Roe vs. Wade Almost Overturned in 1992

[Brown]

According to the papers of late Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the famous Roe vs. Wade opinion, the Roe decision was nearly overturned in 1992. From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28962-2004Mar4.html) (registration required):Blackmun's notes show that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist led a five-justice majority to overrule Roe. Four other justices voting with Rehnquist were Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy. Rehnquist himself was to write the majority opinion.

Unbeknownst to him, Kennedy was having second thoughts, and agreed with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, to a compromise position. The lead sentence of the article says that Justice Kennedy "got cold feet," which is a rather uncomplimentary remark and is probably untrue. It is not unusual for a judge to view an issue one way, and then on closer examination come to a different view.

[shecky]

This is quite remarkable. Anyone have the scoop on Planned Parenthood v. Casey? I don't recall.

[Nova Land]

Planned Parenthood vs Casey, a quick overview:

Bob Casey was the governor of PA. During his term of office he pushed for, and succeeded in getting passed, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, the law at the heart of the case. Instead of outright outlawing abortion, the bill put a number of restrictions on abortion -- the three I think I recall were parental consent for minors, spousal consent for married women, and a 24-hour waiting period (during which the woman was supposed to think over state-mandated information the clinics would be required to provide).

It was widely expected that the Supreme Court would use this case to overturn Roe. Instead, the Supreme Court upheld most of the restrictions (with the exception of spousal consent) but also upheld the basic idea of Roe. The line the Court majority took was that a woman had a right to abortion but the State could put restrictions on that right so long as the restrictions were not too burdensome.

Just how burdensome the restrictions could be was left unclear by the decision -- the 24-hour waiting period was considered a pretty big deal at the time, not only for the time and financial burdens it imposed on women who had to take time off from work and travel across the state but also because it gave the protesters a chance to identify them (through their license plates) when they came in for the first appointment but also meant the woman had to go through the gauntlet not once but twice -- an intimidating experience.

In the years following, my recollection is that abortion opponents were able to get similar restrictions (parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods) in a number of states but that courts have generally blocked the more blatant attempts to end abortion through super-regulation.

To put this in its historical context, this happened about the time that Operation Rescue (which had generated a lot of excitement in the late 1980s among people trying to stop abortion) was imploding. Legislative strategies such as the PA Abortion Control Act were one of the other avenues people were trying. The failure of the Supreme Court to use Casey to overturn Roe was a major disappointment, and the election soon after of Bill Clinton made the chance of getting the decision they wanted even more unlikely.

[specious_reasons]

I didn't catch all of it, but Nina Totenberg did a piece on this on NPR.

That's probably the source for the Post article, since NPR was touting her exclusive access to the archives.

[Luke T.]

Well, the original "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey, in Roe v. Wade, has since gotten religion and regretted being a part of the whole abortion legalization process. Having a zillion dead babies on your conscience must really suck.

[Brown]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I didn't catch all of it, but Nina Totenberg did a piece on this on NPR.

That's probably the source for the Post article, since NPR was touting her exclusive access to the archives. You are correct, Totenberg was the source of the Post report. She did not get exclusive access, however. She got early access. She got to see the documents on March 3, and all the rest of the media schmucks got to see them on March 4. So NPR got a "scoop," in that one of the big surprises in Blackmun's files got reported first on NPR.

There's probably quite a few other surprises in the documents, possibly some of them unflattering to the current members of the Court. Preliminary indications in the New York Times are that Warren Burger (who like Blackmun came from Minnesota) may not have been a very good chief justice, and that William Rehnquist has been better in that role.

[Hexxenhammer]

I heard the NPR piece. It was fascinating. A real behind the scenes look at how the supreme court works. Also neat was a part about Kennedy (I think, but maybe it was Scalia) going to write his opinion in favor of school prayer and then realizing that he couldn't make it work. So he changed his vote.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, the original "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey, in Roe v. Wade, has since gotten religion and regretted being a part of the whole abortion legalization process. Having a zillion dead babies on your conscience must really suck.

It's amusing to see what works you up, Luke.

Also ironic is that Kennedy was more concerned about his own skin than the hyperbolic zillion babies. Evidently, there was meeting between Blackmun and Kennedy where Kennedy asked Blackmun about handling the threats to his life after Roe v. Wade.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Also neat was a part about Kennedy (I think, but maybe it was Scalia) going to write his opinion in favor of school prayer and then realizing that he couldn't make it work. So he changed his vote. It was Kennedy.

It would be a very pleasant surprise if documents surfaced showing that Scalia could be persuaded to change his vote on a major issue. The conventional wisdom is that Justice Scalia thinks he's right every single time, and that it is his function to persuade others rather than to be persuaded himself.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I heard the NPR piece. It was fascinating. A real behind the scenes look at how the supreme court works. Also neat was a part about Kennedy (I think, but maybe it was Scalia) going to write his opinion in favor of school prayer and then realizing that he couldn't make it work. So he changed his vote.

What I took away from the story: Kennedy seems more rational than I originally thought.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


It's amusing to see what works you up, Luke.

Also ironic is that Kennedy was more concerned about his own skin than the hyperbolic zillion babies. Evidently, there was meeting between Blackmun and Kennedy where Kennedy asked Blackmun about handling the threats to his life after Roe v. Wade.

Yes, abortion works me up. Especially now that I have three kids. When we found out my wife was going to have twins, there was a certain amount of fear involved at the "inconvenience." And when we found out she was pregnant again, totally unplanned, there was even more fear at the "inconvenience."

That is the primary motive behind the millions and millions of abortions in the world. Inconvenience. Not rape or incest or defects.

I was shocked at who some of the people were that asked my wife upon hearing the news of her second pregnancy if she was going to get an abortion. That was their first reaction!

When I look at my kids faces now, I don't feel inconvenienced, even though we are barely surviving financially and I am working at a job I absolutely detest to keep the money coming in. I feel like the luckiest man alive. And I feel lucky I married a woman who feels the same way about it that I do. And I get angry at people who think we should have killed our kids instead. For what? A better car?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, the original "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey, in Roe v. Wade, has since gotten religion and regretted being a part of the whole abortion legalization process. Having a zillion dead babies on your conscience must really suck.
She need only have one dead fetus on her conscience. The rest of the aborted fetuses (not babies) were not her decision. But it is the height hypocrisy of trying to deny others the choice that she wanted badly enough to bring it to the Supreme Court, because she regrets her decision later.

[specious_reasons]

Sorry, I was a bit flippant given the subject.

Friends of mine just had to go through the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy, rather than let her suffer in the womb and live a tragically short, bitter life, if she even survived to term.

They were giving her a mercy, rather than considering her an inconvenience. I, personally, am glad they had that choice.

Get angry if you want, but having the choice is the right thing in my mind.

Originally posted by Luke T.


Yes, abortion works me up. Especially now that I have three kids. When we found out my wife was going to have twins, there was a certain amount of fear involved at the "inconvenience." And when we found out she was pregnant again, totally unplanned, there was even more fear at the "inconvenience."

