Using “States’ Rights” to Restrict Abortion


The first in a series of reports exploring the ramifications of the controversial Colorado state ballot measure.

"States rights" has been the battle cry of modern-day social
conservatives over the last 50 years to oppose everything from racial
desegregation and gay marriage to gun control. But no issue has raised culture warrior hackles more than abortion.

Less well-known than the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the
Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling on Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
set the stage for a series of state skirmishes on restricting abortion
and influencing public opinion through constitutional amendments,
efforts that continue to this day.

Webster is a Missouri state law that restricts the use of state funding, employees and facilities to provide abortions.

However, the real test lies in the language. The law added a strict Christian construct to the preamble of the Missouri constitution — that life begins at conception and therefore unborn children have protectable rights.

Now 20 years after Webster became law, a similar initiative is being
attempted in Colorado through a proposed ballot measure to amend the
state constitution:

 

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of
Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

According to the Guttmacher Institute,
only Missouri has successfully added religiously inspired conception
language to its constitution in an attempt to negatively sway public
opinion on abortion. Despite decades of trying, no other state has
succeeded with this controversial approach. Alabama, Georgia, Maryland,
Oregon, Tennessee and South Carolina attempted either legislatively or
via citizen initiative to codify personhood for fertilized eggs but
every effort was soundly defeated, reports Dionne Scott of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

To Anita Allen,
a University of Pennsylvania professor in both law and philosophy,
states run into trouble with these efforts when they attempt to apply
the conception language.

"The Court has emphasized that Roe v. Wade implies no limitation on
the authority of a state to make a value judgment favoring childbirth
over abortion," says Allen. "The preamble can be read simply to express
a value judgment. A state is free through a referendum, preamble or law
to state that life begins at conception but they don’t have the
constitutional right to regulate abortion or any other practice."

Supporters of Colorado’s proposed ballot measure argue on the Colorado
for Equal Rights Web site that "the simplicity of the text of this
initiative speaks for itself."

However, Allen, an expert on privacy laws and ethics, isn’t convinced
that the measure is not simply a ploy to avoid the much more difficult
persuasion campaign against birth control, emergency contraception,
in-vitro fertilization and, ultimately, abortion itself. That debate
has largely been long lost in the court of public opinion. A November
2006 Ciruli Associates poll reported that 56 percent of Colorado voters are pro-choice, a figure on par with the rest of the nation.

Thus, it would appear Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere soon.

"It’s a strategy," says Allen, of the proposed amendment. "And
certainly a moralist could say, ‘I really want to believe that from the
moment of conception life begins and that that life deserves some legal
protection.’

"But there are huge numbers of fertilized eggs that don’t ever implant
and implanted eggs that spontaneously abort. Plus, it raises the whole
question about eggs that are fertilized outside the human body."

It’s those not-so-simple questions that has some longtime anti-abortion activist groups lending less-than-tepid support.

The Colorado Catholic Conference refuted statements by Colorado for
Equal Rights that the state’s three bishops endorsed the proposal,
according to a February press account.
Further, Jennifer Kraska, executive director of the conference, raised
concerns about the ballot group’s structure, finances and tactics in
she wholly dismissed any possibility of support by the Catholic Church.

Also notably absent is Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based
multi-million dollar ministry and catalyst for much of the evangelical
culture wars over the last three decades.

The prime backers of the ballot measure, namely American Right to Life Action, have a long and ugly history of calling out
its putative allies. One spat last year resulted in National Right to
Life yanking the charter of the state affiliate for attacking Rev.
James Dobson in newspaper ads for not being anti-abortion enough. From
the ashes of Colorado Right to Life rose the hard core American Right
to Life Action, which is heavily engaged in petition-circulating efforts for the group Colorado for Equal Rights.

The splintering of what one would assume are allied groups over this
ballot measure comes as no surprise to Clemson political science
professor Laura Olson, an expert on religion and politics.

"Colorado is a real locus of religious right activism," states Olson.
"There’s lot of folks who are conservative evangelicals — you would
think that this is a core issue. If this initiative is having trouble
getting support, I think it’s a real commentary on how evangelicals are
a lot more politically diverse than they’re given credit for being.
This is not the kind of tactic that a lot of people are going to sign
on to, quite literally."

And that dissension among the ranks of conservative evangelical
Christian and Catholic leadership leads to a whole host of questions —
namely, what if this thing does pass, then what?

Olson believes that the end point — a total restriction on abortion —
isn’t the real goal no matter how clever the political strategy may be
to push for zygote civil rights.

"One of the things about the abortion issue more than any of the other
culture war issues that’s been so interesting is that both sides get
so fired up," she says. "But I don’t think either side wants things to
change in any real perceptible way. It’s a mobilizing tool."

And high-intensity fundraising and voter turnout is what fertilized-egg
activists will be doing leading up to the November election.

But beyond the boots-on-the-ground tactics, Olson raises an interesting
analogy in the national 2004 push to pass state Defense of Marriage
Acts (DOMA) as a strategy to for getting re-election support for
President Bush from anti-gay marriage, religiously motivated voters."
It was the perfect get-out-the-vote strategy for conservative
candidates/causes up and down the ticket by pairing an important
federal race with a red-meat state ballot measure for the GOP faithful
to gnaw on.

So in the context of the "fertilized egg as a person" amendment, if the
Colorado Secretary of State approves the measure for the ballot this
year, will those highly motivated "values voters" sit out the
presidential election or will they if not enthusiastically, at least
consistently, pull the lever for the GOP’s presumptive nominee, Sen.
John McCain, a candidate who has had a great deal of difficulty making
inroads with the conservative religious right?

Which seemingly puts the spotlight squarely on Colorado this cycle — a
traditional political swing state with a boisterous evangelical
activist movement countered by an equally raucous libertarianesque
civil liberties streak. Couple those forces with what is likely to be a
very close 2008 presidential election, in addition to several other
highly partisan state races and ballot measures, that will have the
hard-core politicos salivating in the voting booth.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 invalid-0

    There is that pesky tenth amendment to deal with.

    All powers not specifically granted to Congress, nor denied to the states, are reserved for the states and the people.

  • mellankelly1

    I’m just wondering what the purpose of Webster was?  During the 20 years since Webster what (if anything) has been done in Missouri to protect the "rights" of the fertilised egg?  From what I understand, the purpose of the Colorado personhood amendment is to eventually have it land at the U.S. Supreme Court with the hope being that once "personhood" has been established the zygote/embryo/fetus will be protected by the 14th Amendment.  Do you know if anything similar was attempted in Missouri?  It just seems to me that there is no way a court could support the goal of this law, which is an attempt to outlaw abortion without also affecting many forms of birth control or In Vitro Fertilisation; not to mention what this law could mean for women who miscarry or have ectopic pregnancies.  What about women who drink or smoke during pregnancy?  What about those who have poor prenatal care?  This is just ludicrous.

  • the-watcher

    "One of the things about the abortion issue more than any of the other culture war issues that’s been so interesting is that both sides get so fired up," she says. "But I don’t think either side wants things to change in any real perceptible way.

    I disagree. I think the anti-choice crowd would love to have abortion outlawed. They’ve even told me so. I, on the other hand, would like them to lose, big time and repeatedly, and for abortion to become legal and restriction-free in every state.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve long wondered why these efforts are not countered by the establishment of religion clause. Beliefs about when life begins are founded in religious belief and efforts to enact laws on this belief, to me, seem to be establishing religion. Under states’ rights, are states permitted to establish a singular religious belief to impose on all their citizens? Other efforts like this, school prayer for instance, have been defeated – so why not this one?

  • invalid-0

    When DOES life begin, then? Scientifically speaking, of course.

  • harry834

    the real question is whether or not the government (and the people around you) should force women to be pregnant.

    We pro-choicers say "no"

    Also, is abortion really murder if the women is never charged with murder? If NO ONE is willing to give her jail time? Or mental institution time?

  • mellankelly1

    When DOES life begin, then? Scientifically speaking, of course.

    Scientifically speaking… what do you mean by "life"?  Do you mean the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual?  A state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction?  The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body?  Or a specific part or aspect of the process of living? 

    I do know that without question, a pregnant woman’s life is valid and sacred regardless of whether or not her pregnancy is wanted.

  • harry834

    "I do know that without question, a pregnant woman’s life is valid and sacred regardless of whether or not her pregnancy is wanted."

    Let’s acknowledge the life in front of us, instead of the debateable "life" which we cannot agree is a murder victim.

    I’m working on a lengthy blog post analysing this issue. I will link y’all when I’m done writing…

  • invalid-0

    Isn’t forcing someone to do something requiring them to engage in something to which they never consented nor brought upon themselves in the form of consequence or inclusion?

