Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32069 times)

Vespertine · « **on:** January 19, 2006, 03:39:39 PM »

WARNING: This topic is about abortion. I realize this is a sensitive topic that inflames passions on all sides of the issue. However, I want no name calling or rudeness in this thread. If you can't objectively stick to the topic, don't post here.

Bear with me, some of this might seem sort of "stream of consciousness".

With all of the SCOTUS stuff in the news recently, I've been doing a bit of reading on abortion. Yes, I know there are hundreds of other issues that are of equal or greater importance, but I wanted to be more familiar with the nuances of Roe. So, the long and short of it is, if Roe is overturned, abortion reverts to a states rights issue. As things sit right now, there are a few states where it would automatically be outlawed, a few states where it would automatically be guaranteed, and the rest are "up for grabs". So, my first question to you all is, do you think that abortion should be protected/outlawed at the national level, or at the state level?

Next, I went back and re-read the Bill of Rights. Sure enough, privacy is not mentioned. But, I did find the re-reading of the 10th amendment to be very interesting. In summary, it says that any right/power not explicitly granted to the federal government belongs to the people and/or the states. My next question is, since medical treatment of any kind is a private matter between you and your doctor, and the right to privacy is (by the reading of the 10th amendment) given to the state and/or people, isn't abortion (as a private medical issue) automatically protected at the federal constitutional level?

After that, the next question relates to enforcement and the slippery slope. Let's say that abortion is outlawed in my state. Concordantly, abortion clinics close their doors. But, let's say my regular doctor decides that he will provide abortions to his patients who ask for them. He's not opening a clinic, he's simply providing his patients a range of medical services. How would the government go about finding out, in order to put both of us in jail, whether he provided one to me? What would be the probable cause that would justify a warrant and subsequent intrusion into my medical records? Here's where the slippery slope comes in. Once any goverment is able to look at your medical records to determine if you're an offender of some sort, what's to stop them from looking into any other private part of your life (e.g. what books you read, what medicines you take, who you talk to, how you vote, etc.)?

Next is a political question. I realize this is not the case any longer, but historically Republicans have been pro states rights, pro limited government, pro bill of rights, anti big government, anti government involvement in peoples' lives, anti social programs, etc. Now, this is the same group of people (as a whole) who would like abortion to be outlawed altogether. How can this particular group of people justify the intrusion of the federal government into the private lives of American citizens? How can they justify the additional costs to the welfare system if they get thier way and have abortion completely outlawed everywhere?

Okay, I'm done for the moment...these are just some of the things that have popped into my head as I've been reading up on the issue.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2006, 04:02:48 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

With all of the SCOTUS stuff in the news recently, I've been doing a bit of reading on abortion. Yes, I know there are hundreds of other issues that are of equal or greater importance, but I wanted to be more familiar with the nuances of Roe. So, the long and short of it is, if Roe is overturned, abortion reverts to a states rights issue. As things sit right now, there are a few states where it would automatically be outlawed, a few states where it would automatically be guaranteed, and the rest are "up for grabs". So, my first question to you all is, do you think that abortion should be protected/outlawed at the national level, or at the state level?

Next, I went back and re-read the Bill of Rights. Sure enough, privacy is not mentioned. But, I did find the re-reading of the 10th amendment to be very interesting. In summary, it says that any right/power not explicitly granted to the federal government belongs to the people and/or the states. My next question is, since medical treatment of any kind is a private matter between you and your doctor, and the right to privacy is (by the reading of the 10th amendment) given to the state and/or people, isn't abortion (as a private medical issue) automatically protected at the federal constitutional level?

I Am Not A Lawyer, but that's how I read it too.

However, even if that's not how it is interpreted legally, I still don't see any grounds for the government on ANY level to poke their noses into this matter. The rights of a fetus are up in the air... they are a matter of individual belief.

However, the rights of a woman carrying a fetus are not in question.

Based on that, abortion to me has always been a no-brainer. It should be up to the individual whose rights are not in question. The woman.

Is abortion moral or immoral? That's not something upon which I am qualified to have an opinion. I do not, have no plans to, or ever have had a womb, which from my viewpoint makes any thoughts on the morality of the issue utterly irrelevent.

Put a gun to my head, and fine. I'll commit to a position.

I, myself, would never have an abortion.

There. I said it.

