the argument was that these smokers didn't know the risks involved when they started smoking. And all across the country courts ruled on the side of the smokers. (Or rather, the states that brought the lawsuits citing increased healthcare costs. I don't know if anyone suffering from years of smoking ever got so much as a penny.)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#45 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 03:45 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 18 2003, 10:11 AM, said:

The *other* issue-- of where life begins-- is, I think, the valid argument to make. Of course, it's as murky as hell.
You got that right.

I'd say even murkier, but that's just my personal opinion, since not only does it matter what the *science* says, but what each person *believes* constitutes life.

(A topic for a potentially long, drawn out conversation that could last a year and still never get anywhere) ;)

My personal stance - I prefer pro life to pro choice, but that stems mostly from my pragmatic side believing the million or so abortions a year would all yield "unwanted" babies when the number of people wanting to adopt a child is still so high.  *shrug*

As for Roe Vs. Wade.... well, I don't think the ruling was necessarily a mistake, though some things could have been done differently, I think.

#46 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 03:47 AM

^ if they weren't informed there was *some* risk, as this kind of medical procedure would have, then they weren't rightly informed  :suspect: All major medical procedures have risks. Now what to argue, is if women that didn't know the other risks only found recently have any case. I'd say yes if the medical community and/or state knew and weren't informing these women. Which, IIRC, they didn't. But this kind of issue is pretty murky.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#47 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 05:38 AM

Quote

*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
--U.S. Constitution, Amendment 9

I don't believe that this was intended to give courts carte blanche to claim that the constitution (I'm just talking about the constitution) confers rights that simply aren't in there.

Frankly I think that the same decision could have been reached through a less tortured analysis.

Lil (who, although agreeing with Brennan's politics, was never a big fan of his reasoning).

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 19 June 2003 - 05:38 AM.

Posted Image

#48 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 06:13 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 18 2003, 06:39 PM, said:

I don't believe that this was intended to give courts carte blanche to claim that the constitution (I'm just talking about the constitution) confers rights that simply aren't in there.
I absolutely agree with that. Smokers often point to that amendment, saying that it gives them a "right" to smoke. When they do that, I just have to laugh. In theory, there are many "rights" that we believe to be "self-evident". But when you get down to brass tacks, if it ain't in the Constitution (in the US), it ain't really a right.

#49 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 06:18 AM

You are forgetting rights under the laws of a given state, including that state's constitution.

Example:  California has an express right to privacy in its constitution (thank goodness).

Lil
Posted Image

#50 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 06:41 AM

Drew, on Jun 17 2003, 09:56 PM, said:

Plus, we know so much more about the development of unborn children, and the effects of abortion on women's health. (The link to breast cancer, for example.)
FWIW, there's not really a reputable medical study that proves any such link. There was one study (I've forgotten the name) where the methodology was proven to be faulty.

Anne, goes back to reading the rest of the entries.

#51 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 06:43 AM

^ I believe that there was a reputable study done that showed a lower occurence of breast cancer in women who gave birth to a child and nursed it, but it was not having a child that increased the risk, not the abortion itself.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#52 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 06:58 AM

^ From what little I know of medicine :) I think that sounds like a more likely outcome.

Thanks for the info.

Edited by AnneZo, 19 June 2003 - 06:58 AM.


#53 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 07:01 AM

Laoise, on Jun 18 2003, 02:44 PM, said:

^ I believe that there was a reputable study done that showed a lower occurence of breast cancer in women who gave birth to a child and nursed it, but it was not having a child that increased the risk, not the abortion itself.
The study I read suggested that the physiological change that occurs in the breasts as the body prepares for birth--when halted by abortion--creates a situation that could cause cancerous cells to develop.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#54 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 07:05 AM

^  Well, can you substantiate that?  Source material?  Link?  Name of study?  Who ran it and when?

:)

#55 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 07:09 AM

Shalamar, on Jun 18 2003, 08:00 AM, said:

Yes it is a complicated topic, and one that stems from an even hotter and more nebulous one...


C
A
U
T
I
O
N




When does a fetus become a ..person..a individual being with it's own rights...