    We force convicts to go to prison. We force children in the US and Canada to go to school. We force citizens to pay taxes on earnings.

    Where women are jailed for getting abortions, it is murder? So it varies upon geographical location?

    I know these sound like stupid comments, but I find them no stupider than the comments I’m addressing.

  • janine

    If a patient with written consent starts medical treatment yet changes their mind during the
    course of it, and the doctor or law refuses to withdraw or stop treatment due to some
    reason such as an interest in the clinical outcome – once
    consent is revoked the continuation of treatment isn’t forced? If someone visits or moves to a higher
    crime area, by taking this risk and venturing into the area – is a criminal act
    against them not really forced, especially if it’s through the use of threats only (which is sometimes all it takes to successfully commit a crime)? Was the victim in this case really not
    forced to give up their wallet?

    Laws to compel a woman to remain pregnant through to giving birth, using the threat of penalties, were not put in place until the mid to late 1800s in the US, along with the state criminalization of birth control. Its very interesting how some people can be so flexible
    with the word ‘force’ and not protest its use in other contexts where legal prohibitions are put in place, but when it comes to pregnancy
    and abortion they want the usage to be strictly narrowed.

     

     

     

  • mellankelly1

    I’m working on a lengthy blog post analysing this issue. I will link y’all when I’m done writing…

    I’m looking forward to that!

  • invalid-0

    When something is a consequence of a specific action, how is it forced? Consequence is a predictable or unpredictable, but natural course of events.

    Even in a higher crime area, crime against the individual is still crime. Crime against someone is never welcome. Crime, by its very nature (say a mugging), is a violation. To bundle that into the same compartment as pregnancy gives me alot of insight into pro-abortion mentality.

  • janine

    The examples I gave on overriding consent and putting oneself at risk were addressing this specific statement…

    Isn’t forcing someone to do something requiring them to engage in
    something to which they never consented nor brought upon themselves in the form
    of consequence or inclusion?

     

     

    When something is a consequence of a specific action, how is it forced?

    Going to jail is a consequence of committing a crime, yet you call it force.

     

     

    Consequence is a predictable or unpredictable, but natural course of events.

    Going to jail is a considered a consequence of crime (or if you prefer its ‘forced’) because it is defined as such by laws – not because nature puts criminals in jail. Government and law choose what is defined as crime, they also choose the
    penalty, and these can vary by culture.

     

    As to Harry834’s comment on force – to force can mean to compel or oblige. Anti-abortion laws do compel a woman to continue a pregnancy up to birth, beyond the stage of pregnancy she finds herself in, by constraining her legal options to stop the actions of her body that continue the pregnancy. There is nothing natural about anti-abortion laws. Anti-abortion laws/prosecution are not any more so a ‘natural course of events’ regarding pregnancy or abortion. In addition, there are
    natural abortifacients. It is very natural to defend ones
    body from harm, and doing so is a possible consequence even after putting oneself at risk.

  • harry834

    "Nature" does not create government law. People do.

    Nature creates pregnancy in the woman…but this process does not magically create the laws against abortion. People create those laws, and are thus responsible for these creations.

    Anti-abortion laws outlaw the termination of pregnancy. Therefore, anti-abortion laws require a woman to be pregnant whether or not she wants to.

    So yes: anti-abortion laws force pregnacy on women.

    These laws are made by people. All laws are made by people. Therefore, the target of our criticism, condemnation, – hopefully removal from office – will be the people who created these laws which force pregnancy.

    Other point:

    these forced pregnancy laws are justified because it is said that abortion is murder.

    So why is NO ONE willing to give the woman jail time? If she wantst to plead insanity, she has to prove it in court.

    Even so, not every alleged murderer will prove that they are insane. What do you do about these women, who are NOT sorry they had abortions:

    http://www.imnotsorry.net/newstories16.htm

    Any prosecutor who saw a website with murderers claiming no remorse would rush to use this website as evidence in trial. No prosecutor sits back and lets a alleged murderer claim insanity without demanding proof. Too many women are not sorry for their abortions for a prosecutor to take an insanity defense at face value. He will demand proof.

    And there are always murderers who fail to deliver proof.

    Even with insanity, a murderer will at least be put away somewhere – an institution or some place. Sometimes insane people can be jailed.

    Remorse is not a get-out-of-jail free card. Never has been, unless other mitigating fcators are there. And it takes a lot.

    It’s very, very, very unlikely that ANY murderer can escape some jail time, or at least institution time.

    What does this mean?:

    It means that every woman who has ever regretted their abortion MUST be put on trial for murder, just like those with no regrets.

    Let judge, jury, and lawyers decide whether their "remorse" is good enough to lessen their jail senence.

    Why are women who regret their abortions hugged and coddled by pro-lifers, instead of handcuffed, and put on trial for murder???

  • invalid-0

    I sarcastically call it “forced” when a convict is sent to jail for his crime. As it is EVIDENT that using the word “force” is a stretch…just as using it in the context of sending children to school is a stretch…just as requiring a woman to carry the child she was fully involved in conceiving is only “forcing” in the most stretched form of the word.

    I’m forced to wear clothes in public. I’m forced to eat. I’m forced to pay for items I’d like to own.

    My greater concern here is not about the law and whether or not it should change…but that in so changing, you could possibly bulk a woman getting pregnant together with a woman getting mugged. It’s profane to parallel the two! And it says alot about how misconstrued your view of the phrase “right to choose” has become.

  • invalid-0

    “Nature creates pregnancy in the woman…but this process does not magically create the laws against abortion. People create those laws, and are thus responsible for these creations.”

    Nature creates the pregnancy; man presumes to override nature by ending the pregnancy. Then man needs to regulate non-natural event such as abortion with laws. Whether the law is to allow or disallow abortion, the law is man-made. The point is moot.

    Let’s be realistic instead of doomsday-ist! No country in the western world has in modern times put a woman in jail for having an abortion. Even in Portugal, Malta, Ireland, and Poland, where we’ve seen the strictest abortion laws. Hasn’t happened. So let’s drop the “jailtime” act…you and NARAL both.

    There’s a scare tactic pro-abortionists are guilty of.

  • janine

    man presumes to override nature by ending the pregnancy. Then man needs
    to regulate non-natural event such as abortion with laws.

    There goes other non-natural events such as pre-natal and other medical care that override nature.

  • janine

    Whether the law is to allow or disallow abortion, the law is man-made.

     

    Not a moot point, there were originally no laws regulating abortion either way in the US.

  • janine

    Again, my two examples of high crime risk and medical treatment were addressing
    this specific statement of yours.

    "Isn’t forcing someone to do something requiring them to engage in
    something to which they never consented nor brought upon themselves in the form
    of consequence or inclusion?"
    If
    I need to remind you, you took on Harry834’s use of the word force with
    the above stated wording. I replied to this statement
    with examples – the crime one and also the written consent for medical
    treatment example. Is it really so profane to use these two as
    negating examples (instead of parallel with anything you said in
    your post) to your statement about force? I then went
    on to explain the history of abortion and birth control laws.

     

    Again force can mean compel, even by law. I am forced by law to educate my children, at least this is the case in my state.

     

    Unless one is an IVF doctor that specifically creates a fertilized egg and implants it, anyone else is just
    taking a risk. A man’s penis does not implant a sperm into an egg, nor does it implant it in the uterine wall – the conception
    and implantation that might occur later are not a part of the actual sex act itself. Pregnancies do not occur following the majority of sex, the vast majority of
    sperm die, nearly 1/2 of all conceptions don’t even implant fully. You
    choose to blame the woman for taking a risk, I do not assume blame
    worthly of legal restrictions on medical care choices anymore than other risk taking.

  • harry834

    1.) "Nature" is overridden everytime we go to the doctor.

    The point is: "nature" is neither moral nor immoral, it is amoral,
    value-free. We use medicine to intervene in nature because WE have
    values – specifically the value of a healthy life. But "nature" is not
    necessarily concerned with our survival or our health. For every immune
    response nature creates, it also creates a deadly disease. Let people
    to to the jungle and have insects lay eggs under their skin
    ("Challenging Nature", by Lee Silver, p. 197-198, these people got
    insects in their skin – even after taking all their shots!!!)
    "Nature" is not even an actual person! So when I use the word "nature’s
    concerns", know that I’m being metaphorical. Only persons (and maybe
    animals)can have concerns. "Nature" is neither.

    That is why we intervene in nature – because WE have concerns and we
    seek to carry them out. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, but
    leaving "nature untouched" has NEVER been our ultimate goal. And thank
    goodness for that. That’s why medicine exists. Because brave people
    challenged "nature" and "God".

     

    2.) You actually missed – and made – my point on jailtime for women.
    I never said jailtime was likely. In fact, I said that the main issue
    was that NO ONE wanted to put women in jail. THAT’s the issue, and the
    contradiction.

