POLL: Roberts and Roe v. Wade: The beginning of the End

Remove all ads!

Fair warning: If you are politcally faint-of-heart and easily offended by an opinion that may not be the same as yours, do not proceed. You have been warned...Nevertherless, I will try to make this as entertaining for anyone who is brave enough to enter.

The real implications of the 2004 election are about to be felt by the American people. While they were busy giving their civil liberties away to win the so called "War on Terror," Americans must have been turning a blind eye to what those liberties cost America in the first place. I am reminded of George Washington commenting on the "blood in the snow" left behind by the Continental Army during the fateful winter of 1776-77. The price was high, but what America gained in the end was Liberty. Yet it took another 25 years before most men had the right to true self-government, which nevertheless was still during the Generation of Revolution; then it was another 60 years before the end of slavery, which cost even more American blood; finally, less than a hundred years ago, women got the franchise, and which, by the way, those tyrants in the Middle East love to remind Americans of when they are roundly critcized by those in the more "enlightned" West. It was a long struggle, but it was what the promise of 1776 was fought over those many years ago.

Fast foward to the 21st century, with the promise of even more liberty for those who valued it: The economy was booming, people were striking out on their own, escaping the bonds of corporate servitude; there was talk of the American Dream being something that was suddenly in the grasp of the average American. "Privatization" meant the individual, not the corporate infrastrucure; Americans were almost drunk on freedom. It was too good to be true, for those who loved and valued freedom.

Enter onto the American stage a new regime; one which was not steeped in the traditions of ciivil liberties, but upon naked power, its acquistition, application and it's use for personal gain and the acquistition of even more of the same. "I still have another son," the father is heard to mutter upon predictions of the next election for president in 2008. A true aristocracy for the new century. Who would have guessed that the "bridge to the 21st century" led back to the 18th century? So much for the American dream. But the last to gain, is the first to suffer. We all know that.

Enter a woman's right to choose. The choice is over her own body and her right to choose to conceive. Choice? What choice? We are speaking of "life" here. I can almost hear Urban II in a long off century, declaring: "God wills it!" Thusly, the pompeous asses have spoken throughout history. When their own words fail, call upon God. No better yet, let's not, and put words into God's mouth instead. "Yes, I used to sell aluminum siding, but now I speak for God. I am anionted!" Yes, well I suppose those 1-800 numbers running along the bottom of the cable TV screen are there for a donation, which if I call, and give you my Master Card number, proves that I love God. Hallelujah, Brother!

And we all know one thing: Our president loves God! Indeed, he is engaged in a global war against the enemies of "Christianity," err...I mean..."Democracy," even as we speak. Furthermore, he is engaged in a "War" against the baby killers and murdering of innocent, unborn babies! "Can I have a Hallilujah for war, Brothers?!"

I will be bold enough to predict that Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for the last 30 years, is about to bite the dust. But this is just the beginnig - I'm sure we will all get our turn sooner or later - and it won't just be the women.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 14 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Roberts and Roe v. Wade: The beginning of the End (14 votes.)

Roberts and Roe v. Wade: The beginning of the End (Choose 1)
* Roe V. Wade is the Established Law of the Land, and Will Remain so. - 14% (2)
* Roe v. Wade Will be Completely Revoked. - 14% (2)
* Roe v. Wade will Remain, but with Serious "Qualifications" - 71% (10)

 

Frankly, it would not surprise me if it happened, but I hope to God (That's right, I said it! ) that it never comes to pass.

 

A return to the coat hanger, back room abortions, only the well off will be able to afford a proper abortion in a foreign country? I hope not.

