A majority of all identified groups, including Catholics, agreed with that statement. There was almost no difference between men and women. The group expressing the strongest agreement – 68 percent – was made up of Republicans. George Gallup’s syndicated column discussing the poll results, “Abortion Seen Up to Woman, Doctor,” ... was... in Justice Blackmun’s files.And Justice Blackmun, the Nixon appointee who wrote the Roe v. Wade opinion, had that column in his files. Also in his files:
[A]n account by Dr. Jane E. Hodgson, a Mayo Clinic-trained obstetrician/gynecologist, of her arrest in St. Paul in 1970 for performing a first-trimester abortion for a patient who had contracted German measles in the fourth week of pregnancy. (In those days before immunization eradicated the threat posed to pregnant women by German measles, the disease commonly caused serious birth defects.) Justice Harry A. Blackmun, formerly the Mayo Clinic’s lawyer, knew Dr. Hodgson’s story; I had found her account, published in the clinic’s alumni magazine, in the justice’s files at the Library of Congress.That's from a long column by Linda Greenhouse, referencing historical materials collected here. The column also talks about the post-Roe political strategy of the Republican Party, which we were just discussing a couple days ago here. The idea is that Republicans were for it before they were against it.
(Feel free to relate this post to the previous post about Second Amendment rights, which Democrats don't believe in.)
Posts
112 comments:
I love how they split hairs.
America's been very consistent.
Don't like it, not gonna tell you what to do, don't want to pay for it.
An idea for a Bible inspired compromise:
In Leviticus 17:11 and indeed a major theme throughout the Bible, "life is in the blood". No blood means no life.
With modern technology, pregnancy can be detected prior to their being flowing blood in the fetus, around day 23.
It therefore seems a reasonable compromise to allow "abortion" before then and disallow abortion after then, since we would then not be killing off what the Bible defines as life.
January 24, 2013 at 4:05 AM
(Feel free to relate this post to the previous post about Second Amendment rights, which Democrats don't believe in.)
Is there one Democrat in Congress that said he or she didn't believe in the Second Amendment? Or one Democrat commenting on this blog, ever?
Physicians used to be authority figures, back in the old days.
Was there a separate poll question asking whether people agreed with a statement like "abortion should be legal"? And then was the statement quoted in this post prefaced with "If abortion was legal. . . "?
"The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician."
It's just an extension of the age-old tradition of children being the property of their parents.
Oh, for heaven's sake. This again? Yes, yes, Americans support abortion rights. But 70% of Americans think it should be illegal under some or all circumstances.
Nice spin. Only the uninformed are convinced, but that's probably enough to win the day.
Trey Tomeny said...
With modern technology, pregnancy can be detected prior to their being flowing blood in the fetus, around day 23.
It therefore seems a reasonable compromise to allow "abortion" before then and disallow abortion after then, since we would then not be killing off what the Bible defines as life.
I similar argument could be made using higher brain functions. I believe there a precedents of declaring a person who is brain dead legally dead. You could apply that to a fetus being a living human with a right to life only once higher brain activity commences.
The idea is that Republicans were for it before they were against it.
I think, but don't know off-hand, but I think that Republicans just don't want to pay for it. In other words, it should be between a woman, her doctor, and her purse.
I say they can have their abortion... but PUBLISH THEIR NAMES.
So many liberals what to publish the names of gun owners, well publish the names of those who kill their unborn children.
So are you implying that pro-life people don't believe in constitutional rights either? Since the Supreme Court has decided that abortion is a constitutional right, anyone (especially Republicans) who believes the decision was wrongly decided simply doesn't believe in constitutional rights.
There's an easy solution to the abortion issue.
Abortion on demand is the signature achievement of Democrats; therefore, they should enjoy a monopoly on the procedure. Only Democrat women should be allowed to have abortions. I'm sure this is a compromise for which the GOP would settle.
"The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician" (emphasis mine).
Am I wrong?
The poll question says nothing about the individual right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Couldn't that poll question about the "decision to have an abortion" be easily construed by the respondents to mean not forced to have an abortion?
Seems to me that's a flaw that could skew results.
If we believe we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, then those rights are endowed at creation.
When does the kid get to chip in?
Does it matter whether it's "her physician" or "a physician"? Whether it's a doctor that has seen her before or one that is seeing her for the first, and possibly only, time?
