Roe v. Wade -- Overturned?!

JavaFox · Jun 17, 2003, 10:38 AM

Wow. The original plaintiff of the landmark Roe v. Wade case that legalized on-demand abortion in America, Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" was a pseudonym) is filing to have Roe v. Wade overturned! The press conference will commence shortly.

Ms. McCorvey plans to address one of the points that originally was not addressed -- the question of "when does life begin?" She also will introduce the affidavits of over 1,000 women testifying that abortion was a devestating and harmful experience. Also of note will be the various "Baby Moses" laws that now exist all over the country, allowing women to give up children (to the state) that they cannot take care of.

Even if she doesn't win, this will be a very interesting case, and people on both sides will have to grapple with the question of whether or not abortion has any place in an America in which it is increasingly stigmatized.

digerati · Jun 17, 2003, 01:30 PM

Even though I was almost aborted on (all my aunts, uncles and grandparents wanted my mom to get an abortion, when I was born my grandmother cut my mom out of the will) and have lost 4 could have been brothers and sisters I support abortion in some cases. My mom never used birth control because she had cancer of the uterus at 14 and got it removed, doctors told her she'd never get pregnant. But if she had given birth to those other children I would probably still be living in downtown hollywood and I'm glad I get the chance to live up here in this nice suberb.

evergreen · Jun 17, 2003, 02:22 PM

^_^ if you would have been aborted you would never have lived in downtown Hollywood or the sweet suburbs you're in now. Maybe you'll get to find out what your aborted brothers and/or sisters think of abortion one day...

JavaFox · Jun 17, 2003, 02:26 PM

Point well taken, evergreen, but I don't want this discussion becoming overly personal, please.

This isn't a stern warning, just some friendly guidance. Let's try to keep things not quite so personal in here.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jun 17, 2003, 02:34 PM

it is needed ... aburtion is a must .. it only a matter of time untill the world becomes overpopulated... and we are force to fight for simple things like food, air, land, water, just to live....

just think one life ... he goes has 3 kids with a girl ... then thouse 3 have 3 and so on ... you dont just take 1 life your slowing the rate of overpopulation... or would you like it beeter if famlies were limited to only 1 child!!!

you bring up that people can relinkwish the children to the state. But were does the sate get its money ??? our pockets!!! are you willing to give 50% of you paycheck just to feed someone elses childer while you or you own starve? the taxes needed would be outragoius...

JavaFox · Jun 17, 2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
you bring up that people can relinkwish the children to the state. But were does the sate get its money ??? our pockets!!! are you willing to give 50% of you paycheck just to feed someone elses childer while you or you own starve? the taxes needed would be outragoius...

"Baby Moses" laws aren't something that are in the works, Neon -- they already exist, and have existed for some time.

evergreen · Jun 17, 2003, 03:10 PM

Nothing personal, I'm sure there are a million stories similar to ^_^'s.
I'm no innocent bystander; the way I used to screw around, there is at least one instance where I may have gotten a girl pregnant and she may have had an abortion without me knowing about it.
I look at it as murder of the most innocent; what I can't get are the doctor's who perform them, especially the partial birth abortions. Everybody makes mistakes, but the details of a partial birth abortion make me believe those doc's have some gruesome minds.

Neon, taxes are already outrageous and fund many things that I don't approve of...

ToshiroOC · Jun 17, 2003, 06:34 PM

I have had an idea for abortion that I think could suffice as a good comprimise between the two different sides of the arguement - why don't you have a form available called an "Intent to Give Birth" form, in which you are legally bound to recognize your child as a full citizen, and the law does the same. It could be signed at any time prior to birth (at which point it isn't needed), and can be revoked after every birth. I haven't thought too much about this... so suggestions, comments, ideas?

digerati · Jun 17, 2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by evergreen
^_^ if you would have been aborted you would never have lived in downtown Hollywood or the sweet suburbs you're in now. Maybe you'll get to find out what your aborted brothers and/or sisters think of abortion one day...

If you know anything about my life I kinda wished for a good amount of time that I had never lived it all. Get a grasp on that. Think about the homeless women who have to sell themselves for food and money, would you want them giving birth the way their life is. Raising a kid in that enviornment.