    Because how can abortion be murder – in the certain, black-and-white
    sense of the word – when NO ONE, prolifers included, want to put women
    in prison for abortion (murder).

    Any one who commits murder, and wants to escape jail, MUST prove
    their case in court. And even then, they most likely won’t escape jail.
    Maybe a reduction in jail time. Maybe mental institution time. But
    always some required place of confinement.

    3.) If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, and the law forbids
    it, then the law IS requiring her to be pregnant whether or not she
    wants to be.

    "Forced pregnancy" is a perfectly accurate term for what the law
    does. It just doesn’t sound good when advocating for these laws.

    ****If you want to terminate, but the law forbids it, then the law is requiring you to be pregnant. This is forced pregnancy.

    You try to justify it by saying its murder…but you never treat the
    woman as murderers because they NEVER get jail time, and NO ONE wants
    to give it.

    I’d love ot see gun murderers, knife murderers, stranglers, etc, get that kind of get-ot-of jail free guarentee.

    Laws which force pregnancy, because "abortion is murder"…but no one wants to imprison the murderous women.

    A tortured position…for a torturing law

     

  • harry834

    is abortion murder, or not?

  • harry834

    is abortion murder, or not?

    I’ll never stop asking this question

  • harry834

    "Forced" means "being required to do something whether or not you want to; having no choice in the matter".

    If you can choose whether or not to do something, you are not forced to do it.

    When murderers are sentenced to jail, are they allowed to say "no" and walk out?

    No

    We force them to go. And this force is justified.


    The question
    is whether the forcing of women to be pregnant is also justified.

    You say it is because "abortion is murder". I say you can’t follow through with this belief – because you won’t give these murderous women jailtime.

     

  • harry834

    I would suggest that the pro-lifer’s concerns become more valid (but not necessarily mandatory) in the late stages of pregnancy.

    However the majority of abortions happen early on – and more so if abortion is not forbidden.

    I would think that rational pro-lifers could tell the difference between early and late abortion.

    However, I’m not saying I trust laws like the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. The federal ban says that the procedure is "never medically necessary" which is a dangerous assumption to force on doctors.

    Other criticisms I leave for others to make.

    I will say that I’m concerned about those stories about "non-still births pushed in the garbage bag".

    I’m not saying I fully believe them yet, but I’m concerned.

    Late-term abortion is a tricky thing…but it is also something women are not casual about at all (not that early-term is necessarily casual). If abortion takes place in late term, chances are it is with a woman who wanted her pregnancy (why else would she wait 8-9 months?) but something had gone horribly wrong medically – a fetal defect, or health risk to mother.

    Depending on the individual case, a late-term abortion may or may not be the best health decision for a specific woman in this scenario. The doctor must evaluate risks and benefits, then communicate these fully to the woman, then together they make the decision – with a general preference for letting the woman lead the way in making this decision.

    —-

    When Congress forbids one of their medical options – for the most emotional, non-rational reasons ever – I get scared for that woman and her doctor.

  • harry834

    I finished my in-depth analysis of the pro-life hypocracy:

     


    Analysis of pro-life hypocracy


    Just to give you sense of how it differs from things you have already read, I actually agree with pro-lifers support for the death penalty. I’m one of the few liberals who are OK with capital punishment (as long as convicts are convicted fairly).

    I want to thank all the people who have influenced the ideas on my post. Amanda Marcotte might be the one who first got the idea to my head (and to all of us) about the hypocracy of calling women murderers, but never jailing them.

    I’m sure she didn’t discover the idea, but as far I can remember, she’s the first place I have heard it, and heard it articulated very very well.

    Thank you, Amanda. I recommend your writings, and book, to all.

  • invalid-0

    “The question is whether the forcing of women to be pregnant is also justified. You say it is because ‘abortion is murder’.”

    No, you say that I say abortion is murder. All I’m saying is that our society can offer a woman experiencing an unexpected pregnancy SO MUCH BETTER!

    You’ll notice I never directly argued for the criminalization of abortion, either. I do, however, believe that many pro-abortion mentalities are skewered beyond reason and belief.

    That being said, it’s darned difficult to have a dialog.

  • invalid-0

    if you keep it up with the inflammatory terms like “pro abortion”.

  • harry834

    supports informing and providing a pregnant woman every option, but never pushing her or misinforming her towards anything she doesn’t want.

    That’s why we don’t trust the pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Because their mission is to push her away from abortion in any way they see fit.

    Not all of them lie, or misinform, but they ususally use the "abortion is murder" rationale, either implicitly or explicitly.

    The "abortion is murder" rationale is what I deconstruct in my above writings and blog.

  • invalid-0

    I hope you will consider placing this into diary form on the daily kos.

    Now for the answer…[it’s snarky]

    It’s really simple. One of the most enduring stereotypes of women who abort held dear by the anti-abortion industry (I hesitate to call it pro-life because ending abortion is the end-all and be-all of its existence), is the helpless victim of abortion. So helpless, so clueless, so stupid, so utterly infantile, she can’t tell when abortionists are flat out lying to her about her precious baby. She needs to be protected from her choices,she needs stringent laws that make it so hard for her to acquire an abortion,she will just give up.

  • harry834

    I’ve published that post as a Diary with my Daily Kos screenname:

    HKing2012


    enjoy

  • http://myspace.com/saynathespiffy invalid-0

    I never understood the “states rights” excuse people use to make themselves seem less controversial. They say things like “Well, it’s wrong for the federal government to force this on the states…” and “What works in California may not be right for Alabama…”

    Umm… Why is it wrong for the federal government to make states allow people to have civil liberties? If state laws can vary on basic things like that, what’s the point of being a country? And why is it wrong for the federal government to force the states to respect civil liberties, but okay for states to take them away from citizens? I thought human rights were based on freedom and personhood, not popularity.

  • invalid-0

    Pro-abortion simply means you advocate for abortion.

    Anti-abortion means you are against abortion.

    Pro-choice is a misuse of the word choice. It pretends that if one is opposed to abortion, that person is opposed to choice in a broad-sense. The proof is that the term “anti-choice” is all too commonly used, and it is a narrow view, full of illegitimate assumptions.

    Funny how I have been able to dialog with you even while being called ‘anti-choice’ when, meanwhile, it is a more incorrect term than ‘pro-abortion.’

    I promise not to call you ‘anti-life’, but I have nothing else to call your view other than ‘pro-abortion.’

  • invalid-0

    You’re right. No one should assume they can get pregnant through the act of sex. That would not be a rational analysis.

  • invalid-0

    I have an opinion on whether abortion is murder or not. It’s not a legal opinion, but a medical and moral opinion.

    I believe you are asking ‘is it murder’ because you want to come back with guns-a-blazin’ about how ‘pro-lifers want to send women to jail.’

    Forgive me for not wanting to get into that fruitless discussion (again).

  • invalid-0

    Pro-abortion simply means you advocate for abortion.

    No my dear. I advocate for women having a CHOICE. Wether it be abort, give birth and parent, or give birth and put up for adoption, it’s all the same to me.

    Pro-choice is a misuse of the word choice.

    Nonsense. Anti abortion advocates are opposed to women having any choice but birth in the matter.

    It pretends that if one is opposed to abortion
    that person is opposed to choice in a broad-sense.

    Well, you are half right. Anti-abortion activists are opposed to just abortion. They are often all for ontraception and comphrehensive sex ed. But “anti choice” is a person opposed to ALL choices-contraception,comphrensive sex ed,even IVF-but birth.

    The proof is that the term “anti-choice” is all too commonly used, and it is a narrow view, full of illegitimate assumptions.

    I also wish the bloggers would diffrentiate between the two. I did try arguing this matter with one blogger, but she refused to change her ways.

    Funny how I have been able to dialog with you even while being called ‘anti-choice’ when, meanwhile, it is a more incorrect term than ‘pro-abortion.’

    Sorry,but cheap shots don’t count as “dialog”. Because respect is a two-way street.

  • janine

    You’re right. No one should assume they can get pregnant through the act of sex. That would not be a rational analysis.

    I never said that, instead I do say it is a risk and address risk taking. Re-read my comments above.

     

    As said by other commenters on this site, ‘Reading comprehension is fundamental’.

  • harry834

    "you want to come back with guns-a-blazin’ about how ‘pro-lifers want to send women to jail.’"

    No, no, no – I actually acknowledge that pro-lifers don’t want to send women to jail.

    And that’s my problem.

    They SHOULD want these women to go jail, the same way we all want ANY murderer to go to jail.

  • harry834

    "I have an opinion on whether abortion is murder or not. It’s not a legal opinion, but a medical and moral opinion."

    So what is that opinion?

    In your medical, moral view – is abortion murder or not?