 

I don't think Roe v Wade is about to go the way of the dinosaur, but as it currently stands, the prospects look exceptionally grim. Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone with that much power not to change things towards their interest, irrespective of whether it will benefit the country or not. You might not 100% agree with Roe v Wade, but the principle of reproductive freedom and the health and well-being of pregnant women endangered by their pregnancy (whether it be financially, socially, physically or some other way) trumps the personal belief of those who can't bear children or the "scandalous possibility" that people will have sex for reasons other than procreation. Well, unless they play that "God" card they're so fond of. It's good to know that Pro-Life is fundamentally concerned (no pun intended) with quantitative rather than demonstrably qualitative outputs... err, I mean outcomes. Yeah, that'll teach 'em!

All that will happen in that case is what Nakia predicted; it'll still be provided illegally, and if history is anything to go by, organised crime and corrupt officials will get involved and increase the human cost of abortion. But hey, it'll be illegal, right? That will work, won't it? Sure, and Chicago was liquor-free during Prohibition, too.

Sadly, it seems that regimes in Australia and the US have done little more than extract benefit and pursue more personal goals and desires through the acquisition of power, which they have retained through lies, manipulation and deceit. And that's just Australia! The conservative shift in political sentiment that exists in the post-WTC West is deeply concerning (for me, at least); what is worse is that there are moral and emotional entrepreneurs in power who are actively using that climate to push for legal changes that would have been unthinkable 5 years ago.

As an Antipodean example: in Australia, we are about to be hit by a workplace relations bill that the Government has been trying to force through the Senate for years. Now that they have a majority in both houses, they can do so without brokering deals with opposition parties. This bill, however, is premised on an exceptionally naive assumption and one which has been thoroughly discredited: that the typical employee is able to bargain effectively with an employer over an individual contract.

The bill amounts (in my view) to an attack on organised labour and while I am hardly a unionist, I recognise that they play an important role in protecting workers from a "race to the bottom" in a competitive capitalist environment. Screw that, though: we appear to be caught in the grip of a new ideology of government. One which couldn't give a rat's about principles of natural justice, individual freedom and the right to self-determination. How ironic that we're fighting wars and invading countries to spread that message [/sarcasm] while we're systematically dismantling it at home.

 

Wow Chandos, given the impartial manner in which you presented the question no one could ever question the possibility of a skewed result.

Have you ever thought of getting a job writing polling questions for CBS News?

First off, while it has been a long time since I read the Constitution (and the amendments, I should have to say it as they are de facto part of the Constitution), I don't remember it stating the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and to terminate your unborn child. Using the term "women's rights" to describe abortion in a blatant twisting of the topic. To deny women their rights would involve such things as taking away their rights to property ownership, voting, driving, education, and so on (wow, sounds remarkably similar to a certain highly controversial region of the world).

Now, the real issue that politicians don't want us discussing is reasonable laws on abortion. The pro-choice (or women’s rights advocates as they have renamed themselves) will not stand for any laws that prohibit even the most extreme cases of abortion, i.e. 3rd trimester partial birth abortion. If you want a semi-graphic description of this procedure, albeit from a biased against the procedure source it is here. Here is a 3D ultrasound of a 27 week old "fetus". Looks pretty well developed to me.

Now, before I get tagged as one of those people who wants to take away "women's rights", I do believe that in the first few weeks (8 I think should be sufficient) a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy should she choose to, but I think that abusers of this should be encouraged to decide on a permanent form of child prevention, and that there should be consequences (financial) should they choose not to.

There are exceptions to these rules. A woman who is in danger of severe medical consequences should be given exemptions from the law, and of course rape and incest are valid reasons for exemption as well (provided the victim of the rape or incest was prevented from seeking medical attention).

IMO this is just another case of where party politics prevents all of us from getting reasonable laws, that while we are not all 100% happy with, 90% of us could agree that they are fair. Of course blaming the politicians for this is really to blame ourselves (US citizens), as Bush and the rest of the conservatives wouldn't be in office if the majority of Americans didn't support them.

As for what I think is going to happen: the pendulum will swing back, and it will become more difficult to get an abortion, but abortion will not be outlawed completely.

