change mind about abortion..

[kchubb]

well... i didn't. Roe did though...

http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/1332/section/supreme.court.asked.to.overturn.roe .v.wade/1.htm

The woman formally known as “Jane Roe,” whose case first legalized abortion in the United States 32 years ago, asked the Supreme Court to overturn its decision, or at least re-evaluate its ruling, on Wednesday, January 19, 2005.

[Lueda Alia]

every woman should have the right to choose. and that's all I'm going to say about this.

besides, have any other links to back up this story?

[Alan Rupp]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=6&u=/ap/scotus_abortion

[kchubb]

besides, have any other links to back up this story?

Did you watch TV yesterday? I was a little suprised it wasn't in the paper today (not the SF cronicle atleast) so look for it tomorrow...

[aminorthreat55]

That is one of the most doctored looking pictures (of her in front of the courthouse) I have seen in my life.

[FinchBulldog2]

every woman should have the right to choose. and that's all I'm going to say about this.

besides, have any other links to back up this story?
I agree.

[sandpaper_silk]

That is one of the most doctored looking pictures (of her in front of the courthouse) I have seen in my life.

i agree...it looks really fake...

[Love As Arson]

She did actually change her mind. I saw her on television talking about it. In any case, her change of mind should have no bearing on the right of other women to have an abortion.
I mean, if those who fought for civil rights change their minds, should we overturn the laws which allowed there to be equality for all those they were representing?

[Alan Rupp]

She did actually change her mind. I saw her on television talking about it. In any case, her change of mind should have no bearing on the constitutional right of other women to have an abortion.
I mean, if those who fought for civil rights change their minds, should we overturn the laws which allowed there to be equality for all those they were representing?
and I thought I'd heard every argument pertaining to aborition...

[Love As Arson]

and I thought I'd heard every argument pertaining to aborition...
Eh. I worded it wrong.

[kchubb]

and I thought I'd heard every argument pertaining to aborition...

Yea, new to me too. I'll look over the constitution again though before I shoot off at the mouth and say something stupid...

[kchubb]

what?

[kchubb]

Are you argueing the validity of the story?

[scitsofreaky]

I don't think that any governing body should even rule on abortion, the government should stay out of it. I personally am against abortion (as morningstar can attest), but it is not something that there should be a law for or against.

[Lueda Alia]

I don't think that any governing body should even rule on abortion, the government should stay out of it. I personally am against abortion (as morningstar can attest), but it is not something that there should be a law for or against.
I really love you now.

And I feel exactly the same way.

[scitsofreaky]

I really love you now.

And I feel exactly the same way.
Shh, my fiance might hear you.
You don't feel exactly the same way, you are all for abortion, I am not, I just don't think that the government should have a say because a bunch of uptight old bastards should decide our morals/ethics for us.

[Lueda Alia]

Shh, my fiance might hear you.
You don't feel exactly the same way, you are all for abortion, I am not, I just don't think that the government should have a say because a bunch of uptight old bastards should decide our morals/ethics for us.
nope, I'm against abortion personally. I could never think of having one. unless I really have to because of my health. other wise, no, I never could.

but when it comes to other women, as you said, I don't want the government to decide for them. they should have the choice.

[theESCO]

Jesus christ...that is the worst photo manipulation I have ever seen. They should hire me, could have done them up something WAY better. I mean...COME ON there's a lighting tool in photoshop, play with it a little at least.

As far as the story, overturn it...and watch shit hit the fan.

:nod:

[Justin_stacy]

I don't think that any governing body should even rule on abortion, the government should stay out of it. I personally am against abortion (as morningstar can attest), but it is not something that there should be a law for or against.

I agree, although I detest abortion and irresponsible, and selfish, people; I don't think the government should outright ban the procedure......call it a change of heart on my part......but I do think we can put some ethical, and dare I say rational, restrictions on it.....such as banning partial birth abortions, which are barbaric and unnecessary; mandatoring parental notification (and don't bring up the incest argument because its an almost non-existent percentage), and limiting what trimesters in can be preformed, when not health related......

Of course best way to solve this problem, along with the redefining marriage, would be to leave it up to the individual states to decided what they want to allow and what limitation they want to place on it.....

[Justin_stacy]

Now if only we could get someone on the left to open their mind just a bit..... :00000732:

[scitsofreaky]

nope, I'm against abortion personally. I could never think of having one. unless I really have to because of my health. other wise, no, I never could.

but when it comes to other women, as you said, I don't want the government to decide for them. they should have the choice.
Crap, so we had that long ass arguement for nothing?