I heard they are trying to pass laws in which they will outlaw partial birth abortions even if it puts the mothers life at risk or if they know the child will die soon after birth anyway. And I think they had laws where a doctor could not tell a woman about abortions even if HER LIFE WAS AT STAKE. So, I think those pro life people are gettin way too extreme, while the pro choice are way too leniant. I think there needs to be a middle ground.

eyeguy616 · Jun 17, 2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted at geisswerks.com
2/1/2003
This is an important message regarding abortion and vegetarianism.

I am no fan of abortion, but I believe in a woman's right to choose. I respect you if you differ on that, though, because abortion is a terrible thing. But I want to make a comparison. Which do you think has more cognitive awareness: a two-month-old fetus, or a full-grown pig or cow? Which do you think experiences more terror, more fear, when it realizes that it is about to be killed? Which do you think is more likely to realize that it is about to be killed? If you've ever seen pigs about to be slaughtered, you'll know the answer; they are acutely aware, and the scream and squeal in the full terror of impending death. It is horrible.

Abortions are performed quite regularly in this country, and there is a great deal of controversy about it. But no one really cares that the cows, pigs, and other animals - quite alert, aware, and with a strong sense of life-and-death - are slaughtered regularly, and unnecessarily, for food, skin, or fur. (37 million cows a year, and 98 million pigs per year, just in the U.S.).

My point is that eating meat, from one point of view, is [objectively] far more offensive that abortion; yet it is fully accepted, while abortion is extremely controversial, in our culture. This is illogical. We need to examine things for what they really are, make our own decisions as individuals, and stand behind them, against our culture if necessary. So, it is my opinion that if you're going to be pro-life, you better go get a vegetarian cookbook if you want to avoid hypocrisy. But if you want to be pro-life and still eat meat, they you should objectively compare these two choices, and be sure that you're comfortable with that. And watch out; your mind will do everything it can to keep you from facing the truth.

He makes a point about how animals slaughtered for food are fully aware of their doom while a fetus isn't. Also, exactly who are the women getting abortions? What is their demographic? They're not the wealthy or well off are they? And then, if it's outlawed, do you think abortions will stop? I'd rather it be legal so that women can at least have a licensed doctor to do it rather than have her do it herself or through some other risky methods. It's annoying, these extreme pro-life people. Nothing is going to stop a woman who wants/needs an abortion. She is making a decision for herself and doesn't need some bigots telling her what to do "for her own good." Also, who are the people who protest vigorously (like blocking those doctors from getting to work)? Why do they think they can impose their will on other people? You know, I don't appreciate vegans shoving anti-meat rehtoric in my face when I'm eating freshly cooked steak and ribs. I made the decision to eat meat and nothing is going to curb my taste for it.

Also, remember prohibition? Once alcohol was illegal, what happened? Once you impeed a person's choice to do something they'll just seek alternative methods to do it, and I guess that fits the extreme protesters also. They better all be vegans though!

The bottom line: it's still going to be done whether you like or not.
~eyeguy616

Falstaff · Jun 17, 2003, 09:29 PM

Now the world is divided into two groups; pro-choice and pro-life. There's really no way around it unless you have really mixed or partial feelings. Even if you have no preference, you really are pro-choice! But what's the difference, really. How do you figure out what group you belong in? I scoured the web for some definitions of pro-choice and pro-life and was surprised at the lack of them! There are discussion groups, resources, support for both sides, but nowhere is it spelled out what exactly either of them are. So here's my own take on them. Feel free to disagree or write in or give me your own spin. I'd be happy to include it here!

Pro-Choice:

If you are pro-choice you believe that women should be given access to abortions. You believe that it is up to the woman to make that choice and that the government should have no interference (except maybe in the instance of age.) You may believe that a woman should only get an abortion up until viability (the ability for the fetus to live on its own if it were delivered) or you may feel that a woman can choose to have an abortion later in her pregnancy.

Pro-Life:
If you are pro-life you believe that from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder

Mixed Feelings:
Some women support pro-choice and pro-life actions. You may only be pro-life for partial abortions and pro-choice for earlier abortions. Or you may be pro-life for standard pregnancies but pro-choice in cases of rape or incest or in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Choosing:
So how does someone become pro-life or pro-choice? It actually depends on a variety of factors. Religion has a huge part to play in these groups. Some religions are very specific and have strict policies, others are more lenient. Politics also plays a large role. And then in other instances women are raised to feel a certain way about abortion because of their family and friends. And of course some women are thrust into a decision because of their own unplanned pregnancy. No matter what your stance... it's a very controversial choice.