 

I absolutely love it! First, you go off about how "skewed" my particular viewpoint on this issue is, and then you go off about the Constitution stating the "right of a women to terminate her unborn child" - yes, talk about skewed remarks. You and I both know that the Constitution, as it was drafted in 1787, as I pointed out, does not even give women the right to vote. Yes, it was added, as I pointed out, and there has been a progression of natural rights, which gives everyone, the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But note: that line appears in the Declaration, which was drafted in 1776. If you go back and read my post, I have framed my comments not with the Constitution, but with the DoI, and the events of the same year.

The Consitution is a blueprint - and a damn good one - for the workings of government. It was Jefferson who insisted on a Bill of Rights because the original document did not address the issue of individual rights clearly enough in this regard.

To understand Jefferson's thoughts in drafting the Declaration is to understand that it is the "consent of the governed" that gives any government its just authority. As women are the governed, it is by their consent that any government over them has the right to dictate their reproductive rights. In this regard, if a majority of women agree with this, then we can say that there is a just authority to limit, or not limit, their rights. I feel safe in stating that this would be a Jeffersonian viewpoint on the issue, except in issues regarding their health and welfare. In this regard the rights of the individual would probably trump that of a democratic majority, since these are natural rights given to the individual, regardless of gender.

But I am arguing here for the greatest amount of liberty and freedom for women. You, of course, may feel free to argue for something different.

 

Putting words in god's mouth? Not this time Chandos. The Bible is explicit: Thou Shalt Not Kill. Urban II and the other "pompuos asses" (myself included) will refer to that principle to trump your freedom arguement.

If anything, George W. will force a hard look at the topic, and there may be some changes.

Financial? If the woman is not prepared to make the sacrifices to raise a child, then there are many couples that want children that can't have them who would gladly make those sacrifices. Social? The stigma of single parenthood has long since passed. As for Physical health, that's a legitimate concern. If the health of the mother is severely threatened by the pregnancy, then I would not argue against an abortion, but would not push one either.

Murder 1? Conspiracy to commit murder? Reckless endangerment for unsafe abortions. If the Mother sickens or dies, then it's Criminal Negligence causin bodily Harm ore death. Enforce the law...

As Chandos pointed out, the Right to life is included in the Declaration of Independence, but the question is now does that right extend to the unborn? Do they have the right to be born or can they be snuffed out by the whim of the woman who would bring them into this world? This is the next battle in the cause of freedom.

These activists really need to look first hand at what they are promoting. They also should be campaigning to legalize murder (after all, the unborn ought to have the same rights as everyone else, and if the right to life is not protected for them, then why should others enjoy that right?)

That sounds acceptable to me (the allowing abortions under those circumstances, not the rape and incest thing). Otherwise, the right to life for the unborn should be protected...

That sounds about right. The decision to kill a child should not be made lightly, nor should it be easy...

The Pro-life crowd is trying to grant these rights to the unborn. True freedom if you will. The Pro Choice crowd wants to limit the freedom of the unborn...

So if the women agree to live by the laws of the United States, then they have to accept that the Law may not always grant them the freedom that they desire.

And I am arguing the same for the unborn. They are citizens too, and the abortion laws would look much different if the unborn were considerred citizens...

 

Oh come on, Gnarf, this is about Roe v. Wade, not abortion. Wait a second, ... never mind.

Can't ... breathe. Can only ... wheeze with ... incredulous laughter at ... such an idiotic fallacy.

 

Granff - Exactly. You can argue this from the perspective of the unborn. That is a valid argument here. I am taking the stand that those "already born" - in this instance, the women - are entitled to their natural rights.

This thread is not about abortion, but about politics and the use of emotional hot-wire issues to put forth a larger agenda, which encompasses much more than just the issue of "abortion." For the last two hundred years the pace and expansion of democratic ideals have been breathtaking. The turning back of Roe v Wade marks a turning point in that expansion, IMO.

BTW, Pope Urban preached the First Crusade. He used religion to promote a larger agenda as have others in history. Those are the ones I was making reference to, not those who are Pro-life.