That is the primary motive behind the millions and millions of abortions in the world. Inconvenience. Not rape or incest or defects.

I was shocked at who some of the people were that asked my wife upon hearing the news of her second pregnancy if she was going to get an abortion. That was their first reaction!

When I look at my kids faces now, I don't feel inconvenienced, even though we are barely surviving financially and I am working at a job I absolutely detest to keep the money coming in. I feel like the luckiest man alive. And I feel lucky I married a woman who feels the same way about it that I do. And I get angry at people who think we should have killed our kids instead. For what? A better car?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And I get angry at people who think we should have killed our kids instead. For what? A better car?

Well if you are starting from the point of it being murder/killing it's hard to argue that since I'm rather sure it stems from your religious beliefs.

What about people who have can barely afford to have their current kids, abortion would be a reasonable solution to a potential problem for the entire family. Yes it's kind of bad for me to call a would-be child a potential problem but that's not where I believe life begins. And if adoption worked, that would be great, but it unfortunately does not.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tricky

She need only have one dead fetus on her conscience. The rest of the aborted fetuses (not babies) were not her decision. But it is the height hypocrisy of trying to deny others the choice that she wanted badly enough to bring it to the Supreme Court, because she regrets her decision later.

I think the "choice" was made prior to the act which led to the pregnancy.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well if you are starting from the point of it being murder/killing it's hard to argue that since I'm rather sure it stems from your religious beliefs.

It is not a religious belief. Just a moral one.

What about people who have can barely afford to have their current kids, abortion would be a reasonable solution to a potential problem for the entire family. Yes it's kind of bad for me to call a would-be child a potential problem but that's not where I believe life begins. And if adoption worked, that would be great, but it unfortunately does not.

Our third kid was a huge financial burden. I was unemployed at the time. It doesn't get more inconvenient than that. We were living on government cheese, for chrissakes.

edited to add: Abortion is a permenant solution to a temporary problem.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


When I look at my kids faces now, I don't feel inconvenienced, even though we are barely surviving financially and I am working at a job I absolutely detest to keep the money coming in. I feel like the luckiest man alive. And I feel lucky I married a woman who feels the same way about it that I do. And I get angry at people who think we should have killed our kids instead. For what? A better car?

People who say or suggest such things to you and your wife are cold and insensitive people. But, please remember, Luke...at least you and your wife had a choice to keep the child or terminate the pregnancy. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-Choice. Every person has to make their own decision about being a parent and the government should not have the right to mandate parenthood...or, more accurately, motherhood since our society typically lets dad skate if he wants to...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is not a religious belief. Just a moral one.

Then I retract my statement.
Our third kid was a huge financial burden. I was unemployed at the time. It doesn't get more inconvenient than that. We were living on government cheese, for chrissakes.
Just out of curiosity and please feel free to tell me to mind my own damn business, after having the twins did you and your wife plan on having any more kids in the future?
edited to add: Abortion is a permenant solution to a temporary problem.
Unless the funds problem causes you to neglect all the children which may cause a permanent problem with them.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think the "choice" was made prior to the act which led to the pregnancy.

Gotta take issue with you on this one, Luke. Not all methods of birth control are 100% effective. Condoms, for all practical purposes, should be, but we know how quick men are to don those ;) Now, I know what some are going to say. "Well, then, she should refuse to put out until he does" to which I would respond, where is it written that a woman's sexual drive is any less compelling or overwhelming than a man's? Why should the burden of responsible behavior always rest on the woman's shoulders?

The Pill is very effective (98%?) but carries long term health risks making it a short term solution at best. Having been in that boat myself, I took the most drastic solution: tubal ligation. But, I don't think that's a reasonable option for all women any more than a vasectomy is for men.

Therefore, until there is a completely safe and effective method of birth control that can be utilized by men and/or women for the length of their productive years, abortion is an unfortunate necessity.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Just out of curiosity and please feel free to tell me to mind my own damn business, after having the twins did you and your wife plan on having any more kids in the future?

No. One of us was going to get fixed. We hadn't decided which one.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And I get angry at people who think we should have killed our kids instead. For what? A better car?

There's a rather profound difference between a clump of cells and a kid.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Gotta take issue with you on this one, Luke. Not all methods of birth control are 100% effective.

Don't I know it. ;)

Condoms, for all practical purposes, should be, but we know how quick men are to don those ;) Now, I know what some are going to say. "Well, then, she should refuse to put out until he does" to which I would respond, where is it written that a woman's sexual drive is any less compelling or overwhelming than a man's? Why should the burden of responsible behavior always rest on the woman's shoulders?

So the woman should have all the say on whether the baby lives or dies, and not the dad, but she shouldn't have to bear all the responsibility of birth control?

The Pill is very effective (98%?) but carries long term health risks making it a short term solution at best. Having been in that boat myself, I took the most drastic solution: tubal ligation. But, I don't think that's a reasonable option for all women any more than a vasectomy is for men.

Therefore, until there is a completely safe and effective method of birth control that can be utilized by men and/or women for the length of their productive years, abortion is an unfortunate necessity.

Gee. I guess the spread of AIDS will be a "necessity", too.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cain


There's a rather profound difference between a clump of cells and a kid.

No more profound a difference than between a newborn and a 42 year old.

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luke T.


So the woman should have all the say on whether the baby lives or dies, and not the dad, but she shouldn't have to bear all the responsibility of birth control?

If that's the impression I gave, I apologize. I didn't mean that at all. I'm saying that conception is a 2 person process but that usually only one person (the female) is held solely responsible for birth control.

Yes, dad should certainly have a say. In a marriage where an abortion is being contemplated, dad has a right to voice his feelings and opinions.

Here's the rub, though, Luke. And, I mean no disrespect. But, it's easy for men to say that women should have to have the baby. Many men skip out of the whole process. ( I'm referring primarily to out-of-wedlock pregnancies, here.) They don't have to worry about keeping their jobs, supporting the child financially, going through 9 months of physical discomfort and who knows how many hours of labor pain. They don't have to give up their freedom or be locked into a permanent relationship for the next 16 to 18 years with their child. They don't have to find babysitters or daycare centers. They just move out of town or challenge the mom to slap a paternity suit on them. Lovely, eh? What kind of loving environment is that to bring a child into?
Sure, she can opt for adoption. But that doesn't solve the job security or health insurance or physical impairment issues, does it?

My opinion is this. Women bare the brunt of the responsibility of any pregnancy. Therefore, it is the mother who should have the ultimate say in whether the pregnancy is terminated or not. Right or wrong, that's just how I feel.

Gee. I guess the spread of AIDS will be a "necessity", too.

