CDZ Abortion

[Elvis Obama]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

 

[320 Years of History]

What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

A Constitutional amendment.

Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

Almost certainly. Abortion is just like booze. If folks want it, they'll get it, in the case of abortion, literally by hook and crook if it were to again become illegal. The desire for abortions is no different now than it was in 1973. The very same consequences of unwanted pregnancies and childbirth that existed in 1973 are the ones that exist now. Those things haven't changed. What's changed is that fewer unwanted children are born.

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

Yes, somewhat. I don't have trouble respecting some of the pro-life adherents, but I have no regard for the goal of making abortion an illegal practice.

 

[Vigilante]

You also would probably need a conservative president, very PRO LIFE, that had the BALLS to stand up to SCOTUS as they have been declaring Unconstitutional decisions, and far away from what the court was originally intended for! You must remember only the Executive has the actual power to backup his/her decision, not Congress or the court!

The current TIED decision to remake voting districts to include ILLEGAL ALIENS although they can not vote as an example of Judicial unconstitutionality! Bringing it back down to the lower courts unconstitutional rendering.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

Some points to consider first:

Planned Parenthood v. Casey reflects current privacy rights jurisprudence concerning abortion, not Roe.

In order for states to again ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights case law in its entirety must be overturned, not just a single case.

If that case law is overturned, the states could not only ‘ban’ abortion, but also interfere with other aspects of citizens’ reproductive rights – that’s why the issue us much more than just ‘abortion.’

If Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most of the United States, women with means living in a state that ‘bans’ abortion would still be able to obtain an abortion simply by traveling to another state where the practice is legal.

And in states where it’s illegal women will continue to have abortions as before Roe, where doctors performing abortion would simply deem it medically necessary or refer to it as another type of medical procedure.

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end, the disagreement concerns how to indeed end the practice, where ‘banning’ abortion would not only undermine our civil rights and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty, but would do little to end abortion.

 

[oldsoul]

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end,

I'm not so sure you are correct there.Otherwise I generally agree with you.

 

[oldsoul]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. I doubt it. It would take a serious turn in public opinion, then lots of legal wrangling, both in congress and in court.
2. A ban would accomplish nothing of merit. The "black market" for "medical" proccedures will always be present. No, and no.
3. Yes, I understand the POV of those who wish to ban abortion. I understand that it is generally based in a religious/spiritual/cultural belief system, and therefore is irrelevent in national discussions (individual states may be a different issue).

 

[Elvis Obama]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

Some points to consider first:

Planned Parenthood v. Casey reflects current privacy rights jurisprudence concerning abortion, not Roe.

In order for states to again ‘ban’ abortion, privacy rights case law in its entirety must be overturned, not just a single case.

If that case law is overturned, the states could not only ‘ban’ abortion, but also interfere with other aspects of citizens’ reproductive rights – that’s why the issue us much more than just ‘abortion.’

If Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most of the United States, women with means living in a state that ‘bans’ abortion would still be able to obtain an abortion simply by traveling to another state where the practice is legal.

And in states where it’s illegal women will continue to have abortions as before Roe, where doctors performing abortion would simply deem it medically necessary or refer to it as another type of medical procedure.

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end, the disagreement concerns how to indeed end the practice, where ‘banning’ abortion would not only undermine our civil rights and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty, but would do little to end abortion.

Casey is more about the limits to banning abortion by subterfuge. It's a reflection of a change in tactics by pro-life forces, who realize that they are impotent to affect the basic declaration of abortion as a right. So they've switched to throwing monkey wrenches into the abortion gears on a state level. Pretty successfully, too.

I agree that no one "likes" abortion, and that there should be efforts to reduce the need for them. Sex education and contraception are obvious avenues of attack to reduce the need for abortions, but the pro-life side resists these rational approaches. Abstinence, they say, that's the ticket! Rank hypocrisy, imo. If they were so concerned about reducing the number of abortion "murders" they would target reducing unwanted pregnancies. What's more important, reducing unwanted pregnancies, or making sure that no one has sex in a manner they don't approve of?

My expectation was that no pro-life person would respond to this thread, and so far that's been the case. I despise the dishonest "are fetuses babies?" threads. Call it a fetus and abortion is OK but call it a baby and it isn't? What kind of nonsense is that? People will have sex whether abortion is legal or not. People will terminate unwanted pregnancies whether abortion is legal or not. Legal abortion is simply the most rational way to handle this reality.