 

@ Darkwolf,

Well said. I'd agree with the next statement if I didn't believe the "neck deep in vomit, bucket of urine" analogy to be truer than genuine support.

@ Gnarf,

By "socially" I didn't necessarily mean the stigma, although certainly that does still exist. According to some, if a unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she's a slut, a tramp or a whore. If she terminates her unborn child, she's a baby-killer. That's not even taking into consideration the effects that it can have on your opportunities in life - have you ever heard of a CEO that's a single mother? Neither have I. Most guys under 30 run like crazy when confronted by a single mother. This can affect every aspect of a life, not just career prospects (although those can be said to affect a whole life as well).

Is using a contraceptive device or medication in the same vein? After all, you are preventing potential life from forming; it's a kind of "pre-emptive strike", as it were, a preventive measure. Is that morally blameless or blameworthy? As much as I disagree personally with Catholic doctrine on that matter, at least it is consistent. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on personal beliefs, only asking for clarity and consistency.

Some people seem to be clinging to the myth that abortion is sought by callous and hedonistic women who could watch a soap opera while undergoing an abortion and then repeat the process next time they accidentally get pregnant.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of .

Having had people close to me go through abortions, I can say that the effect was terrible. It more or less disintegrated a friendship group. It's not an *easy* decision, in the sense that the consequences are such that there are no *good* ways for it to end. If that service is highly restricted or illegal, it will be even worse.

I don't think I need to point out the logical flaw in that argument.

I see the purpose of medicine as a profession which should prevent suffering. My personal stance is that saving one life is better than condemning two in this situation, particularly when it arises out of a mistake or lapse of judgement. It is not a simple or easy thing to decide upon, but people have been doing it for centuries and it will continue, legally or otherwise.

I shall take my leave of this debate now before it becomes another "religion vs secular ideology" argument, and would ask that we stick to Chandos' original topic: the possible erosion of liberties and freedom under the current US administration.

(That is what it was about, right, Chandos?)

 

Y'know, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion won't instantly become illegal.

I'm pretty sure California, if no place else in the Union, will keep 'em legal. I mean, c'mon. It's California.

I'm also pretty sure that congress won't touch the issue with a 40' pole even if Wade is overturned; they know that by taking a stand on the issue, one way or the other, they instantly alienate a damned large percentage of voters. They don't, by and large, want to do that.

 

What I was referencing here was the fact that it is usually nice to give people a chance to vote in a poll before you try to influence their opinion, at least if you want their honest opinion to be given in the poll. The poll had already started, and as is normal, after I attempted to vote (unfortunately I couldn't because there was not an appropriate choice to match my opinion) I entered into the discussion, where opinions should be stated, skewed or otherwise.

Finally, I agree that the founders of our nation could not foresee this medical issue. However, in great wisdom, they left us 2 outs, one being amendment to the Constitution, and the second being the ability for the States to regulate issues such as this. Now, there have been women's rights that have been protected under the Constitution via amendment (e.g. suffrage), and as this is a representative republic, if a sufficient number of people felt that abortion was a right worthy of such protection, the Constitution would be amended, but it isn't, so it won't. IMO, this leaves this as a states right's issue all the way.

IMO there is no "right" to have an abortion, any more than someone having the "right to drive", the "right to work" (meaning that someone should be forced to provide gainful employment), the "right to smoke", the "right to happiness". The majority of abortions are the result of an individual wishing to correct a mistake they made. I am sorry if this offends some, but we should all be responsible for our actions, and that includes the decision to risk the odds and have sex (I have already addressed rape, incest, and medical danger in my first post, so don't go there ). The federal gov't should pass meaningful legislation as I have outlined in my first post, and then get its nose out of the bedroom and the doctor's office, and the Supreme Court should accept the law and stop trying to force political views on people with assumptive interpretations of the Constitution.