I think that most people really did believe that only extreme circumstances would ever lead a woman to get an abortion and that Doctors were sure to exert a moderating influence, after all, if it was between a woman and her doctor, the doctor had to agree that it was necessary.
Right?
Many of those who wish to restrict late term abortions have a none too hidden agenda of wishing to prohibit all abortions. Many of those who wish to ban assault rifles or large magazine clips have a none too hidden agenda of wishing to prohibit all firearms.....I don't think democracy would be severely damaged if young men under twenty five and women in their last trimester were made to jump through a few extra hoops in pursuit of their constitutional rights. Fear of a slippery slope is itself a kind of slippery slope.
Garage mahal wrote;
Is there one Democrat in Congress that said he or she didn't believe in the Second Amendment? Or one Democrat commenting on this blog, ever?
yes no one believes that the second amendment doesn't exist. No one believes that the constitution goes from the 1st to the 3rd skipping the second entirely. So well give you that.
You certainly don't believe that the second amendment means what it actually means though (and by you I mean libs in general). Who is in the militia for example?
Garage mahal wrote;
Is there one Democrat in Congress that said he or she didn't believe in the Second Amendment? Or one Democrat commenting on this blog, ever?
yes no one believes that the second amendment doesn't exist. No one believes that the constitution goes from the 1st to the 3rd skipping the second entirely. So well give you that.
You certainly don't believe that the second amendment means what it actually means though (and by you I mean libs in general). Who is in the militia for example?
America's been very consistent.
Don't like it, not gonna tell you what to do, don't want to pay for it.
would this attitude work for slavery? Particularly the, not going to tell you what to do aspect?
(and by you I mean libs in general)
Name some names.
Sounds like the people at Gallup got another visit from Solly an' da boys.
(notice how all this lunacy didn't start before the "election"?)
Freder wrote:
So are you implying that pro-life people don't believe in constitutional rights either? Since the Supreme Court has decided that abortion is a constitutional right, anyone (especially Republicans) who believes the decision was wrongly decided simply doesn't believe in constitutional rights.
it doesn't say anything about abortion in the constitution. There is an actual
Amendment dealing with guns there.
"name some names" Ed Shultz, bob what's his
Face from bloggingheads (didn't althouse link to a discussion where he said just that?
Now I'm not going to hunt around
The Internet to find every person who said
What when.
Here is a starting point for you garage to find out what your side has been peddling concerning the whole
"2nd amendment only applies
To militias" style arguments:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/04/28/second-amendment-clearly-applies-to-militia-only.html
Start there, then work your way out.
Ed Schultz doesn't believe in the Second Amendment? Any quotes on that?
Well, 40 years of unrelentingly good publicity for your side will produce this result at some point.
Since the Supreme Court has decided that slavery is a constitutional right, anyone (especially Republicans) who believes the decision was wrongly decided simply doesn't believe in constitutional rights.
FIFY, Freder.
garage mahal said...
Name some names.
On the day a Democratic Senator introduces legislation banning 150 named firearms, the silly dope things this is a serious point.
Too funny.
You could also put "racial segregation" in there, too. Because, despite what authoritarians on the left believe, sometimes the government screws up quite badly.
On the day a Democratic Senator introduces legislation banning 150 named firearms, the silly dope things this is a serious point.
Find me a quote of any Democrat, anywhere, that says they don't believe in the Second Amendment. This can't be that hard.
The Bob I was referring to is Robert Wright by the way. Not sure why I was drawing a blank there.
garage mahal said...
Find me a quote of any Democrat, anywhere, that says they don't believe in the Second Amendment.
I love how you think this is illustrative of something.
Anyway,
Repeal the Second Amendment
Note: Your silly reply will be that he isn't in Congress.
Or something.
Oh even the Huffington Post has an article:
Time to Repeal the Second Amendment. Seriously
Note: In your silly reply you'll say he isn't in Congress.
Or something.
The Daily Kos, the most heavily trafficed left wing Web site:
It's time to repeal the Second Amendment
Note: in your silly reply, you'll say the author isn't in Congress.
Or something.
The poll I would like to see is whether the unborn should be classified as a person or as property.