 

[D Truth]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

1- Do you really think you serve your cause with wishful thinking? You want there to be a movement towards recognition of a fetuses' right to life, but what objective proof is there of that? I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I know what the entire world is thinking. I just think it's absurd to claim that because you want something to be so, that it is so.

2- Uh, no. These are laughable, paranoid ravings. The question was, what would banning abortion achieve? You are apparently claiming that banning all abortion would result in overpopulation and that this is a good thing.

What the question is intended to discover is what pro-life supporters imagine the world would be like, if they had their way. Would it simply be what it was before Roe? Or do they want to make war against abortion, as abolitionists once made war on slavery? If abortion is murder, then what is accomplished by merely driving the murder underground? The murder must be stopped, no? Should doctors be forced to report when a woman is pregnant? Should an arm of the police be created to monitor the pregnancy and make sure that it is not terminated in an illegal manner?

3- The word you're looking for is no. You cannot understand or respect the position of those who hold a pro-choice position.

 

[FA_Q2]

1- Ever? I have no idea. I will say that it is extremely unlikely in the near future. Even more than the legal hurdles, the enforcement and process that such would be carried out is a huge problem with reversing legal abortion. That does not mean that the current understanding and access to abortion could not be refined.

2- The goal would be to reduce the number of abortions. I think that banning would likely accomplish this to some degree - making it illegal would have fewer people willing to go through an abortion or risk the process of an illegal abortion. The real question is whether or not this would be better than what we have right now and I think that it would not.

3- Yes.

 

[D Truth]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

1- Do you really think you serve your cause with wishful thinking? You want there to be a movement towards recognition of a fetuses' right to life, but what objective proof is there of that? I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I know what the entire world is thinking. I just think it's absurd to claim that because you want something to be so, that it is so.

2- Uh, no. These are laughable, paranoid ravings. The question was, what would banning abortion achieve? You are apparently claiming that banning all abortion would result in overpopulation and that this is a good thing.

What the question is intended to discover is what pro-life supporters imagine the world would be like, if they had their way. Would it simply be what it was before Roe? Or do they want to make war against abortion, as abolitionists once made war on slavery? If abortion is murder, then what is accomplished by merely driving the murder underground? The murder must be stopped, no? Should doctors be forced to report when a woman is pregnant? Should an arm of the police be created to monitor the pregnancy and make sure that it is not terminated in an illegal manner?

3- The word you're looking for is no. You cannot understand or respect the position of those who hold a pro-choice position.

Mediocre b8 m8

1- Yes I do, the abortion debate is fundamentally a cultural debate that baby haters are losing. Thus your absurd assumption that babies are not "alive" proves your own serious deficiency in reasoning... seriously open a middle school biology book. Funny how google destroyed the abortion industry.

2 - Ah ad hominem deflection, so much the sweeter this victory. So you want dead babies because you believe in '60's propaganda of the population bomb? Wow, you are really are an out of touch old lady.

3 - Of course those who are pro abortion cannot accept the pro life viewpoint. They don't consider people "people" unless a certain amount of money is available....
Lulz!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

1- Do you really think you serve your cause with wishful thinking? You want there to be a movement towards recognition of a fetuses' right to life, but what objective proof is there of that? I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I know what the entire world is thinking. I just think it's absurd to claim that because you want something to be so, that it is so.

2- Uh, no. These are laughable, paranoid ravings. The question was, what would banning abortion achieve? You are apparently claiming that banning all abortion would result in overpopulation and that this is a good thing.

What the question is intended to discover is what pro-life supporters imagine the world would be like, if they had their way. Would it simply be what it was before Roe? Or do they want to make war against abortion, as abolitionists once made war on slavery? If abortion is murder, then what is accomplished by merely driving the murder underground? The murder must be stopped, no? Should doctors be forced to report when a woman is pregnant? Should an arm of the police be created to monitor the pregnancy and make sure that it is not terminated in an illegal manner?

3- The word you're looking for is no. You cannot understand or respect the position of those who hold a pro-choice position.