  • invalid-0

    Only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when human sperm and human eggs unite they produce something that is only “potential human life.”
    If the word “potential” is suggesting that the unborn is only potentially alive, that is disproved. Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman. Whatever else the fetus is, it is impossible to logically argue that it is not, at least, alive.

    On the other hand, for “potential” to be referring to the word human, a fetus would have to have the potential of becoming either a human being or some other form of life. Perhaps a parrot or a spider. Of course, the problem is that there is no record of such a thing having ever occurred.

    So while it may be reasonable to say that a fetus is a potential major league baseball star or a potential school teacher, it is idiotic to say that a fetus is a potential human being. If for no other reason, the fetus is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be.

    Also, if the issue is “development,” let’s not forget that human beings develop for their entire lives. A fetus is less developed than a newborn just as a child is less developed than an . But being less developed than an does not mean that a child is any less a human being. That’s also true of the unborn.

    Pro-lifers aren’t the only ones who know that it is a baby who is killed in an abortion. At a National Abortion Federation conference in Philadelphia during September of 1994, Texas abortion clinic director, Charlotte Taft, said, “When [a pro-choice activist in the Dallas community] came into our clinic – we were inviting her to learn more about abortions – this is a quote from this woman – she said, ‘If I believed that abortion was the deliberate ending of a potential human life, I could not be pro-choice.’ I said, ‘It would be best for you not to see a sonogram.’”

    Less than two years later, at another National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco, a New York abortion clinic director, Merle Hoffman, stated “…I mean, we are talking about an abortion here. And uh, also that the staff is uncomfortable when a patient said, ‘I think I’m my baby.’ So I’m comfortable with saying, ‘Yes, you are, and how do you feel about that?’

  • invalid-0

    to win an argument because pro-choicers KNOW what the fetus is. You aren’t telling us anything new.

    And you are simply being silly over the “potential human life” question. The union of sperm and egg doesn’t guarantee childbirth 9 months later. Only a fraction of fertilized oocytes implant in the uterus and begin pregnancy. Only a fraction of those continue to develop past the twelveth week of pregnancy, long enough for the woman to find out she is pregnant.
    But that still isn’t enough because a percentage of those fetuses will miscarry before viability. A percentage of the fetuses who survive past viability will have developed a fatal defect which will either cause a need for a late term abortion, or they will die just prior to or during delivery, or soon after they are delivered.
    THAT is what is meant by “potential human life”. Lame attempts at snarkism won’t help.

  • invalid-0

    So when you say potential human life you mean the fetus will or will not survive? Okay, whatever.
    How exactly does that undermine the humanity of the fetus? How does that give you the right to kill it? I’d like to know.

  • invalid-0

    And if you and the other pro-choicers really know what the fetus is, there is something seriously wrong, because you find no problem with terminating a little human life.

  • invalid-0

    when I stare incredulously at the computer monitor and wonder if you’ve lost your mind. First you accept my explantion and then you say it doesn’t matter? I also wonder where the humanity of the fetus comes into it. We know it’s human, but that is largely moot because it is not a person and it has no rights.
    To conclude, women have many reasons for choosing to terminate the pregnancy, none of which have to be justified to a third party.

  • mellankelly1

    And if you and the other pro-choicers really know what the fetus is, there is something seriously wrong

    Hey, I am pro-choice and I’ve been pregnant four times; given birth three times and terminated a pregnancy once.  I am well aware of human reproduction and I’m perfectly fine with not only the termination of my pregnancy, but abortion in general.  You may opine that there is something wrong with me and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.  However, you must know that an opinion does not a fact make.

    because you find no problem with terminating a little human life.

    Anti-abortionists and their little adjectives… it’s so cute!  I have absolutely no issue with a woman terminating her pregnancy…  regardless of whatever adjectives and/or qualifiers you use to describe it.

  • invalid-0

    you and other pro-lifers/anti-abortionists have no problem denying a woman her right to bodily integrity, her right to privacy, and her right to decide when to have kids. A child at the wrong time can terminate a woman’s chance at a better life. And please don’t push adoption as a panacea. That is merely an alternative to the biological mother parenting, not abortion. Some women don’t see it as an option that is good for them.

  • invalid-0

    Again, The unborn entity within the pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body, and therefore, she can’t justify it. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, type, bone-structure, and genetic code. Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her.

    To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and — with the case of a male conceptus — a and two testicles. Furthermore, since scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish in the case of the “test-tube” baby, and this conceptus if it has white parents can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman’s body.

    Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body.

    So, abortion is not justified, since no one’s right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary of others.

  • invalid-0

    Um.. a ‘little human being’ is what it is. It’s definitely little, and you’ve said yourself that it was a human being.

  • invalid-0

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life022.html
    to answer your question that you can kill an unborn baby because it isn’t a person.
    http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp

  • mellankelly1

    Um… little (adjective) human (adjective) being (noun).  Yes, if the zygote/embryo/fetus is human, it is most certainly a member of the family Hominidae.   I stand by my statement that you can continue to use adjectives and qualifiers to describe human reproduction but a fetus is a fetus is fetus and before that it is a blastocyst, zygote and an embryo.  Again, what is your point?

  • mellankelly1

    Again, The unborn entity within the pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body, and therefore, she can’t justify it. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, type, bone-structure, and genetic code. Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her.

    Well, it is unfortunate that the unborn entity cannot survive outside of the woman’s body prior to viability, isn’t it?  For the record, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a woman to justify terminating her pregnancy.  The pregnant woman gets to decide what is just, right, or reasonable in regards to her pregnancy.

    So, abortion is not justified, since no one’s right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary of others.

    Again with the justification.  So, you wish to give a fetus greater rights than a born person (that being the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity) thus making a pregnant woman’s rights less valuable or important than those of a fetus?  I simply cannot follow any logic that treats women as such insignificant beings.

  • harry834

    when a woman commits the murderous act of abortion, how much jail time should she get?

    I want to say it makes no sense to punish the doctor harshly, and the woman lightly. The doctor is the person hired to committ the act of murder. But the woman was the one who hired him (or her).

    Wouldn’t you think that the hirer of the hitman or assasin should get as harsh – or harsher – a punishment as the paid assasin?

    What is the penalty for murder in this country? Life in prison, death penalty?

    Just to make it easier on you, I’ll say I have NO problems with pro-lifers who support the death penalty.

    Would the formerly-pregnant women get this? Or life behind bars?

    What do you think the punishment should be for the murder of abortion?

  • invalid-0

    The fact that at some point in it’s development, the unborn baby cannot survive out of the womb has no bearing whatsoever. It’s still a baby, whether or not it can or can not live somewhere else.

    Abortion violates the embryo’s right to bodily soveriegnty. More than one person’s rights are involved in a pregnancy, and those rights must be balanced. If a woman becomes pregnant against her will, her rights have been violated. Clearly, she has a right to decide who may and may not make use of her uterus. However, the embryo also has the right to control of his or her body. The embryo has a right not to be killed. There is no easy, nice solution. In an unwanted pregnancy, someone’s rights are going to be trampled. But the severity of that violation of rights must be taken into account. Which is a greater violation of rights — forced pregnancy and childbirth, or violent eath?

    Obviously, the embryo’s rights are violated by abortion to a much greater extent than the woman’s rights are violated by pregnancy. Therefore, it is only reasonable to say that the woman does not have a right to abort, does not have a right to impose her will on the embryo. The body most affected in an abortion is not her body, and it is not her choice.

    I do not see how restricting abortion; the kiling of another human being; treats women as insignificant beings.

  • invalid-0

    my point was that I wasn’t trying to make it sound ‘cute’.
    ‘little human being’ is accurate, because the fetus and blastocyst and zygote and embryo, are all the same human being, at various stages in development. And they are all little.

  • invalid-0

    To be pro-life is to be pro-woman. We don’t say love the baby and forget about the mother. Rather, we ask, Why can’t we love them both? This is not just true when abortion is legal. It’s also true when it’s illegal.

    The pro-life movement is not out to punish women. Our goal, instead, is to stop child-killing. What would throwing women in jail do to accomplish that goal? Their children have already died, yet the abortionist goes on hundreds and thousands of others. It makes far more sense to put the abortionist in jail, so that he or she can no longer kill children.

    Moreover, the woman who gets an illegal abortion is the best source of information and evidence needed to convict the abortionist. If she feared prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion, which would make it harder to find the abortionist.

    This doesn’t excuse the woman’s wrongdoing; rather, it is the same principle by which the state grants immunity to a small-time user in exchange for information leading to a big-time dealer.