 

On the other hand, it would be interesting to contemplate what overturning Roe would mean. As it was (sort of) mentioned before, abortion will not become illegal; it will be up to states to pass local laws. One would imagine that most of the states will keep some sort of abortion legal (after all, above 60% of population thinks it should be legal). Maybe Alabama or Missouri will pass laws to make it illegal (I don't think Texas would, to say nothing of the East of West-Coast states). So, who would like to live there anymore? At least in the past few years, quite a few Red states (like Alabama, the Carolinas) have been blooming, sort of; new research and developement centers, technology jobs, etc. I think this will go away quite rapidly if they mess with abortion.

 

Well done thread, Chandos...but I don't like your poll either.

I think that the problem lies in viewing the post "Roe v. Wade abortion on demand world" as a logical extension of the rights gained from revolution, emancipation and suffrage.

Roe v. Wade is bad law. It has remained entrenched for 30 years because the Supreme Court rarely has the courage to reverse itself (at least within a short time frame). Roe v. Wade should be challenged and dumped and a new and better definition applied to the "right to privacy". It's a crazy stretch to use the relatively finite scope of the case, which just happened to involve reproductive rights, to abortion on demand for anyone at any time.

 

Exactly. It will be a major turning point, and If George W gets his way, then it will be a major step to secure the rights of the Unborn. I think it's high time that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of Hapiness should be extended to those that are on their way, as oppose to restricting it to only those who have been born...

I didn't say that, but can you say that this doesn't happen?

Why then, if no good comes of it, do people still go for abortions? If it were illegal or harder to get, then wouldn't adoption be considered? Then why should denying a child the right to be born be an easy decision? You say it's that bad for the mother, then even if the process is not banned, make some counselling mandatory, where the woman knows the risks that she's taking. Where applicable, make sure the father knows what's going on and has his say in the matter.

But from the descriptions you've given, doesn't the woman suffer after the baby is killed anyway? I would think that a doctor doing his job would expect that the woman should know what she's getting into before performing the abortion. I've heard nothing good about it, and if the bad stuf is made known, then I doubt there'd be as many abortions performed...

And this is the point of the discussion. There is questions about whether there ought to be or whether it ought to be forbidden by law.

 

Gnarf,

Adoption is hardly unproblematic either, particularly if a person lacks the maturity to be so logical about the matter. The issue here (as I see it) is not abortion, per se; it is the nature of freedom and liberty. Freedom to choose between two options is not freedom if several other reasonable solutions exist; this is the essence of the problem.

I'm not going to wade back into this argument about abortion, except to address that one point. Too many posts get derailed like this.

--------------------------------------------------

My biggest problem with the overturning of case law which establishes reproductive freedom for women is not that it is grounded in concern for provision of better services but that it is foremost a statement of religious values which should not be present in a government. It is an intrusion on the lives of private citizens, in an area where a democratic government has no business in being. It would be no better if that approach were motivated by wholly secular ideology, as I have illustrated in my earlier post about proposed Australian workplace relations reforms.

"The new aristocracy", as Chandos described it, is driven by a highly personal and religious agenda (both in the US and increasingly over here, too - here's a link). That's not a problem in and of itself; it is a problem when it drives policy and appointments, or curtails liberties that are seen as morally deficient to a purposive end to match the religious beliefs of that group in power. Since freedom of religion is enshrined in the Bill Of Rights in the US (and in the Australian Constitution), attempting to impose a conservative Christian set of values in law - in a manner which affects the private life of the citizenry - is utterly reprehensible. Heck, the Family First Party in Australia has it at the top of their core values list.

Any democratically-elected government has a duty to do what is in the best interests of its citizenry. If there was ample evidence to suggest that abortion should be highly restricted, and that alternatives other than contraception were greatly preferable, then I would have few grounds to argue for it. That such empirical evidence does not exist, and the US and Australian administrations' track records with truth and justice (eg: Iraq, "Children Overboard", and David Hicks' upcoming trial), lead me to conclude that this could only driven by a "because we want to" approach.