I'll be very honest and say that I make mention of this with great trepedation, and a part of me  hopes that no one replies to this.

But it is the root of the whole debate, and deserves open discussion.

My thoughts, and they are purely my thoughts...

I feel that the determining point is when the infant can survive outside the womb....

I am woman who has had an abortion...and I am willing to tell why I had an abortion. I have inherited gentic disseases, and the chances that any child I had of having those  were high. I know what I have had to deal with. I would not risk passing it on, and never intended to. I was not supposed to be able to get pregnant, but I did. I sought counciling and after thinking long and hard, made my choice....
I agree with you that the root issue is when does the fetus become an individual. When is it a living baby, not just a group of cells?

I have frequently heard the time frame you just gave ....... when s/he can survive outside of the womb. My big issue with that is that point is always changing. If we were to go back in history a number of years, we might find that it is very rare for a fetus younger than 30 weeks gestation to survive. Fastforward a few years and you would find that its now common for fetuses who had only reached 25 weeks of gestation to survive. Moving ahead to the present. My nephew, who was full term but had other problems, spent the first 6 weeks after his birth in neonatal intensive care. There were several babies who were born at the 26-28 weeks of gestation range. There were also 2 who were born at the 21-23 weeks of gestation stage. They were so tiny, but active and doing very well.

As medical science advances babies born at earlier and earlier stages of gestation survive. So, when does a fetus really become a living person with the right to live?

#56 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 07:18 AM

Drew, on Jun 18 2003, 02:02 PM, said:

Laoise, on Jun 18 2003, 02:44 PM, said:

^ I believe that there was a reputable study done that showed a lower occurence of breast cancer in women who gave birth to a child and nursed it, but it was not having a child that increased the risk, not the abortion itself.
The study I read suggested that the physiological change that occurs in the breasts as the body prepares for birth--when halted by abortion--creates a situation that could cause cancerous cells to develop.
I knew I included that "I believe" for a reason ;)  My memory for facts like that is terrible... I tend to just take away the general idea and none of the specific.

I've read several places though (and again, I'm not sure of specifics, but I'm looking!) that a group of cancer specialists are claiming that the study you're referring to is false, and that abortions don't in and of themselves cause higher rates of breast cancer.  I've heard so much on both sides that I don't know what I think personally.

Life would be so much easier if everyone in the medical community agreed with everyone else! ;)
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#57 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 07:43 AM

AnneZo, on Jun 18 2003, 03:06 PM, said:

^  Well, can you substantiate that?  Source material?  Link?  Name of study?  Who ran it and when?

:)
I read it far too long ago, but I want to say it was in one of the major newsweeklies. And since I only read Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, it would have to have been in one of those. But again, I would have no idea which study they were referencing.

(Egad. Did I just use the word "referencing?")
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#58 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 10:45 AM

I figure I might as well chime in with an opinion, considering I've already posted in the thread.... :)

I'm very sorry that 'Roe' and some others regret having abortions.  It must be a horrible feeling for them.

But making abortions illegal is *not* the answer.  There are many women who do not regret having abortions.

And if the physical and mental health issues associated with abortion are a concern now, imagine how horrid they would become if abortion was illegal!  Making abortions illegal wouldn't stop them, but it would change how they happen.  It would also mean that for someone to get emotional help after the abortion would require admitting to having done something illegal.


I am personally against abortions.  In my opinion, they are wrong.  In the past 2 years or so, I've done a lot of research, and actually changed my opinion to being against abortions from accepting them as fine.  I hate to hear about people using abortion as just another form of birth control - "Oh, no condom?  Well, if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion, no biggy!"

But I'm also pro-choice.  In my morality, abortions are wrong.  But many many many people do not share my morality.  In fact, I doubt anyone shares my morals and values completely, because they're both such intensely personal things.  Because other people don't share my morality and because what is right for me isn't what it right for everyone, other people will make different choices, and they should have the option to make those choices.