Quote

After that, the next question relates to enforcement and the slippery slope. Let's say that abortion is outlawed in my state. Concordantly, abortion clinics close their doors. But, let's say my regular doctor decides that he will provide abortions to his patients who ask for them. He's not opening a clinic, he's simply providing his patients a range of medical services. How would the government go about finding out, in order to put both of us in jail, whether he provided one to me? What would be the probable cause that would justify a warrant and subsequent intrusion into my medical records? Here's where the slippery slope comes in. Once any goverment is able to look at your medical records to determine if you're an offender of some sort, what's to stop them from looking into any other private part of your life (e.g. what books you read, what medicines you take, who you talk to, how you vote, etc.)?

Again, not surprisingly, I find myself in total agreement with you on that. The government has zero authority or need to poke its nose into ANY medical records without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and even then, "criminal" is applicable only to laws that in my opinion are explicitly constitutionally granted authority.

That's no slippery slope. That's heavy-handed authoritarianism.

Quote

Next is a political question. I realize this is not the case any longer, but historically Republicans have been pro states rights, pro limited government, pro bill of rights, anti big government, anti government involvement in peoples' lives, anti social programs, etc. Now, this is the same group of people (as a whole) who would like abortion to be outlawed altogether. How can this particular group of people justify the intrusion of the federal government into the private lives of American citizens? How can they justify the additional costs to the welfare system if they get thier way and have abortion completely outlawed everywhere?

They can't. I can't parse that either. For example, for a party who claims to be all about individual responsibility, they certainly like to go a long way toward taking that responsibility out of the hands of individuals... who is always up in arms about obscenity? Republicans. Pornography? Republicans. Blue laws? Republicans. Drugs? Republicans. Religion? Republicans. Consensual sex? Republicans.

Abortion? Republicans.

Come to think of it, they don't seem to be interested in allowing individuals to decide for themselves how to live their lives at all, and seem to be ALL about taking that responsibility away from individuals and making those choices FOR them.

When it comes down to it, good ol' Harry Browne put it well when he said:

"Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like Democrats."

Quote

Okay, I'm done for the moment...these are just some of the things that have popped into my head as I've been reading up on the issue.

You put some thought into it... that's what counts. That's more than 90% of the voting public does, I'm sure.

xpgeek · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2006, 04:31:44 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

They can't. I can't parse that either. For example, for a party who claims to be all about individual responsibility, they certainly like to go a long way toward taking that responsibility out of the hands of individuals... who is always up in arms about obscenity? Republicans. Pornography? Republicans. Blue laws? Republicans. Drugs? Republicans. Religion? Republicans. Consensual sex? Republicans.

Abortion? Republicans.

You forgot gay marriage and allowing the NSA to spy on anyone they want.

I think, I am not a woman, don't have a womb, and agree this decision should be left up to the women that do, that the law should be left alone as it is.

I am not anti-abortion. I'm anti-women leaving their babys in garbage cans, starving them to death and or abusing them. If a woman doesn't want a baby, then she shouldn't be forced to have one. Women are not forced to have a baby they don't want now, and the above stated crimes still happen, I dread thinking about how much worse they would become if all women were in fact forced to have babys they don't actually want.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2006, 04:46:00 PM »

My position is similar to yours of course Vespertine, but then you already knew that.

I think that the anti-choice movement is focussing on the assumption that abortion is murder and therefore should be treated like any other murder. Hence a woman who was pregnant who is now not pregnant would be probable cause allowing for warrants, etc.

Why these same people don't view capital punishement as murder is beyond me.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:29:46 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

I think that the anti-choice movement is focussing on the assumption that abortion is murder and therefore should be treated like any other murder. Hence a woman who was pregnant who is now not pregnant would be probable cause allowing for warrants, etc.

That's always been my line of thinking on that as well. Considering abortion to equal "murder" leads to all sorts of absurd conclusions.

If life begins at conception, and from the point of conception on we are talking about a being that has the full array of rights any other post-birth human being has, then ANY time there is a miscarriage or premature termination of a pregnancy of any kind, there must be a death certificate, and there must be attention given each and every case so as to ensure that no foul play took place.

Just like if any other person died.

That of course leads us to the inevitable conclusion that if a pregnant woman who smokes and drinks has a miscarriage, she should be brought up on manslaughter charges, since these are things that are KNOWN to cause harm to the unborn.

But no, most of these people say, that wouldn't be necessary.

Well which is it? Is an unborn fetus a person, with rights and an obligation presented to the state to ENSURE that no foul play took place in any case of its untimely demise?

Or not?

You can't have it both ways.