    This approach takes nothing away from the biological fact that abortion destroys a human life, nor from the moral fact that the life taken is of the same value as any born person. But consider how the law approaches the of born people. is not the same as homicide, which is not the same as manslaughter. Factors of premeditation, heat of passion, ignorance, negligence, and cooperation in the action of someone else are all taken into account in order to assess as fairly as possible how much responsibility the individual actually had.

    Consider these words from someone who had an abortion: “I really had no idea of what I was doing. I was completely ignorant about fetal development. I just wanted to get out of the crisis I was in.” More than any other form of , abortion is accompanied by pressure and ignorance. If we were going to start prosecuting women, we would actually end up prosecuting more boyfriends and parents.

  • harry834

    how much jail time should she get?

    how much for the doctor?

    If these two sentences differ, why?

  • invalid-0

    I replied to your comment before this.

  • mellankelly1

    The fact that at some point in it’s development, the unborn baby cannot survive out of the womb has no bearing whatsoever. It’s still a baby, whether or not it can or can not live somewhere else.

    No, it’s not a baby… remember those (cute) little adjectives?  It’s an "unborn" baby… like how I’m an "undead" person, right?  And the fact that a zygote and an embryo and most fetus’ cannot survive outside of the woman’s uterus is significant.

    Abortion violates the embryo’s right to bodily soveriegnty

    I can’t even believe that you just wrote that.

    There is no easy, nice solution

    Listen closely… the solution (your word) to an unwanted pregnancy is whatever the pregnant woman decides is best for her and her family (including her "unborn entity").  What you may or may not feel about her pregnancy is utterly irrelevant.  Gestation is a "solution" and so is termination.

    Obviously, the embryo’s rights are violated by abortion to a much greater extent than the woman’s rights are violated by pregnancy

    Again… are you mad?  How do you give rights to an embryo?  There is no legal reasoning to take rights away from a woman and give them to her embryo.  You have still not addressed the issue with diminishing women’s rights in order to afford rights to a fertilized egg.  You’ve not addressed the issues involving self sovereignty and bodily integrity; what about due process; discrimination (there is no situation where a mans bodily integrity is forcibly violated for another "person")… giving a fetus more rights than a woman is unjustifiable. 

     I do not see how restricting abortion; the kiling of another human being; treats women as insignificant beings

    You don’t understand how forcing motherhood on a woman who does not wish to become a mother because you feel like the interests of the zygote/embryo/fetus are more important than she is treats the woman as insignificant (not worth considering, unimportant, lacking influence)?  It is the very definition, my dear. 

  • harry834

    I’m seriously asking, no sarcasm. I want to see your response to my question.

  • harry834

    can I get an answer from you in two weeks, prolife?

    my blog

    and my email: harrynagendra@hotmail.com

    My professors have accomadated me when I had an impossible assignment.

    So I’ll cut you the same slack…

    So…when and where do you think you’ll have the answer to my question

     

  • harry834

    I’ll read and respond…

  • invalid-0

    The pro-life position has never been that the baby’s rights are superior to the mom’s, but that they are equal. If our country was intentionally slaughtering women by the millions just so children could lead the lives they would prefer to live, the pro-life movement would be fighting that with the same intensity that we now fight abortion.

    Our point is that while everyone has the right to live their life as they wish, they cannot kill other people in order to do so. When we say to a man that he cannot kill someone in order to get the money to buy a new car, we are not saying that he has no right to buy a new car or that he has fewer rights than the person he might kill. We’re simply telling him that one person’s right to life is more valuable than someone else’s right to buy a new car.

    That same dynamic applies in the case of abortion. Remember, the abortion industry’s own data proves that virtually every abortion performed in America is done for non-medical reasons on a healthy baby and a healthy woman who just doesn’t want to be pregnant. This clearly proves that the abortion issue is a conflict between the baby’s right to life and the mother’s desire not to be pregnant. And while that desire may be reasonable, we can’t allow her to kill someone in order to fulfill it.

    For over 30 years, the abortion lobby has told the public that protecting the unborn would trample on the rights of women. That is a lie. The Constitution was specifically designed to deal with situations like this.

    Assuming that there is a constitutional right to privacy, before the law can say that someone’s right to participate in a certain activity is protected by that right to privacy, it must first ask, “The privacy to do what?”

    One of the principles of the Constitution is that rights are never absolute. They all have limits. For example, libel and slander laws impose a limit on free speech, as do some consumer protection and price-fixing laws.

    We also have a right to the free exercise of religion, but we cannot legally kill someone even if our religion requires kiling.

    Rights also have value relative to each other. For example, a store owner does not have the right to shoot a shoplifter – even if that is the only way he can recover his property. Our society says a thief’s right to life is superior to a store owner’s right to own property. This infringement on property rights is based on the relativity of rights which the law and any rational person supports.

    This principle of rights having limits and relativity is how the Constitution weighs one individual’s rights against another’s.

    In the case of abortion, the question is not whether a woman has a right to privacy, but whether her right to privacy supercedes her child’s right to life. To say that it does, is to contend that there are limits to rights specifically expressed in the Constitution, but no limits on a right which had to be invented in a “penumbra.”

    In the final analysis, it is as preposterous to suggest that the intentional of an human being is a matter of privacy as it is to say it is a constitutional right. And this is precisely the reason why abortion defenders viscously attack any nominee to the Supreme Court who says he or she will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

  • harry834

    Point 1:

    "What would throwing women in jail do to accomplish that goal? Their
    children have already died, yet the abortionist goes on hundreds and
    thousands of others."

    So we automatically give immunity to every person who hires a prefessional murderer? Don’t you think these individuals are "one-time killers" too? That’s why they hire the professional killer – because they want to "keep their hands clean"

    Are these people free to kill – through their professional – with no punishment??

     

    Point 2: the professionals are kept in business because there are always customer with a desire to kill. And now you want these customers of murder to get a free pass from prison?

     

    Point 3: You bring up the issue of remorse.

    Is remorse sufficent to guarentee a murderer an exemption from prison – without defending herself in court???

    "I really had no idea of what I was doing. I was completely ignorant
    about fetal development. I just wanted to get out of the crisis I was
    in."

    Imagine this statement coming from someone who hired someone to smother their child, hired someone to slit the throat of their child, hired someone to poison, strangle, beat their child to death…

    Would any prosecutor non-chalantly accept the above statement as good enough to let the monster parent walk out the door? Or would the prosecutor fight like hell to demand proof from the woman’s defense attorney, proof that she might be "ignorant".

    Ignorance???? You know your pregnant body has a baby in you. That’s why you’ve rushed here to the doctor. You know he will end this! You want me to believe that she didn’t know this would terminate her baby’s existence????

    Did she think the growing the life was going to be planted in another woman? Did she care to find out before hand???

    Why does anyone go to an abortionist for any other reason than to "get rid of the baby"????

    This "ignorance" is just denial.

    And, isn’t the hiring of a murderer a cold-hearted act? The fact that  she feels "remorseful" afterward is just the after shock of a person who has hired a murderer because she was too weak to use her own hands. She delegated and looked the other way

     

    Point 4: Women who commit this act are not necessarily remorseful.

    See these women who are NOT sorry.

    Also, these women would never cooperate to convict the doctor

     

    Point 5: "it is the same principle by which the state grants immunity to a
    small-time user in exchange for information leading to a big-time
    dealer."

    Your comparing drug-dealing…to murder????

  • mellankelly1

    The pro-life position has never been that the baby’s rights are superior to the mom’s, but that they are equal.

    The zygote/embryo/fetus does not have rights… but you may be on to something here… the pregnant woman/fetus relationship should be considered a unitary rather than adversarial relationship.  When you attempt to give rights to the fetus (and take rights away from pregnant women) you are making that relationship adversarial.

    If our country was intentionally slaughtering women by the millions just so children could lead the lives they would prefer to live, the pro-life movement would be fighting that with the same intensity that we now fight abortion.

    Except that women are not living inside the bodies of these children; as your statement stands, you are talking about murdering people not terminating a pregnancy.

    Our point is that while everyone has the right to live their life as they wish, they cannot kill other people in order to do so

    Pro choice people agree that people cannot kill other people in order to live their lives as they wish… I think you’d be hard pressed to find a person that wouldn’t agree with that.  And comparing buying a car to the physical and emotional toll of gestation and the labor/birth process not to mention mothering a child is flat out lunacy.

    This clearly proves that the abortion issue is a conflict between the baby’s right to life and the mother’s desire not to be pregnant

    That sentence is malarkey.  The conflict exists because a third party (with absolutely no stake in the outcome) wishes to take away women’s rights based solely on their perception of what a woman’s pregnancy should mean.  The decisions regarding an unwanted pregnancy should be between the pregnant woman, her loved ones and her doctor and no other persons opinion about the "unborn" has any relevance.

  • janine

    The right to life does not include the right to another’s bodily integrity in the US. Our right to life is limited by this.