Of course best way to solve this problem, along with the redefining marriage, would be to leave it up to the individual states to decided what they want to allow and what limitation they want to place on it.....
I disagree with this too because it is still the government trying to force a set of morals/ethics on citizens. I think the same thing about gay marriage too.

[Lueda Alia]

haha umm well I thought you were saying you wanted abortion to be banned? (in the other thread). that's why I was arguing.

I never thought I'd see the day...

But I think most people ( well, atleast pro-choice ) can agree that this wouldn't be such a bad idea. Most people don't favor abortion, and I think limiting it would help. Try and teach people to be more careful, etc etc.
yeah but conservatives don't believe in teaching about sex in school. because then it will make the kids have sex even more... :headshake

[MidniteVulture]

I don't think that any governing body should even rule on abortion, the government should stay out of it. I personally am against abortion (as morningstar can attest), but it is not something that there should be a law for or against.I feel the exact same way, the government should have no say in the situation. If I was in a situation where my mate was pregnant, I would push to keep the child, but there should be no pressure from government or media to force my decision.

[UndefinedBoy]

Now if only we could get someone on the left to open their mind just a bit..... :00000732:

I've never supported partial birth abortions and I pretty much agree with your stance on abortion in general...wow.

[Lueda Alia]

Now if only we could get someone on the left to open their mind just a bit..... :00000732:
if you really think about it, liberals are more open minded than conservatives. that's what I think anyway.

[UndefinedBoy]

if you really think about it, liberals are more open minded than conservatives. that's what I think anyway.

The very definition of conservatism could easily lead one to believe they're closed minded, but there are exceptions to that on this board as we all gotta admit. There are also many many very closed minded liberals on here. Ignorance goes both ways, but I'm not gonna disagree cause I do think the left is the "right" side, not to get confusing, haha.

[Justin_stacy]

I disagree with this too because it is still the government trying to force a set of morals/ethics on citizens. I think the same thing about gay marriage too.
.But see when its left up to the states, as the redefining of marriage issue was, it is the citizens of that area that are deciding, and not the government.....and this would allows people in, say, the Middle-West to have their values, while still allowing those on the West Coast to have theirs, without weakening the overall structure of the Nation, which fighting over such divisive issues does.

[Justin_stacy]

if you really think about it, liberals are more open minded than conservatives. that's what I think anyway.

By original definition, maybe. But in reality modern “liberals” are only open-minded to ideas that fit their pre-decided set of beliefs, which is in effect a form of close-mindedness….not unlike what you accuse the right of doing.

[scitsofreaky]

.But see when its left up to the states, as the redefining of marriage issue was, it is the citizens of that area that are deciding, and not the government.....and this would allows people in, say, the Middle-West to have their values, while still allowing those on the West Coast to have theirs, without weakening the overall structure of the Nation, which fighting over such divisive issues does.
Then the law should only pass if it gets 100% of the population voting, and voting for it, because any other way it is still the government forcing a moarlity on people.

I agree that librals aren't any more open-minded on anything than conservatives. They just take the more "open-minded" stances on issues, like abortion and gay rights.

[Poopy]

.But see when its left up to the states, as the redefining of marriage issue was, it is the citizens of that area that are deciding, and not the government.....and this would allows people in, say, the Middle-West to have their values, while still allowing those on the West Coast to have theirs, without weakening the overall structure of the Nation, which fighting over such divisive issues does.

You are preachin to the choir. Important decisions like that should be made by state governments. People have a much greater say in how state governments are run.

[Justin_stacy]

Then the law should only pass if it gets 100% of the population voting, and voting for it, because any other way it is still the government forcing a moarlity on people.
.


No it would be the citizens dictating (choosing) the "morality" for their community. Your right that the government would be the one enforcing it, but it would still be the will of the people that they are enforcing.......But the fact is no matter what way you want to go, some form of morality is going to be dictated. The government taking a hand's-off approach to abortion is still dictating, or will/would be perceived as, a chosen morality. Allowing something to happen unrestricted, gives it credence.

[Poopy]

if you really think about it, liberals are more open minded than conservatives. that's what I think anyway.

I dont think either side is very open minded, thats what gives them their party affiliation, they have a bias.