Has garage mahal not heard of lip service or
Talking the talk but not walking the walk. Dems support of gun control would be like me saying I support the woman's right to choose but think we shoul jail all doctors who perform abortions and tha there is no
Right to privacy. Oh and that life begins at
Conception. But
Other than that I support a woman's right to choose.
I don't actually believe most Americans are willing to define the baby as property. They know in their hearts that is ugly and vile.
Liberals are relying on unelected people to dictate rules, and a Pravda media to cover up the infanticides.
Slavery went on for quite a while, and this will, too. But liberals are on the losing side, and they know it.
Here for example is an editorial from 2008 where we had the same exact discussion (remover how they tried
To
Ban handguns in DC?) at the time
Obama came out and said he supported the ban until the supremes overturned it and then he argued that he was always in agreement with the supremes position.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/29/obamas-gun-ban-rhetoric/
This is not new information, Garage, nor is it a new conversation. Last I heard Obama was a democrat.
Jay, the Lefties also want the Third Amendment repealed.
Imagine, your very own Oop sitting across from you at the breakfast table, ready to relay your next impure thought to Big Sis and Der Fuhrer.
Hey garagie, is Cory Booker a Democrat?
At 24:28:
C-SPAN interviewer: Would you ban guns?
Booker: I am very much one that is against handguns. And I know in my urban environment, I see little to no need for guns at all. And I think that the availability of guns and the ease with which even young people can get their hands on them is just horrendous. And I would, if I had the power to do so, I would. In fact, we’re even looking towards doing some local level handgun legislation.
But he doesn't say he's against the 2nd Amendment!!!!!!!!!!
Roe defined an unborn baby as property throughout the pregnancy.
Carhart actually expanded this, so that a partially-born infant is also property.
Theoretically, newborns may be defined as property, too. As Roe put it, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."
Life is irrelevant, because the baby's status is property.
And yet, there is now an intense divide over this issue. And the complainers are defining themselves as "pro-life." So now we need to revisit the question that has always been assumed.
Is the unborn property?
Note that Mr. Gallup assumes that there is no baby, so the baby's status does not even make it into the question.
Liberals would far, far prefer that the baby's status as property is unexamined. They don't want you confronting it or thinking about it or even aware of it. So that's how they design their polls and write their judicial opinions.
edutcher said...
.
Imagine, your very own Oop sitting across from you at the breakfast table, ready to relay your next impure thought to Big Sis and Der Fuhrer.
Do I have to?!
*SHAKING*
"(Feel free to relate this post to the previous post about Second Amendment rights, which Democrats don't believe in.)"
----------------
"Is there one Democrat in Congress that said he or she didn't believe in the Second Amendment? Or one Democrat commenting on this blog, ever?"
1/24/13, 8:45 AM
No, not that I recall.
"Many of those who wish to restrict late term abortions have a none too hidden agenda of wishing to prohibit all abortions. Many of those who wish to ban assault rifles or large magazine clips have a none too hidden agenda of wishing to prohibit all firearms....."
I think that this is pretty much spot on... just so long as 'all' is modified to "except to save the mother's life" and "except for the police and military."
The comparison does break down at some point but as far as "ultimate goals" go, yes, I think this is true and everyone knows it.
I'm willing to have abortions after the first trimester prohibited and then most certainly, the scenario of the born alive issue would be solved.
"Many of those who wish to restrict late term abortions have a none too hidden agenda of wishing to prohibit all abortions. Many of those who wish to ban assault rifles or large magazine clips have a none too hidden agenda of wishing to prohibit all firearms....."
This is one of the main complaints with the liberal desire to centralize all authority. It's all or nothing, and creates more and more strife in our society.
I believe federalism should be respected, and we should allow lots of different rules in our various states.
For instance, guns should not be a federal issue at all. The 2nd Amendment specifically strips Congress of authority over firearms.
And yet, the 2nd Amendment implicitly gives states authority to regulate firearms. Since it says the militia is to be "well-regulated."
I believe there's a federalism component to the 2nd Amendment. It wants to protect a "free state" from the army of Washington D.C.
Similarly, I think it should be up to the states to determine if abortion should be a legal or illegal medical procedure.
All the federal courts should do is make sure that states are not killing babies, under the state's own rules in regard to when people die.
For instance, total brain death is the rule for when people die in all 50 states. You can't possibly allow an elective abortion that would be a homicide under your own rules.