JavaFox · Jun 17, 2003, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eyeguy616
And then, if it's outlawed, do you think abortions will stop? I'd rather it be legal so that women can at least have a licensed doctor to do it rather than have her do it herself or through some other risky methods. It's annoying, these extreme pro-life people.

Well, listen, I think that any sort of extremism is harmful, but I have to say that the objection you have to de-legalizing abortion is based on a false premise, perpetuated by pro-choice zealots. The fact of the matter is, the old myth of "coat hanger abortions" is just that -- a myth. According to surveys conducted by medical journals , some 80% of abortions committed throughout the time period it was illegal were committed by licensed doctors in good standing. Further, if a pro-choice advocate ever tells you how X number of women have died due to "back alley abortions" DON'T BELIEVE THEM. Government data collected by the CDC suggests than in 1972 --the year prior to Roe v. Wade-- something like 50 women died of abortion-related complications.

Just to put that figure into perspective, about 100 people die a year from COLLIDING WITH DEER.

93 people are killed per year by lightning strikes.

As far as your "people will do it anyway, why bother?" statements -- I have never believed in that kind of reasoning. By that reasoning, should we not prosecute paedophiles? Should we not aggressively punish drunk driving? Abortion is becoming more and more stigmatized (this is true), and it is actually occuring much less than it used to. A lot of this is attributable to science, I feel, as 3D sonograms have shown more and more women that fetuses are indeed babies. Science is also making younger and younger babies viable outside of the womb. If they are viable outside, are they not also alive?

Overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will just give that power back to the states. And I find it incredibly unlikely that all the states (or even a majority of the states) are going to criminalize abortion.

JavaFox · Jun 17, 2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
Pro-Life:
If you are pro-life you believe that from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder

I don't see that definition as necessarily fair. Not all pro-lifers are quite so hardline. It is tough to say when human life begins, but surely there is a difference between this:

and this:

Fundamentally speaking, the question of "when does life begin?" was IGNORED by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade case (this is what bothers me about Roe v. Wade the most -- I discoved this when reading through the court opinion). This "appeal" (I don't know if it is considered an appeal -- I am not a lawyer) is important in that regard because it will try to answer that question.

So, like I said, I don't know when human life begins, but I think there is a difference between a clump of cells and a few week old baby. But, as far as I understand science, fetuses at eight weeks have detectable brain waves. And that to me is enough proof of life. Whether or not it is okay to abort something without brain waves should be actively and intelligently debated, but as far as I'm concerned, after eight weeks all bets are off.

Falstaff · Jun 18, 2003, 12:11 AM

very complicated issue, in this moral deficient society we live in, (my view) where religious values and morals are eroded by so many different groups all concerned about their own expression of their rights, I believe that most people will choose to look the other way and allow the women who wish to terminate pregnancy to continue to pursue legal abortion. I know that a planned pregnancy has as much viability legally as planned contraception, but when it comes to conception, our society immediately begins to question the moral character of the mother...not the father. Pro Life groups by and large protest quietly and express themselves with some dignity. But there is definitely are sociopaths out there that just need some excuse to justify violence against pro choice groups. I live in Japan for six years and embrace pro choice, and womans right to privacy.

merry · Jun 18, 2003, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
...if a pro-choice advocate ever tells you how X number of women have died due to "back alley abortions" DON'T BELIEVE THEM. Government data collected by the CDC suggests than in 1972 --the year prior to Roe v. Wade-- something like 50 women died of abortion-related complications.

You should keep in mind that illegal abortion resulting in death of the mother-to-be will not necessarily be correctly reported to the authorities. In Romania, due to extremely harsh anti-abortion law, thousands or maybe tens of thousands of women died from "complications", but very few were reported as such, the relatives did a lot of effort to conceal the cause of death (bribed doctors etc), fearing the consequences for the rest of the family. Of course, the situation in America is very different, but you still my think that the 50 reported cases were consequences of legal abortions, in hospitals - how many people die from complications of operated apendicitis? very few, but still.

merry · Jun 18, 2003, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I don't see that definition as necessarily fair. Not all pro-lifers are quite so hardline. It is tough to say when human life begins, but surely there is a difference between this:

(pic 1, see above)

and this:

(pic2)

Furthermore, I remember seeing an echogram movie of an abortion (sub 3 months fetus), and it was horrible, the presumably not-alife "thing" was twisting it's body, obviously trying to evade the pump or whatever that object was.