[scitsofreaky]

No it would be the citizens dictating (choosing) the "morality" for their community. Your right that the government would be the one enforcing it, but it would still be the will of the people that they are enforcing.......But the fact is no matter what way you want to go, some form of morality is going to be dictated. The government taking a hand's-off approach to abortion is still dictating, or will/would be perceived as, a chosen morality. Allowing something to happen unrestricted, gives it credence.
Okay, I don't think you are understanding me (am I being that unclear?). It would be some of the citizens dictating the morality for all. I don't see how "no matter what way you go, some form of morality is going to be dictated". The government doesn't have a right to tell you what morals you have to follow (as long as they don't enfringe on someone's rights).

[cal1082]

Okay, I don't think you are understanding me (am I being that unclear?). It would be some of the citizens dictating the morality for all. I don't see how "no matter what way you go, some form of morality is going to be dictated". The government doesn't have a right to tell you what morals you have to follow (as long as they don't enfringe on someone's rights).

that's where the big debate would be in that case. many feel you are enfringing on someone's rights with abortion.

[scitsofreaky]

The job of the government, as I understand it, is to protect its citizens, and an unborn child is not a citizen until it is born.

[cal1082]

The job of the government, as I understand it, is to protect its citizens, and an unborn child is not a citizen until it is born.

2 Points:

First, people have been charged with murder for killing unborn children.

Second, with this argument you're using I would use the obvious argument of immigrants? Do you believe immigrants should not recieve certain protections under our law even though they might not be citizens?

[self reliant]

I don't think that any governing body should even rule on abortion, the government should stay out of it. I personally am against abortion (as morningstar can attest), but it is not something that there should be a law for or against.

exactly the government has no place in imposing morality

[self reliant]

I never thought I'd see the day...

But I think most people ( well, atleast pro-choice ) can agree that this wouldn't be such a bad idea. Most people don't favor abortion, and I think limiting it would help. Try and teach people to be more careful, etc etc.

the problem you face with limiting abortion is limiting rights and also making the process for totally banning abortion easier

[scitsofreaky]

2 Points:

First, people have been charged with murder for killing unborn children.
I don't necessarily agree with this
Second, with this argument you're using I would use the obvious argument of immigrants? Do you believe immigrants should not recieve certain protections under our law even though they might not be citizens?Immigrants aren't really the issue (although I admit my wording made it seems so, sorry), the chld is inside a citizen (usually), so the citizen is protected.
I think illegal immigrants do have the basic rights, but it is not the job of our government to protect them. But, if citizens are breaking the law by, say, killing an illegal immigrant, they should be prosecuted because the citizen is breaking the law, and the status of citizenship of the victim is unimportant. And, if an illegal kills a citizen, the citizen's rights (the right to live) has been violated, and so the perpetrator's status is unimportant.

[cal1082]

I don't necessarily agree with this

why kind of punishment (if any) do you think is neccesary for someone who abuses a pregnant woman, and in turn cause her to lose the child?

[scitsofreaky]

That is why I said "necessarily". But, I do think that the punishment for abuse should be tougher. Also, if they announced what the inmate did, I think the other inmates would punish him/her plenty.

[JWKingofNerds]

Justin_stacy, are you saying that the left is MORE closed minded than the right? I'd say that that's a matter of perception. To me, the truth is that both sides have fundamental beliefs that you can't change through any amount of talking. Many liberals would agree that a fetus (up to a certain point in the pregnancy) isn't sentient, while a conservative would say it has already been given a soul. I agree with the former, but that doesn't mean I would try to change anyone's mind on the subject.

And I don't think that allowing legislation by state for issues such as this and (especially) gay marriage are a good course of action. Sure, the will of the majority is important in this country, but what about the rights of the individual? There are gay people living in the Midwest. Allowing them to marry doesn't affect the personal liberties of those around them. I mean, some say that issues like that destroy morality, but who's view of morality? Only the majority's, and that leaves a lot of room for unhappy citizens.

[cal1082]

That is why I said "necessarily". But, I do think that the punishment for abuse should be tougher. Also, if they announced what the inmate did, I think the other inmates would punish him/her plenty.

That's not getting to my point though. If a woman is punched in the stomach, then loses the child, what punishment if any is appropriate for the person?

The point i'm trying to make is if you're not willing to give a fetus the basic right of living.......then how on earth can you give that fetus and moral right to live if a man was to punch a woman to make her loose her child?

[scitsofreaky]

Ok, here goes (I have to try to get into the state of mind I was in):
When the baby dies, it comes out of the mother, and is therefore a citizen and has rights, and since the perpetrator caused the death of the baby, he is guilty of murder.