Mediocre b8 m8

1- Yes I do, the abortion debate is fundamentally a cultural debate that baby haters are losing. Thus your absurd assumption that babies are not "alive" proves your own serious deficiency inn reasoning... seriously open a middle school biology book. Funny how google destroyed the abortion industry.

2 - Ah ad hominem deflection, so much the sweeter this victory. So you want dead babies because you believe in '60's propaganda of the population bomb? Wow, you are really are an out of touch old lady.

3 - Of course those who are pro abortion cannot accept the pro life viewpoint. They don't consider people "people" unless a certain amount of money is available....
Lulz!

The abortion ‘debate’ is a partisan contrivance of the right, a hot-button issue used by conservatives to energize the base.

There is no disagreement that the practice of abortion must end, the disagreement concerns how to end it – where most on the authoritarian right seek to ‘ban’ the practice, succeeding in only increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

The actual issue and debate concerns the right to privacy, the settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus possesses no 14th Amendment rights – a fact of law beyond dispute.

Consequently, a woman’s protected liberty of privacy is paramount, immune from attack by the state, where government cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

We thus see the wisdom of privacy rights jurisprudence, protecting the liberty of every American to decide the matter in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, free from unwarranted interference from government.

 

[D Truth]

And again you dodge the

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

1- Do you really think you serve your cause with wishful thinking? You want there to be a movement towards recognition of a fetuses' right to life, but what objective proof is there of that? I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I know what the entire world is thinking. I just think it's absurd to claim that because you want something to be so, that it is so.

2- Uh, no. These are laughable, paranoid ravings. The question was, what would banning abortion achieve? You are apparently claiming that banning all abortion would result in overpopulation and that this is a good thing.

What the question is intended to discover is what pro-life supporters imagine the world would be like, if they had their way. Would it simply be what it was before Roe? Or do they want to make war against abortion, as abolitionists once made war on slavery? If abortion is murder, then what is accomplished by merely driving the murder underground? The murder must be stopped, no? Should doctors be forced to report when a woman is pregnant? Should an arm of the police be created to monitor the pregnancy and make sure that it is not terminated in an illegal manner?

3- The word you're looking for is no. You cannot understand or respect the position of those who hold a pro-choice position.

Mediocre b8 m8

1- Yes I do, the abortion debate is fundamentally a cultural debate that baby haters are losing. Thus your absurd assumption that babies are not "alive" proves your own serious deficiency inn reasoning... seriously open a middle school biology book. Funny how google destroyed the abortion industry.

2 - Ah ad hominem deflection, so much the sweeter this victory. So you want dead babies because you believe in '60's propaganda of the population bomb? Wow, you are really are an out of touch old lady.

3 - Of course those who are pro abortion cannot accept the pro life viewpoint. They don't consider people "people" unless a certain amount of money is available....
Lulz!

The abortion ‘debate’ is a partisan contrivance of the right, a hot-button issue used by conservatives to energize the base.

There is no disagreement that the practice of abortion must end, the disagreement concerns how to end it – where most on the authoritarian right seek to ‘ban’ the practice, succeeding in only increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

The actual issue and debate concerns the right to privacy, the settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus possesses no 14th Amendment rights – a fact of law beyond dispute.

Consequently, a woman’s protected liberty of privacy is paramount, immune from attack by the state, where government cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

We thus see the wisdom of privacy rights jurisprudence, protecting the liberty of every American to decide the matter in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, free from unwarranted interference from government.

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

1- Do you really think you serve your cause with wishful thinking? You want there to be a movement towards recognition of a fetuses' right to life, but what objective proof is there of that? I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I know what the entire world is thinking. I just think it's absurd to claim that because you want something to be so, that it is so.

2- Uh, no. These are laughable, paranoid ravings. The question was, what would banning abortion achieve? You are apparently claiming that banning all abortion would result in overpopulation and that this is a good thing.

What the question is intended to discover is what pro-life supporters imagine the world would be like, if they had their way. Would it simply be what it was before Roe? Or do they want to make war against abortion, as abolitionists once made war on slavery? If abortion is murder, then what is accomplished by merely driving the murder underground? The murder must be stopped, no? Should doctors be forced to report when a woman is pregnant? Should an arm of the police be created to monitor the pregnancy and make sure that it is not terminated in an illegal manner?

3- The word you're looking for is no. You cannot understand or respect the position of those who hold a pro-choice position.