So in 40 years we have gone from "I have the measels and don't want to risk having a baby with birth defects", to "I was horny one night so banged a co-worker. Now I have a job promotion coming up so can't deal with carrying my child for 9 months (until she can be adapted).
St. Croix so wisely said,
"All the federal courts should do is make sure that states are not killing babies, under the state's own rules in regard to when people die.
For instance, total brain death is the rule for when people die in all 50 states. You can't possibly allow an elective abortion that would be a homicide under your own rules."
1/24/13, 11:29 AM
Exactly. I agree wholeheartedly your two comments above. Abortion legal to first trimester only would be respective of those laws.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court have been fighting the federalist fight, arguing that abortion should be sent back to the states.
What they have never done is make, or recognize, the pro-life argument that it was a horrible mistake to define the unborn as property.
And I believe the failure to make this argument now is a belief that it would nationalize the fight (i.e. outlaw all abortions). But recognizing the humanity of the unborn wouldn't outlaw all abortions. It would merely outlaw the ones that are homicides under state law.
I make that argument in a letter to Justice Scalia here.
Since we're supposed to follow our European betters, don't England & Germany have more restrictive abortion policies than we do?
Inga wrote:
Exactly. I agree wholeheartedly your two comments above. Abortion legal to first trimester only would be respective of those laws.
so it is your argument that women should not be allowed to have second or third trimester abortions? illegal meaning it will be regulated by laws right?
How are you different than the pro life crowd? You have no problem having the state be in women's uteruses, you just think the state shouldn't do it for the first 90 days.
So you are less extremist than the pro lifer by simply 90 days.
But what about all the arguments you previously made about the scared girls who got themselves pregnant? Is that no longer an issue on the first day of the second trimester?
Inga, thanks for your kind words.
Brain activity starts in the brain stem six weeks after conception (or 8 weeks after the last menstrual period). A state could allow RU-486, or early forms of vacuum aspiration, under this standard. Or it could outlaw those procedures, too. It would be up to the states.
don't England & Germany have more restrictive abortion policies than we do?
Yes, and France, and almost all of Europe. Mary Ann Glendon writes about it in this book.
Our abortion rules most closely resemble those in Cuba, China, and the former Soviet Union.
Now wouldn't that be interesting.
What would the Catholic hospitals do in the more liberal states?
And since the Catholics are fighting that portion of Obamacare, why don't they use the word property?
Talk about property in the pulpits.
I never thought if it that way, thanks, everyone
Inga wrote:
I'm willing to have abortions after the first trimester prohibited and then most certainly, the scenario of the born alive issue would be solved.
should we jail the mothers or doctors who have these abortions? and what about all the women who will resort to using coat hangers because you think you have the right to tell women when and when they can't have babies?
I can't stand your inconsistency. You're pro choice, but no 2nd and
3rd trimester abortions. You're for choice but have a problem if people use that choice to abort girl babies. You argue that restricting women's choice is akin to a war on women but are now arguing that its ok to do so for the majority of the pregnancy. And yet you are pro choice.
Here is argument for why second trimester abortions are necessary:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/21/why_women_have_second_trimester_abortions/
So apparently Inga is against teenage girls who will be most effected by restricting second trims tester abortions. Doesn't Inga care about women's reproductive rights?
Are there certain brain types that cannot grasp anything that isn't an absolute? Relativity is hard.
But ok, Inga lets do a thought experiment. Lets have conservatives make the argument that we only restrict second and third trimester abortions to start.
How many pro choicers are going to be on board for that reasonable proposal? are you going to stand with the conservatives on that position and not the pro choicers and the women who say their reproductive rights are absolute?
My guess is you and all the other pro choicers on these boards would be howling about the war on women's reproductive righs. And this is why women aren't voting republican anymore or why they need to change their message so they don't lose women. That would be YOUR position being argued. Is YOUR position anti women and anti choice and anti reproductive rights?
insofar as you are ok with restricting women's rights to abort, yes! (As defined by your position that restricting said rights is anti woman).
I thought the science was settled?
Everyone shares the pie, comrade, or it's poverty for all. We can't make more pies because there's only 1.
Insty just linked to a topic like that today, what Barry said in his inaugural speech about individuals & the state.
