Would conservative court dare overturn Roe? Of course!
“Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger predicted Tuesday night that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that gives women abortion rights.
The noted liberal scholar said the 1973 decision has become a “trophy” that the court’s conservative bloc could overturn if a Republican president chooses a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“I absolutely believe it,” Dellinger said during a forum cosponsored by POLITICO.
“For a while I thought that one could simply chip away at a lot more and more regulations that sort of protected access (to abortions) for the most affluent women but really made it impossible for women who were vulnerable to geography, poverty (and) youth,” he added. “But now I think that, actually, it is such a symbol of a kind of jurisprudence that conservatives have set themselves in opposition to.”
I concur. I often see conjecture, from liberals and conservatives both, that legal conservatives would step back if finally give the opportunity to overturn Roe. And I always wonder: “Based on what?”
What on earth makes them think that?
The same is true of claims that if Roe were overturned, conservatives in Congress would allow states to make their own decisions regarding the legality of abortion. No, they would not. At the first opportunity, they would try to federalize that policy. Life doesn’t begin at conception in some states but not in others.
And as Politico notes, “such a decision by the Supreme Court would pour barrels of gasoline onto the now smoldering fires of the never-ending culture war.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
223 comments Add your comment
AmVet
June 23rd, 2010
12:32 pm
Hey Scout, don’t feel too bad. You were only off by fifty three years!
Which for a neo-con is pretty respectable…
Peadawg
June 23rd, 2010
12:33 pm
“Then you are a hypocrite”
Oh, is that like the people who advocate higher taxes(but don’t send more than they owe on their taxes) or people that want us to stop using so much oil(but still drive and fly)? Gotcha.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:35 pm
Normal:
Is there any time in the gestation process when you feel the “fetus” is an unborn child?
Heart beat? Brain waves? Hearing? Taste? Touch?
All of the above?
If so, would you be against abortion at that time?
Normal
June 23rd, 2010
12:35 pm
Peadawg
June 23rd, 2010
12:33 pm
Nice try, but that curve ball was in the dirt. Ball four! Sorry…
President Hussein
June 23rd, 2010
12:35 pm
Basketball -”they flop just as much”
Yeah, I agree. That’s why I don’t watch that either. Maybe that’s why Barry likes it so much..,he’s the “Flopper-in-Chief”
Peadawg
June 23rd, 2010
12:35 pm
If not being a vegetarian but being against killing babies makes a hypocrite(i still don’t see the connection), then so be it.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:36 pm
AmVet:
How silly. A Supreme Court case reinforcing a previous decision is still a decision.
You conveniently ignore the main point.
Matti
June 23rd, 2010
12:37 pm
Peadawg, any idea what’s involved and how long it takes to prove rape? Didn’t think so. Not your problem. There’s a reason so few rapes are actually reported, let alone prosecuted, not that you care. Don’t worry, no one expects you to care, nor would believe you if you said you did.
BTW, for all you passionate fans, the Coathangers are playing the Star Bar Saturday night. Enjoy!
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
12:38 pm
If you’re using abortion as a method of birth control…you should get life.
Well, good luck with that!
in fact, I think you should hold every single TeaTard-approved candidate’s feet to the fire.
Do you, or do you not, favor mandatory life imprisonment for women who elect to terminate in the first trimester?
Normal
June 23rd, 2010
12:38 pm
President Hussein
June 23rd, 2010
12:35 pm
Jay
June 23rd, 2010
12:38 pm
RB, I don’t know the answer to that question. It is unknowable. Here’s what I wrote in an earlier post on the topic:
In fact, at various points in its long history, the Catholic Church has fixed the moment of “ensoulment” at conception, at the implantation of the embryo in the womb, at the moment the embryo develops a heart, at the moment it develops a brain, or at the moment of “quickening,” when it becomes noticeably active.
St. Thomas Aquinas, probably the most famous and influential theologian in church history, believed that the human soul did not join flesh until the body of the fetus had formed sufficiently to accept it, placing it well past the embryonic stage.