Mediocre b8 m8

1- Yes I do, the abortion debate is fundamentally a cultural debate that baby haters are losing. Thus your absurd assumption that babies are not "alive" proves your own serious deficiency inn reasoning... seriously open a middle school biology book. Funny how google destroyed the abortion industry.

2 - Ah ad hominem deflection, so much the sweeter this victory. So you want dead babies because you believe in '60's propaganda of the population bomb? Wow, you are really are an out of touch old lady.

3 - Of course those who are pro abortion cannot accept the pro life viewpoint. They don't consider people "people" unless a certain amount of money is available....
Lulz!

The abortion ‘debate’ is a partisan contrivance of the right, a hot-button issue used by conservatives to energize the base.

There is no disagreement that the practice of abortion must end, the disagreement concerns how to end it – where most on the authoritarian right seek to ‘ban’ the practice, succeeding in only increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

The actual issue and debate concerns the right to privacy, the settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus possesses no 14th Amendment rights – a fact of law beyond dispute.

Consequently, a woman’s protected liberty of privacy is paramount, immune from attack by the state, where government cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

We thus see the wisdom of privacy rights jurisprudence, protecting the liberty of every American to decide the matter in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, free from unwarranted interference from government.

And yet again you dodge the question of when the investigation of a homicide violates privacy rights.

While it is quite obvious you would prefer such investigation to be directed at the would be mothers (yes we know you hate them, thus want them to not have children), the true investigation would be directed at the abortionist... and quite hopefully the propagandists who perpetuated their various myths. If ever there was "hate speech" laws it would be best applied to those who promote abortion in any way, agreed? Seriously, they are the ones who preach that clearly human, living beings should be killed en masse, just because.... they are not "persons" (the abortionists own made up definition) should be killed for profit?!?! what kind of other cause are you looking for? Oh wait, let me guess... your definition of "hate speech" isn't applied to all human being's equally now isn't it?

Weak b8 m8... seriously.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

1. It is already being "reversed". The culture is moving towards recognition of human life. Despite the pro abortion "personhood" campaign, the media is now too diverse (LMFAO) to corral rational human thought.
2. Well, the major selling point of abortion was population control... as in kill the poor, the undesirable, those who are weak enough to follow the propaganda.
Abortionists would ultimately end up being the prosecuted, not the bullied mothers. Interesting how the pro abortion crowd likes to scare women now isn't it?
3. Yes, the pro abortionist goals are quite readily available:
- Women should be in the workforce, cheapening labor and cheapening societal standards (By the way, this is feminism in a nutshell), kids hinder this... plenty of third world "immigrants" to replace the population. No need to reproduce, just work, consume, work, consume... ad infinitum

Of course, there are a few psychopathic subsets to the pro abortion crowd... the homos, the talmudic nuts, the racists, etc.
Still their arguments are simply archaic religious fanaticism. They never have any basis in provable facts, just blabbering about philosophy or religion.

1- Do you really think you serve your cause with wishful thinking? You want there to be a movement towards recognition of a fetuses' right to life, but what objective proof is there of that? I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I know what the entire world is thinking. I just think it's absurd to claim that because you want something to be so, that it is so.

2- Uh, no. These are laughable, paranoid ravings. The question was, what would banning abortion achieve? You are apparently claiming that banning all abortion would result in overpopulation and that this is a good thing.

What the question is intended to discover is what pro-life supporters imagine the world would be like, if they had their way. Would it simply be what it was before Roe? Or do they want to make war against abortion, as abolitionists once made war on slavery? If abortion is murder, then what is accomplished by merely driving the murder underground? The murder must be stopped, no? Should doctors be forced to report when a woman is pregnant? Should an arm of the police be created to monitor the pregnancy and make sure that it is not terminated in an illegal manner?

3- The word you're looking for is no. You cannot understand or respect the position of those who hold a pro-choice position.

Mediocre b8 m8

1- Yes I do, the abortion debate is fundamentally a cultural debate that baby haters are losing. Thus your absurd assumption that babies are not "alive" proves your own serious deficiency inn reasoning... seriously open a middle school biology book. Funny how google destroyed the abortion industry.