JavaFox · Jun 18, 2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by merry
You should keep in mind that illegal abortion resulting in death of the mother-to-be will not necessarily be correctly reported to the authorities.

You make a cogent and convincing point, Merry. However, while what you have said is true, it is also true that there is basically no reliable source of data to make any sort of estimate as to how many American women died due to "back alley" abortions. Any time I hear a pro-choice person bring up how "thousands" of women died as a result, I have to shake my head, because these numbers --at least as far as Americans are concern-- are basically made up. There's nowhere to go for a clear answer on how many women died, except for the CDC.

~~WyreTheWolf~~ · Jun 18, 2003, 09:54 AM

Life... LOL ... What is it? Where does it come from? Why do we exsist? These are all questions that I am sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US has faced, or asked during our lives...

I believe that if a woman is "with child" and there is a VERY strong likelyhood that the mother, child, or both are in danger of loosing their lives.... that an abortion may be neccessary... (IE a tubal pregnancy) But killing a fetus for the sake of CONVENIENCE is just WRONG...

Think about it ... When does the life begin... When the egg, and the sperm join... the magic of life begins... the devision of cells... those cells grow, and continue to divide at a rapid rate... soon, there will be limbs, and muscles, and a heart... along with that heart ... there is a heart beat.

Terminating a fetus ... no matter HOW SMALL ... is still denying the child that is to be... and the man, or woman that fetus COULD some day be... For the sake of CONVENIENCE, I really truely believe that it is wrong... I just cant see any other way around it... If it were something life threatening... I could understand... but I think that the real issue here ... is aborting a pregnancy for the sake of expediancy...

Last part of this topic.. Have any one of you ever seen a near bith abortion? Say a fetus (unborn child) is nearly ready to leave the womb... the doctor puts the baby into breach (feet first) removes the baby to the point where the neck is exposed (head is still within the woman) and then the doctor snaps the neck of the child. Shocked me to see this... I dont know about the rest of you.. but I couldnt do this. NEVER could I do this.

digerati · Jun 18, 2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WyreTheWolf
Life... LOL ... What is it? Where does it come from? Why do we exsist? These are all questions that I am sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US has faced, or asked during our lives...

I believe that if a woman is "with child" and there is a VERY strong likelyhood that the mother, child, or both are in danger of loosing their lives.... that an abortion may be neccessary... (IE a tubal pregnancy) But killing a fetus for the sake of CONVENIENCE is just WRONG...

Think about it ... When does the life begin... When the egg, and the sperm join... the magic of life begins... the devision of cells... those cells grow, and continue to divide at a rapid rate... soon, there will be limbs, and muscles, and a heart... along with that heart ... there is a heart beat.

Terminating a fetus ... no matter HOW SMALL ... is still denying the child that is to be... and the man, or woman that fetus COULD some day be... For the sake of CONVENIENCE, I really truely believe that it is wrong... I just cant see any other way around it... If it were something life threatening... I could understand... but I think that the real issue here ... is aborting a pregnancy for the sake of expediancy...

Last part of this topic.. Have any one of you ever seen a near bith abortion? Say a fetus (unborn child) is nearly ready to leave the womb... the doctor puts the baby into breach (feet first) removes the baby to the point where the neck is exposed (head is still within the woman) and then the doctor snaps the neck of the child. Shocked me to see this... I dont know about the rest of you.. but I couldnt do this. NEVER could I do this.

You could never give birth either. I'd like to hear a women's view on this if there are any (edited in) on this board (edited in) cause I don't think we can understand the feeling of carrying a child or the pain of childbirth.

Falstaff · Jun 18, 2003, 08:23 PM

During my internship and hosptial rotations through labor and delivery and the out patient clinic, I managed to see all many different facets to this question about privacy and pro choice.

Teenage girls, escorted by their parents, for an interview and counseling before they terminated their pregnancies anyway. The teenage mothers that chose to carry full term, ostricized by their families, and those that terminated, enduring the stigma of being soiled or corrupted by their peers.

Victems of rape and incest, with no other support save their own anonymity, struggling with the same question, terminate or carry to full term.

Occasionally, surrogates, offering advice to others in the waiting room, while glassy eyed indifference prevailed, trying to justify their own postion.