If you are saying that based on the fact that there is no 100% cure for AIDS and that, even with the strictest precautions, AIDS is not automatically avoidable (remember there are blood-transfusion issues) then, yes. It's not a 'necessity'. It's an unavoidable fact of life.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Here's the rub, though, Luke. And, I mean no disrespect. But, it's easy for men to say that women should have to have the baby. Many men skip out of the whole process. ( I'm referring primarily to out-of-wedlock pregnancies, here.) They don't have to worry about keeping their jobs, supporting the child financially, going through 9 months of physical discomfort and who knows how many hours of labor pain. They don't have to give up their freedom or be locked into a permanent relationship for the next 16 to 18 years with their child. They don't have to find babysitters or daycare centers. They just move out of town or challenge the mom to slap a paternity suit on them. Lovely, eh? What kind of loving environment is that to bring a child into?
Sure, she can opt for adoption. But that doesn't solve the job security or health insurance or physical impairment issues, does it?

And so it is any mystery why religious groups see everything connected and express so much anger at what has happened to society? Sex outside of marriage leading to unwanted pregnancies leading to abortions. All signs of an impulsive, self-centered society.

edited to add: Everything you have described about motherhood is an "inconvenience" and expresses no love for children at all. None. Zip. Just self-centered, what-a-pain-in-the-ass-it-is-to-have-kids thinking.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Luke T.
No more profound a difference than between a newborn and a 42 year old.
That is simply wrong.

If I showed you a newborn human baby and a fish, could you tell which one was human? What about a fish embryo and a human embryo? You'd have to say, "it depends on how mature it was", would you not?

Originally posted by Luke T.
Abortion is a permenant solution to a temporary problem.Having a child is 'temporary'? Sure, they grow up and move away, but I'd say it's pretty permanent.

But we've heard these anti-abortion cliches before. Use your own words.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Luke T.


No more profound a difference than between a newborn and a 42 year old.

What morally relevant characteristics does a human embryo possess? Why not compare a chimp with an adult human? We certainly share more in common with them than a blob of tissue.

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luke T.


And so it is any mystery why religious groups see everything connected and express so much anger at what has happened to society? Sex outside of marriage leading to unwanted pregnancies leading to abortions. All signs of an impulsive, self-centered society.

Hell with religious groups. I'm an atheist and I'm disgusted with it, too.

edited to add: Everything you have described about motherhood is an "inconvenience" and expresses no love for children at all. None. Zip. Just self-centered, what-a-pain-in-the-ass-it-is-to-have-kids thinking.

Luke....take a breath. If a woman has to support her child on her own and risks losing her job, it is hardly just an inconvenience. We're talking ability to provide, here. And, since as a man, you can't possibly draw a comparison to childbirth, you aren't in a position to call the woman's pain inconvenience . Loss of liberty and freedom for the next 16 years is not an inconvenience ...it's a life changing decision; one that cannot be reversed. I admire you and your wife's decision to have your children. But, put yourself in a position where you had to do it alone....completely alone. Would you call that an inconvenience or a serious challenge worth considering before adopting?

And, if everything I've described about 'motherhood' is merely inconvenience, what is the deadbeat dad's excuse?

Look, if people want abortion to go away, then medicine needs to develop a 100% effective and safe birth control method that doesn't need a prescription and that is convenient for either partner to use. Maybe if all the money that is spent to develop products like Viagara and Rogaine , was used for such a purpose, there could be success. But, you can easily see which products were developed first. Is it possible because these solve what men perceived to be the biggest health issues society is faced with?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Why should the burden of responsible behavior always rest on the woman's shoulders? It's the flipside of the "it's my body, my choice" claim. Your choice, your responsibility.

Therefore, until there is a completely safe and effective method of birth control that can be utilized by men and/or women for the length of their productive years, abortion is an unfortunate necessity. Surgical sterilization works pretty well.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It's the flipside of the "it's my body, my choice" claim. Your choice, your responsibility.

As long as the choice remains ours, but that could change any moment. Then what? Will men step up to the plate any more than they have in the past? For that matter, if it truly is 'my body, my choice', why should any man, Supreme Court judge or not, have any vote in it? Still, this double standard has always existed. Men who have multiple partners are playboys. Women who have multiple partners are "whores".

Surgical sterilization works pretty well.

As I've stated, I've taken that option but it's not a practical one, for men or women. It hardly seems rational to impede one's ability to ever have children simply because the current time isn't a favorable one. But, certainly, it is an effective method.

[Dancing David]

I am a rather typical liberal, I myself would not have an abortion, nor would my wife, that is our personal conviction about the way we live our lives.

But where is it that says any one else has to do what i think is right. I am sorry, there are times that having another child or a child is more than an inconveinance. I have know two women who terminated thier prenancies and neither one just woke up and said "I think I will kill a baby today."

they both made the choice on the best choice for themselves at that point in thier live's and thier percieved inability to deal with a child at that time. It was a difficult decision for them to make and it was not an alternative to birth control.

then there is the whole issue of domestic violence do you think that aman who won't let his wife out of thehouse or use the phone is going to wear a condom?

The thing that gets to me (Luke I do not mean you!) is the people who care about an unborn baby but then just don't give a crap after it's birth. Lets it live in a ghetto with abusive parenst and be xposed to all sorts of crap. Maybe the people who care som uch about unborn babies should help the millions of children that are already here.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tricky

That is simply wrong.

If I showed you a newborn human baby and a fish, could you tell which one was human? What about a fish embryo and a human embryo? You'd have to say, "it depends on how mature it was", would you not?

So "appearance" is more profound a difference to you than infancy and adulthood?

Having a child is 'temporary'? Sure, they grow up and move away, but I'd say it's pretty permanent.

A lot less permanent than death.

But we've heard these anti-abortion cliches before. Use your own words.

I've never heard the newborn/42 year old "cliche" before. I am using my own words.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
If you are saying that based on the fact that there is no 100% cure for AIDS and that, even with the strictest precautions, AIDS is not automatically avoidable (remember there are blood-transfusion issues) then, yes. It's not a 'necessity'. It's an unavoidable fact of life.

I've never heard anyone say that AIDS was unavoidable before. But I've never heard anyone say pregnancy was unavoidable before, either.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Luke....take a breath. If a woman has to support her child on her own and risks losing her job, it is hardly just an inconvenience. We're talking ability to provide, here.

What excuses do you have at hand for all those white suburban people who get abortions?

And, since as a man, you can't possibly draw a comparison to childbirth, you aren't in a position to call the woman's pain inconvenience . Loss of liberty and freedom for the next 16 years is not an inconvenience ...it's a life changing decision; one that cannot be reversed. I admire you and your wife's decision to have your children. But, put yourself in a position where you had to do it alone....completely alone. Would you call that an inconvenience or a serious challenge worth considering before adopting?

Loss of liberty and freedom. Kids are such a pain in the ass. So should we be able to kill them at 9 months of pregnancy then? How about right after birth?

And I have never seen a life dismissed and extinguished so casually so as to avoid a few moments of labor pain!

And, if everything I've described about 'motherhood' is merely inconvenience, what is the deadbeat dad's excuse?

There is no excuse. You won't see me offering one for them.