2 - Ah ad hominem deflection, so much the sweeter this victory. So you want dead babies because you believe in '60's propaganda of the population bomb? Wow, you are really are an out of touch old lady.

3 - Of course those who are pro abortion cannot accept the pro life viewpoint. They don't consider people "people" unless a certain amount of money is available....
Lulz!

1- Again, what OBJECTIVE proof do you have for your completely subjective opinion that there has been a fundamental shift towards your position? Besides wishful thinking? Can you comprehend that very simple question?

I despise people who claim to speak for millions. I only offer my opinion. EVER. I do not pretend to be a spokesperson for anyone else. You do. Why?

2- Again, a refusal to deal with the actual question. What do you want? Women in jail for having an abortion? An arm of the police to monitor pregnancies? Have the courage to advocate honestly for what you believe.

3- Incomprehensible. A certain amount of money? And of course, another completely dishonest refusal to answer the question asked. I asked whether you could understand and respect the POV of people you DISAGREE with. I didn't ask whether the people you disagree with can respect and understand your position. How would you know that? Nor can you tell me what other pro-life people do or do not believe. You can only answer for yourself. Again, a simple question. Can YOU understand or respect the opinion of people who disagree with YOU. Stop trying to speak for millions of people. You so far haven't even proven to be sufficiently logical or articulate to speak for yourself.

Seriously, I would enjoy a frank debate about the logic or both pro-choice and pro-life positions. You are incapable of holding up your side of the process. Let me show you how it's done.

1- Sure Roe could be overturned, in the same way it was passed in the first place. Get a sufficient conservative majority on the SC and it will happen. Eight years of President Cruz could do it.

2- What good would overturning Roe do? None. You need to do a lot more than just make abortion illegal again. You've got to pass legislation which creates a system to monitor pregnancies. You've got to put women and abortion doctors in jail. If abortion is murder, then it needs to be treated exactly as you treat murder.

3- Yes, I can. Abortion is a terrible practice. I cannot respect a religiously derived opinion, but I can certainly respect a moral position which regards the act of aborting a fetus as causing more harm than good.

 

[FA_Q2]

I know that these are not addressed to me but I wish to comment on them.

2- Again, a refusal to deal with the actual question. What do you want? Women in jail for having an abortion? An arm of the police to monitor pregnancies? Have the courage to advocate honestly for what you believe.

I do not fully understand the need to link making abortion illegal and attaching sentencing to it. While the latter requires the former, the opposite is not true by any means. Simply making the practice illegal would eliminate the 'official' centers that participate in abortions. Further 'punishment' is not necessarily a given in with that concept. It is quite plausible to make abortion illegal and then do nothing whatsoever to those women that manage to accomplish it anyway. You certainly would see a drastic reduction in the number of doctors willing to both counsel and perform actions related to abortions with making the procedure illegal - punishing the woman would be almost impossible due to biological realities.

2- What good would overturning Roe do? None. You need to do a lot more than just make abortion illegal again. You've got to pass legislation which creates a system to monitor pregnancies. You've got to put women and abortion doctors in jail. If abortion is murder, then it needs to be treated exactly as you treat murder.

Do you? As i stated above, I think that is actually incorrect. Now, I am playing devils advocate here but I think that there could be an argument made that overturning Row and the protection it offers to state sanctioned abortions could see a positive benefit without the mentioned system. Certainly doctors may go to jail for performing one but that does not mean it necessarily extends to the woman or that there needs to be any 'system' in place to monitor it other than is in place now where doctors already end up in jail for illegal procedures.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I know that these are not addressed to me but I wish to comment on them.

2- Again, a refusal to deal with the actual question. What do you want? Women in jail for having an abortion? An arm of the police to monitor pregnancies? Have the courage to advocate honestly for what you believe.

I do not fully understand the need to link making abortion illegal and attaching sentencing to it. While the latter requires the former, the opposite is not true by any means. Simply making the practice illegal would eliminate the 'official' centers that participate in abortions. Further 'punishment' is not necessarily a given in with that concept. It is quite plausible to make abortion illegal and then do nothing whatsoever to those women that manage to accomplish it anyway. You certainly would see a drastic reduction in the number of doctors willing to both counsel and perform actions related to abortions with making the procedure illegal - punishing the woman would be almost impossible due to biological realities.

