Is abortion fuckedor not? When this one reaches a decidely more conservative Supreme Court than the one that defended the “right to choose”, will they change the law of the land or maintain the status quo?
If the Supremes reverse Roe vs Wade, look for every “Red State” in America to rush to ban abortion. Place yer bets. 
yep… we’ll have abortion factories in california, oregon, new york, conneticut and mass. maybe a couple others…
but just think of all the jobs that will create…
oh sure, nagin couldn’t get bus drivers to take people out of the big easy before katrina, but you can be damn sure the democRATS will get thousands of bus drivers for their rainbow cavalcade to abortion paradise… of course you don’t need a note from your mommy, just hop on our yellow clinic special and we’ll take you to neverland…
ride home? sorry, you’re fucked there… we got you here to have an abortion. you had it. you owe us. now get a job and contribute to the tax base for the next kidnap victum…
-Imp
Abortion isn’t fucked but the ‘right to choose’ nonsense seems to be on its way out
South Dakota didn’t ban abortion they made it stricter. If you are raped you are allowed to take the morning after pill, and if it threatens your life, they allow them as well.
I actually agree with SIATD, on this one. This debate was never about the right to choose for the “Pro-Choice” crowd. This was about “Pro-Abortion”. You go to a planned parenthood clinic and they’ll try talking you into having an abortion, not choosing what is best for you. Many of the women who get abortions become extremely depressed afterwards.
Didn’t help that RePUSican GWB, didn’t listen to Michael Brown’s dire forecast for what was going to happen. It didn’t help that DemocRAT, leadership in the city and state didn’t take up the offers to cart people out on the last trains and buses leaving the city. Amtrak offered Nagin to take ALOT of people out of the city. Did that help?
Mistakes were made on both sides of the Katrina issue, but that’s neither here nor there. What that has to do with abortion, is your chance to rip on the democRAT’s.
I would agree with alot of what you say about their party. But do you seriously think the rePUSican party is better?
Democrats:
it was stupid to make abortion a party line. This drove away alot of liberals who are not pro-abortion.
it’s stupid that they think all problems can be solved by throwing more money at it.
Republicans:
It was stupid that they made anti-homosexuality a party line, driving away a large group of gay republicans.
it’s stupid that the neo-con group thinks you can solve all the worlds problems by changing their government into a democracy. It’s naive to think that Iraq is better off with a Sharia style democracy then it was with the Saddham dictatorship.
Now, let’s continue the debate about abortion.
kill 'em all
-Imp
The babies, or the bio"ethicists"?
Sadly, I think women will be losing the right to choose, and it IS a right. I agree with the Libertarian view of aboprtion, and why it is not murder, and why it is not wrong in the first place. For their side of the argument, check this out: capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm
Scythekain, no abortion clinic, at least the ones I’ve read about/dealt with, encourages women to have abortions, they comfort the women in their decision. Secondly, most women who suffer from depression after an abortion do so because religious fanatics make them feel like murderous baby-killers, which is a very immature position to take on the subject on the part of the Fundamentalists.
Once again I need to bring facts instead of opinions here.
First of all, before roe v wade, abortions occurred all over
this country. Private doctors performed
abortions all the time. I can attest to this from personal
experience. The discussion is really about class in america.
Wealthy women will still get abortions. All the doctor will say is
a procedure was done. What you are preventing is poor women
and some middle class women from getting abortions.
That is all you are doing, preventing public clinics from
giving abortions, you will not stop abortions from private
doctors. It is really part of the war against the poor.
It has nothing, NOTHING to do with pro and anti life movements.
What poor women and some middle class women will do, is
what they have done for centuries. In the bad old days,
women would use coat hangers to try to abort the fetus, many,
many women died from complications. Also women would use
dubious pills which led to some serious medical issues.
The end result will be quite a few preventable deaths, and no
real decrease in abortions. They will not end.
Now several bits, by forcing poor women to give
birth, you will increase welfare, medicare, medical, and other
cost on society. Now one might say, what about adoptions?