Look, if people want abortion to go away, then medicine needs to develop a 100% effective and safe birth control method that doesn't need a prescription and that is convenient for either partner to use. Maybe if all the money that is spent to develop products like Viagara and Rogaine , was used for such a purpose, there could be success. But, you can easily see which products were developed first. Is it possible because these solve what men perceived to be the biggest health issues society is faced with?

A lot of abortions, and AIDS for that matter, would go away if people stayed with the same partner for life.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Luke T.

A lot of abortions, and AIDS for that matter, would go away if people stayed with the same partner for life.


But dammit, that wouldn't be fun. Part of the joy of being human is having sex with lots of people.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Luke T.

So "appearance" is more profound a difference to you than infancy and adulthood?
The appearance is just one attribute. There are many more changes between a zygote and a newborn than there are between a newborn and an adult. Surely you are aware of this.

Originally posted by Luke T.

A lot less permanent than death.
Not a bit. Most people die before their children do. So in essence, the solution you propose is likely to last the rest of your life. Maybe that is not mathematically permanent, but most likely it is from the standpoint of the person making the choice.
Originally posted by Luke T.

I've never heard the newborn/42 year old "cliche" before. I am using my own words.
No, that one was your own. I was referring to the "temporary problem" one, which I have seen in anti-choice ads for quite some time. Oh, I forgot. "It's a child, not a choice."

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


What excuses do you have at hand for all those white suburban people who get abortions?

The exact same. Physical, financial and emotional reasons. How about the fact that maybe some 14 year old girls aren't just ready to become mothers yet?

Loss of liberty and freedom. Kids are such a pain in the ass. So should we be able to kill them at 9 months of pregnancy then? How about right after birth?

You're echoing some of my words, putting others in my mouth and but still not answering my question.

And I have never seen a life dismissed and extinguished so casually so as to avoid a few moments of labor pain!

Again... a few moments ? Labor typically lasts hours and I'm also referring to the 9 months of nausea, loss of appetite, then reversal and major weight gain, stress on the body, etc. 9 months...not moments.


There is no excuse. You won't see me offering one for them.

Thank you for that.

A lot of abortions, and AIDS for that matter, would go away if people stayed with the same partner for life.

I fail to see how. We have to face the facts that many married couples seek abortions also. It's not only single-moms. As for AIDS, I fail to see how a drug-using couple avoids AIDS because they're married. Although, I'm sure what you meant was that having a more solid foundation for a relationship should contribute to more responsibility by each partner, thereby, practicing birth control. But, remember, all of those methods aren't fool proof. Sounds to me like you're saying that because you're willing to endure the 'inconveniences' ,everyone should.

Dancing David said it aptly. It's not something he or his wife would likely opt for but he would not deny that right to someone else.

I had a tubal ligation because I didn't want to risk the men of this country ever having the right to dictate to me when I had to carry one of their children to term. Sad that I had to go that route. Voluntarily submit to a surgical procedure that ripped up my insides pretty good. And why? Because medical science can't offer a safer alternative, men won't support the children they father and the religious right feel that they have more of a say in how my life should be lived than I do. And you think abortion is barbaric?????

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Luke T.

And so it is any mystery why religious groups see everything connected and express so much anger at what has happened to society? Sex outside of marriage leading to unwanted pregnancies leading to abortions. All signs of an impulsive, self-centered society.


It could also be that religious groups use abortion (as well as opposition to other 'liberal' ideals) as a way to impose their views on others with the underlying goal to increase their own power base. But nah, that's just cynical.

Originally posted by Luke T.

edited to add: Everything you have described about motherhood is an "inconvenience" and expresses no love for children at all. None. Zip. Just self-centered, what-a-pain-in-the-ass-it-is-to-have-kids thinking.

Did you ever think that the woman who views kids as just an 'inconvenience' probably wouldn't be the best person to be a mom anyways?

[Ladyhawk]

I'd also add that many anti-choice supporters seem to care far more about the unborn child than they do the already living mother bearing it. Used to be we were worth more dead than alive. Now, we're worth more before we're even born than alive...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tricky
No, that one was your own. I was referring to the "temporary problem" one, which I have seen in anti-choice ads for quite some time. Oh, I forgot. "It's a child, not a choice."

Well, that is what the abortion issue boils down to. Whether or not a person thinks a fetus is a person, too. That belief or unbelief is the deadlock.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tricky

The appearance is just one attribute. There are many more changes between a zygote and a newborn than there are between a newborn and an adult. Surely you are aware of this.

I think the problem the pro-abortion crowd has is that medicine keeps pushing back the line where a fetus is able to be kept alive outside the womb. At least the belief that humanity begins at conception is consistent.

There are also pro-abortionists who believe a woman should have a "choice" right up to, and including, labor at full term. Wesley Clark expressed that opinion during his campaign. To me, that is total denial of the humanity of the child and reprehensible.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Did you ever think that the woman who views kids as just an 'inconvenience' probably wouldn't be the best person to be a mom anyways?

I would be surprised if there was a mother somewhere who didn't view her kids as an inconvenience to one degree or another.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I'd also add that many anti-choice supporters seem to care far more about the unborn child than they do the already living mother bearing it. Used to be we were worth more dead than alive. Now, we're worth more before we're even born than alive...

I don't think that is true. I think your impression comes from another excuse for abortion being that a pregnancy is a life-threat to the mother. That is so rare the case any more as to be almost non-existent.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think the problem the pro-abortion crowd has is that medicine keeps pushing back the line where a fetus is able to be kept alive outside the womb. At least the belief that humanity begins at conception is consistent.

There are also pro-abortionists who believe a woman should have a "choice" right up to, and including, labor at full term. Wesley Clark expressed that opinion during his campaign. To me, that is total denial of the humanity of the child and reprehensible.

For the record, most are PRO CHOICE, not pro ABORTION. This phrase leads people to believe that pro-choice advocates walk up to pregnant women and try to talk them into having an abortion. Preposterous! Pro Choice means letting women have an option; not a religiously- inspired mandate.

Think about it. If abortion was illegal, does anyone here really believe it will just go away? Have we learned nothing from the past at all? Doctors will go into the 'black market' and make far more money. Worse, people without a medical degree will go into the black market and make a lot of money and, the mother will be more likely to die. I do not believe that 3rd trimester abortions are necessary unless the mother's life is endangered.

I'd prefer abortion be legal so that it can be performed under safe circumstances. Call me crazy.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think that is true. I think your impression comes from another excuse for abortion being that a pregnancy is a life-threat to the mother. That is so rare the case any more as to be almost non-existent.