Inga wrote:
Are there certain brain types that cannot grasp anything that isn't an absolute? Relativity is hard.
how many pro choicers do you know who are not absolutists on their reproductive rights
Again, Jr. You aren't grasping relativity. Why would anyone conservative or liberal not be able to have dual alliances, depending on the issue?
We don't live in an all or nothing world.
"how many pro choicers do you know who are not absolutists on their reproductive rights?"
1/24/13, 12:16 PM
More than you can imagine, obviously.
I thought that The pro-choice position is predicated on the idea that women have the right to decide whether to carry their pregnancies to term.
If that choice is taken away after the second or third trimester, and you're saying this is the default. Position for most pro choicers, then how is the pro choice position actually pro choice?
Where are the voices, Inga?
Inga, so since you think second trimester abortions should be restricted, are you ok with jailing or fining doctors who perform them? and what about the mothers?
Only yours Seeing Red, saying the same boring shit over and over again, blah... Blah....Blah.....
No, I'm not OK with jailing anyone.
Or to put it another way, you Inga are ok with restricting a woman's right to choose. The only difference between you and a pro lifer is difference of one trimester. But otherwise you do think the state should be in women's uteruses, telling them when or when they can't have babies.
Doesn't Inga care about women's reproductive rights?
I'm sure she does! But a lot of information is hidden from women. For instance, abortion often damages your uterus, leading to Asherman's Syndrome. That is almost entirely an abortion-related illness. And yet the Supreme Court has never mentioned it in any abortion opinion.
Or consider all the medical data that abortion damages your cervix. You are now more likely to give birth to a premature baby in your next pregnancy.
Here is the CDC warning us of the danger of premature birth. And yet they fail to mention that abortion is a leading cause of premature birth. Nor has the Supreme Court ever mentioned it.
Abortion often damages our ability to reproduce. Indeed, this ideology has made fathers disappear, and sent single moms through the roof.
When the media talks about "reproductive rights," they are usually thinking about controlling reproduction. But of course one part of reproductive rights is protecting our ability to reproduce. And that would include protecting a woman's body from the surgeon's knife, and also protecting babies.
Inga wrote:
No, I'm not OK with jailing anyone.
how about fining doctors and making them lose their license.
No fining or losing of licenses.
Make it easier for a woman to keep her baby after the first trimester or make it easier for her to give it up for adoption. Make the woman jump through insurmountable hoops to get an abortion illegally after the first trimester. With the advent of early pregnancy tests a woman can know in plenty of time to schedule an abortion if that is what she chooses.
I'm sure that I'm in the minority as far as pro choice people, but not as many as you think, I'll wager.
Inga wrote:
I'm willing to have abortions after the first trimester prohibited and then most certainly, the scenario of the born alive issue would be solved.
restricted means the law punishes those who violate the restriction. There would be no restriction unless behavior is illegal. Ad if its illegal and you violate the law, there has to be a repercussion.
So, what should the repercussion be? Unless you are still arguing the personal morality of Inga thinks second trimester aboertions are wrong, but the state can't interfere. Then you really can't say that you are for restricting 2nd trimester abortions. But that wouldn't exactly solve the born alive scenarios would it? Because if a woman didn't have a problem with aborting a baby in the third trimester then she wouldn't be restricted from aborting would she?
As far as enforcement goes, I suppose there would need to be some. If a physician has been found to have performed a certain number illegal abortions, he could be up for review of his license I suppose or a small fine.
This is a hypothetical, remember:)
A miscarriage is an unnatural event. Forcing a mother to have one is not, in my opinion, the practice of medicine at all. You're not healing the mother from any sickness. Rather, you are risking damage to her body. This is why the doctors who do this surgery are violating the Hippocratic Oath. Not only are they violating the actual oath itself (which specifically forbids abortion) but also the spirit behind it, the idea of "first, do no harm."
Even if we take infanticide off the table, the abortion industry is similar to plastic surgery. The so-called "doctors" are imposing risks on the health of women. They are not practicing medicine at all.
In fact I see both plastic surgery and abortion as this weird sort of dehumanizing of our society. Plastic surgery to make yourself more sexually appealing so you can get a man who abandons you so you can have an abortion. And repeat.
It's not the practice of medicine. It's more like making money off you like you're a Sneetch.