There are about a million abortions a year in the U.S.
and I can guarantee you, there are not a million people
in the U.S. wanting to adopt. You will also increase the misery
of the world, by forcing women to have children they don’t want,
and giving children horrible lives, being unwanted, neglected and
unloved. It is a sad way to grow up. So you can feel better, you
would force children to have horrible lives. One might respond
at least they have lives? A neglected, unwanted and unloved life,
isn’t really worth living, now is it?
And in the end we come to the real point of the radical right wing.
And that is to take away freedoms and choices.
Do what I say, not because its the right thing, but because
I hold certain beliefs and I will force you to obey my beliefs.
I am forcing people to obey my value system.
Turning peoples values about themselves into a crime.
John Calvin would approve.
Kropotkin
Abortion will not be banned.
It’s good for capitalism to have a low population with liquid assets.
A valid argument, Peter, but isn’t any form of cohesive government essentially a group of adopted morals and ethics, that citezens must obey, or face the penalty? For instance, in a democracy, we have laws (supposedly) dictated by the majority, but those who oppose the laws, must still follow them. In a fascist oligarchy, those morals are codified into law by a minority, but the majority must follow them.
By saying abortion ought to be legal, we are saying to the opposing party that they must accept our morals. I’m fine with doing that, its what society and government are based on.
As a side note P.K., are you, by any chance, an adherent of the ideas of the anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin? I find his theoies on mutual aid very interesting.
Spirit in Stereo,
All rights only exist as part of an ongoing negotiation…
I think that the history of both men and women becoming depressed post-abortion is sound enough evidence that in some cases it isn’t the right answer.
Libertarians are just as propagandist as the rest; they wish to impose, rigidly, a certain notion of individual freedom onto everyone…
The very existence of an abortion clinic is pro-abortion…
They promote abortion, like it or not. Either come to terms with what you are in favour of in terms of the facts (I suggest that you look at the links Bessy provided some months back) or you are just eulogising abstractly…
So if women don’t have abortions then it’s the fault of the religious fanatics, if they do have abortions then regret the decision then it’s the fault of the religious fanatics…
Great, just another person who wants to blame the American religious right for everything as though no-one in a secular society ever regretted having an abortion…
Yes Libetarians are propagandists, and for that reason I agree with them on very little. I do agree with them that the government has no right to tell a person what they can do with their own body, and an early development-stage fetus is just a mass of cells, part of the woman’s body.
Abortion clinics do not convince women to have abortions, they give women the option to. There is a difference.
If women do not have abortions when clinics are available to them, it is the fault of the women, it is their choice. But society has a way of inflicting guilt on people, and that is what many religious groups try to do to those who have abortions. They make it sound sinful and violent and down right evil. Will some women, even in a purely secular society, feel guilty? Yes. Is the religious right helping the situation? No. They are telling people what they can do to their own bodies. I think one has the inalienable right of sovreignity over themselves.
Spirit in Stereo,
You are way off base on this one.
Look at planned parenthoods web site, is the first thing you see a helpful thing to help you make a choice of whether to have a baby or not?
No!
and to the right under a big banner that reads: “ABORTION BAN”
*As I stated above, this isn’t BAN it’s a restriction. When you go into a planned parenthood, they don’t tell you how wonderful it’s going to be to be a parent, they tell you how awful and expensive it’s going to be.
*2) How many of us here, are here because of an unplanned pregancy?
*3) This statistic is bogus, to make the woman feel good about aborting. If it were true, you could get a room full of 100 woman and at least 50 of them would have had an abortion.
*4) So we should end all unintended pregnancy? Again, how many of us in this philosphy forum would be here if our parents ended our potential life because we were “unintended”.
*5) this is the list of doom, they add to it with little brochures explaining how hard it is to raise a child, the complications of adoption, etc.
*6) This is an outright lie… the whole purpose of planned parenthood is to promote abortion, if that weren’t true, they would not be trying to create activism around removing the restrictions (which still allow for rape, and health issues) on abortions.