Not at all. My impression comes from the facts around me everyday. Those who are against abortion are more concerned about the welfare of an unborn fetus than that of the living, viable mother bearing it. Period. Look at the casual way you yourself regard the pain associated with pregnancy. Inconvenience Both women and men on the pro-life side should be ashamed of their hypocrisy. Many think the mother's life should not even be a consideration, so long as the child can be born. And, rare or not, you cannot dismiss the cases where it is. But, pro-lifers do all the time. "Oh, it's only a couple of instances"...and, so...what? It's ok for mom to die? Sure! Because, the child is all that matters. We haven't even gotten into rape. Those instances are rare, too. But, tell that to the woman who is going through it that, because she's an exception to the rule, she doesn't matter.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


For the record, most are PRO CHOICE, not pro ABORTION. This phrase leads people to believe that pro-choice advocates walk up to pregnant women and try to talk them into having an abortion. Preposterous! Pro Choice means letting women have an option; not a religiously- inspired mandate.

Think about it. If abortion was illegal, does anyone here really believe it will just go away? Have we learned nothing from the past at all? Doctors will go into the 'black market' and make far more money. Worse, people without a medical degree will go into the black market and make a lot of money and, the mother will be more likely to die. I do not believe that 3rd trimester abortions are necessary unless the mother's life is endangered.

I'd prefer abortion be legal so that it can be performed under safe circumstances. Call me crazy.

If you ain't for us, you are agin us. :D

And this is just a hunch, but I bet more women die during "safe" legal abortions than during childbirth in the U.S.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


If you ain't for us, you are agin us. :D

And this is just a hunch, but I bet more women die during "safe" legal abortions than during childbirth in the U.S.


Hmmm...interesting theory. I'll look into it but I don't think it will hold. And, if it does, how many more do you suppose will die as a result of illegal abortions as opposed to childbirth? And would that number be acceptable?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk



Hmmm...interesting theory. I'll look into it but I don't think it will hold. And, if it does, how many more do you suppose will die as a result of illegal abortions as opposed to childbirth? And would that number be acceptable?

Well, I've looked it up.

Here is a link to a pro-life site, (http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/back%20alley.htm) and their spin on back-alley abortions.


Note that after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths stabilized during the 1950s at about 250/year.

Note that by 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to half that number. The reason was new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population.

The chart on that page seems to be undisputed by the pro-choice ( ;) ) web sites.

A pro-choice web site, (http://www.choiceusa.org/facts/surgical.php) and its spin on back-alley abortions.


Conversely, before 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States, many more women died from unsafe and unsanitary abortions. In the 1950s and '60s, at least 160 to 260 women died each year from illegal abortions.

A careful selection of dates.

Now for mortality today. But first, this from the second link:


The woman may experience some discomfort during and just after the abortion procedure, most commonly a cramping feeling. As in all surgery, some physical complications are possible. However, major complications such as hemorrhage, serious pelvic infection, or a tear in the uterus are very rare, occurring in less than one percent of abortions, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association.

That sounds damned inconvenient.

Here is what the first link says about childbirth mortality and abortion mortality rates for mothers:


Is abortion safer than childbirth?
Pro-abortion people often say that it is. "Maternal Mortality" is listed as deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. This figure is commonly listed as eleven, compared to deaths from induced abortion, which are listed as one or two. Therefore they say abortion is seven times safer.

Not so! Maternal mortality, in recent years, has dropped to seven, not eleven. Included in maternal mortality are all deaths from induced abortion along with all women who die while pregnant from almost any cause that can in any way be related to pregnancy. Deaths from cesarean sections are also included. Typically, maternal mortality also includes any related death within one year of delivery. (Different states may require longer or shorter lengths of postpartum time).

And the pro-choice site:


The mortality rate for abortion is very low - less than one death for every 100,000 abortions. This figure is even lower than the mortality rate for pregnancy in the United States- 7.5 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births.

Hmmm. Sounds like they are saying pregnancy mortality rates don't count induced abortion deaths. Somebody's lying.

If abortion was illegal today, though, I doubt the numbers of deaths from illegal abortions would rise, it at all. I have no doubt though, the number of abortions performed would drop drastically. So it would be a large net gain of lives saved.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Luke , all your arguments stem from a religious point of view. Something which you cannot prove, or even prove the major tenets.

The fact is that You seem to view a joining of a sperm and ova to be a mystical moment that imbues all the rights , privileges and status of a human being because , I guess , of some sort of divine intersession.

This is not the case. You (and your fellows ) cannot demonstrate this is the case.

That Your religiously based beliefs can dictate what happens in my wife's ( or any female's ) uterus is supremely ludicrous. Faith is belief of something that one cannot prove, nor does one have to . In argument however prove with evidence your position and supporting , reproducible, independent evidence.

And BTW if Your avatar is a depiction of the Shroud of Turin, You may want to change it as the Shroud has been proved to be a sham.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
People who say or suggest such things to you and your wife are cold and insensitive people. But, please remember, Luke...at least you and your wife had a choice to keep the child or terminate the pregnancy. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-Choice. Every person has to make their own decision about being a parent and the government should not have the right to mandate parenthood...or, more accurately, motherhood since our society typically lets dad skate if he wants to...

I'm actually kind of amazed that people are being so nice to Luke. Roe v. Wade is about the legality of abortion. Personal hatred of abortion really has no logical connection to the question of whether it should be legal, or at least none that I've ever seen cogently expressed in any discussion on the topic. Rather, there's an emotional connection, and it's the kind wherein emotion trumps reason.

I could see an argument like "Abortion is bad, and I think making it illegal would be a good way to stop it, because of this and that and the other reason." And then another person might say, "Well, making abortion illegal doesn't make it go away; it just drives it underground and builds up crime, in a way similar to how alcohol prohibition didn't make drinking go away; it just encouraged crime." Another person might say, "Those figures are made up; there really weren't many back-alley abortions when it was illegal, and here are the numbers." Someone else might say, "OK, but when you look like countries like The Netherlands, where abortion is readily available, the actual number of abortions are even lower than your revised figures." And then someone could say, "Yes, but the social climate is different here, so you can't compare apples and oranges." And someone might say "But on the other hand, the social climate is part and parcel of the same thing. Jerry Falwell has gone on record as saying that once abortion is illegal, they'll go after contraception as well." And so on and so forth.

Now, which of these arguments one agrees with, or if one agrees with any of them at all, is irrelevant. Point one is that they are actual arguments. Point two is that they are completely fictional, because this isn't what happens.

People are, in Nietzsche's words, all too human. They have this thin little neocortex that they think is da bomb, but it's easily overridden by emotion to the point of hardly working at all, which happens pretty much of the time.

To be fair, there's plenty of emotionalism and bad logic on the "pro-choice" side. Within the next twenty years, it will probably become possible to abort fetuses without killing them but instead bring them to term. Shortly afterward, it will become commonplace. This will take the wind out of the sails of the "pro-life" movement. But it's gonna cost. Even a casual glimpse of Statistical Abstracts of the United States shows that there ain't no way the adoption system can possibly absorb this. Then women are gonna learn some things about child-support laws that they have mostly seen no problem with, and they'll be singing a different tune.