Inga wrote:
Make it easier for a woman to keep her baby after the first trimester or make it easier for her to give it up for adoption. Make the woman jump through insurmountable hoops to get an abortion illegally after the first trimester.
those hoops are called restrictions which would be backed by,laws. And if you violated said laws I'd imagine there would be repercussions.
Also, making it easier for women to keep their babies is not a solution. Define easier. And what does make it easier actually entail? what if you make it easier but a woman still decides to have an abortion? It's a relative argument, because no one knows how much easier it would be required to make something to disinsentivize a woman from aborting her baby. Should we pay for her and the babies rent and college in perpetuity otherwise she will have her abortion?
That sounds highly unrealistic, but what if that's the only thing that will keep a woman from aborting? If you fall short of full supplementation for her and her babies life is that considered "making it easier" (since it will not in fact solve her economic issues).
What if she then has an abortion anyway? At a certain point, if you're going to restrict something it will require doing something o those who violate the restriction. Offering weak sauce as an incentive to not do something doesn't work if the incentive isn't worth more than violating the restriction.
I didn't set myself up as a teacher.
And also do we not offer ways to adopt now? Isn't that then an incentive women are already aware of before having an abortion, today?
I'd love adoption to be easier. But you're offering an incentive that is already there as a solution to your "restriction".
jr. Did you see m 12:40 comment?
Inga said...
No fining or losing of licenses.
So in other words, you don't really mean this:
I'm willing to have abortions after the first trimester prohibited
See Inky, in America when things are "prohibited" people are either jailed, fined, or both, when they have or engage in prohibited activities.
Theft is prohibited. But maybe we shoul indentivize thiefs to not steal by making it easier to get what they want without theft. Does that make any sense?
So we should give people TVA that way they won't steal tvs.
That's basically the equivalent of restricting something but not actually enforcing it through law.
garage mahal said...
On the day a Democratic Senator introduces legislation banning 150 named firearms, the silly dope things this is a serious point.
Find me a quote of any Democrat, anywhere, that says they don't believe in the Second Amendment. This can't be that hard.
======================
1. Find me a single Democrat anywhere, that says they don't believe in a balanced budget.
The Republicans are stuck with a loser because they are too beholden to Fundie goobers that couldn't even get their "blastocyst is a baby given by Jesus and therefore a person with full legal rights" passed even in the fucking state of Mississippi.
Stay with the Right to Life fanatics, and keep losing elections because 55% of women will vote on that over any economic issue. It got worse for Republicans in recent years because the public was pushed to consider this a top voter consideration when the RTLrs gave us the Terri Schiavo debacle, the stop all stem cell science argument, the stop all morning after pills drive, the Personhood for all Fetuses Movement.
What the public wants is fairly clear. And Republicns in the grasp of the religious Right have positioned themselves well away from the mainstream.
I'm not OK with jailing anyone.
Hey, utopia!
What about non-doctors who do abortions? Criminals? Or A-ok?
Would you let Dr. Gosnell go? What about the non-doctors doing abortions in his "health clinic"?
Medical doctors only, of course. No abortions by janitors, thank you very much.
Yup my family is very much in the "Don't like it, not gonna tell you what to do, don't want to pay for it" camp. All Republicans of the libertarian sort.
Not that it means anything but my compromise between the 2 sides is after 90 days of pregnancy, tough shit, it's a baby and you don't get to murder it.
Abortions by doctors only? LOLOLOL
California & NY (blue states) don't agree, Inga.
For the 1st trimester.
Holy crap, Inga and I have agreed.
I better go outside and check for tornados, tsunamis or the 4 Horsemen.
But what about all the arguments you previously made about the scared girls who got themselves pregnant? Is that no longer an issue on the first day of the second trimester?
While I haven't made the argument by sympathy sob story, I agree with Inga on a compromise that gives weight to both persons rights.
If you're a scared little pregnant girl, you have 90 days to decide and exercise your right to choose. That is a long time, taken day by day.
After that, it's a baby you must carry to term and you can always give it up for adoption.
The dirty little secret is that most aren't scard little girls, they're older, like in their 30s.
Today I made the lunch ladies laugh by describing a rather horrific ear surgery done in the office (the numbing gel didn't work, I felt everything)...and I said I'd rather have an abortion than to ever go through that again.