Spirit in Stereo:
A valid argument, Peter, but isn’t any form of cohesive government essentially a group of adopted morals and ethics, that citezens must obey, or face the penalty? For instance, in a democracy, we have laws (supposedly) dictated by the majority, but those who oppose the laws, must still follow them. In a fascist oligarchy, those morals are codified into law by a minority, but the majority must follow them.
K: But not all laws are valid. For example, laws allowing
slavery or Jim crows laws or apartheid. Those laws follow
exactly your formula of adopted morals and ethics citizens
must obey or face the penalty. Yet, no one argues for
those laws, yet they did exist with the approval of the
voting majority. A law must also must be just and fair.
It is not just about majority or minorities, it is about justice.
SIS: By saying abortion ought to be legal, we are saying to the opposing party that they must accept our morals. I’m fine with doing that, its what society and government are based on.
K: It should be legal because it doesn’t force anyone to get abortions.
It allows someone to get an abortion. It says you are free to get one,
not you have to get one. but on the other hand to ban abortions,
you say, you cannot get an abortion, it is about allowing freedoms,
as opposed to forbidding freedoms. there is a difference."
SIS: As a side note P.K., are you, by any chance, an adherent of the ideas of the anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin? I find his theories on mutual aid very interesting."
K: I was an anarchist for several years. I live the whole life.
I did not have a car, I did not pay taxes, I did not have an checking
account, I was totally under the table. I even went to the world’s
anarchist convention in San Francisco one year. I had a change of
mind over the years, and now see anarchism as the politics of the
future. With the improvement in technology, anarchism will
slowly become the political theory of the world.
but the future is not today and today needs to have a different
ideology. I pick the name a homage to Kropotkin and his theories.
Kropotkin
What makes you think it’s the fundamentalists telling them that?
It can’t be that they understand the implications that they were carrying a little being inside of them, and then they someone else’s baby and realize the weight of the act they committed.
whats so bad about an organization having an agenda? something tells me if you went into a catholic church, they wouldnt even mention the possibility of getting an abortion because they will force their agenda on you. but you should have known that before going there.
how many kids are born with crack in them, and crack smoke in their moms, and they fall out into a trash pile, scream for a whole day without being fed, get smacked around a bunch of times, never have any toys, are malnourished and wear the same clothes every day so they get picked on at school, they find a gang to join, kill 5 white people, sell ten pounds of crack, and go to jail for the rest of their life?
how many of those kids can be prevented if abortion remains unbanned?
the author of Freakonomics has something very interesting to say about this. there was apparently a gigantic, horrifying crime wave hitting america throughout the 80s and 90s that coincided with crack, but was really caused more by reagans expanding poverty. the predictions were extremely grim, a “bloodbath” in all cities.
then it just stopped, turned around and went back to the level it was at in the 40s. a totally standard, normal looking increase just totally dropped. the author of the book explains why all of the traditional explanations are insufficient to fully describe this drop.
there is only one possible cause: abortion was legalized approximately 20 years before the crime drop. unwanted crack moms had to travel across state borders sometimes, paying a lot of money they didnt have. so they would often have those babies they couldnt handle. in states that legalized it earlier than rVw, the decline reflected this by starting earlier also. and adoption is not an alternative because it creates the same problems, people adopt who shouldnt. abuse of adopted kids is common
its basically just pretty darn certain: banning abortion causes a “bloodbath” of crime. so dont do it. i care about live people who are currently alive and know and have experienced things more than clumps of cells who happen to contain undeveloped versions of body parts that we know.
Spirit in Stereo,
Except use it as a wage slave for the capitalist machine, which is what libertarianism is all about (in the US)…
And part of the father’s body too. Currently most laws on abortion don’t even mention the father…
If a woman says that she’s considering it then they list reasons to try to validate an abortion. Put simply they do not want to reduce the number of abortions (which I think should be a general aim of all western governments) in any way whatsoever.