You hear it all, Sex, Religion and politics.
I came from a very fundamental christian background, my mother and father tried for years before my brother and eye were born, and it nearly cost my mother her life. You would think she would have a very firm opinion about this, but she puts her bible away, and tells me whatever happens, it will be Gods will. I after over twenty years of experience with medicine, still avoid forcing my value system on young mothers with issues. If they keep the children to full term, we allow them to choose if they want the child or not. If they choose to abort, we provide counseling for the inevitable depression that can follow.
If we see them over and over again, we engage the services of a social worker, psychologist, or even a clergyman of their choice, whatever it takes to assist them.

But I have seen it run from extreme to extreme, like a pendulum. I believe it would be unfortunate for states to restrict the rights of mothers to seek abortion or abortion counseling. I don't want to feel like a hypocrate, so if someone asks me, I tell them the same. But I respect any difference on the opinion, because I am not a woman, nor a mother...just a parent,

merry · Jun 19, 2003, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
there is basically no reliable source of data to make any sort of estimate as to how many American women died due to "back alley" abortions.

I agree, and you can make it even more general: how many women anywhere in the world.

I don't have a definitive opinion on this subject, and probably never will; Wyre and Jeff sum it up pretty well. There is a fundamental contradiction between the right to live (baby) and the right to choose (mother), and I believe that only something like free anticonceptionals can bring the situation to the point where abortion could safely be thought of as murder.

Dawnrazor · Jun 23, 2003, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I don't see that definition as necessarily fair. Not all pro-lifers are quite so hardline. It is tough to say when human life begins, but surely there is a difference between this:

and this:

Fundamentally speaking, the question of "when does life begin?" was IGNORED by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade case (this is what bothers me about Roe v. Wade the most -- I discoved this when reading through the court opinion). This "appeal" (I don't know if it is considered an appeal -- I am not a lawyer) is important in that regard because it will try to answer that question.

So, like I said, I don't know when human life begins, but I think there is a difference between a clump of cells and a few week old baby. But, as far as I understand science, fetuses at eight weeks have detectable brain waves. And that to me is enough proof of life. Whether or not it is okay to abort something without brain waves should be actively and intelligently debated, but as far as I'm concerned, after eight weeks all bets are off.

I've always figured the cut off point should be when it is viable outside the womb without massive, major amounts of equipment to keep it alive.

If it can survive on its own its a human being, if not its still basicly a bunch of cells...

~~WyreTheWolf~~ · Jun 23, 2003, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
You could never give birth either. I'd like to hear a women's view on this if there are any (edited in) on this board (edited in) cause I don't think we can understand the feeling of carrying a child or the pain of childbirth.

This is also my own mothers look on abortion... As well as my wifes. I think that should be sufficient... And although I ended up with a slightly different chromosone than my wife did... there for making her a female... and making me male .... doesnt mean that I cant freely think for myself.

If there is brainwave activity as early as 8 weeks... and we can prove that something, or someone is dead by the LACK of brainwave acctivity... surely the reverse is true... The PRESENCE of brainwave activity is the PROOF that there is life.

JavaFox · Jun 23, 2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dawnrazor
I've always figured the cut off point should be when it is viable outside the womb without massive, major amounts of equipment to keep it alive.

If it can survive on its own its a human being, if not its still basicly a bunch of cells...

Well, there's the $10,000,000 question. Firstly, the Supreme Court never ruled on this. Roe v. Wade never addressed this issued; it didn't care about whether or not the fetus was alive, it just disregarded the question.

Science is allowing younger and younger fetus' to be viable outside of the womb. Maybe one day we won't even need a womb. What then? Will your opinion of when a fetus is a baby be different?

Dawnrazor · Jun 23, 2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Well, there's the $10,000,000 question. Firstly, the Supreme Court never ruled on this. Roe v. Wade never addressed this issued; it didn't care about whether or not the fetus was alive, it just disregarded the question.

Science is allowing younger and younger fetus' to be viable outside of the womb. Maybe one day we won't even need a womb. What then? Will your opinion of when a fetus is a baby be different?

Yes, because if we don't need a womb to have babies then we've altered things to the point where we need a whole new set of definitions. I don't know if I'd even call something that was concieved and gestated outside of a womb a baby...

And while science is making it possible to keep younger fetuses alive, you'll note I said without massive amounts of equipment.

And, just to make my stance clear, I'm personaly pro-life, neither of my kids were planned but aborting them was never an option to me and their mother...BUT...politicaly I'm very pro-choice because its not a decision that a bunch of politicians or preachers should be forcing on a person.