In effect, the church’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes down to better-safe-than-sorry. Even the chance that an embryo possesses a soul “would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo,” as Pope John Paul II put it.
And, in a 1974 declaration on abortion, the church acknowledges that its statement “expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” As it also notes, “it is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints likewise takes no definitive view of when the embryo or fetus acquires a soul, although some Mormons set it at the moment the embryo attaches itself to the womb. That explains why U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, ordinarily a strong social conservative, can also be a strong advocate of embryonic stem-cell research.
In Judaism, the embryo in its first 40 days is considered “as if it was water;” in Islam, a fetus isn’t generally considered human until four months into gestation. A more definitive position is offered by the Southern Baptist Convention, which states that “protectable human life begins at fertilization.”
Given all that, I’d say the court’s standard of viability outside the womb is wise.
Bud Wiser
June 23rd, 2010
12:38 pm
Yeah, this is a good topic (not) that was resolved over 40 years ago; lets all have a good group hug, gather in a little circle, then one by one we tell our little stories and opinions about abortion, and how wonderful it is. Leave a space though between 2 people to represent the millions of dead fetuses, and who will speak for them?
I wonder how many potential Einsteins, Gates, Lebrons, Stevie Wonder, et al, were scraped away over the years? Oh well, no matter, at least the would be mom was only slightly inconvenienced, and the world really doesn’t need any more geniuses, artists, athletes or business giants anyway … look at the mess we are in right now without them.
Anyway, this makes much more interesting discussion than the collapse in May of the new home sales market, down 33%, and the worst report in 46+ years. Wonder how the idiots will blame Bushie for that?
AmVet
June 23rd, 2010
12:41 pm
You said, The Supreme Court ruled the draft was Constitutional about the same time they came up with the insane logic for Roe vs. Wade.
Then ala the ballerina you said, A Supreme Court case reinforcing a previous decision is still a decision.
Just curious, do you ever get dizzy to the point where you puke from spinning so much?
Peadawg
June 23rd, 2010
12:41 pm
“Do you, or do you not, favor mandatory life imprisonment for women who elect to terminate in the first trimester?”
I just answered that question. Again for you(i typed slow this time), yes, except for rape, incest, or mother’s life in danger.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:43 pm
So Jay:
Where would you draw the line?
Heart beat? Brain waves? Touch? Hearing? Smell? Taste? Sight? (all happen in the womb)
All the above?
Or is the method of oxygen exchange (cord vs. lungs) all that matters ?
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
12:45 pm
I just answered that question.
I know, PD, try r-e-a-d-ing. That’s the question you need to frame for your TeaTard candidates. I made it all grammatickal-correct so you can copy/paste it.
Hold their feet to the fire.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:45 pm
AmVet :
You are really being silly and continue to ignore the point.
Of course they ruled the draft was Constitutional (again !) Just like they rule on 4th Amendment cases over and over ……………
The fact that you won’t debate the main point speaks volumes but doesn’t surprise me.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:46 pm
Bud Wiser:
But alas …………. we got you.
Normal
June 23rd, 2010
12:47 pm
AmVet,
you ever wonder if Peadawg and Scout ever use a saety net when walking that “straight and narrow” balance beam?
Outhouse GoKart
June 23rd, 2010
12:47 pm
“he’s the “Flopper-in-Chief”
LOL!!
Lil Johnny Fetus
June 23rd, 2010
12:47 pm
Mommy, please dont kill me.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
12:49 pm
I assume then you would support drafting women?
What part of “sure, fine, the draft’s slavery as well. No argument. If the country needs people [to] shoulder arms and die for a cause, it should be a willing army of volunteers. I agree.” don’t you understand, Scout?
Peadawg
June 23rd, 2010
12:51 pm
“you ever wonder if Peadawg and Scout ever use a saety net when walking that “straight and narrow” balance beam?”
Some things just don’t need sugar-coating. Some things are pretty clear cut.
AmVet
June 23rd, 2010
12:54 pm
Scout, ala George W. Bush, you seem incapable of admitting when you screw up.