For that matter, if life begins at conception, there are an awful lot of 20 year olds who are technically legal to drink in this country, and a lot of 17 year olds who are technically legal to vote, by that reckoning.

Vespertine · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:33:05 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

My position is similar to yours of course Vespertine, but then you already knew that.

I think that the anti-choice movement is focussing on the assumption that abortion is murder and therefore should be treated like any other murder. Hence a woman who was pregnant who is now not pregnant would be probable cause allowing for warrants, etc.

Why these same people don't view capital punishement as murder is beyond me.

I did know that.

But, you bring up an excellent point. In terms of probable cause for a warrant, how do you know whether or not a woman was ever even pregnant to begin with? Let's assume that the majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. Most women who abort in that timeframe never appear pregnant in the first place. How on earth would someone ever justify digging through medical records on the grounds that someone is female, therefore they may be able to get pregnant? What, we should systematically comb through women's medical records in order to verify that they have not gotten pregnant and then, mysteriously, ungotten pregnant?

Also, I thought about the hypocrisy of the Republican party's abortion/death penalty stance, but I decided that my tangent was long enough and I would save that for another time.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:38:00 PM »

Yeah but they want to have it their way with their narrow interpretation, without any of the consequences. Logic doesn't operate in a mind that believes in an anthropomorphic invisible being that is omniscient and omnipotent, yet vengeful. That requires worship yet is allegedly omnipotent and but can't make me worship nor believe. But then again this thread isn't about that.

But then again I guess it's all interrelated, kind of like the population of West Virginia.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:38:08 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Quote from: pbsaurus
My position is similar to yours of course Vespertine, but then you already knew that.

I think that the anti-choice movement is focussing on the assumption that abortion is murder and therefore should be treated like any other murder. Hence a woman who was pregnant who is now not pregnant would be probable cause allowing for warrants, etc.

Why these same people don't view capital punishement as murder is beyond me.

I did know that.

But, you bring up an excellent point. In terms of probable cause for a warrant, how do you know whether or not a woman was ever even pregnant to begin with? Let's assume that the majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. Most women who abort in that timeframe never appear pregnant in the first place. How on earth would someone ever justify digging through medical records on the grounds that someone is female, therefore they may be able to get pregnant? What, we should systematically comb through women's medical records in order to verify that they have not gotten pregnant and then, mysteriously, ungotten pregnant?

Exactly. Such a conundrum would be essentially unenforceable, from a legality standpoint.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:40:52 PM »

Oh given their record in surveillance, I wouldn't put it past the Justice department to subpoena the shopping purchases of women and through datamining finding the ones who haven't recently bought tampons, pads, etc.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:43:29 PM »

Oh, most certainly.

And of course the obligatory bedroom surveillance teams determining whether or not any activity has taken place that could possibly lead to conception.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:45:59 PM »

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is neeeeded....

hackess · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2006, 06:22:46 PM »

I agree with the above posters. Just sayin'.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2006, 06:29:52 PM »

Ah, good ol' Monty.

But about the privacy thing. As everyone seems to note, there is no one right that says "And people have a right to privacy, with privacy meaning..." in the Bill of Rights, and that can often make it hard to determine how far the government can go, but there is a LOT of implied privacy in our rights that should be pointed out.

Amendment I (Free religion/speech): Everyone points out that it means we can say what we want and the government can't censor it (It should be obvious, just read the damn thing), but not what this implies. It implies that WE are in control of what we say or do not say.

Amendment III (Quartered Soldiers): They can't put soldiers in our homes during times of peace, and during war times that ability must be spelled out by the law. That is part of the government not being able to say "you WILL let this person stay in YOUR house."

Amendment IV (Search and Siezure): That should be obvious in how it affects our privacy.
Amendment V (Trials and Accountability): We have the right not to testify against ourselves, "protecting" us from torure but also protecting a right of choice.

etc..

Amendment IX (Rights): They are all important, but this is what JUSTICE is: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In many of the parts, ESPECIALLY the 4th, it protects our privacy.

And the 9th should be pointed out, because it's saying that the rights provided by the constitution should not infringe on the rights of others. Sounds like "leave me alone until I infringe on your rights"

BizB · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2006, 06:35:33 PM »

I would love to see someone back Rush Limbaugh into a corner using that medical privacy argument.

Clearly he would be in favour of one keeping his/her medical records strictly conficential. I mean, Dr. shopping IS a crime, right? Fortunately for him, the only way the prosecutor could prove it is by examining Rush's personal private confidential medical records. So, Rush would have to stand by someone making this argument for a very personal private confidential medical record revolving around abortion, wouldn't he?