  • mellankelly1

    Assuming that there is a constitutional right to privacy, before the law can say that someone’s right to participate in a certain activity is protected by that right to privacy, it must first ask, “The privacy to do what?”

    The right to privacy encompasses specific rights that protect bodily integrity and self sovereignty.  A relevant precedent would be Winston v. Lee wherein the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant’s compelled surgery to remove a bullet to be used as evidence in his prosecution violated his constitutionally protected rights to bodily integrity.  You haven’t responded to the fact that a born child cannot legally force it’s parents to undergo any type of bodily invasion (even a blood test) without their consent.  And you wish to give rights to a fetus that a born child does not even have… how is that even possible?

    The Constitution was specifically designed to deal with situations like this.

    Yes, and anyone born or naturalized in the US is protected under the Constitution… do pregnant women not fall under that category?  Women don’t suddenly give up their rights as legal citizens when they become pregnant, do they (regardless of whether or not that pregnancy is wanted)?

    For example, a store owner does not have the right to shoot a shoplifter – even if that is the only way he can recover his property

    In this example, is the shoplifter living inside the body of the store owner?

    In the case of abortion, the question is not whether a woman has a right to privacy, but whether her right to privacy supercedes her child’s right to life.

    No, that is not the question… the question is whether or not pregnant women should have the same rights as any other persons born or naturalized in the United States.

    In the final analysis, it is as preposterous to suggest that the intentional of an human being is a matter of privacy as it is to say it is a constitutional right.

    In all honesty, I have no idea what you were trying to say here.

  • mellankelly1

    Consider these words from someone who had an abortion: "I really had no idea of what I was doing. I was completely ignorant about fetal development. I just wanted to get out of the crisis I was in." More than any other form of , abortion is accompanied by pressure and ignorance

    Why do anti-choice people always throw in the "I had no idea" & "I was ignorant about fetal development"?  If a woman was not aware that after nine months of pregnancy and the labor/birth process that she would have given birth to a baby then why the heck would she terminate her pregnancy?  Not having a baby is kind of the point, you know?  Pressure and ignorance… unbelievable.  How about this:  I am fully aware of human reproduction (and have given birth three times) and I still terminated my pregnancy.  Would I get the death penalty?  I wasn’t pressured by anyone…. I was not ignorant of embryology or fetal development and I still terminated my pregnancy… and you know what?  I’d do it again under the same circumstances… what would you do with someone like me?  Why is it so difficult for people to accept that women are fully capable of making good, informed decisions in the best interest of her family and her own pregnancy?  That terminating an unwanted pregnancy can be the best and most responsible thing for a woman to do?  You really give women no credit at all… you continue to discount women as completely insignificant when it comes to their own reproductive health and that is the real issue.

  • invalid-0

    Isn’t there one pro life/anti abortion site out there that relies on data-based science instead of pseudoscience? I realize the right wing has developed it’s own little parallel world in the past few decades, but sites you linked to are beyond ridiculous.

  • invalid-0

    How exactly? I looked completely logical to me.

  • invalid-0

    You’re going back to all the arguments we’ve had before. I’ve tried to explain to you why an unborn baby has rights though it is inside it’s mother’s body, and why a pregnant woman’s rights should not include the choice of death for her unborn child.
    Go back to my previous posts and see.

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t throw it in. I was quoting a girl who had an abortion.

  • harry834

    "a pregnant woman’s rights should not include the choice of death for her unborn child"

    exactly, which is why the formerly-pregnant woman should be put on trial for murder.

    I don’t care if it was her "first time". Amateur, weak-willed murderers are still murderers.

    In all honesty, I support both the life sentence and the death penalty for murder. Those punishments should be allowed for the formerly-pregnant woman who has an abortion,

    do you agree? 

  • mellankelly1

    You’re going back to all the arguments we’ve had before. I’ve tried to explain to you why an unborn baby has rights though it is inside it’s mother’s body, and why a pregnant woman’s rights should not include the choice of death for her unborn child.

    And don’t you get dizzy talking in all those circles? 

    PS. our arguments are exactly why abortion is and will remain a safe and legal option for women facing an unwanted pregnancy.

    Go back to my previous posts and see.

    Right back atchya.

  • invalid-0

    No, not all the women who have abortions will not be punished, I would think. I think the judges would have to take into account all the circumstances and everything as to why she had the abortion.
    “I really had no idea of what I was doing. I was completely ignorant
    about fetal development. I just wanted to get out of the crisis I was
    in.”
    This argument would be better for the murderer of the unborn child than for the murderer of the born child, because when a child is unborn it is harder to realize that the baby is a living person. It doesn’t look like it, you cant see it living and talking in front of you, so it would be easier to believe that it wasn’t human, especially if you knew nothing about fetal development.

  • harry834

    that a convicted murderer does not always get the death penalty or life in prison. But those two options are on the table. Otherwise, I think maybe 50 years.

    Does anyone know the median jailtime for murder 1? I’d guess 20 years, but I feel that’s too little for murder 1.

    If the pregnant woman wanted the charge reduced to murder 2, or manslaughter, she’s needs a damn good defense attorney, because I’m not buying the "remorse" excuse, or the "ignorance" excuse.

    Only an alien from another planet doesn’t know that a pregnant belly carries a developing child.

    That’s why she visited the doctor – to "get rid if it"

    "You didn’t know?" You wish you didn’t know

  • invalid-0

    And my arguments are exactly why abortion is wrong, and why we are trying to stop it.
    If tyou think the fetus has no rights simply because it resides in someone else’s body, I think you’re discriminating by place of residence.
    I suggest you read ‘Why can’t we love them both’ by by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke. See if you can counter all the arguments in there.

  • mellankelly1

    That is all you have to say in response to that entire post?  You were just quoting someone?  May I ask, to what end? 

  • harry834

    "when a child is unborn it is harder to realize that the baby is a living person"

    "It doesn’t look like it, you cant see it living and talking in front of
    you, so it would be easier to believe that it wasn’t human, especially
    if you knew nothing about fetal development."

     

    Why should it matter whether the murder victim is born or unborn? Not satisfied.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    It matters equally. It’s both a matter of ending a human life.
    I was saying that, when the child is unborn, it is harder for the mother to know whether the baby is alive or not. She may think it just a clump of tissues or whatever, and she may see nothing wrong with terminating it.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, because I addressed all your other issues in other posts.
    Let me point out that I am a girl, and I do not find it degrading whatsoever that a woman should give birth to each baby that has been formed in her womb.

  • mellankelly1

     And my arguments are exactly why abortion is wrong, and why we are trying to stop it

    And my arguments are exactly why pregnant women should have the same rights as any other person born or naturalized in the United States.  The decision to terminate ones pregnancy can only be made by a pregnant woman and it is completely irrelevant what some third party feels about the legality of abortion.  By the way… abortion will not be stopped by criminalizing it (you must know this) – it will merely by made unsafe for those who are not wealthy enough to procure a safe abortion abroad.  Why not focus your attention on preventing unwanted pregnancy?

    If tyou think the fetus has no rights simply because it resides in someone else’s body, I think you’re discriminating by place of residence.

    I think that is a very silly thing to say.  Especially considering you have no qualms about discriminating against pregnant women.

    I suggest you read ‘Why can’t we love them both’ by by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke. See if you can counter all the arguments in there.

    I suggest that you read the US Constitution and pay close attention to procedural due process, privacy and equal protection and then you tell me why pregnant women are not entitled to these rights. 

  • harry834

    if she thinks her victim is "not human" I think that questions her "remorse" or even her capacity to care about human life at all.

    In all honesty, I think that the unborn is alive and human.

    We both agree on that, but you think killing an unborn person is more acceptable than killing a born person.

     

     

  • mellankelly1

    In all honesty, I think that the unborn is alive and human.

    We both agree on that, but you think killing an unborn person is more acceptable than killing a born person.

    Therein lies the crux of the problem… one second they claim that a fetus has the same rights as a pregnant person and then they turn around and claim that killing an "unborn" person is somehow less of a crime than killing a person – now, how is that equal rights?  This logic is all so confusing.

  • harry834

    My feet are as nimble as my arguments.

    Though it looks like "prolife" or "anonymous" is the one dancing in circles…

    Also, I’d think I’d make a great prosecutor – because I don’t make excuses for murderers. "prolife" has been making excuses all around.

    It helps to be one of the few liberals who supports the death penalty (not that I have the energy to fight that cause…this blog tires me out…so does dancing)

    life or death – either one is good for a murderer – unless a prolifer makes excuses. 

  • janine

    For the great post on your site about those that claim "abortion is murder", yet don’t want to defend it with legal penalties the same as any other murder. Especially given the nature of pre-meditation that comes with hiring a hitman – and the fact that in this case the hitman can’t even complete this type of ‘crime’ on his own. It requires the woman to be a willing participant and submitting to the procedure she sought out and paid for.