Your initial point was that the evil liberals ruled the draft legal in the 1970s. The same evil liberals who decided Roe v. Wade. Of course, in sloppy fashion, you originally omitted the critically important section two of the 13th Amendment to begin with.
Because you were apparently too lazy to even look up and corroborate that foolish and fallacious statement you then came up with that subsequent nonsense to act as if you didn’t put your feet in your mouth.
No problem, its kind of entertaining to watch you pretend to take the high road yet seem utterly clueless about intellectual honesty. Or the lack thereof.
That would take a…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-X_M1oXXKY
Gotta go, duty calls. Someone has got to pay for more welfare for the wealthy…
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:56 pm
Normal:
Your words are music to my ears ! Thank you.
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matt. 7:14
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
12:57 pm
Heart beat? Brain waves? Touch? Hearing? Smell? Taste? Sight? (all happen in the womb)
none of which apply during the gestational period when elective abortion is legal throughout the US.
see also:
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:58 pm
AmVet :
Pretty sad argument but not unexpected. Thanks for the exchange.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
12:59 pm
stands for decibels:
As long as you realize we would have never won WWII (66+% draft rate).
By the way: The Supreme Court in their reasoning on the draft said it was because the state has the right to protect itself …………. “to exist”.
larry
June 23rd, 2010
1:00 pm
I am of the pro-choice/last choice crowd. Besides if you really want to limit abortions but it legal, make all adoptions free. No cost adoptions. None of this $5,000 to $40,000 cost to adopt a child. Make adoptions free and you limit the abortions while still keeping them legal for women who need them.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:01 pm
stands for decibels :
Hummmm……….. thou dost err.
And don’t forget partial birth abortions either ……………..
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
1:04 pm
As long as you realize we would have never won WWII (66+% draft rate).
You know this how? Who’s to say how many would have volunteered had there been no draft?
Lil Johnny Fetus
June 23rd, 2010
1:07 pm
Enter your comments here
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
1:07 pm
Hummmm……….. thou dost err.
About first trimester embryonic development? I don’t think so, no. If you push out to the very end of the first trimester you begin to see some of those things in very primitive stages; however, most elective abortions take place before that.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:08 pm
stand for decibles:
Stop it ! You’re killing me and my side is hurting.
They had the draft because they “HAD” to ! In fact, having the draft (66%) even caused some of the “volunteers” (as you call them) because they wanted to go in the Navy instead.
Outhouse GoKart
June 23rd, 2010
1:08 pm
All I could say to that Vet is…
“Theres an old saying back in TX…or maybe its TN. Fool me once shame on me…Fool me twice…uh,wont get fooled again…:
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:09 pm
stands for decibles:
“Embryo – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNeurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.”
pat
June 23rd, 2010
1:12 pm
It should be over turned, abortion is murder. Killing should be illegal in all cases except for self defense or life of mother in the case of abortion. There is no gray area here.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:14 pm
pat:
God bless you.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
1:15 pm
Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.”
You’re defining “brain activity” by the mere initial production of neurons? That’s a serious stretch.
pat
June 23rd, 2010
1:15 pm
There is not decernable break in the human life cycle between conception and death. If you have an abortion you have killed a person. Noe one who has ever had an abortion has been better for it.
RB from Gwinnett
June 23rd, 2010
1:16 pm
Nice dodge Jay. I guess as long as you can avoid having to answer that question you can continue to support this immoral act with this “it couldn’t have lived anyway” routine. You aren’t fooling anybody Jay. You know to pin the time life begins on “viability outside the womb” is dependent on medical science and has steadily lowered year after year as that science grows. But you all know when life begins is not an arbitrary number based on the last medical miracle don’t you. It has a definate beginning and end.
You keep hanging your hat on that lie for as long as it makes you feel better about killing children, but you all know deep down, it is nothing more than a lie.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:18 pm
stands for decibels :
You are entitled to your opinion. I believe God starts at conception.
BTW: I’ll ask again …………. is there “any” point along the way that you feel an unborn child is being killed in the womb?