2- What good would overturning Roe do? None. You need to do a lot more than just make abortion illegal again. You've got to pass legislation which creates a system to monitor pregnancies. You've got to put women and abortion doctors in jail. If abortion is murder, then it needs to be treated exactly as you treat murder.

Do you? As i stated above, I think that is actually incorrect. Now, I am playing devils advocate here but I think that there could be an argument made that overturning Row and the protection it offers to state sanctioned abortions could see a positive benefit without the mentioned system. Certainly doctors may go to jail for performing one but that does not mean it necessarily extends to the woman or that there needs to be any 'system' in place to monitor it other than is in place now where doctors already end up in jail for illegal procedures.

The first quote was merely a request for an answer to a question which had been completely avoided. The second quote is my opinion, and I am perfectly willing to discuss that.

What would overturning Roe accomplish? Nothing. Why? Who knows? It is logical to assume that making abortion illegal would reduce the number of abortions. It's hardly likely to increase the number of abortions, is it? Would the result be more deaths or less? Who knows? Once you drive the procedure underground, all you can do is guess. I guess that the net result would be worse. Look up the WHO statistics on safe vs. unsafe abortions. By the same logic that states the number of abortions is bound to decrease, the number of unsafe abortion related deaths and injuries is likely to increase. The net result, imo, is likely to be more death and misery, but that's just my guess. No one can say for sure.

The real problem I have with the notion of just reversing Roe is that it hardly addresses the question of murder, does it? Abortion is murder, says the pro-life crowd. Really? Murder? Or is it murder-lite? Sure it's murder, but we don't want to punish people for it. So if you go to an illegal abortion mill there's a murderer, but if you stick a coat-hanger into yourself in an effort to induce an abortion, that's a victim-less crime? Where's the logic in that?

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed?

No one can know the future for certain. However, millions of people will not rest until it is finally reversed. The challenges to Roe are not going to simply fade away. If anything, they will continue to intensify.

A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

Ironically, The most likely challenge that will give the Supreme Court a reason to revisit Roe will come from Criminal Convictions under our 'Fetal Homicide' laws. It will be those already convicted of killing 'children in the womb' who will be pushing the issue the most on the legal front, by trying to get their convictions overturned. . . on the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Several convictions have already been appealed on that basis, already.

So far, the Supreme Court has declined the opportunity to consider any of those cases. However, as the case loads build. . . the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb accordingly.

2- What would banning abortion achieve?

That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.

Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly.

One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything. . . much less something that is the violation of a child's rights.

Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies?

It's funny that you see that as draconian.

We already have laws that make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. Don't we?

If you robbed a bank and fired a shot - even accidentally - hitting a pregnant woman and killing the child in her womb. . . you could be charged with that child's MURDER.

You tell me. . . WHY should a person who kills that same child INTENTIONALLY be charged with anything less?

What we are seeking is consistency in our laws.

Can we make abortion impossible?

No. I don't think so.

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily. So, yes, I understand the point of view very well.

What I can not argue against is the biological facts that lead to the conclusion that a child's life biologically "begins" at and by conception.

Likewise, I can not argue against the fact that our Constitution (which is the law of our land) is INCLUSIVE in the way that it says that "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

I can not argue against the fact that by making it a crime of MURDER to criminally kill a child in the womb - our Fetal Homicide Laws are already recognizing the personhood of "children in the womb" on a very significant level.

I can not argue against the fact that the LEGAL definition of a "natural person" is (like the Constitution) also very inclusive - in that it is simply "a human being." A "child in the womb" as defined by our Fetal Homicide Laws. . . MEETS that legal definition.

 

[320 Years of History]

the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe [is what will likely result in the SCOTUS revisiting Roe.]

You're probably correct on that.

Do you know offhand whether pro-lifers have pushed for Congress to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process to settle the matter once and for all? Obviously, I can look it up, but since I'm here writing anyway, I'm asking.

the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb

Off Topic:
Can the SCOTUS be compelled to hear arguments? I don't think it can.

That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.

Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly. ....

I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily.....

I think Elvis Obama meant "achieve" in the absolute sense of "outcome" rather than in one of the qualified -- such as "intended outcome" or "unintended outcome" -- senses of the term.