As has been pointed out, several states will probably enact statutes which legalise the process anyway. That does not detract from the problem of a government acting on a purely ideological basis to dictate what citizens can and cannot do in their personal lives.

[ August 02, 2005, 08:52: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

You have got to be kidding. We all know that the proportion of women that description applies to is so low as to be irrelevant.

Does it happen? Sure. Does it happen often enough to warrant discussing? Nope.

 

Abortion is not (in the vast majority of cases) an easy decision. You seem to assume that making it illegal will stop it from happening. It will not. It will just add an additional burden (and risk) on the women who find they need it. If you do not believe this, just research what happened in countries where abortion was illegal at some point (I am thinking some East European countries during the Soviet era).

I am sure most of women which consider abortion are aware of the risks and possible consequences. I find it ironic that the conservative crowd, which are generally so big on personal responsability, treat women in this situation like half-idiots, unable to figure out what is best for them and make an informed decision.

Finally, I think the issue is truly one of privacy and/or individual rights. Let's assume anti-abortion laws are passed. What would that mean? You propose to make a woman which becames pregnant bring the embryo to birth agains her will. How will you do that? Criminalizing the procedure and putting in jail the doctors who perform it is one step. But maybe this is not going far enough (after all, if the woman has control over her own body, she can try to do all sorts of illegal things). Maybe monthly controls to make sure that if a woman gets pregnant stays pregnant? Why not, if it may stop a crime?

For what is worth, on a personal level I am against abortion. But I think it should be legal. Safe and rare, as Sen. Clinton said. On the other hand, I do not see the right pushing the use of condoms or contraceptives, or any reasonable sex-ed, which probably would make more of a difference in reducing the number of abortions than making it illegal.

 

I wonder whether those speaking against abortion have ever encountered a woman who went through that process. Or if - as I suspect - they lounge in their ivory tower of high-flung morals and detached ideals that dont qualify for meeting the problems of real life, judging others from a comfortable and safe distance.

I have known one such woman and it was really hard to remain unaffected by the emotional pain she experienced. And there was no way I could have thought of how to possibly console her. No one knew how to do that. The last thing, however, that would have crossed my mind was judging her or reminding her of her child's right to live. Not in face of such misery. Let there be no mistaking: A good part of me was horrified to contemplate she allowed to have something removed which would have, eventually, grown into a full human being. I also could not help but feel how tragic her decision was in a society where far too few children are born. But she was alone, a child would have wreaked havoc upon her life - and she could not have given it away for adoption.

I think no man can ever hope to comprehend what emotional conflicts a woman in that situation has to endure. We should be silent, or better, helpful and sympathetic. And nothing else.

A woman who feels she cannot carry out her child will always find a way to have it removed. Its up to society whether she is forced into seamy conditions in some backdoor room, endangering her life - or if we allow her to make an open and free choice, bring her out of the isolation of a situation that is already devastating enough, and also help her ascertain she made the proper decision through counselling, pointing out options etc. All of which would be impossible should abortion become illegal. Again women and their specific problems would be left out in the cold to please the selfrighteous. That is no alternative for me.

 

Fancy that, that it should be the pro-choice side who starts the push for realistic measures to reduce the need for abortions to happen in the first place. I saw a recent editorial in Time by some right-wing commentator who was lauding Sen. Clinton for her efforts on this aspect of the overall issue.

But back on the real topic - I hope Americans begin to realize just how much we're giving away before it's too late to get any of it back. I fear for what kind of a country my sons will inherit. I also find it exceedingly ironic that Liberals and their "live and let live" attitude are characterized as being in favor of larger government, when in many cases it's the restrictions that the Conservatives what to apply that will require additional governmental effort. Which requires greater personal responsibility - making a choice from among a variety of options and living with the results thereof, or simply following the crowd along the one permissible path?