MikeR
June 23rd, 2010
1:18 pm
We hope and pray that Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Murder is murder. Do you think it is ok to kill a 1week old baby because he/she is hindering your lifestyle? Regardless of what government says, there is NO difference between the baby in the womb and the one in the crib.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:20 pm
RB from Gwinnett :
We can have hope in that someday I believe our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will look back on those who supported abortion in the same way we look back on those who owned slaves.
Jay
June 23rd, 2010
1:20 pm
RB, an answer that you do not like is not a dodge.
I answered you plainly.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:23 pm
Jay:
Did you answer my 12:43 ?
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
1:23 pm
Ok, Scout, I’m clear now. You think the draft is swell (I thought maybe you didn’t), and you think forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term is swell.
However, you still haven’t told me what kind of criminal penalties you’d impose to give any abortion ban real teeth.
How long should these women be imprisoned? Or do they get the noose or the needle or suchlike?
If abortion is murder, is that the same as regular ol’ murder?
And for those “moment o’ conception” kindsa guys, are you going to apply this penalty to those who use an IUD or the Pill, as well? And hold docs/pharmacists who install/dispense such things as co-conspirators to murder?
You guys opened this can of worms; you should be able to provide clear answers to these practical questions.
mike
June 23rd, 2010
1:26 pm
With all of the serious problems facing the country, I am glad that very few pundits are still focusing on culture war issues. Too bad that Jay and Cyndi Tucker haven’t gotten the memo.
scrappy
June 23rd, 2010
1:26 pm
This debate will never be won by either side, but to be based on laws of the US, the debate should be based on laws, not religious beliefs.
If you take religion out of it, all that is left is medical science and how that fits into the current set of laws. Viability outside of the womb works for me too.
There are different words and definitions on purpose, calling an embryo a baby, does not make it so.
pat
June 23rd, 2010
1:26 pm
Once a fetus is killed it will never be replaced. Just like a person outside the womb. All this crap about brain waves and consciousness is just that, crap. But is sounds like here, that most people agree that abortions past the first trimester is murder. So at least we’ve narrowed it down to the first 12 weeks.
One cannot afford to be wrong here.
Outhouse GoKart
June 23rd, 2010
1:28 pm
Big Mac – Taste the Glory? Hmmmm…not very inspirational.
josef nix
June 23rd, 2010
1:29 pm
Okay, more to the subject as Jay brought it up, what are the chances of a conservative Supreme Court any time in the near future?
Normal
June 23rd, 2010
1:29 pm
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matt. 7:14
Horse Pucks!
pat
June 23rd, 2010
1:29 pm
I don’t understand the pride behind terminating human life. Where does that come from?
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:29 pm
stands for decibels :
If you answer my 1:18 question with no dodge then I will answer your 1:23 questions.
Otherwise we are done.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
1:31 pm
I’ll ask again …is there “any” point along the way that you feel an unborn child is being killed in the womb?
I must have missed this question before. I suppose you’re referring to those relatively rare cases of late-term abortion.
Roe makes it clear that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions can be regulated, the latter more stringently, so legally it’s beyond the topic at hand and not as interesting to me for online discussion purposes. But since you asked:
Personally, from what I’ve read of actual cases of IDX (the so-called “partial birth abortion” that so many find so icky), it’s an utterly last-resort kind of case where none of the choices are good ones, where the child is most certainly wanted but also certain to perish. IDX seems the preferable method over the more dangerous alternative.
And of course these are tragedies; of course these are “unborn children being killed in the womb,” as you put it, but like some other hideous parts of the human experience, perhaps, sometimes, the better of nothing-but-bad-choices to be made.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:31 pm
scrappy :
So what is a “baby” ? Can a “baby” ever be in the womb? At any time?
Normal
June 23rd, 2010
1:31 pm
josef nix
June 23rd, 2010
1:29 pm
…not very likely…but it’s not conservative that bothers me, it’s activist.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:32 pm
Normal:
Careful.
“God is not mocked”
Outhouse GoKart
June 23rd, 2010
1:32 pm
Obama to relieve McKrystal….yet another dumb move by our Dumbhole n Chief.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:34 pm
Normal:
“…not very likely…but it’s not conservative that bothers me, it’s activist.”