I would never criticize someone for having an abortion.  I've never been pregnant, I have never had abortion as an option to consider, and as such, I have no true understanding of the issue.  If my life had been different, my beliefs might have been different as well.  Since no one can ascertain 100% conclusively in-every-case-and-belief when a fetus becomes a person instead of a lump of cells, then maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe abortion *is* perfectly fine, maybe it's not, but I don't think that anyone will ever be able to prove that it is or isn't murder.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#59 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 12:59 PM

It seems to me that in general, when someone feels that they might be wrong that they take the most cautious stance available.  In this case, we don't know what life is, but again, we know pretty much exactly when you have a new organism or not.  Since I'm not aware of any instance when any of those cells that are undamaged grows into something other than a human, I'd say that we're pretty much safe in saying that a "lump" of those cells is a human.  Not a fish or a reptile or an ameboa, but a human.  

I've always considered the abortion debate from two different angles.  The first is where people who are in favor of allowing it simply don't care if it's a person or not and in all cases are willing to admit that no matter what, the woman should win out until it's born.  Now, I completely disagree, but there's really no faulting their consistency.  They believe positively in something that they want and they aren't afraid to pursue what they believe in.  

And then there are those who would never do it themselves, and yet, would be happy to allow someone else to do it.

To be honest, I don't understand the concept of "personal" morality.  Your morals aren't something that you keep to yourself in any way.  If you don't believe in stealing, then you don't steal from another person.  You can't steal from yourself.  If you don't believe in racial hatred, well, then you don't hate another person.  It's pretty certain that if you hate yourself, racism is the least of your problems.  

Morality isn't personal.  If you believe that, then you're just letting someone else's morals take over.  That's all there is to it.  You decide to put the choice in someone else's hands, then you've become at least partially responsible for any choice that they make.  If you really think that you can make a moral decision that affects no one but yourself, then you are seriously kidding yourself.  

Yes, sometimes you cannot see how a decision affects the world at large, and that's understandable.  Nevertheless, your decisions do matter.  As the environmentalists say, "think globally and act locally".  They know you aren't going to take on huge polluters or clean up Superfund sites yourself, but you can vote and you can make decisions that contribute to other personal decisions that will.  Just because it's someone's personal preference to buy an SUV and waste oil doesn't mean people feel particularly shy about telling us that it's wrong in a very public manner.  

The law is there to protect people from one another.  If the law cannot protect a whole class of people, then it has failed.  Until we prove that a so-called "clump of cells" isn't a person, then we have a duty to protect it.  It may seem like a cold gesture since a grown woman is easier to empathize with than something you can't see and can't recognize, but as I recall, we were all something invisible and unrecognizable at one point in our existence.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#60 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 02:19 PM

Laoise, on Jun 18 2003, 05:46 PM, said:

I'm very sorry that 'Roe' and some others regret having abortions.  It must be a horrible feeling for them.

But making abortions illegal is *not* the answer.  There are many women who do not regret having abortions.
It goes beyond that for her, and "regret" isn't what the anti-abortion thing is about anyway.

She's not just responsible for the abortion she had. There've been 40 million since then under the law that her actions gave us. People who are generally against abortion almost all make exceptions when the mother's life is threatened, in cases of rape or incest, and/or the discovery of severe genetic problems. According to Planned Parenthood a few years ago, these total 7% of abortions. That leaves 37.2 million infanticides of convenience. Imagine having reason to see yourself as the cause of something that dwarfs the magnitude of the word "holocaust": more than Hitler, Stalin, and almost all of the Red shadows of Russia like Pol Pot combined... more than any war... more deaths unconnected with old age than any country, no matter how huge, has ever had due to any single cause other than a couple of history-haunting plagues in past centuries. And the victims, rather than being random mixes of people with varying degrees of innocence or evilness based on their own actions, are practically the very definition of innocence itself.

Regret might be her personal motivation for trying to stop this, but who exactly has claimed that the probability of a mother who kills her offspring later coming to regret it is the REASON to prevent abortions? Nobody that I'm aware of, certainly not anyone important in the political or legal realm, or important numbers of people in general. So there's no reason to argue whether or not that cause is worth it.

The reason people are against abortion is that abortion is killing someone. There is no "right to choose" to kill someone who is not a threat to you.

Edited by Delvo, 19 June 2003 - 02:26 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Roe Vs. Wade, Abortion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users