[Brown]

Originally posted by epepke
I'm actually kind of amazed that people are being so nice to Luke. Roe v. Wade is about the legality of abortion. Personal hatred of abortion really has no logical connection to the question of whether it should be legal, or at least none that I've ever seen cogently expressed in any discussion on the topic. Rather, there's an emotional connection, and it's the kind wherein emotion trumps reason.I was going to give up on this thread, but I've decided to add a little more to it. My friend epepke points out a very important distinction: the ethical questions are actually distinct from the legal questions.

Personally, I find the notion of using abortion as just another form of birth control to be morally troublesome. But does that mean that there should be a law against it?

My views are shaped, in part, by my experience. I was approached once by someone to whom I was very close. His wife was pregnant. They used birth control, but it had failed. At the time, they could not afford the doctor bills associated with the pregnancy, and they could not afford the cost of raising a child. As we discussed the issue they were facing, I was struck by how personal the issue was, how private it was, and how many factors had to be taken into consideration. It seemed to me that any law that compelled them to take one particular course of action, without knowing their circumstances, would have been wrong and an invasion of their privacy.

What I told them was that I would support whatever decision they chose. They chose to keep the baby. For a while, it was rough for them, but they got through the rough times. In a way, the baby was more special because they chose to keep her, not because they were forced to keep her.

Another good friend of mine and his wife have no kids, but it's not for lack of trying. His wife has miscarried at least four times. I have since learned that miscarriages are far more common than I had previously thought. And this got me to thinking: if all abortion was a crime, wouldn't miscarriages have to be investigated? After all, a woman was pregnant, then she wasn't, and that could be reasonable suspicion for a criminal investigation, couldn't it? Once again, I was struck by the potential for intrusion on privacy that such a law might have.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Brown
I was going to give up on this thread, but I've decided to add a little more to it. My friend epepke points out a very important distinction: the ethical questions are actually distinct from the legal questions.

Personally, I find the notion of using abortion as just another form of birth control to be morally troublesome. But does that mean that there should be a law against it?

My views are shaped, in part, by my experience. I was approached once by someone to whom I was very close. His wife was pregnant. They used birth control, but it had failed. At the time, they could not afford the doctor bills associated with the pregnancy, and they could not afford the cost of raising a child. As we discussed the issue they were facing, I was struck by how personal the issue was, how private it was, and how many factors had to be taken into consideration. It seemed to me that any law that compelled them to take one particular course of action, without knowing their circumstances, would have been wrong and an invasion of their privacy.

What I told them was that I would support whatever decision they chose. They chose to keep the baby. For a while, it was rough for them, but they got through the rough times. In a way, the baby was more special because they chose to keep her, not because they were forced to keep her.

Another good friend of mine and his wife have no kids, but it's not for lack of trying. His wife has miscarried at least four times. I have since learned that miscarriages are far more common than I had previously thought. And this got me to thinking: if all abortion was a crime, wouldn't miscarriages have to be investigated? After all, a woman was pregnant, then she wasn't, and that could be reasonable suspicion for a criminal investigation, couldn't it? Once again, I was struck by the potential for intrusion on privacy that such a law might have.

That's a damn good post.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
And BTW if Your avatar is a depiction of the Shroud of Turin, You may want to change it as the Shroud has been proved to be a sham.

You obviously have never seen the shroud of Turin.

My avatar is a band-aid. A demonstration of pareidolia. Looks like it worked on you.

You have the wrong ideas about me, my friend.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm actually kind of amazed that people are being so nice to Luke. Roe v. Wade is about the legality of abortion. Personal hatred of abortion really has no logical connection to the question of whether it should be legal, or at least none that I've ever seen cogently expressed in any discussion on the topic. Rather, there's an emotional connection, and it's the kind wherein emotion trumps reason.

No one in their right mind could possible believe that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution that they intended it should be used to legalize abortion.

The justices of the Supreme Court stretched the meaning of two words, "due process", to the extreme to bring about the legalization of abortion.

And when you get right down to it, ALL law boils down to an emotional, moral impetus.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And when you get right down to it, ALL law boils down to an emotional, moral impetus. That's debatable. I have a hard time seeing certain moral impetus or emotional impact in some of the odd laws of inheritance, or some of the tax rules, for example.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
That's debatable. I have a hard time seeing certain moral impetus or emotional impact in some of the odd laws of inheritance, or some of the tax rules, for example.

The morality of primogeniture was a big part of our laws of inheritance. And the tax rules are based on a belief that the wealthy should pay more than their fair share of taxes to support the poor. Otherwise we would have a flat tax.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm actually kind of amazed that people are being so nice to Luke. Roe v. Wade is about the legality of abortion. Personal hatred of abortion really has no logical connection to the question of whether it should be legal, or at least none that I've ever seen cogently expressed in any discussion on the topic. Rather, there's an emotional connection, and it's the kind wherein emotion trumps reason.

Something else has occurred to me about this. I will have to remember this the next time someone who opposes the death penalty or who favors stricter gun control laws starts spouting off about the wrongness of things and tell them to shut up because the current situation is covered by law.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The morality of primogeniture was a big part of our laws of inheritance. And the tax rules are based on a belief that the wealthy should pay more than their fair share of taxes to support the poor. Otherwise we would have a flat tax. And yet, not all states apply the same inheritance laws. Some jurisdictions use per capita intestate succession, some use per stirpes. Is one system morally superior to the other? Some jurisdictions allow certain estates and others disallow them, but the reasons seem to be based upon practicality, perpetuity, expediency, laziness... but not morality. There are hundreds of other examples of inheritance laws that seem to have no discernable moral basis.

You could say the same thing about many tax laws. Or corporate laws. Or zoning laws. Or administrative laws. Or insurance laws. My point is that the argument, "all laws are based on morals," is simplistic and just not true. Some laws are based on moral ideas, sure, but many (perhaps most?) are based upon other considerations.

[subgenius]

Every sperm is sacred.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
And yet, not all states apply the same inheritance laws. Some jurisdictions use per capita intestate succession, some use per stirpes. Is one system morally superior to the other? Some jurisdictions allow certain estates and others disallow them, but the reasons seem to be based upon practicality, perpetuity, expediency, laziness... but not morality. There are hundreds of other examples of inheritance laws that seem to have no discernable moral basis.

You could say the same thing about many tax laws. Or corporate laws. Or zoning laws. Or administrative laws. Or insurance laws. My point is that the argument, "all laws are based on morals," is simplistic and just not true. Some laws are based on moral ideas, sure, but many (perhaps most?) are based upon other considerations.

This can become quite the philosophical discussion. :)

At the very least, the hot-button issues of our time are based on moral questions. Death penalty, abortion, gun control, gay marriage. The laws surrounding these issues are all being challenged or supported from moral points of view. The word "morality" hardly ever enters the discussion any more though. It is all about "rights."

One the one side of abortion, it is about the "rights" of a woman to choose what to do with her body. On the other side, it is about the "rights" of the fetus. These are moral issues. Laws are the end result, not the root.

[Luke T.]