Falstaff · Jun 24, 2003, 10:23 PM

but they are grown, and for all their faults and medical problems, I love them both...being human is loving...that is what I believe..

digerati · Jun 25, 2003, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
but they are grown, and for all their faults and medical problems, I love them both...being human is loving...that is what I believe..

But they couldn't survive without the machines....Should we keep all those patients alive who are in comas or serious car accidents? Should we not offer the ability to pull the plug if a person is a vegetable and won't be able to survive without machines? Isn't that as murderous as abortions? Or maybe it's different cause it's babies being killed.

Abortion should remain legal, if I was to get a woman pregnant and she didn't want to raise the child and wanted to Abort it I would tell her just to birth it and I'd raise it simply because I want to have kids. It's a goal of mine to raise kids and give them the life I never did, but wished I had. But not every guy is like me, what if the father skips town and she's left all alone with no friends or family? Not only would the baby hurt her life but she'd be hurting her childs life.

But just like anything, abortion is getting overused, girls getting drunk, getting fucked, then getting an aboriton a month and a half later. As if it's a form of birth control.

It's like guns, they're necessary to protect, but when they're misused they're horrible. I personally think if a person has 3 abortions under the age of 20 she should not be able to get anymore. Even Buddha could only be patient 3 times

merry · Jun 25, 2003, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
But they couldn't survive without the machines....

I wouldn't have been born without medicine, I was born through an operation (cesarian? don't know the English name). My mother would have died for not giving birth, and my sister wouldn't have ever been conceived.

Without medical technology few people would ever survive to their forties. However, interest and support for the elderly has been attested with Homo Neandertaliensis - one step before our species.

Quote:

Should we keep all those patients alive who are in comas or serious car accidents? Should we not offer the ability to pull the plug if a person is a vegetable and won't be able to survive without machines? Isn't that as murderous as abortions?

The classical answer is Stephen Hawkins - wheelchair, speaks through a voice synthesizer operated by his only working hand, and, incidentally, Nobel prize for physics. You could also watch the movie "A Beautiful Mind".

Quote:

Abortion should remain legal

It wouldn't need to as long as contraceptionals would be readily available (free?) and properly advertised (meaning education).

digerati · Jun 25, 2003, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by merry
I wouldn't have been born without medicine, I was born through an operation (cesarian? don't know the English name). My mother would have died for not giving birth, and my sister wouldn't have ever been conceived.

Without medical technology few people would ever survive to their forties. However, interest and support for the elderly has been attested with Homo Neandertaliensis - one step before our species.

The classical answer is Stephen Hawkins - wheelchair, speaks through a voice synthesizer operated by his only working hand, and, incidentally, Nobel prize for physics. You could also watch the movie "A Beautiful Mind".

It wouldn't need to as long as contraceptionals would be readily available (free?) and properly advertised (meaning education).

Good point, but you hafta wonder how happy his life is...One question, why is Stephen pronounced Steven?

merry · Jun 26, 2003, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
...One question, why is Stephen pronounced Steven?

I don't know, but Hawkins is actually Hawking

His life is happy as long he doesn't think to give it up. Happiness is a relative term; for some, being THE authority in the history of the Universe is good enough; for others - well, there was this character in a novel who once asked a blind beggar what that one was living for; the blind man replied: "I don't see, I have to beg, but still I enjoy a good glass of wine, and ocasionally f?ck a lady, if I was to take my life, who would drink that glass and who would f?ck that lady?"

Sounds "oriental", but there's a sort of subtle meaning to it, isn't it?

PS Stephen is probably spelled with ph for ethymological reasons; like all words with ph for "f", it's of Greek origin, coming from a word that means "crown".

Jun 17, 2003, 10:38 AM	#1
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Roe v. Wade -- Overturned?! Wow. The original plaintiff of the landmark Roe v. Wade case that legalized on-demand abortion in America, Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" was a pseudonym) is filing to have Roe v. Wade overturned! The press conference will commence shortly. Ms. McCorvey plans to address one of the points that originally was not addressed -- the question of "when does life begin?" She also will introduce the affidavits of over 1,000 women testifying that abortion was a devestating and harmful experience. Also of note will be the various "Baby Moses" laws that now exist all over the country, allowing women to give up children (to the state) that they cannot take care of. Even if she doesn't win, this will be a very interesting case, and people on both sides will have to grapple with the question of whether or not abortion has any place in an America in which it is increasingly stigmatized.

