The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Sorry, but that baby in my womb was very much the same person he or she was an hour later when he or she was officially born. And every component of that baby was present in the fertilized egg that attached itself to the uterine wall. You cannot point to any stage of the entire process that was not part of a human life or necessary to it.

If you want to make this a diatribe against religious zealots, I suggest you find a different thread. I don't believe anybody who is seriously debating the topic on this thread has made religion in any form the basis for defending the unborn. I know I haven't.

Religion, not science is the basis for anti-abortion nonsense. The upside is that abortion can't be stopped, even if people pretending there is no religious basis pass nutter laws trying to stop it.

Last but not least, obviously what you believe is different than the Constitution and the Bible inform us about freedom and life. Unfortunately the norm today has become examples of the failures of public education in America, so you have plenty of company.

Sorry but if you want to make this a discussion of religion, you'll have to do that without me. I am not interested in arguing for life based on religious beliefs. Nor am I willing to change it to a discussion of women's rights, social services, inequities, hardships, etc. etc. etc. as some would like to make it.

My focus is on cultural attitudes re 54+ million and counting abortions since Roe v Wade and what would greatly reduce that number. If I thought throwing money, equal rights, social services , and 'it takes a Village' at the problem would solve it I'd be all for it. But the fact is we have had a culture devoted to all that and we have 54+ million abortions.

So, I would like for us to focus on a culture that wasn't producing 54+ mllion abortions in the 40 years prior to the Great Society initiatives or in the 40 years prior to Roe v Wade.

Here is the thing: this is the United States, a nation founded in the bright light of Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" and continued by prudent expenditures of blood and steel to ensure each citizen's "right to be let alone" is preserved.

Having communist meddlers try to force their whimsical personal will including religious values about ANYTHING on me, my family and others who disagree with these sick, twisted cultures of meddlers, doesn't work for me. And that is not ever going to change.

That is the bottom line. While scum support adding misery to the world including killing doctors trying to prevent more misery in the world, heroes continue to support women controlling their own reproductive functions by every necessary means.

People like me want abortion and we are prepared to do what it takes to keep it available. There is another bottom line for you meddlers to consider.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you consider expressing your opinion or 'forcing it on us' to be 'meddling' DJ? What makes you expressing your opinion, i.e. 'forcing it on us' different from anybody else expressing an opinion? I'll give you some time to come up with an answer for that.

Meanwhile I wil continue to focus on my personal concerns here that do not involve religion or restriction of anybody's rights or denial of basic necessary services to anybody. The rest of you of course will continue to focus on whatever point of view you hold.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[sealadaigh]

Religion, not science is the basis for anti-abortion nonsense. The upside is that abortion can't be stopped, even if people pretending there is no religious basis pass nutter laws trying to stop it.

Last but not least, obviously what you believe is different than the Constitution and the Bible inform us about freedom and life. Unfortunately the norm today has become examples of the failures of public education in America, so you have plenty of company.

Sorry but if you want to make this a discussion of religion, you'll have to do that without me. I am not interested in arguing for life based on religious beliefs. Nor am I willing to change it to a discussion of women's rights, social services, inequities, hardships, etc. etc. etc. as some would like to make it.

My focus is on cultural attitudes re 54+ million and counting abortions since Roe v Wade and what would greatly reduce that number. If I thought throwing money, equal rights, social services , and 'it takes a Village' at the problem would solve it I'd be all for it. But the fact is we have had a culture devoted to all that and we have 54+ million abortions.

So, I would like for us to focus on a culture that wasn't producing 54+ mllion abortions in the 40 years prior to the Great Society initiatives or in the 40 years prior to Roe v Wade.

Here is the thing: this is the United States, a nation founded in the bright light of Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" and continued by prudent expenditures of blood and steel to ensure each citizen's "right to be let alone" is preserved.

Having communist meddlers try to force their whimsical personal will including religious values about ANYTHING on me, my family and others who disagree with these sick, twisted cultures of meddlers, doesn't work for me. And that is not ever going to change.

That is the bottom line. While scum support adding misery to the world including killing doctors trying to prevent more misery in the world, heroes continue to support women controlling their own reproductive functions by every necessary means.