Brown, I think the fact there are so many variances from state to state and town to town in the laws you mentioned demonstrates quite well that our laws are not as inviolate as the laws of the Universe or epepke seems to think they are. They are as varied as the humans who wrote them, which makes them susceptible to being confusing, imperfect and sometimes just plain wrong.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Tricky

She need only have one dead fetus on her conscience. The rest of the aborted fetuses (not babies) were not her decision. Just a small correction: Norma McCorvey need not have any fetuses on her conscience, because she did not have an abortion. (At least, not for the pregnancy that Roe v Wade was concerned with, and my recollection is not for any other pregnancy either.)

To back up my memory, here's what a 1998 story from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/) says: "However, McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption."

Norma McCorvey had little to do with the Roe v Wade case, aside from being pregnant, not wanting to be, and agreeing to let her case be used to challenge the Texas abortion law. From her account, she did not fully realize that was what she was agreeing to -- she thought they were going to court to get her permission to have an abortion. When she realized the case would last much longer than her pregnancy, she felt betrayed by the lawyers, went ahead and had the baby (since by that time she had little choice) and gave it up for adoption. That was one of the things -- one of many things -- that soured her on the abortion rights movement. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869960917#post1869960917) But it is the height hypocrisy of trying to deny others the choice that she wanted badly enough to bring it to the Supreme Court, because she regrets her decision later.I wouldn't call her changed opinion on abortion hypocritical, but I would call it irrelevant.

It's interesting that a person who 30-some years ago wanted an abortion now feels abortion should be illegal, but I fail to see why her opinion on this should count for more than other people's. I don't see anything special she has to offer in regard to the controversy, other than name recognition.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Brown
I was going to give up on this thread, but I've decided to add a little more to it. My friend epepke points out a very important distinction:

Does this mean that I'm no longer a JREF pariah?

I'm conflicted in a lot of ways about abortion.

It disturbs me that a fetus has a "Velveteen Rabbit" quality of only being real when it is loved.

It disturbs me when Stevie Nicks admits to having had three abortions so that she could go on tour.

It disturbs me that there is a high statistical correlation between people who want to outlaw abortion and people who want to maintain the conditions that make abortion so common.

It disturbs me a lot when somebody shoots a gynecologist "abortion doctor" in the back of the head.

It disturbs me when someone who seems like a decent guy doesn't get to be surgeon general because he can't produce a number of the abortions he did. I know something about emergency medicine. There are plenty of cases where a fetus is what they call "well macerated." Does that count as an abortion? No Congrescritter cares.

It disturbs me when Congresscritters make pat decisions about medical decisions in cheerful ignorance.

It disturbs me when a Feminist activist goes around teaching women how to stick unsterilized glass tubes through their cervix.

It disturbs me when the churches who oppose abortion don't do last rites or supreme unction for miscarriages.

It disturbs me that there are children with AIDS waiting for adoptive parents that all these "Give us your babies!" churches can't be bothered with because of the color of their skin.

And, finally, it disturbs me that after leading such a careful life that I've only produced one zygote, and that a result of an immature follicle under Depo-Provera that spontaneously aborted within a week, and yet it looks like I'll never get a chance to have a child of my own, even though I desperately want one.

But still, this is reality, folks, and legal systems are legal systems. That is what has to be addressed. What is the role of the law?

[epepke]

I'm actually kind of amazed that people are being so nice to Luke. Roe v. Wade is about the legality of abortion. Personal hatred of abortion really has no logical connection to the question of whether it should be legal, or at least none that I've ever seen cogently expressed in any discussion on the topic. Rather, there's an emotional connection, and it's the kind wherein emotion trumps reason.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Something else has occurred to me about this. I will have to remember this the next time someone who opposes the death penalty or who favors stricter gun control laws starts spouting off about the wrongness of things and tell them to shut up because the current situation is covered by law.

Ah, you dissapoint me, Luke. While I pretty consistently agree with you about gun control and probably agree with you about the death penalty every odd week, that's not what I was saying.

In fact, your emotiveness could quite easily be translated into a pro-gun-control argument, to wit:

Killing people is bad.
Guns kill people.
Therefore, they should be illegal.

Punctuate it with a few pithy antidotes, and you've got about the same thing.

Now, I'm definitely a Second Amendment type. I own guns. I like them. I think private gun ownership is very important. Hell, I even shot a poster of Barney the Dinosaur right in the heart with a .45 ACP at 30 feet, first time. I'm guessing you have some familiarity with guns. This we share. We probably know a lot of things about that other people don't and probably couldn't be bothered to care about.

However, I also dated and (yes, I admit this was stupid, and I learned my lesson) married an ER nurse over a period of a decade or so. I know one or two things about abortion that you don't.

[epepke]

Ah, you dissapoint me, Luke. While I pretty consistently agree with you about gun control and probably agree with you about the death penalty every odd week, that's not what I was saying.

In fact, your emotiveness could quite easily be translated into a pro-gun-control argument, to wit:

Killing people is bad.
Guns kill people.
Therefore, they should be illegal.

Punctuate it with a few pithy antidotes, and you've got about the same thing.

Now, I'm definitely a Second Amendment type. I own guns. I like them. I think private gun ownership is very important. Hell, I even shot a poster of Barney the Dinosaur right in the heart with a .45 ACP at 30 feet, first time. I'm guessing you have some familiarity with guns. This we share. We probably know a lot of things about that other people don't and probably couldn't be bothered to care about.

However, I also dated and (yes, I admit this was stupid, and I learned my lesson) married an ER nurse over a period of a decade or so. I know one or two things about abortion that you don't.

One can reasonably, I think, object to laws, but the objections, I think, should be about the laws. What their effects would be, how it might conflict with basic freedoms, etc. Not about what the laws are supposed to present. Because, at worst, that's a cheap political lie, and at best, it's about a judgement of a nonlinear chaotic system.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Well, I've looked it up.

Here is a link to a pro-life site, (http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/back%20alley.htm) and their spin on back-alley The web site you have linked to says "this information was taken from a brochure entitled Never again? Never was! by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke through Hayes Publishing Company."

Willke was for many years the head of the National Right to Life Committee. His book Abortion: Questions and Answers was widely used by Pro-Lifers back in the 1970s and 1980s in writing leaflets, articles, letters to the editors, etc. This brochure appears to me to be condensed from a section of that.

One of the things I enjoy doing is looking up footnotes to see how honest various materials are. In the late 1980s I went through a number of abortion-related materials, including Willke's book. It is one of the more dishonest materials I found. What I found especially sad was that many decent people who opposed abortion assumed Willke was being truthful and confidently repeated his untruths.

When time permits, I'd be glad to do a thread on various distortions and deceptions in his work. Although he footnotes some credible sources (such as JAMA and other reputable medical journals), the source material often says things quite different from the interpretation Willke comes up with.