Some women who have abortions as a latter stage contraceptive deserve all the haranguing and guilt that they get. Some other get branded as harlots unfairly. This isn’t simply a issue concerning religious people though…
How is killing a thing that would otherwise become a fully sentient, living thing capable of feeling love and pain NOT violent in some sense or other? I’m not equating it with murder, don’t get me wrong, but it is violence of a kind, like it or not. I can dig up some gruesome images if you like, just to hammer the point home.
If the right were inalienable then it wouldn’t be so easy to remove it (if I hold a gun to your head all talk of inalienable rights is bunkum, you are mine or you are dead)
People can, at gunpoint, do things that they would not otherwise be capable of doing. I’m not saying that this makes it right, simply demonstrating that individual will is not the most powerful factor in every case.
Absolutely nothing, if they were upfront about it. Notice the name of their organization is planned parenthood, not planned abortionhood. They aren’t promoting parenting, or child rearing, but abortion.
That’s fine, one knows what they are getting into when you go to the catholic church. You know they are vehemently anti-abortion.
Does a women in crisis mode (which most are hours after an abortion.) that goes to a clinic called “planned parenthood” getting an honest straight forward look at all of her options? Or is she being fed some bullshit line to make abortion seem like a good thing?
Okay I’ll ignore that question, becuase it completely and totally ignores the question I asked. If you answer my question I’ll answer yours.
What if you were one of those kids? would you want to be prevented? Sure your life is hell, but it’s LIFE god damn it!
There are always crime waves hitting americas. in the 20’s it was the mobsters running alcohol. in the 30’s the mob changed their scheme to the gambling circuit. in the 40’s we took our violence off shore, and it stayed there till the late 70’s. It wasn’t until the next peak in military activity that violence on shore started to decline again.
There have also ALWAYS been dire predictions from all sides. To say that there’s some sort of connection with the amount of abortions being made?
Totally hubris.
Stats? I don’t think abuse of adopted kids is that common. Most adopted parents are loving homes.
oh good grief.
That’s as bad as saying, “Playing doom causes high schoolers to run through the school shooting their classmates and teachers.”
You know what else happened during the 80’s under Reagan’s administration? A massive increase in spending for drug resistance, education… that couldn’t have anything to do with it, could it?
Violence existed after abortion, violence existed before abortion, there is no clear delineation, and I’d really like to know where you are getting this tripe.
yes and you were once a clump of cells in your mothers body. What if she decided that you were an unintended pregnancy and instead of having a child, she’d rather have a nicer car. (something that “planned parenthood” talks about btw.)
Promoting childhood is more important than promoting abortion, I’m not against the choice, but I am against idiots who claim that planned parenthood, isn’t a pro abortion clinic.
I also think it’s important to promote child rearing regardless of wether you believe in god or not.
We’re not talking about a clump of cells here. We’re talking about people. Look around, we were all once clumps of cells in our mother’s womb. Had the time and circumstance been different would she have aborted?
then my eternal soul would either be redirected somewhere appropriate or i would never know anything ever happened. obviously now i want to continue existing, but thats only because i know about it.
i think the thing that makes a person important is their knowledge of and impact on the world (or its their magic soul). so abortion cant possibly affect the non-religious value of a person in my eyes unless it takes place after the child has become a part of the world.
planned parenthood, not planned abortionhood.-
thats funny. but i thought everyone knew what planned parenthood was same as the church. i guess not.
oops almost forgot:
yeah but there was no ww2 or vietnam sucking up criminals at the time the crime wave stopped. and those are not the usual explanations. the usual explanations include increased funding in police and jails, which historical statistics show do not have the effect they did in the 90s.
the guy who wrote “Freakonomics”, which is a popular new book, is a statistician who knows how to spot trends, and he identified 6 non-controversial causes for the truly amazing decline in crime in the 90s and he disproved them very plausibly.
he was on The Daily Show, and so is obviously as credible as a thing can ever be.
it’s good for capitalism to have future spenders as well. I can’t believe capitalism’s complete ideals would call for shooting it’s future in the foot. Capitalism is not without it’s problems, one of which is putting supply where there is the highest demand. (we produce enough food to feed the world, for example.) but I don’t think they would off hand completely destroy any chance of future profits.