[cal1082]

Ok, here goes (I have to try to get into the state of mind I was in):
When the baby dies, it comes out of the mother, and is therefore a citizen and has rights, and since the perpetrator caused the death of the baby, he is guilty of murder.

Couldnt that be said about a legal abortion :huh:
I mean they have to extract the fetus after abortion so the fetus by your own defenition would come out of the mother, and is therefore a citizen and has rights.

[Love As Arson]

I'd say you get punished for your attack against the woman.

[scitsofreaky]

Cal, I have to say that I have no idea where I was going with that arguement (except maybe I was just itching for an arguement).
I tend to agree with Arson, that you should get punished for beating the woman, as far as the government goes. If you get into what to do about the fetus, until science proves that it either is a person or not, it is a question of morality, and government should not impose morality.

[cal1082]

Cal, I have to say that I have no idea where I was going with that arguement (except maybe I was just itching for an arguement).
I tend to agree with Arson, that you should get punished for beating the woman, as far as the government goes. If you get into what to do about the fetus, until science proves that it either is a person or not, it is a question of morality, and government should not impose morality.

If that's the case though and you simply are punished for punshing a woman, the punishment will be light. You're probably talking a fine and probation. I hardly thinks that's fair for causing a woman to lose her child.

[scitsofreaky]

Well, I agree with you, that the punishment is light, and I think that is what should be changed, punishments for such actions (beating anyone) should be harsher than they already are.

[bigal00004]

Cal, I have to say that I have no idea where I was going with that arguement (except maybe I was just itching for an arguement).
I tend to agree with Arson, that you should get punished for beating the woman, as far as the government goes. If you get into what to do about the fetus, until science proves that it either is a person or not, it is a question of morality, and government should not impose morality.
what do you mean until science proves that is either a person or not. What is there to prove. A fetus is in a stage of life of a human being. Just as a baby is in a stage of life of a human being. I think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned because it should be up to the states to decide whether they want abortion to be legal or not. I personally don't understand how someone can say killing a fetus is different from killing someone who has already been born, but I also think in certain cases it should be allowed.
Also, it is old news that Roe changed her mind, sh did so almost ten years ago when she converted to Christianity, and she says the lawyers just used her as a pawn to legalize abortion. The only arguement I have heard that says abortion is unconstitutional is that the constitution protects a person's privacy. But how is killing a living being a private matter. If you kill your spouse in the privacy of your home you are still charged with murder. Overall, I dissagree with abortion, but I don't think the federal government should have a say in the issue.

[SonnyPunk]

See...someone should have aborted the woman standing in front of that courthouse.

[FallingOut]

Its sad that people think its ok to kill unborn human beings. Absolutely mind boggling. :huh:

People say it should be the "womans choice." I guess it should also be my choice whether or not I can go shoot somebody in the head if its conveniant for me.

[SonnyPunk]

The key word is "unborn"...don't compare murdering an actual person execution style to preventing a fetus from being born.

[Love As Arson]

what do you mean until science proves that is either a person or not. What is there to prove. A fetus is in a stage of life of a human being. Just as a baby is in a stage of life of a human being. I think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned because it should be up to the states to decide whether they want abortion to be legal or not. I personally don't understand how someone can say killing a fetus is different from killing someone who has already been born, but I also think in certain cases it should be allowed.
Also, it is old news that Roe changed her mind, sh did so almost ten years ago when she converted to Christianity, and she says the lawyers just used her as a pawn to legalize abortion. The only arguement I have heard that says abortion is unconstitutional is that the constitution protects a person's privacy. But how is killing a living being a private matter. If you kill your spouse in the privacy of your home you are still charged with murder. Overall, I dissagree with abortion, but I don't think the federal government should have a say in the issue.
It seems that now she has become a pawn in the Christian rights goal to abolish abortion.
Also, we acknowledge that whether or not someone is innocent, they can be justifiably killed. Collateral damage in war, for example. So, if we're going to see them as life, then I would posit that you can justifiably end their lives.

[FallingOut]

The key word is "unborn"...don't compare murdering an actual person execution style to preventing a fetus from being born.

Its still a human being. Pure ignorance. :headshake

[Lueda Alia]

Its sad that people think its ok to kill unborn human beings. Absolutely mind boggling. :huh:

People say it should be the "womans choice." I guess it should also be my choice whether or not I can go shoot somebody in the head if its conveniant for me.
Okay if we go by your llogic... so then we should all donate organs to new borns just so they can survive? Since they're "innocent"? We should sacrifice our lives just so they can live...