Maybe on that we can agree? The Constitution means what it said at the time it was written. Any other interpretation is an “activist” one ………. liberal or conservative. If you want to change it ………. Amend it! Don’t prostitute it.
pat
June 23rd, 2010
1:35 pm
The debate is won, liberals are left scrambling for justifications for abortion, but all biology, science and philosophy and even the law, supports that the fetus is in fact a human being….Not being able to admit your wrong, does not suddenly make you right. Right and wrong are not relative.
This is not a religious debate as some make, it’s life or death.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
1:35 pm
what are the chances of a conservative Supreme Court any time in the near future?
Conservative? You mean one that truly doesn’t impose their own political ideology on their rulings? Nil. Infinity to one against.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:35 pm
Outhouse GoKart :
Have to disagree here. The general stated he voted for Obama. You get what you ask for. Suck it up !
Outhouse GoKart
June 23rd, 2010
1:36 pm
McKrystal is probably thinking…
“thank you Jesus, the farther I am away from this Whitehouse know-nothing the safe I am. Atleast now it wont be me getting killed over this chowderheads futile attempt at solving this problem”.
josef nix
June 23rd, 2010
1:36 pm
Normal
So, what do you make of the current composition, the recent appointments, and why would this be so important a discussion in this matter…were it brought to the court today, tomorrow or within the next few years, what would the outcome be…?
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:36 pm
pat:
As I said at my 1:20, one day is will go the way of slavery …………..
pat
June 23rd, 2010
1:37 pm
Seems the law considers unborn children people, out side of an abortion clinic:
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041226-1306-ca-pregnantwomanattacked.html
http://crime.about.com/b/2006/09/25/woman-charged-in-murder-of-mother-fetus.htm
Outhouse GoKart
June 23rd, 2010
1:37 pm
Perhaps McKrystal is now seeing the E-or of his ways or perhaps he saw them long ago, hence, the suicide attempt.
kayaker 71
June 23rd, 2010
1:38 pm
There were over 50M abortions performed in this country between 1973 and 2008. That works out to 1.2M/yr since 2004. That’s 4X the population of Columbus, GA. Less than 2% of these abortions were performed because of rape or incest. That’s 137/hr, 3304/day and 23,196/wk. You figure out the rest. The biggest choice that would help these stats is the choice for potential moms to keep their legs together. Now that’s a choice that I can buy.
josef nix
June 23rd, 2010
1:38 pm
sfd
A good question. Jay, would you please define the term conservative as you use it for the parameters of this particular topic?
Del
June 23rd, 2010
1:43 pm
There really isn’t any cogent argument that a fetus is not human life. So If you’re a believer then you have to look upon abortion as murder and in direct conflict with God’s word. If you’re a non-believer it’s easy to write off a developing fetus in the mothers womb as nothing worthy of consideration and therefore a growth that can be excised from the body at will. In this country there are many more believers than there are non-believers. The far-left knows this and fears it and that’s why they continue their effort to diminish Christianity. It’s interesting that the left supports illegal Hispanic aliens and want across the board amnesty for this group because they see them potentially as a growing far-left voting bloc. They forget that most Hispanics are Roman Catholics and do not believe in abortion. Maybe a growing Hispanic population may at some point result in the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Just a thought, by no means a prediction.
josef nix
June 23rd, 2010
1:45 pm
Nazi squirrels in the attic!
scrappy
June 23rd, 2010
1:48 pm
From websters –
baby – 1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
fetus – an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
embryo – 1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
its called stages, science uses these things… embryo, then fetus, then baby
lovelyliz
June 23rd, 2010
1:48 pm
Would the conservatives overturn Roe v Wade? As long as they and theirs can afford to take European vacations at odd times with a side trip to a medical clinic where they can have their safe abortions in complete privacy, OF COURSE THEY WILL.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:49 pm
Del:
Good words.