People like me want abortion and we are prepared to do what it takes to keep it available. There is another bottom line for you meddlers to consider.

here is something for you to consider. this is the clean debate zone.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.

 

[Noomi]

Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.

If men got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.

If men got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks.

With the proceedure performed by topless technitians!

 

[sealadaigh]

Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.

If men got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks.

well, those were cruel things to say.

i could say something equally cruel about "meal tickets" but this is, after all, the clean debate zone.

so you two think the abortion issue is some sort of battle between the sexes?

 

[Noomi]

Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.

If men got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks.

well, those were cruel things to say.

i could say something equally cruel about "meal tickets" but this is, after all, the clean debate zone.

so you two think the abortion issue is some sort of battle between the sexes?

I think the majority of pro life leaders are men, who would insist they'd never have an abortion. Yet if men could get pregnant and were expected to push a watermelon out of their anus, you can bet that the abortion clinics would make a fortune.

 

[sealadaigh]

If men got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks.

well, those were cruel things to say.

i could say something equally cruel about "meal tickets" but this is, after all, the clean debate zone.

so you two think the abortion issue is some sort of battle between the sexes?

I think the majority of pro life leaders are men, who would insist they'd never have an abortion. Yet if men could get pregnant and were expected to push a watermelon out of their anus, you can bet that the abortion clinics would make a fortune.

i think the reason a majority of pro-life leaders are men (if that is the case and i am not sure it is) is because a lot of the pro-life zealots are religious leaders and, generally, religions institutions are sexist in their choices of hierarchy.

i really couldn't speculate as to what would happen if the roles were reversed. i do think your argument, in this particular case, is based upon the woman's ability to withstand a "pain threshold" of varying degrees for up to 48 hours and i really have a hard time believeing that women have abortions to avoid the pain of childbirth. i do not think men would either.

there are a lot of cultural aspects to the pain of childbirth also, but that really is beside the point. do you think men have a markedly lower ability to resist pain?

lol...i am not sure i like being called "pro-life". people really do have to try to stop tricking out the language to saalve some moral confusion. i am "against abortion".

they are growing square watermelons now for shipping purposes so, we may need a genetically modified sphincter.

 

[Underhill]

I think women have a higher pain threshold because they have children.

And I don't think women have abortions to avoid the pain either.

In fact, they have found that there is a hormone that causes women to diminish the memories of the pain some months after childbirth.

Kind of makes sense. My wife 30 minutes after having our first said never again.

A year later she was ready for more...

 

[sealadaigh]

I think women have a higher pain threshold because they have children.

And I don't think women have abortions to avoid the pain either.

In fact, they have found that there is a hormone that causes women to diminish the memories of the pain some months after childbirth.

Kind of makes sense. My wife 30 minutes after having our first said never again.

A year later she was ready for more...

almost all the studies about pain threshold differences between men and women have been inconclusive or flawed. there are also different kinds on pain.

 

[Foxfyre]

Though pregnancy definitely has its uncomfortable side, and the pain of the birth process is real, that has not been a factor for me in my pro life stance. Nor are my religious beliefs really a factor since I believe in eternal life for all souls however long or limited is their time as human beings here on Earth. Only God knows how much He has influenced the convictions that I hold.

But for me the issue is twofold.

1. What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.

2. The lost potential in all those people who were never allowed to live. Yes, we may have prevented another Hitler or Attila from walking the Earth, but we may have also lost the brilliant mind that would have been the next Mozart or the person who figured out the physics to allow us to achieve warp speeds or the physician who solved the mysteries of cancer and found the prevention or cure once and for all.

For me, I think we lose a portion of our greatness, our own potential, and a bit of our character that makes us remarkable people when we lose our reverance for life and see it as a throwaway.

 

[Dragonlady]

1. What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.

You continue to project the idea that women are aborting children for selfish reasons and completely ignore the fact that the the majority of women aborting fetuses are poor women who already have children, who simply cannot afford to have another child.

You value children by making them important. Poor children need to be just as important to society as the children of the rich.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.

You continue to project the idea that women are aborting children for selfish reasons and completely ignore the fact that the the majority of women aborting fetuses are poor women who already have children, who simply cannot afford to have another child.

You value children by making them important. Poor children need to be just as important to society as the children of the rich.

Yup. Even those who are on the way but not yet born.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yup. Even those who are on the way but not yet born.