Oh and while we're at it... why don't we also let everyone use our bodies without our consent. If they want our organs too to survive, then ok, they can have those too against our will!

A fetus isn't a life until weeks after, but as I said before, if you're going to consider it a human, then we should hold it responsible for everything that a LIVING human would be. And last time I checked, no one could use another's body without their consent. It's called ABUSE.

[scitsofreaky]

Ah, morningstar and her believing that babies are evil. That makes me laugh. You make it sound as if they have the intent to cause harm, guess what, they don't.
A fetus is a (human) life once the sperm's DNA and the egg's DNA join. Once they do this, they become living human cells, and disputing this is just ignorance because it is fact. It isn't as if all of the sudden these unliving cells become alive after splitting (which is a sign of life by the way) a certain number of times.

[Lueda Alia]

Ah, morningstar and her believing that babies are evil. That makes me laugh. You make it sound as if they have the intent to cause harm, guess what, they don't.
A fetus is a (human) life once the sperm's DNA and the egg's DNA join. Once they do this, they become living human cells, and disputing this is just ignorance because it is fact. It isn't as if all of the sudden these unliving cells become alive after splitting (which is a sign of life by the way) a certain number of times.
I never made it sound like that, and you know, that offends me because I love kids. just how exactly did I make them sound "evil" and that "they have the intent to cause harm"? don't put words in my mouth.

[scitsofreaky]

Well, in another arguement on this subject, which I think we have had a few, you have made it sound as if the fetus was some evil trying to suck all that it needs from you, like a parasite.
I'm glad that you like children, and I never thought otherwise, but really the only reason that a fetus is different from a baby is that cells have split more and therefore developed more. A fetus is like a mentally handicapped child, are they not human (don't try to argue that it is different because there really isn't much difference).

[Love As Arson]

Well, in another arguement on this subject, which I think we have had a few, you have made it sound as if the fetus was some evil trying to suck all that it needs from you, like a parasite.
I'm glad that you like children, and I never thought otherwise, but really the only reason that a fetus is different from a baby is that cells have split more and therefore developed more. A fetus is like a mentally handicapped child, are they not human (don't try to argue that it is different because there really isn't much difference).
Actually, there is a fundamental difference in that a mentally handicapped child has some semblance of a mind, whereas a fetus' mind has not yet formed.

[jaimej]

Wow. Some people are really ignorant. How can you even say that a fetus is like a mentally handicapped child? That just blows my mind. What about in rape situations? Or families with little to no income? Would you really want a child raised in that environment? Is that fair?

[scitsofreaky]

Actually, there is a fundamental difference in that a mentally handicapped child has some semblance of a mind, whereas a fetus' mind has not yet formed.This has not been proven. The only difference is that a mentally handicapped child has the physical capacity to demonstrate its thoughts, while a fetus does not.

[SonnyPunk]

Its still a human being. Pure ignorance. :headshake

Ok Pope John Paul, that's your opinion. I dont view an unborn fetus as a human being until the day it is actually born.

[Love As Arson]

This has not been proven. The only difference is that a mentally handicapped child has the physical capacity to demonstrate its thoughts, while a fetus does not.
In the trimester that women usually get abortions, the mind has yet to form.

[hXc_pwnage]

Don't even try and say that the fetus is living before the third trimester.

[scitsofreaky]

Everybody here seems to be confused as to what "living" means. A single cell is (more accuratly "can be") alive. The cells that make up a fetus are alive, and therefore the fetus is alive. Before anyone begins to argue this point, I ask that you understand what "living" means. Do your own research if you don't believe me, just under-freakin-stand!
In the trimester that women usually get abortions, the mind has yet to formI understand why people think this, but it is unproven, and possibly unprovable. This is because what makes up our mind and consciousness isn't even understood yet, and it could be beyond just brain cells (many people, including scientists believe this to be true, but cannot prove it yet).

[Love As Arson]

Everybody here seems to be confused as to what "living" means. A single cell is (more accuratly "can be") alive. The cells that make up a fetus are alive, and therefore the fetus is alive. Before anyone begins to argue this point, I ask that you understand what "living" means. Do your own research if you don't believe me, just under-freakin-stand!
I understand why people think this, but it is unproven, and possibly unprovable. This is because what makes up our mind and consciousness isn't even understood yet, and it could be beyond just brain cells (many people, including scientists believe this to be true, but cannot prove it yet).
I posit that one cannot be alive, in the human sense, without sentience, and the fetus at the time of most abortions do not have this. Their minds haven't developed enough to have it. This has been proven.