scrappy
June 23rd, 2010
1:51 pm
“The debate is won, liberals are left scrambling for justifications for abortion, but all biology, science and philosophy and even the law, supports that the fetus is in fact a human being”
….um no… perhaps only the science and philosophy you choose to read or believe.
lovelyliz
June 23rd, 2010
1:53 pm
As long as those with $$$$ and power can still fly off to have safe & private abortions for any reason, they don’t mind playing the part of the hypocrtie in denegrating those who don’t see them for the immoral hypocrites they are
RB from Gwinnett
June 23rd, 2010
1:53 pm
Jay, you gave us a bunch of paragraphs of cut-and-paste and a comment about what the supreme court ruled and you believe they are wise. Why is it so hard for you to put in print “I, Jay Bookman, believe life begins at the age of viability”???
My opinion is, Jay, you can’t put that in print because you know it’s a lie. You know that date changes every year as medical science improves and you know in your heart the date life actually begins is not that variable.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:55 pm
scrappy:
Have you ever asked a pregnant friend or family member how the “fetus” was doing or when is the “fetus” due?
jconservative
June 23rd, 2010
1:57 pm
Just asking a question.
The fertilized egg is in the fallopian tube. The fertilized egg then exits the fallopian tube and enters the uterus. It will then attach (implantation) to the uterus wall with 6 to 12 days. If implantation fails a miscarriage happens and the fertilized egg exits the body.
Question: Is the fertilized egg that fails to implant life?
Again, just asking a question.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
1:58 pm
RB from Gwinnett :
I can’t even get any of them (including Jay) to say at what point the child becomes a fully human being ……….. even if they only believe it’s the day before? They are afraid to answer.
I did have someone (can’t rememer their handle) awhile back who stated it was not a human being until it was born and had been fully breathing on its own for awhile ……….. an absurdity but at least the guy would state what he believed.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
2:00 pm
RB from Gwinnett :
P.S. The main reason they won’t answer is because if they do I will say, “o.k. then what about the day before that …….. what’s the difference in the child? And the day before that? And the one before that?”
They don’t want to go down that road.
Jay
June 23rd, 2010
2:01 pm
Don’t tell me what I believe, RB.
Those words cut and pasted were my words, no one else’s. I do not believe there is any bright and shining line defining when life begins. As I noted, the Catholic Church does not either.
In the absence of that bright and shining line, I believe the line of viability is a workable best guess. You don’t like that answer? Tough. Some questions don’t lend themselves to the easy, simplistic answers you seem to require.
neo-Carlinist
June 23rd, 2010
2:02 pm
JB, nice pull on the Muslim interpretation of when a fetus becomes a human. Call me a cynic, but if the fetus is human, the answer is never. I have always wondered why people who support abortion refer to themselves as “Pro Choice” when they are pro abortion? The fact is, the father has no “choice” when it comes to abortion. Like it, or not, abortion is a decision, not a choice. Were the pro-abortion crowd honest, they’d refer to themselves as pro-woman’s decision. But, it just doesn’t sound American, now, does it. Just like the “Women’s Reproductive Rights” crowd – sounds almost Constitutional. Conversely, why do people who believe “abortion is murder” but support the death penalty, and accept collateral damage as part of waging war (Predator anyone?) consider themselves “pro-life”? They should call themselves Pro-fetus (it’s not a baby or a child, it’s a fetus). In truth, abortion is the collateral damage of America’s theo-ideological war.
neo-Carlinist
June 23rd, 2010
2:03 pm
excuse me, if the Muslim fetus is female, the answer is never.
Del
June 23rd, 2010
2:03 pm
Scout,
Thank you…It’s interesting that when a young woman has council on growth stages of the unborn child and the whole range of alternative options to abortion such as adoptive services, financial assistance etc. they often change their mind and choose to carry the baby to term. That’s why the left vehemently opposes any state law that requires pre-abortion council sessions for the mother. They don’t want the young women seeking abortion to be fully informed.
scrappy
June 23rd, 2010
2:04 pm
Scout – no I haven’t, and personally I do think of a baby after ~ 2 months. But all of this calling it a baby at the point of conception stuff is just wrong.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
2:04 pm
Scout, I gave what I felt was an honest answer to your inquiry @ 1.31.
so, about those criminal penalties for pregnant women who decide to commit “murder” in the first trimester? Going to share?