You START by valuing the ones that are here. Making sure they have the tools which will help them grow up strong: good health care, proper nutrition, and a good education. You give them opportunities, not run down schools with shared textbooks, proper school lunch programs where ketchup is not a vegetable, after school programs to enrich and educate, and supports for the parents.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yup. Even those who are on the way but not yet born.

You START by valuing the ones that are here. Making sure they have the tools which will help them grow up strong: good health care, proper nutrition, and a good education. You give them opportunities, not run down schools with shared textbooks, proper school lunch programs where ketchup is not a vegetable, after school programs to enrich and educate, and supports for the parents.

Oh really? Well let's say we started that in the 1960's with LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives. These days EVERY American who can show sufficient economic disadvantage has housing, groceries, healthcare, education, etc. provided free of charge, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

The result? 54+ million aborted babies.

Funny how in the days of an American value system in which the parents of children thought THEY had to responsiblity to raise those children, there were far far fewer abortions, legal or illegal.

I don't think increasing the nanny state has done much to discourage abortions.

 

[Dragonlady]

Oh really? Well let's say we started that in the 1960's with LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives. These days EVERY American who can show sufficient economic disadvantage has housing, groceries, healthcare, education, etc. provided free of charge, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

No they don't. If they did, you wouldn't have homelessness. Children wouldn't be suing their schools because of the quality of education they are receiving in ghetto schools.

The US spends the lowest number of $$$ per capita on social programs than any country in the first world. It is the ONLY COUNTRY in the first world without government mandated maternity leave, vacation or family leave. How about subsidized day care programs?

If a woman in the US takes time off to have a baby, she can be fired. Only in America.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh really? Well let's say we started that in the 1960's with LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives. These days EVERY American who can show sufficient economic disadvantage has housing, groceries, healthcare, education, etc. provided free of charge, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

No they don't. If they did, you wouldn't have homelessness. Children wouldn't be suing their schools because of the quality of education they are receiving in ghetto schools.

The US spends the lowest number of $$$ per capita on social programs than any country in the first world. It is the ONLY COUNTRY in the first world without government mandated maternity leave, vacation or family leave. How about subsidized day care programs?

If a woman in the US takes time off to have a baby, she can be fired. Only in America.

You must not have heard about the 12-week emergency leave program initiated during the Clinton administration. And homelessness has absolutely nothing to do with lack of social spending. Perhaps you could read up on that? I managed to work pretty much full time all the time I was raising my kids and never received a penny from the taxpayer to help me do that including subsidized health care or even a tax break for child care. You do what you do and I chose to arrange my life so that I could be a competent mother who was available to her kids when she needed to be, and also a competent career woman. (And by the way, quite a bit of that career has been devoted to working with low income families.)

But setting all that aside, DL, it is quite obvious that more social spending, whatever the percentages, has done absolutely nothing to even slow down the number of abortions. Now at 54+ million and counting since Roe v Wade.

 

[sealadaigh]

1. What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.

You continue to project the idea that women are aborting children for selfish reasons and completely ignore the fact that the the majority of women aborting fetuses are poor women who already have children, who simply cannot afford to have another child.

You value children by making them important. Poor children need to be just as important to society as the children of the rich.

well, that is a rather elitest and, if you come from a diverse society which has an entrenched institutional racism, it certainly smacks of racism as well.

shall we talk about inserting IUDs in the uteri of 10 year old girls whose parent/s fail to attain a certain income level? i have a feeling you would oppose that.

by the way, i have worked with poor and disabled children.

 

[Dragonlady]

But setting all that aside, DL, it is quite obvious that more social spending, whatever the percentages, has done absolutely nothing to even slow down the number of abortions. Now at 54+ million and counting since Roe v Wade.

By all means, continue to ignore the facts and figures. You've done that throughout this thread. Everything I point out to you which would go to reduce the abortions, and which are currently not done in the US, you deny, ignore or refuse to consider. You go back time and time again to matters of public morality.

Morality always starts with practical matters. People talk about doing the "right thing", but when faced with difficult choices, morality comes second to practicality. Poor women might want to have more children, but can't afford them. Make it easier for them to keep their jobs, find affordable day care and housing, and fewer women will have abortions.