     

    Women are not ignorant – they know why they are seeking out abortions instead of going to a primary care physician. In todays mutlimedia society its very unlikely that a significant number of women have not already heard the anti-choice arguments about the fetus or the abortion debate.

  • janine

    Right on Harry.

     

    If abortion was criminalized and a woman suspected the fetus she was pregnant with was already dead,
    she wouldn’t be seeking an illegal abortion
    anyway. She could still go through the safer, legal medical options to
    deal with the miscarriage or stillbirth and be done with it under the
    best care. By seeking an illegal one she believes its not dead, but
    instead is alive. She knows
    if she continues the pregnancy, she’ll have a human baby – so she knows
    its human too.

  • janine

    You’re going back to all the arguments we’ve had before. I’ve tried to
    explain to you why an unborn baby has rights though it is inside it’s
    mother’s body, and why a pregnant woman’s rights should not include the
    choice of death for her unborn child.
    Go back to my previous posts and see.

     

    Who are you talking to? Myself, Mellankelly1 or both? She and I are talking about the law here. The law protects rights.

     

    You’re final statement I can find regarding the law in the discussion threads I/Harry were involved in was this…

    You’ll notice I never directly argued for the criminalization of abortion, either.

  • invalid-0

    No, I don’t think killing an unborn person is more acceptable than killing a born person.
    I merely said that with the unborn person it is easier for the woman to believe that it is not human. I didn’t say the unborn person wasn’t human or that it was acceptable to kill it.
    If she thinks her victim is not human, why does that question her capacity to care for human life? She thinks the person she kills wasn’t human. Sort of like shooting at what you think is a deer and it turns out to be a person.
    P.S. I wont be on here today, but I’ll answer your comments when I get back.

  • invalid-0

    I was talking to MellanKelly1.

  • janine

    So you also post as Anonymous?

  • invalid-0

    Sometimes I forget to put my name in :-)

  • mellankelly1

    Let me point out that I am a girl, and I do not find it degrading whatsoever that a woman should give birth to each baby that has been formed in her womb.

    Let me point out that I am a woman who clearly understands the difference between an opinion and a fact… point in case: it is your opinion that a woman should give birth to each baby that has been "formed in her womb" (as an aside, I find that wording more than a little creepy – just my opinion); it is my opinion that each woman is perfectly capable of deciding if and when she wishes to gestate a pregnancy.  It is a fact that neither of our opinions regarding another woman’s pregnancy is relevant to that woman as we have no legal right to force our opinions regarding pregnancy and/or motherhood on another person.  Of course, we are each entitled to our own opinion, however, we are not each entitled to our own facts.  None of your arguments about taking rights away from a pregnant woman and giving them to her embryo are supported by facts (be they scientific or legal); rather, they are supported by your own personal beliefs (be they religious or philosophical) and certainly they are not compelling enough to justify treating a pregnant woman as less deserving of her legal rights than any other woman.

    Yes, because I addressed all your other issues in other posts.

    Hey, no… you didn’t.  You claim that women are not aware of basic human reproduction… why would a woman terminate her pregnancy if she didn’t think that gestating would eventually lead to the birth of a baby?  Why do you give women so little credit?  Do you honestly believe that women, in general, are that stupid?

  • mellankelly1

    I merely said that with the unborn person it is easier for the woman to believe that it is not human.

    You find me an actual woman in the US who thinks that at the end of nine months of gestating a pregnantcy she will be giving birth to anything other than a human baby and I will concede your point with all due approbation and my giant hat off to ya!  By the way… crazy women don’t count and neither do made up women found on anti-abortion sites. 

  • http://pan-zareta.deviantart.com invalid-0

    No, I don’t think killing an unborn person is more acceptable than killing a born person.
    I merely said that with the unborn person

    Going strictly by constitutional sense, fetuses are NOT “unborn persons”. Because legally they are not recognized as such. Another of those cute little adjectives?

  • harry834

    believe they are carrying something other than a human baby? Does any one think it is "a deer"? or a dog?

    Isn’t the whole reason they are desperate to get rid of it, because they don’t want the responsibility of raising a human child?

    And if pregnant women really think there’s an animal inside them, instead of a human baby, why does anyone suggest adoption as an alternative?

    Do you think the woman is planning on giving a "deer" or "dog" to their local human adoption center????

  • harry834

    that they thought the unborn baby inside them was a "deer", dog, or non-human entity, has to prove this "insanity" defense in court.

    Right now it just looks like wishful thinking.

    If someone shot your friend in the face, and claimed that "they thought they saw a deer", wouldn’t you demand proof?

    And remember, these women aren’t standing far away from their victims.

    The case is not good, and these women need some fancy talking lawyers.

    Even if the case were reduced to murder 2, or manslaughter – and that demands proof as well – we still need jailtime, with these charges on the record.

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t say the pregnant woman thinks they’re carrying a deer or a dog. I don’t think anyone could believe that.
    I was using the deer as an analogy.
    Many pregnant women think all they are carrying is a ‘clump of cells’ or whatever. If they are ignorant of what exactly the baby is, it’s my opinion that they shouldn’t spend years in jail.

  • invalid-0

    It makes perfect sense to be against abortion and against other people having an abortion.

    Pro-choice people are constantly saying “abortion is a very difficult decision” and “it’s a heartwrenching choice for a woman to have to make, so let her make it in peace.” The logical response to this is to ask “Why is abortion such a difficult decision? I don’t get it. Please explain it to me.”

    If they hesitate to respond, as they often do, the follow-up question is, “If it’s just a blob of tissue, if it’s not really a child, then it should be no more difficult than choosing to have your appendix removed. Right? So what is it about abortion that makes you say it is so difficult and heartwrenching?” If a person is honest, there is ultimately only one answer to the question. Abortion is a difficult decision for one obvious reason–it is the of an baby, one’s own child.

    If abortion doesn’t kill children, why would someone be personally opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another’s right to do it? The position of being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is therefore self-contradictory and morally baffling. It’s like saying–exactly like saying–we’re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor’s right to abuse his child if that is his choice.

    Suppose -dealing were legalized, as some have advocated. Then suppose you heard someone argue this way about selling :

    I’m personally not in favor of -dealing, but this is a matter for a -dealer to decide between himself and his attorney. Lots of religious people are against -dealing, but they have no right to force the anti-cocaine morality on others. We don’t want to go back to the days when -dealing was done in back alleys and people died from poorly mixed , and when only rich people could get and poor people couldn’t. It’s better now that qualified dealers can safely give to our children. I personally wouldn’t buy , so I’m not pro-drugs, you understand, I’m just pro-choice about -dealing.

    In terms of the bottom-line, there is no significant difference between people who are in favor of -dealing and people who don’t like it personally but believe it should be an option. Someone who is pro-choice about might argue that this is not the same as being pro-rape. But what is the difference, since being pro-choice about allows and effectively promotes the legitimacy of ?

    Those who were pro-choice about slavery fancied that their moral position was sound since many of them didn’t personally didn’t own slaves. Yet it was not just the pro-slavery position, but the prochoice-about-slavery position, that resulted in the exploitation, beatings and s of people in this country. Similarly, most people in Germany did not personally favor the of the Jews. However, they did nothing to try to stop that .

    In ancient Rome it was legal for fathers to kill their newborn children by setting them out to die of exposure or be eaten by wild beasts. While many people would not do this with their own children, they recognized the rights of others to do so. The early Christians saw this “right” as a wrong, and when they could find such children they took them into their homes to care for them.

    Some people have the illusion that being personally opposed to abortion, but believing others should be free to choose it, is some kind of compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn. Both are willing for children to die by abortion.

    Those who are “pro-choice” are by definition willing to extend the right of choice to the arena of babies. They must therefore take responsibility for the of those babies even if they do not participate directly–just as those who are pro-choice about crimes of must take responsibility for those crimes even if they do not personally commit them. To the baby who dies it makes no difference whether those who refused to protect him were pro-abortion or “just” pro-choice.

  • harry834

    if they think the child they murdered is "clump of cells", that confirms their sick homicidal personality. It actually casts doubt on their claims of "remorse".

    Or at least its willful ignorance. We both agree, in all honesty, that the living creature inside is a human life.

    To think that it is not is simply denial of biological facts – at best.

    Or psychocitic lack of remorse, at worst.

    None of these claims about "clumps" are passing muster for this woman who did murder her unborn child.

    Any prosecutor should fight to death to screen through these ridiculous denials, ridiculous wishes,

    "I wished it had never happened"

    That is what it amounts to. Many murderers say the same. In fact, I’d say only a select few murderers are absolutely without guilt in their hearts. We call this condition of no-remorse: clinical psychopath.