Jefferson
June 23rd, 2010
2:04 pm
Social problems are not solved by legal remedies.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
2:05 pm
Jay:
“Viability”? And when is that? What exact second for each child? Can you pinpoint it? No!
Therefore, we don’t like the answer because even by your definition “some” children are being killed.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
2:07 pm
I have always wondered why people who support abortion refer to themselves as “Pro Choice” when they are pro abortion?
They are no more “pro abortion” than those who argue for sensible drug laws are “pro-drug.”
I am supportive of efforts to decriminalize marijuana cultivation and posession for personal use. I am not even mildly interested in using the stuff. Does that make me “pro marijuana?”
And as long as we’re applying terms we like better to those whom we don’t like, I prefer to call you “pro-criminalization” or, alternatively, a “prohibitionist” if you believe abortion should be re-criminalized.
And that’s the actual political issue here, not whether you personally think a fertilized egg is a “baby,” fercryinoutloud.
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
2:09 pm
scrappy: O.K. so when are we killing babies? At what point?
Del: And if they see a sonogram I think the % is even higher !
stand for decibles: I say you didn’t so I guess we are done.
kayaker 71
June 23rd, 2010
2:09 pm
One point that is important to make….. not even the most ardent pro choice advocate is in favor of killing an unborn child. If so, they have places for people like you run by guys in white coats. The main argument for killing an unwanted child is the woman’s “right to choose”. The right to choose began much earlier than conception. We all have made choices in the heat of the moment…. sometimes good, sometimes, not so good. But the bottom line responsibility lies with the two that did the deed…. no one else. It is estimated that over 76% of women who have abortions have varying forms of psychological problems coping with that choice. They know it isn’t right to kill a child. The sperminators, on the other hand, usually have little or no remorse for their actions. So ladies, the ball is in your court. Insist on a condom, don’t let the heat of the moment rule the day and act responsibly…… one million, two hundred thousand lives/yr is a hell of waste of potential Americans.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
2:09 pm
It’s interesting that when a young woman has council on growth stages of the unborn child and the whole range of alternative options to abortion such as adoptive services, financial assistance etc., and pressured into believing they’ll go to HELL for MURDER, and given phony information about “brain waves” and outright lies about personal health risks, they often change their mind and choose to carry the baby to term.
fyt.
scrappy
June 23rd, 2010
2:10 pm
Del – that is an absurd statement. Everyone on the left is is on this huge conspiracy to get as many people to have abortions as possible? No education, no, just send them in at group rates!
That is absolutely ridiculous.
I will not speak for all who fall to the left, but I oppose such laws being passed when they are not feasible, and when the inherent purpose is to make it take longer and more difficult. Just keep passing enough laws, and by the time the woman has completed everything she is in the 2nd trimester and can no longer get one…
neo-Carlinist
June 23rd, 2010
2:12 pm
It might be argued that many teen mothers are not emotionally or financially “viable” – are they candidates for termination? And what about fetus that are determined to be incapable of surviving via ultrasound or other pre-natal testing? I am inclined to follow the bumper sticker wisdom, which suggests, if you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
2:12 pm
I say you didn’t
I couldn’t have made it clearer: “of course these are “unborn children being killed in the womb,” as you put it.”
scrappy
June 23rd, 2010
2:12 pm
Scout – I already answered that when I said I agreed with Jay on the point of viability outside of the mother. I have said my opinion, deal with it.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
2:16 pm
Guess nobody besides Peadawg’s willing to walk the walk here. Nobody can tell me what kind of criminal penalties they’d apply to women who terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester. And yet they want Roe overturned.
Just how do you geniuses imagine you’ll ban abortion, if not with criminal penalties?
Have you seriously not thought this one out this far?
headin’ upstairs, but I’ll check back later to see if anyone bothers to go on the record.