Great. Do they think this will stop abortion? Nope, it will just go back to drinking turpentine or getting the coathangar in the alley.

Fools.

Not to say that we shouldn't be worried, but actually the majority for upholding Roe is 6-3. Kennedy did dissent in the Nebraska partial-birth abortion case, but has never said that Roe should be overturned (and he won't.)

I do agree that many states would ban abortion were it overturned, though.

[Edited on Oct 06, 2004 11:55AM]

I'm against abortion personally, but I also realize I don't have the right to make that decision for someone else. Might as well drop the subject entirely, no one is going to abide by it if they want or need and abortion.

don't fret, if it is banned i'm sure we'll send the dutch Abortion boat to the states.

This is one of the larger non-stories I've seen in some time.
"Should the supreme court overturn something (something there is no mention in the story of their considering), other people will take advantage of the ruling to pursue their goals."

Next news flash:
fire is hot.
water is wet.
poo often smells

Booooooooooooooooooooooooo!

This is kind of weird, I mean I didn't think it was news......

I don't think it is news because we all know that it is on W's agenda to do.
Yet this is important for ALL women, because every one knows someone who has had an abortion or at least considered it. If we ban abortion, then who is going to give the women who do have these babies the money to raise them? Certainly not our Dear Old President.

They shouldn't even be having them, because premarital sex is wrong. We should be putting more money into abstainance campaigns.

























I'm sorry...I tried to say that with a straight face.

A woman's body is her own and the government has no goddam business interfereing with a woman's choice.

you really had me for a minute there


[Edited on Oct 06, 2004 by pandamonium]

This is a copy of someone else's interesting perspective from years ago (I hope it formats adequately):

To Institute Slavery

Some months ago, I visited a woman and her brother in the
hospital. He had just donated a kidney to her, and had saved her life.
Both patients recovered well from a successful operation. It was a
pleasure to visit with them. You have to have a lot of admiration for a
fellow who will undergo the risks and hardship of major surgery for
someone else. His gift of love was not lost on his sister, who told me,
with tears in her eyes, that both brothers had made the same offer. I
finished that visit happy for them and glad to be a human being.
In spite of all my good feelings about kidney donation, I would
oppose any sort of legislation making it mandatory for people to donate
kidneys to their siblings, and I am sure my feeling is nearly universal.
To require people to give their bodies over to the use of another person
would be to legislate a kind of slavery, and that would be morally
unacceptable, even though it would save a fair number of lives each
year.
Does that mean that kidney patients do not have a right to life?
Of course not. The right to life is a human right which we all have,
and it cannot be taken away from us. However, that right to life does
not extend to the right to use other people's bodies, because we also, by
virtue of our humanity, have the right to freedom. And freedom means
nothing if it does not mean the right to determine who will use our
bodies and how. Thus, those of us who need blood, or organ transplants,
or donations of bone marrow, must rely on the love and responsibility of
others for our very lives. We cannot rely on the force of law. We
cannot make slaves to serve our right to life.
It is for this reason that I have been puzzled by the notion,
which seems to be nearly universally held, that if we could just all
agree that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception, we could
outlaw abortions. But, how could that be? My right to life does not
extend to the right to use anyone's body, no matter how much I need it.
What would give the fetus, even if it were judged human, such an
extraordinary right? No one else has it. If, one minute after birth, a
baby needs a kidney transplant, it is, tragically but properly, at the
mercy of it's parent's love for that transplant. Most parents would
make such a sacrifice gladly. Much as we might condemn the few who
would not for cowardice or lack of love, we would never try to force
them. In our social code of morality, allowing the child to die is a
lesser evil than instituting slavery.
Pregnancy has been around longer than organ transplants, and it
is a natural event rather than a surgical one, but that does not negate
the fact that what pregnancy essentially is is a woman's temporary
donation of her body to the developing fetus. In many ways it is a more
profound donation that the donation of a kidney. Most women, even when
their pregnancy is initially unwelcome, choose to make that loving
donation and find joy and fulfillment in that sacrifice. Nonetheless,
those who, for whatever reasons, do not want to make that sacrifice,
cannot be forced to do so in a society which reveres freedom. Allowing
the fetus to die (by abortion) is a lesser evil than instituting
slavery.
As long as we live in a world where birth control methods don't
always work, where women are coerced to have sex, where teens are
bombarded with pressure to be sexually active long before they can take
responsibility for the result, and where rape and incest are terrible
realities, women will be faced with unwanted pregnancies. There is no
moral solution to unwanted pregnancy. Abortion kills. Mandatory
continuation of the pregnancy enslaves. Neither alternative is
acceptable, and there are no others. This is why the solution to
unwanted pregnancy must remain outside of the law. It is not that law
should not legislate morality, it is that there is no moral solution.
In each case, we must wind a path among impossible choices. Is it
better to kill or to be a slave? Who is to say? Clearly, it can only
be the one who is most affected; the unwillingly pregnant woman, with
those who love, support, and advise her.

The only way out of this terrible dilemma is never to get in it.
But there is no way for a woman to live which will guarantee her not
having to make this terrible choice. Even celibate women are sometimes
raped. Even responsible, married women experience failures in birth
control. Even sterilization can reverse itself. We have sometimes gone
about this abortion debate as if the only people who got abortions were
irresponsible teen-agers who didn't even try to prevent their
pregnancies and therefore should be expected to take the consequences.
And even thought that is not the reality at all, in this society, we do
not condemn even the most heinous criminal to give bodily service to
another person. (Can you imagine: "In consideration of your crimes,
young delinquent, you are sentenced to donate one kidney, one cornea,
and 20 pints of blood to citizens who need them." Of course not.) Nor
can we do this to young girls, whose crime, in most cases, is ignorance,
lack of self esteem, and susceptibility to the highly sexualized culture
that we all live in.

You have to have a lot of admiration for a woman who will
undergo the risks, discomforts, and trials of pregnancy for a fetus
which she did not want. And, as a matter of fact, about two-thirds of
unwillingly pregnant women do choose to continue the pregnancy. But we
can't make that mandatory. To make it mandatory is to institute
slavery.

by Christine C. Robinson
minister of the First Unitarian Church of Albuquerque

printed as "Ban Abortion, Legislate Slavery"
in the ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL, Thursday, July 20, 1989





Wes[iderata]

Vera Drake opens soon.



[Edited on Oct 06, 2004 by hack]

i'm sorry, i thought we lived in the 21st century. why has it become the moral or acceptable right of goverment, in any way shape or form, to determine what people do with their lives/bodies. do the majority of people in these states actually support this idea? or is it another case of opinion forming politics? the legal system is generally already a patriarchal concern and the enforcement of laws like like this could have terrible consequences.

what is the logic behind behind such a mysoginistic idea in a western world that's supposed to be all about equality and acceptance

This isn't news, this is election-cycle scare tactics.

IF monkeys develop wings, and IF said monkeys take up residence in my ass, then it's highly possible that those monkeys will at some point fly out of my ass. Especially after a night of Mexican food.