A misleading rewrite of history by Greenhouse. In 1972 people would have answered that question based on their understanding of the legality of abortion at the time.
Gallup changed the question in 1975 and found that less than 22% agreed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances.
See footnote 151 on page 302 of the link.
If you make your "prohibited" any more toothless, Inga, Chief Justice Roberts is going to start calling it a tax.
Inga, you've had a bit of an epiphany, or something, because you said this just last November:
I would be in favor of abortion restricted to 16-18 weeks
But now you're saying they should be restricted to the first trimester, which is week 1 to the end of week 12.
Good to hear, but why the change?
No epiphany Lydia, I'm basically wanting to be able to get anti abortion folks on board, while not alienating pro choice people. It's a compromise.
Inga wrote:
As far as enforcement goes, I suppose there would need to be some. If a physician has been found to have performed a certain number illegal abortions, he could be up for review of his license I suppose or a small fine.
now we're getting
Somewhere. Though it does violate the argument that is often bandied about, nakedly that abortion should be between a doctor and a woman alone. I guess, you're arguing it shouldn't? Or only should in the first trimester, then if planned parenthood and/or a doctor still provide an abortion they can be shut down.
Is that right? That's Inga's pro choice position?
How many other who are pro choice on these boards will agree to these terms?
How about the stipulation that abortions are only allowed for second trimester abortions if the mothers health really is at risk and not the way it is now, which strikes me like a gun show loophole in the gun debate that the left keeps arguing - ie a way around background checks. Surely pro choices recognize this loophole and have no problems changing it so that more 2nd trimester abortions don't have to occur that shouldn't.
So, 2nd trimester abortions no. Doctor can have his license yanked if he performs hem and no abortions after first trimester unless the mothers health really is at risk. Can we include a rape exception only through the first trimester too? And all of this does not equal an assault on women's reproductive rights, correct?
Can we get this stipulated by Inga and other pro choicers on Althouse?
How about the stipulation that abortions are only allowed for second trimester abortions if the mothers health really is at risk and not the way it is now, which strikes me like a gun show loophole in the gun debate that the left keeps arguing - ie a way around background checks. Surely pro choices recognize this loophole and have no problems changing it so that more 2nd trimester abortions don't have to occur that shouldn't.
So, 2nd trimester abortions no. Doctor can have his license yanked if he performs hem and no abortions after first trimester unless the mothers health really is at risk. Can we include a rape exception only through the first trimester too? And all of this does not equal an assault on women's reproductive rights, correct?
Can we get this stipulated by Inga and other pro choicers on Althouse?
As far as rape victims, I'd say give them up to 18 weeks, the unfortunate baby has still not reached sentience at that stage of development and would allow the rape victim a bit more time, for several reasons.
Not every woman will claim rape to get that extra time, but I'm sure some will. The baby is not viable at 18 weeks, I believe it's 23 weeks now.
And those with REAL Thoroughly documented cases of maternal health should have up to 20 weeks, or even longer if it appears the mother will die as a result of carrying the child to birth.
Have you talked these restrictions over with your pro choice allies and are they in board?
This poll doesn't seem surprising to me.
Even today, when people think about abortion they think about rape, incest, and health as the reasons for it. Presumably this was even more the case back then.
The surge in opposition to abortion is likely linked to the surge in birth-control abortions by irresponsible women.
They do not oppose slavery (i.e. involuntary exploitation and constrained liberty). They do not support slavery. They are pro-choice.
They do not oppose murder (e.g. elective abortion). They do not support murder. They are pro-choice.
The verdict is inconclusive, ambiguous convictions. Most people will only act to increase their material comfort and sentient pleasure.
Fetal development
Week 5 of pregnancy (gestational age)
The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
From conception to evidence of sentience in around five weeks. The actual moment of sentience is a matter of philosophical concern. The presumption is that sentience is an emergent phenomenon, but there is no consensus when the pattern becomes sufficiently coherent.
So, there are two objective standards to reasonably distinguish between passive and active biological material. First, there is biological conception, which occurs at the time of fertilization. Second, there is conscious conception, which can be reasonable correlated to development of the neural system. Any other standard is subjective and chosen for reason of personal convenience, at the expense of an innocent human life.
Post a Comment