I bet the ACLU would stand behind the woman looking for that protection under the law.

For the record, I wouldn't have an abortion either. Nor would I want anyone to tell me that I couldn't.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2006, 08:39:57 PM »

Has anyone ever read the book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and other observations"?

pbsaurus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2006, 10:26:22 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

Has anyone ever read the book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and other observations"?

Yep

Vespertine · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2006, 12:29:39 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Quote from: Crystalmonkey
Has anyone ever read the book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and other observations"?

Yep

Alright you two, quit trying to derail this.

Vespertine · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2006, 12:49:52 AM »

Quote from: xpgeek

Quote from: Demosthenes
They can't. I can't parse that either. For example, for a party who claims to be all about individual responsibility, they certainly like to go a long way toward taking that responsibility out of the hands of individuals... who is always up in arms about obscenity? Republicans. Pornography? Republicans. Blue laws? Republicans. Drugs? Republicans. Religion? Republicans. Consensual sex? Republicans.

Abortion? Republicans.

You forgot gay marriage and allowing the NSA to spy on anyone they want.

I think, I am not a woman, don't have a womb, and agree this decision should be left up to the women that do, that the law should be left alone as it is.

I am not anti-abortion. I'm anti-women leaving their babys in garbage cans, starving them to death and or abusing them. If a woman doesn't want a baby, then she shouldn't be forced to have one. Women are not forced to have a baby they don't want now, and the above stated crimes still happen, I dread thinking about how much worse they would become if all women were in fact forced to have babys they don't actually want.

xpgeek, you also bring up an interesting point. Considering that, even in this day and age, women die all the time from childbirth and pregnancy related conditions, why should anyone be able to force a woman to do something that puts her life at significant risk? From the literature I've read, childbirth and abortions have roughly the same mortality rate. But, when you factor in death from pregnancy related complications, abortion has a lower mortality rate than carrying a baby to term and giving birth. As such, outlawing abortion would appear to be forcing a woman to do something that could kill her. I realize that argument might be a bit of a stretch, but it seems like something that could still be considered a valid argument.

scribcake · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2006, 08:11:47 AM »

Quote from: xpgeek

I am not anti-abortion. I'm anti-women leaving their babys in garbage cans, starving them to death and or abusing them. If a woman doesn't want a baby, then she shouldn't be forced to have one. Women are not forced to have a baby they don't want now, and the above stated crimes still happen, I dread thinking about how much worse they would become if all women were in fact forced to have babys they don't actually want.

I agree with you xpgeek. This is basically the same position I have on abortion.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2006, 04:34:49 PM »

If women stop leaving babies in garbage cans, then how will I ever complete my army of singing street urchins?

xolik · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2006, 04:46:45 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

If women stop leaving babies in garbage cans, then how will I ever complete my army of singing street urchins?

I hope to all that's good and holy that one day I'll be as witty as you are.

*not coming on to you.

**unless you want me to.

Min · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2006, 05:01:39 PM »

Haha, I think Jesus just smiled down on you, Xolik.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2006, 05:51:57 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

If women stop leaving babies in garbage cans, then how will I ever complete my army of singing street urchins?

Well I could supply them, and depending on your order size there could be a sizeable discount.

MamaMoonie · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2006, 07:01:00 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Oh given their record in surveillance, I wouldn't put it past the Justice department to subpoena the shopping purchases of women and through datamining finding the ones who haven't recently bought tampons, pads, etc.

Hey....what about those of us who shop @ sam's club?? I dunno about you ladies, but a 120 pack of tampax lasts me a while...
But I digress.
There are those of us who have trouble getting pregnant, and while I would never personally have an abortion, because that's MY choice for MY body, I would never tell anyone not to have one unless it would kill her. Here's hwat I have to say...Keep your laws off my bits, bud.

ivan · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:23:54 PM »

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the legality of abortion will be decided on the State level. The Federal government will no longer be involved, unless a new law is passed banning abortion on the Federal level.

The problem I have with the Left on this issue is that it is dismissive of heartfelt and passionate beliefs held by a great many of our fellow citizens. That abortion is a Federally mandated right honestly distresses a great many Americans.

How would each one of you personally be affected if abortion were to become illegal (or legal only in a medical emergency) in your state?

Why shouldn't legality of abortion be a State decision, like the death penalty, assisted suicide, and other ethical dillemmas?

Why am I asking these questions?

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32069 times)

ivan