    These people lie and act to get sympathy.

    But even if guilt is genuine in their hearts, that only puts these murderers in the same camp as most human murderers (who don’t have the condition).

    Everyone’s crying when confronted with guilt, including killers. We don’t let them walk.

    They have an excuse? Tell it to the judge, and maybe you’ll get reduced jail time.

  • janine

    Many people who do end up committing murder dehumanize their victim too in order to carry out the crime. So, if abortion is murder too, why any difference?

  • harry834

    one must get in the right "mindset" to carry out the act. Acting like "it doesn’t matter" is one method a murder uses to psychologically prepare herself to committ the act of murder

  • invalid-0

    It makes perfect sense to be against abortion and against other people having an abortion.

    Let’s review. Wanting to take the right of bodily autonomy, privacy and due process from women makes SENSE to you?

    Pro-choice people are constantly saying “abortion is a very difficult decision” and “it’s a heartwrenching choice for a woman to have to make, so let her make it in peace.” The logical response to this is to ask “Why is abortion such a difficult decision? I don’t get it. Please explain it to me.”

    There are myriads of reasons. Two I can think of right off the top of my head: many women are ambivalent about abortion being the best choice for them. Most women abort because of econmic circumstance. Or maybe she wanted the pregnancy, but the fetus has a fatal deformity.

    If they hesitate to respond, as they often do, the follow-up question is, “If it’s just a blob of tissue, if it’s not really a child, then it should be no more difficult than choosing to have your appendix removed. Right? So what is it about abortion that makes you say it is so difficult and heartwrenching?” If a person is honest, there is ultimately only one answer to the question. Abortion is a difficult decision for one obvious reason–it is the of an baby, one’s own child.

    This is just emotobabble. Really. Remeember what melankelly said about adjectives?

    If abortion doesn’t kill children, why would someone be personally opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another’s right to do it? The position of being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is therefore self-contradictory and morally baffling. It’s like saying–exactly like saying–we’re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor’s right to abuse his child if that is his choice.

    There is absolutely no correlation between abortion and child abuse, except in the minds of those who’ve decided it is. A born child has the right not to be physically/emotionally abused by it’s parents.I also see zero contradictions between personal opposition to abortion and defending the rights of other women to choose an abortion. The person opposed feels it’s not the right choice for her. Yet she is smart enough to realize she doesn’t have the right to make decisions for other women. A lesson you could benefit from learning.

    Suppose -dealing were legalized, as some have advocated. Then suppose you heard someone argue this way about selling :

    I’m personally not in favor of -dealing, but this is a matter for a -dealer to decide between himself and his attorney. Lots of religious people are against -dealing, but they have no right to force the anti-cocaine morality on others. We don’t want to go back to the days when -dealing was done in back alleys and people died from poorly mixed , and when only rich people could get and poor people couldn’t. It’s better now that qualified dealers can safely give to our children. I personally wouldn’t buy , so I’m not pro-drugs, you understand, I’m just pro-choice about -dealing.

    Nonsense. Horsefeathers. Balderdash. Malarky. Unless the dealer was selling coke to fetuses, this analogy is bogus.

    In terms of the bottom-line, there is no significant difference between people who are in favor of -dealing and people who don’t like it personally but believe it should be an option. Someone who is pro-choice about might argue that this is not the same as being pro-rape. But what is the difference, since being pro-choice about allows and effectively promotes the legitimacy of ?

    Those who were pro-choice about slavery fancied that their moral position was sound since many of them didn’t personally didn’t own slaves. Yet it was not just the pro-slavery position, but the prochoice-about-slavery position, that resulted in the exploitation, beatings and s of people in this country. Similarly, most people in Germany did not personally favor the of the Jews. However, they did nothing to try to stop that .

    Oh. Please. Stop. Now. Those last two paragraphs were so stupid they make my hair hurt.

    In ancient Rome it was legal for fathers to kill their newborn children by setting them out to die of exposure or be eaten by wild beasts. While many people would not do this with their own children, they recognized the rights of others to do so. The early Christians saw this “right” as a wrong, and when they could find such children they took them into their homes to care for them.

    Again, your analogy fails again when you try to compare born children to fetuses. This is a consistent blind spot you fail to recognize.

    Some people have the illusion that being personally opposed to abortion, but believing others should be free to choose it, is some kind of compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn. Both are willing for children to die by abortion.

    There you go again, mistaking your opinion for a fact. I’m not “pro abortion”, I’ve never met a “pro abortion” person. Heck, I seriously doubt the existence of a “pro abortion” person, in short, it’s just a red herring.

    Those who are “pro-choice” are by definition willing to extend the right of choice to the arena of babies. They must therefore take responsibility for the of those babies even if they do not participate directly–just as those who are pro-choice about crimes of must take responsibility for those crimes even if they do not personally commit them. To the baby who dies it makes no difference whether those who refused to protect him were pro-abortion or “just” pro-choice.

    Sigh* Mixing up fetuses and babies again? Early term fetuses are not sentient, they cannot choose. The claim pro choicers must take responsibility for each abortion is ludicrous. That is the lookout of the women who must decide, not some third-party who judge and condemn because they don’t trust women.

  • invalid-0

    I just read this excellent diary over on DKos about abortion and I wanted to share it with you.
    Why The Left Is Right On…Abortion

  • mellankelly1

    It makes perfect sense to be against abortion and against other people having an abortion.

    It only makes "perfect sense" to those who see nothing whatsoever wrong with taking rights away from pregnant women…. any person who has an iota of respect for our Country, our citizens or our Constitution would never support us treating pregnant women as if they are less of a person than any other citizen of our country.  Your statement would be accurate this way:  It makes perfect sense for a person against abortion not to have an abortion.  There.  That’s better.

    Pro-choice people are constantly saying "abortion is a very difficult decision" and "it’s a heartwrenching choice for a woman to have to make, so let her make it in peace."

    Not true… that is a generalization.  Terminating my pregnancy was not a "heart-wrenching choice" at all.  I gave it the same amount of thought and consideration that I gave to gestating and giving birth.  Whether or not to gestate and give birth to a child is a "very difficult decision" and you don’t seem to be in support of stopping women from making that choice. 

    If abortion doesn’t kill children, why would someone be personally opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another’s right to do it? The position of being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is therefore self-contradictory and morally baffling.

    Oh Lord… we’re back to the whole opinion v. fact lecture, aren’t we?  See, most people (present company excluded) are able to comprehend the differences between an opinion and a fact.  It is your opinion that abortion is wrong (for whatever religious or philosophical reason) and as a result you wish to take away the rights of every other pregnant woman in this country based solely on your personal preference.  A person who is pro-choice but would not consider abortion as an alternative for her own pregnancy is cognitive of the fact she cannot and should not force another woman to remain pregnant based on her own personal preference.

    It’s like saying–exactly like saying–we’re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor’s right to abuse his child if that is his choice.

    Actually, realistically and logically, it is nothing even remotely like that.  Not even one little bit.  But, the fact that your mind goes there only further proves my point that the decision regarding an unwanted pregnancy cannot be made by some third party whose views may not be grounded in logic and fact, but instead in their personal hatred of abortion.

    Someone who is pro-choice about might argue that this is not the same as being pro-rape. But what is the difference, since being pro-choice about allows and effectively promotes the legitimacy of ?

    I don’t know what you’re trying to say here but I hope to Bloody God you weren’t equating women who terminate their pregnancies with rapists… that would make you one seriously sick individual.

    Some people have the illusion that being personally opposed to abortion, but believing others should be free to choose it, is some kind of compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn.

    This is emotive babbling which is again (surprise!) not based in anything even resembling logic.  There are people who support a woman’s right to choose what course of action to take regarding her unwanted pregnancy (lets call them "pro-choice", shall we?) and then there are those people who abhor abortion so much so that they are willing to violate a pregnant woman’s rights in order to force their views into law (we’ll call these people "anti-abortion", k?). 

     Both are willing for children to die by abortion.

    An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.  Period.  Although I’d be willing to bet that you’d support legislation to change the medical definition of abortion to "killing children" since it appears that the anti-abortion folk have no qualms with changing the facts in order to attempt to get their points across.  Especially considering that they can’t actually use factual information to accomplish this.

    Those who are "pro-choice" are by definition willing to extend the right of choice to the arena of babies. They must therefore take responsibility for the of those babies even if they do not participate directly–just as those who are pro-choice about crimes of must take responsibility for those crimes even if they do not personally commit them

    I need some sort of translator in order to understand what you’re trying to say here… is it that I (as a pro-choice person) am personally responsible for crime?  Yes, that is completely logical… it’s good to know where you’re coming from.