Knowing that you've been on both sides of the issue and you thus know the matter very well, perhaps better than most or all of the "regular" commentators in this forum, I'm surprised you address only the few plausible and probable outcomes you did. I wonder whether that was due to time limitations or rhetorical strategy? (I'm pretty certain it wasn't because others didn't cross your mind.) I "get" the reasons for both, I'm just curious.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything

As goes what Elvis Obama cited as the compelling argument, is it really even an argument. It seems to me to merely be a fact, although I understand how that fact can be used to make an argument. Just wondering whether you see it as a fact too and thereby don't see it as a compelling argument for anything? Is your remark driven by something that basic? I suspect it's not and that you've duly evaluated the arguments accruing from/using that fact, but I have to ask as I don't know. (Better to ask than to guess when it comes to others' remarks, especially others whom one believes to be well informed and strong analysts.)

What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

And finally we come to the part of the discussion that I find most important. I needed to do some reading before engaging on this because as someone who doesn't approve of making abortion illegal, I hadn't looked that deeply into the credibly presented consequences of unwanted pregnancy and birth, even as I know being unwanted has to "suck big time" for kids born to that status. That said, I also knew the spectrum of negative risks had to include mental health issues for both parents and children as well as financial issues for both. Lastly, I'm of the mind that upon entering this world, all that the child's parents could have or should have done really is a moot point. The child is "here" and that becomes what it, its parents and society must address.

One certainly cannot, but one can identify the possible outcomes -- indeed in crafting policy, one has a duty to anticipate the potentially fatal and other harmful ones and preempt them -- and plan for them, at least the most heinous among them, accordingly. Responsibly governing and managing interpersonal conflict leaves no room for "playing the ostrich" and/or isolating one's own aims as regards one party to the complete exclusion of the aims of another.

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?
  • FWIW, below are some of the reference materials that drive my questions:
    • Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
      
    • Born Unwanted: The developmental effects of denied abortion -- The link if for a summary of the study. I have looked and cannot find a free version of this book; however, it may be available for free (ebook download or pdf) here...I don't know. I do know the title is among those they have.
      
    • The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Teen Childbearing
      
    • Unwanted Pregnancy and Associated Factors Among Nigerian Women -- This papers is referenced not because I think Nigerian women are the point, but because I see the human condition as being constant regardless of where one lives. Obviously, I recognize the difference between the societal factors affecting Nigerians and those affecting Americans. Many individual motivators (emotional and physical) affecting women as mothers, however, are certainly not different.
      
    • Pregnancy Intentions and Happiness Among Pregnant Black Women at High Risk for Adverse Infant Health Outcomes
      
    • The Consequences of Unintended Childbearing
      
    • Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status
      
    • Abortion, unwanted childbearing, and mental health

 

[Chuz Life]

the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe [is what will likely result in the SCOTUS revisiting Roe.]

You're probably correct on that.

Do you know offhand whether pro-lifers have pushed for Congress to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process to settle the matter once and for all? Obviously, I can look it up, but since I'm here writing anyway, I'm asking.

the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb

Off Topic:
Can the SCOTUS be compelled to hear arguments? I don't think it can.

That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.

Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly. ....

I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily.....

I think Elvis Obama meant "achieve" in the absolute sense of "outcome" rather than in one of the qualified -- such as "intended outcome" or "unintended outcome" -- senses of the term.

Knowing that you've been on both sides of the issue and you thus know the matter very well, perhaps better than most or all of the "regular" commentators in this forum, I'm surprised you address only the few plausible and probable outcomes you did. I wonder whether that was due to time limitations or rhetorical strategy? (I'm pretty certain it wasn't because others didn't cross your mind.) I "get" the reasons for both, I'm just curious.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything

As goes what Elvis Obama cited as the compelling argument, is it really even an argument. It seems to me to merely be a fact, although I understand how that fact can be used to make an argument. Just wondering whether you see it as a fact too and thereby don't see it as a compelling argument for anything? Is your remark driven by something that basic? I suspect it's not and that you've duly evaluated the arguments accruing from/using that fact, but I have to ask as I don't know. (Better to ask than to guess when it comes to others' remarks, especially others whom one believes to be well informed and strong analysts.)