Jun 17, 2003, 02:22 PM	#3
evergreen DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: West Virginia Posts: 148 Rep Power: 0	^_^ if you would have been aborted you would never have lived in downtown Hollywood or the sweet suburbs you're in now. Maybe you'll get to find out what your aborted brothers and/or sisters think of abortion one day... Last edited by evergreen; Jun 17, 2003 at 02:46 PM.

Jun 17, 2003, 02:34 PM	#5
The_Neon_Cowboy DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,135 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	it is needed ... aburtion is a must .. it only a matter of time untill the world becomes overpopulated... and we are force to fight for simple things like food, air, land, water, just to live.... just think one life ... he goes has 3 kids with a girl ... then thouse 3 have 3 and so on ... you dont just take 1 life your slowing the rate of overpopulation... or would you like it beeter if famlies were limited to only 1 child!!! you bring up that people can relinkwish the children to the state. But were does the sate get its money ??? our pockets!!! are you willing to give 50% of you paycheck just to feed someone elses childer while you or you own starve? the taxes needed would be outragoius... __________________

Jun 17, 2003, 06:34 PM	#8
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	I have had an idea for abortion that I think could suffice as a good comprimise between the two different sides of the arguement - why don't you have a form available called an "Intent to Give Birth" form, in which you are legally bound to recognize your child as a full citizen, and the law does the same. It could be signed at any time prior to birth (at which point it isn't needed), and can be revoked after every birth. I haven't thought too much about this... so suggestions, comments, ideas? __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Jun 17, 2003, 09:29 PM	#11
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 18,135 Rep Power: 130	Abortion-Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Now the world is divided into two groups; pro-choice and pro-life. There's really no way around it unless you have really mixed or partial feelings. Even if you have no preference, you really are pro-choice! But what's the difference, really. How do you figure out what group you belong in? I scoured the web for some definitions of pro-choice and pro-life and was surprised at the lack of them! There are discussion groups, resources, support for both sides, but nowhere is it spelled out what exactly either of them are. So here's my own take on them. Feel free to disagree or write in or give me your own spin. I'd be happy to include it here! Pro-Choice: If you are pro-choice you believe that women should be given access to abortions. You believe that it is up to the woman to make that choice and that the government should have no interference (except maybe in the instance of age.) You may believe that a woman should only get an abortion up until viability (the ability for the fetus to live on its own if it were delivered) or you may feel that a woman can choose to have an abortion later in her pregnancy. Pro-Life: If you are pro-life you believe that from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder Mixed Feelings: Some women support pro-choice and pro-life actions. You may only be pro-life for partial abortions and pro-choice for earlier abortions. Or you may be pro-life for standard pregnancies but pro-choice in cases of rape or incest or in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Choosing: So how does someone become pro-life or pro-choice? It actually depends on a variety of factors. Religion has a huge part to play in these groups. Some religions are very specific and have strict policies, others are more lenient. Politics also plays a large role. And then in other instances women are raised to feel a certain way about abortion because of their family and friends. And of course some women are thrust into a decision because of their own unplanned pregnancy. No matter what your stance... it's a very controversial choice. __________________ The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the scythe.

Jun 17, 2003, 01:30 PM	#2
digerati Everyones life has worth Join Date: May 2003 Location: My Yellow Bug Posts: 3,780 Rep Power: 47	Even though I was almost aborted on (all my aunts, uncles and grandparents wanted my mom to get an abortion, when I was born my grandmother cut my mom out of the will) and have lost 4 could have been brothers and sisters I support abortion in some cases. My mom never used birth control because she had cancer of the uterus at 14 and got it removed, doctors told her she'd never get pregnant. But if she had given birth to those other children I would probably still be living in downtown hollywood and I'm glad I get the chance to live up here in this nice suberb.

Jun 17, 2003, 02:26 PM	#4
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Point well taken, evergreen, but I don't want this discussion becoming overly personal, please. This isn't a stern warning, just some friendly guidance. Let's try to keep things not quite so personal in here.

Jun 17, 2003, 03:10 PM	#7
evergreen DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: West Virginia Posts: 148 Rep Power: 0	Nothing personal, I'm sure there are a million stories similar to ^_^'s. I'm no innocent bystander; the way I used to screw around, there is at least one instance where I may have gotten a girl pregnant and she may have had an abortion without me knowing about it. I look at it as murder of the most innocent; what I can't get are the doctor's who perform them, especially the partial birth abortions. Everybody makes mistakes, but the details of a partial birth abortion make me believe those doc's have some gruesome minds. Neon, taxes are already outrageous and fund many things that I don't approve of...