Among the things Willke promulgated, by very careful wording, was the idea that rape rarely leads to pregnancy. Actually, rape is as likely as consensual sex to lead to pregnancy -- there is no special effect of rape that prevents conception -- but a number of Pro-Lifers I talked to seriously believed from reading Willke's material that there was some sort of conception-preventing effect to rape.

I have a fairly low opinion of Willke. The fact that he tries to give the impression that abortion is more dangerous than continuing a pregnancy is not surprising, but I would not put any credence in it until he cites a reputable source with a figure for the death rate due to abortion and a reputable source for the death rate due to carrying a pregnancy to term -- and I'd want to look up both sources for myself to make sure they actually said what he claimed. On the web site page you linked to I do not see anything like that.

I spent a fair amount of time in the late 1980s looking up articles on abortion in medical journals to see how much validity there was to claims in Pro-Life leaflets that were being handed out at abortion clinics. One of the things I looked up was mortality rates (as well as rates for various other medical complications.) I have photocopies of many of these articles (buried in boxes somewhere) and could dig those out if no one here is able to go to a med library to find more current articles. What I saw was pretty clear -- modern child-birth is reasonably safe as far as mortality risks, but modern abortion is even safer.

There may be many valid reasons for being concerned about abortion, but the fear that a pregnant woman in the US is at greater risk of dying if she has an abortion is not one of them.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm actually kind of amazed that people are being so nice to Luke. "

Why? One can attack an issue without attacking the person. I, for one, respect where Luke is coming from. The fact that we don't agree certainly doesn't dictate that we be mean to each other on a personal level....

[Dancing David]

A fetus is life, a cancer is life, why is one more sacred than the other.

People kill cows and chickens every day, why are they less important than a human baby?

I feel that there should be a limit on the gestational time that an abortion should be preformed, except when the mother's life is threatened. Third trimester is right out for me.

But why do people care so much about unborn babies and then just IGNORE them after they are born, lets them get beat, let them get starved, let them get raped?

13,000,000 million die each year from preventable causes! Doesn't that just put a smile on your face?

I just don't get it.

I also have to say that I believe that the number of miscarriages is much higher than the number of induced abortions, so God is the Grand Abortioner?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by epepke

One can reasonably, I think, object to laws, but the objections, I think, should be about the laws. What their effects would be, how it might conflict with basic freedoms, etc. Not about what the laws are supposed to present. Because, at worst, that's a cheap political lie, and at best, it's about a judgement of a nonlinear chaotic system.

That's me, a "nonlinear chaotic system." :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Dancing David
A fetus is life, a cancer is life, why is one more sacred than the other.

People kill cows and chickens every day, why are they less important than a human baby?

Sounds like a PETA argument. ;)

But why do people care so much about unborn babies and then just IGNORE them after they are born, lets them get beat, let them get starved, let them get raped?

Who says people against abortion are in favor of kids being raped?

13,000,000 million die each year from preventable causes! Doesn't that just put a smile on your face?

Pregnancies are preventable, too.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Nova Land
I spent a fair amount of time in the late 1980s looking up articles on abortion in medical journals to see how much validity there was to claims in Pro-Life leaflets that were being handed out at abortion clinics. One of the things I looked up was mortality rates (as well as rates for various other medical complications.) I have photocopies of many of these articles (buried in boxes somewhere) and could dig those out if no one here is able to go to a med library to find more current articles. What I saw was pretty clear -- modern child-birth is reasonably safe as far as mortality risks, but modern abortion is even safer.You might also speak to the incidents in the Reagan administration pertaining to Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Dr. Koop was appointed to the post in part because of his conservative views. In particular, he was opposed to abortion. Folks in the Reagan administration assumed that Dr. Koop, because he was so opposed to abortion, could be persuaded to issue an official report that abortion was more dangerous than bringing the baby to term. But Dr. Koop surprised them by refusing!

Dr. Koop's position was that he personally was adamantly opposed to abortion. But as Surgeon General, he could not issue such a report unless the evidence backed it up. And the evidence did not support the proposition that that abortion was more dangerous than bringing the baby to term.

Dr. Koop later got into more trouble with the Reagan administration by issuing information about AIDS that was supported by scientific evidence, but that was inconsistent with the Reagan administration's policies.

I didn't see eye-to-eye with Dr. Koop on a lot of political matters, but his devotion to science, and his willingness to place science ahead of political objectives, earned my deep respect.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Luke T.


You obviously have never seen the shroud of Turin.

My avatar is a band-aid. A demonstration of pareidolia. Looks like it worked on you.

You have the wrong ideas about me, my friend.

Damn that the third time this week that my irony has not gone over =( . I have seen the shroud and I did recognize what the picture was. I was being sarcastic, to wit:

"Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague
or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct"

I was poking fun at your ( and other people who believe) point of view, You believe You see something clearly, where it doesn't really exist. The rest of my post was in earnest, guess I'll have stick to dialog and leave the humor to others.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Pregnancies are preventable, too.

No, they're not. They're sometimes preventable. Remember?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


Damn that the third time this week that my irony has not gone over =( . I have seen the shroud and I did recognize what the picture was. I was being sarcastic, to wit:

"Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague
or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct"

I was poking fun at your ( and other people who believe) point of view, You believe You see something clearly, where it doesn't really exist. The rest of my post was in earnest, guess I'll have stick to dialog and leave the humor to others.

My avatar seems to be a depiction of Christ, but it isn't.

You said in your first address to me:


Luke , all your arguments stem from a religious point of view. Something which you cannot prove, or even prove the major tenets.

The fact is that You seem to view a joining of a sperm and ova to be a mystical moment that imbues all the rights , privileges and status of a human being because , I guess , of some sort of divine intersession.[/b]

There is the real irony. I am not a Christian, nor is my opposition to abortion based on a religious belief, as I stated earlier in this topic to someone else, prior to your post.

Like I said. You have the wrong ideas about me.

Odd that when I bring up morality and start talking about right and wrong, you assume it is based on religious beliefs. You should be careful about that because it only confirms the suspicion of some religious people that atheists have no morals.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Exception acknowledged

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Why? One can attack an issue without attacking the person. I, for one, respect where Luke is coming from. The fact that we don't agree certainly doesn't dictate that we be mean to each other on a personal level....

Why? Because while it is certainly possible to attack an issue without attacking a person, I hardly ever seeing it happen here.

C.f. the exchange in the thread on polyamory between you and me. You seem to be accusing me of all sorts of stuff, for no reason that I can see.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Luke T.
What excuses do you have at hand for all those white suburban people who get abortions?Do they need any excuses if they want to abstain from sex? Their child will not live either way. What difference does it make, to the child or to you, why it won't live?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by epepke


Why? Because while it is certainly possible to attack an issue without attacking a person, I hardly ever seeing it happen here.

C.f. the exchange in the thread on polyamory between you and me. You seem to be accusing me of all sorts of stuff, for no reason that I can see.

I'm not, there was no personal attack, there or here. If you truly believe that, I sincerely apologize, and we can take it up on that thread, where it belongs.

I apologize to all for this interruption. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate....