Thousands protest Roe v. Wade decision

[Gunny]

By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jan 22, 7:24 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.

A smaller crowd of several dozen abortion-rights supporters held their own rally later, marking the 35th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling that established the nationwide right to abortion.

Supreme Court police reported no problems or arrests.

Sisters Erin Gordon, 31, and Molly Flaherty, 21, recalled going to the annual march known as the "March for Life" with their parents when they were growing up on New York's Long Island.

Gordon, who now lives in Richmond, Va., said she enjoyed the feeling of unity at the march.

"You really see that the abortion laws in the United States really don't reflect the heart of America," she said.

more ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_re_us/abortion_anniversary

Must be that time of year again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

this reminds me of an interesting argument i has with a female co worker.

The basic thrust of the argument was whether a man should have to pay child support if he fatheres a child.

now we all know that women have used the sex card forever seriously we've all heard about the women who lies about being on birth control to trap a man haven't we?

There is an inherent inequity in the law on this point. women have choices when it comes to child birth and that's fine with me but they also have other options that men don't have. Now a womwn can terminate a pregnancy via abortion and that is her right but she can also abandon her child and not be prosecuted because of the safe haven laws.

If a woman does not want a child she has choices but if a man does not want a child it's too bad and he'll have to pay period. Shouldn't a man be covered under the same safe haven laws? why can't a man opt out of fatherhood just as a woman can opt out of motherhood???

 

[Dr Grump]

Shouldn't a man be covered under the same safe haven laws? why can't a man opt out of fatherhood just as a woman can opt out of motherhood???

Lots already do..Do you know how many single parent families there are with the main parent being a woman?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Much worse then that. Some States have laws that make it a crime to kill an unborn child, yet Abortion is legal even during the period this child can be "murdered". So a double standard exists. If the mother terminates the pregnancy it is just her "right" , if anyone else terminates the pregnancy it is murder.

We recently had a nasty murder here in Onslow County. It is on National News I believe. A Marine apparently raped another Marine and then just before she was due to give birth may have murdered her. He ran to Mexico and is hiding there.

In North Carolina there is no law that makes the death of an unborn child murder. And the press is all up in arms at the fact when caught this guy can not be tried for 2 murders. Yet this same Press is quite happy to allow the mother to "terminate" the pregnancy. ( now to be fair, the baby was to far along to have been legally terminated)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lots already do..Do you know how many single parent families there are with the main parent being a woman?

In this country if a court orders you to pay support, even if you later prove you are not the father you can never get out from under that order.

And your implying something that simply is not true. If the Father is known or even just suspected and taken to court he will pay or have his wages garnished for said payment. If he does not work the payments continue to add up and if he ever gets money the Government WILL , if they know, seize his assets.

Now making the father pay is no problem with me. But the argument that the mother has choices and the father has none is a valid one.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's all about context RSG...all about context....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's all about context RSG...all about context....

Yes and the Context is that a man can be forced to pay till the child is 18 with no say at all but a woman can chose to abort.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes and the Context is that a man can be forced to pay till the child is 18 with no say at all but a woman can chose to abort.

That's life (shrug)...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes and the Context is that a man can be forced to pay till the child is 18 with no say at all but a woman can chose to abort.

if the kid goes to college the man pays until the kid graduates or turns 22.

not right

 

[jillian]

That's life (shrug)...

There's also a good reason for it as it concerns the best interests of the child, not the best interests of mom or dad. It's not a child during the first trimester if the woman terminates the pregnancy.

 

[Gunny]

this reminds me of an interesting argument i has with a female co worker.

The basic thrust of the argument was whether a man should have to pay child support if he fatheres a child.

now we all know that women have used the sex card forever seriously we've all heard about the women who lies about being on birth control to trap a man haven't we?

There is an inherent inequity in the law on this point. women have choices when it comes to child birth and that's fine with me but they also have other options that men don't have. Now a womwn can terminate a pregnancy via abortion and that is her right but she can also abandon her child and not be prosecuted because of the safe haven laws.

If a woman does not want a child she has choices but if a man does not want a child it's too bad and he'll have to pay period. Shouldn't a man be covered under the same safe haven laws? why can't a man opt out of fatherhood just as a woman can opt out of motherhood???

IMO, if the woman insists on keeping the child and the man wants to terminate the pregnancy and has the cash in his account to do so, the option should be available to legally absolve him of responsibility.

As we slide further and further into the cesspool of taking from the haves and giving to the have nots with what is fair not even a consideration, that's about as likely as flying pigs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There's also a good reason for it as it concerns the best interests of the child, not the best interests of mom or dad. It's not a child during the first trimester if the woman terminates the pregnancy.

That excuse may help you sleep at night, but it is simply not true. Further abortions occur after the first trimester including removing the baby fully formed partially and crushing its skull.

And again if the child is in fact NOT a child, how can the State claim someone murdered it if they cause the termination without the consent of the mother?

 

[Dr Grump]

That excuse may help you sleep at night, but it is simply not true. Further abortions occur after the first trimester including removing the baby fully formed partially and crushing its skull.

And again if the child is in fact NOT a child, how can the State claim someone murdered it if they cause the termination without the consent of the mother?

Because it is all context. A minute percentage of pregnancies are terminated at the late stage, and the vast majority are due to severe disability of the child or the mother's health. I have no problem if they are the reasons.

If you can show me one iota of proof - and by proof I mean a case study that mentions the mother's name and they are a real person, not some right-wing religious wacko site that quotes "a friend" - that late term abortions are carried out on physcially and mentally healthy foetus's, I'm all ears...

I don't believe for one minute any kind of doctor would carry out such a procedure legally.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because it is all context. A minute percentage of pregnancies are terminated at the late stage, and the vast majority are due to severe disability of the child or the mother's health. I have no problem if they are the reasons.

If you can show me one iota of proof - and by proof I mean a case study that mentions the mother's name and they are a real person, not some right-wing religious wacko site that quotes "a friend" - that late term abortions are carried out on physcially and mentally healthy foetus's, I'm all ears...

I don't believe for one minute any kind of doctor would carry out such a procedure legally.

And yet they happen. Little hard to mention names when they are protected. But then you knew that.

There have been numerous cases about partial birth abortions though, using the whine of the left, even just one is one to many ( remember that the next time someone claims millions should lose their weapons)

 

[Dr Grump]

And yet they happen. Little hard to mention names when they are protected. But then you knew that.

There have been numerous cases about partial birth abortions though, using the whine of the left, even just one is one to many ( remember that the next time someone claims millions should lose their weapons)

And it's a little easy for anti-abortionists to make out that there are these abortion doctors all over the country carrying out late term abortions for that same reason. Logic tells me that the vast majority of abortion doctors would not carry about a late-term abortion unless it was for health reasons. There might be the odd illegal person carrying them out, but if they get snapped doing it, then justice will take its course...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And it's a little easy for anti-abortionists to make out that there are these abortion doctors all over the country carrying out late term abortions for that same reason. Logic tells me that the vast majority of abortion doctors would not carry about a late-term abortion unless it was for health reasons. There might be the odd illegal person carrying them out, but if they get snapped doing it, then justice will take its course...

And YET Congress and State legislatures have wasted our time by taking up the issue, an issue you claim is unimportant. And the Courts have ruled on the issue. For not existing our Government sure wastes a lot of time on it.

 

[jillian]

And YET Congress and State legislatures have wasted our time by taking up the issue, an issue you claim is unimportant. And the Courts have ruled on the issue. For not existing our Government sure wastes a lot of time on it.

To pander to the radical religious right. To give them the opportunity to say, "see what we did for you". Plus, gives the radical right a foothold where they erode reproductive choice piecemeal... a strategy they've always acknowledged.

Not all legislation solves a "problem". Sometimes it's a pretend problem so pols can pretend they're doing something. For example, do you think the AWB solved any problem given that a weapon could be included or excluded from the ban depending on something as absurd as the grip?

Now...some facts. The numbers may be a bit outdated, but you get the idea:

Antiabortion activists, infuriated by the advent of a new variation on an unforgivable act, adopted the phrase "partial birth abortion" to describe a procedure they believed amounted to murder. The term became ingrained in the public debate, and helped shift the focus of antiabortion activists from opposing women's health-and-reproductive rights to supporting fetal rights.

Meanwhile, abortion-rights advocates did some dissembling of their own. They focused on the idea that partial birth is only used to terminate severely deformed fetuses, instead of airing a concern that if the procedure is banned, women will not have the right to the safest abortion available. As the debate has raged for nearly a decade, doctors and pro-choice activists who support the legal option of abortion by intact dilation and extraction argue that, because the end result of an abortion is always the end of a pregnancy, it should be the goal of the surgeon to deliver the best possible care to the woman as he or she accomplishes that task. The debate over when life begins may never be settled, they argue, but the issue of the woman's relative health can be medically determined.

The issue of the primacy of a woman's health is crucial to the debate over bans on abortion by intact dilation and extraction. Under Roe vs. Wade, a woman may choose to terminate a pregnancy up until the point when the fetus is considered able to live outside the womb. Fetal viability, as this condition is called, generally happens around 24 weeks, but can come as late as 26 weeks or the end of the second trimester. After that point, Roe allows states to restrict abortions or even prohibit them; however, exceptions must be made to preserve the life or health of the woman.

In Doe vs. Bolton in 1973, the Supreme Court further defined health as it relates to abortion: "Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group, an estimated 43 percent of women in the United States will undergo at least one abortion by the time they are 45. Intact dilation and extraction is only an option for abortions done after 16 weeks, which means it is not a common procedure. The CDC reports that 88 percent of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; nearly 99 percent occur within the first 20 weeks; and only about 1 percent of terminations occur past 21 weeks of pregnancy. The annual total of intact dilation and extraction procedures was estimated to be approximately 650 of the 1.4 million abortions performed in 1996, the last year for which data is available.

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index1.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet the argument that only 1 percent is unimportant ignores the fact that infants are killed in this manner. Or are you now going to chastize Gun control freaks that insist even one death is one to many?

 

[Dr Grump]

And yet the argument that only 1 percent is unimportant ignores the fact that infants are killed in this manner. Or are you now going to chastize Gun control freaks that insist even one death is one to many?

Who says it is even one percent? And the reason the abortion is carried out IS important, or do you believe a severely mentally disabled child who is a vegetable should be a burden for somebody for the rest of their life? Or should the mother die?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who says it is even one percent? And the reason the abortion is carried out IS important, or do you believe a severely mentally disabled child who is a vegetable should be a burden for somebody for the rest of their life? Or should the mother die?

I have a problem with this claim in that legally they claim to do this abortion they can not just bring the child out but rather must only "partial" birth it, crush its skull and that is what makes it legal.

And yes I have a problem with killing someone because YOU think it is worthless. I suppose you and Jillian support killing old people that serve no purpose? handicapped people that need care? Any person that does not meet the definition YOU chose of importance or viability?

I mean whats the difference?