Jun 18, 2003, 12:11 AM	#14
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 18,135 Rep Power: 130	Pro Life very complicated issue, in this moral deficient society we live in, (my view) where religious values and morals are eroded by so many different groups all concerned about their own expression of their rights, I believe that most people will choose to look the other way and allow the women who wish to terminate pregnancy to continue to pursue legal abortion. I know that a planned pregnancy has as much viability legally as planned contraception, but when it comes to conception, our society immediately begins to question the moral character of the mother...not the father. Pro Life groups by and large protest quietly and express themselves with some dignity. But there is definitely are sociopaths out there that just need some excuse to justify violence against pro choice groups. I live in Japan for six years and embrace pro choice, and womans right to privacy. __________________ The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the scythe.

Jun 18, 2003, 09:54 AM	#18
~~WyreTheWolf~~ Wolfish Bastard Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cave; Ozark Mountains Posts: 2,111 Rep Power: 0	Life... LOL ... What is it? Where does it come from? Why do we exsist? These are all questions that I am sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US has faced, or asked during our lives... I believe that if a woman is "with child" and there is a VERY strong likelyhood that the mother, child, or both are in danger of loosing their lives.... that an abortion may be neccessary... (IE a tubal pregnancy) But killing a fetus for the sake of CONVENIENCE is just WRONG... Think about it ... When does the life begin... When the egg, and the sperm join... the magic of life begins... the devision of cells... those cells grow, and continue to divide at a rapid rate... soon, there will be limbs, and muscles, and a heart... along with that heart ... there is a heart beat. Terminating a fetus ... no matter HOW SMALL ... is still denying the child that is to be... and the man, or woman that fetus COULD some day be... For the sake of CONVENIENCE, I really truely believe that it is wrong... I just cant see any other way around it... If it were something life threatening... I could understand... but I think that the real issue here ... is aborting a pregnancy for the sake of expediancy... Last part of this topic.. Have any one of you ever seen a near bith abortion? Say a fetus (unborn child) is nearly ready to leave the womb... the doctor puts the baby into breach (feet first) removes the baby to the point where the neck is exposed (head is still within the woman) and then the doctor snaps the neck of the child. Shocked me to see this... I dont know about the rest of you.. but I couldnt do this. NEVER could I do this.

Jun 18, 2003, 08:23 PM	#20
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 18,135 Rep Power: 130	My own view During my internship and hosptial rotations through labor and delivery and the out patient clinic, I managed to see all many different facets to this question about privacy and pro choice. Teenage girls, escorted by their parents, for an interview and counseling before they terminated their pregnancies anyway. The teenage mothers that chose to carry full term, ostricized by their families, and those that terminated, enduring the stigma of being soiled or corrupted by their peers. Victems of rape and incest, with no other support save their own anonymity, struggling with the same question, terminate or carry to full term. Occasionally, surrogates, offering advice to others in the waiting room, while glassy eyed indifference prevailed, trying to justify their own postion. You hear it all, Sex, Religion and politics. I came from a very fundamental christian background, my mother and father tried for years before my brother and eye were born, and it nearly cost my mother her life. You would think she would have a very firm opinion about this, but she puts her bible away, and tells me whatever happens, it will be Gods will. I after over twenty years of experience with medicine, still avoid forcing my value system on young mothers with issues. If they keep the children to full term, we allow them to choose if they want the child or not. If they choose to abort, we provide counseling for the inevitable depression that can follow. If we see them over and over again, we engage the services of a social worker, psychologist, or even a clergyman of their choice, whatever it takes to assist them. But I have seen it run from extreme to extreme, like a pendulum. I believe it would be unfortunate for states to restrict the rights of mothers to seek abortion or abortion counseling. I don't want to feel like a hypocrate, so if someone asks me, I tell them the same. But I respect any difference on the opinion, because I am not a woman, nor a mother...just a parent, __________________ The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the scythe.

Jun 24, 2003, 10:23 PM	#26
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 18,135 Rep Power: 130	niether one of my kids was planned but they are grown, and for all their faults and medical problems, I love them both...being human is loving...that is what I believe.. __________________ The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the scythe.