What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

And finally we come to the part of the discussion that I find most important. I needed to do some reading before engaging on this because as someone who doesn't approve of making abortion illegal, I hadn't looked that deeply into the credibly presented consequences of unwanted pregnancy and birth, even as I know being unwanted has to "suck big time" for kids born to that status. That said, I also knew the spectrum of negative risks had to include mental health issues for both parents and children as well as financial issues for both. Lastly, I'm of the mind that upon entering this world, all that the child's parents could have or should have done really is a moot point. The child is "here" and that becomes what it, its parents and society must address.

One certainly cannot, but one can identify the possible outcomes -- indeed in crafting policy, one has a duty to anticipate the potentially fatal and other harmful ones and preempt them -- and plan for them, at least the most heinous among them, accordingly. Responsibly governing and managing interpersonal conflict leaves no room for "playing the ostrich" and/or isolating one's own aims as regards one party to the complete exclusion of the aims of another.

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?
  • FWIW, below are some of the reference materials that drive my questions:
    • Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
      
    • Born Unwanted: The developmental effects of denied abortion -- The link if for a summary of the study. I have looked and cannot find a free version of this book; however, it may be available for free (ebook download or pdf) here...I don't know. I do know the title is among those they have.
      
    • The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Teen Childbearing
      
    • Unwanted Pregnancy and Associated Factors Among Nigerian Women -- This papers is referenced not because I think Nigerian women are the point, but because I see the human condition as being constant regardless of where one lives. Obviously, I recognize the difference between the societal factors affecting Nigerians and those affecting Americans. Many individual motivators (emotional and physical) affecting women as mothers, however, are certainly not different.
      
    • Pregnancy Intentions and Happiness Among Pregnant Black Women at High Risk for Adverse Infant Health Outcomes
      
    • The Consequences of Unintended Childbearing
      
    • Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status
      
    • Abortion, unwanted childbearing, and mental health

I can't respond to lengthy posts that have multiple quotes like that on my phone.

Between my eyesight and my lack of familiarity with the functions... its just too much.

 

[320 Years of History]

the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe [is what will likely result in the SCOTUS revisiting Roe.]

You're probably correct on that.

Do you know offhand whether pro-lifers have pushed for Congress to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process to settle the matter once and for all? Obviously, I can look it up, but since I'm here writing anyway, I'm asking.

the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb

Off Topic:
Can the SCOTUS be compelled to hear arguments? I don't think it can.

That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.

Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly. ....

I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily.....

I think Elvis Obama meant "achieve" in the absolute sense of "outcome" rather than in one of the qualified -- such as "intended outcome" or "unintended outcome" -- senses of the term.

Knowing that you've been on both sides of the issue and you thus know the matter very well, perhaps better than most or all of the "regular" commentators in this forum, I'm surprised you address only the few plausible and probable outcomes you did. I wonder whether that was due to time limitations or rhetorical strategy? (I'm pretty certain it wasn't because others didn't cross your mind.) I "get" the reasons for both, I'm just curious.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything

As goes what Elvis Obama cited as the compelling argument, is it really even an argument. It seems to me to merely be a fact, although I understand how that fact can be used to make an argument. Just wondering whether you see it as a fact too and thereby don't see it as a compelling argument for anything? Is your remark driven by something that basic? I suspect it's not and that you've duly evaluated the arguments accruing from/using that fact, but I have to ask as I don't know. (Better to ask than to guess when it comes to others' remarks, especially others whom one believes to be well informed and strong analysts.)

What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

And finally we come to the part of the discussion that I find most important. I needed to do some reading before engaging on this because as someone who doesn't approve of making abortion illegal, I hadn't looked that deeply into the credibly presented consequences of unwanted pregnancy and birth, even as I know being unwanted has to "suck big time" for kids born to that status. That said, I also knew the spectrum of negative risks had to include mental health issues for both parents and children as well as financial issues for both. Lastly, I'm of the mind that upon entering this world, all that the child's parents could have or should have done really is a moot point. The child is "here" and that becomes what it, its parents and society must address.

One certainly cannot, but one can identify the possible outcomes -- indeed in crafting policy, one has a duty to anticipate the potentially fatal and other harmful ones and preempt them -- and plan for them, at least the most heinous among them, accordingly. Responsibly governing and managing interpersonal conflict leaves no room for "playing the ostrich" and/or isolating one's own aims as regards one party to the complete exclusion of the aims of another.

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?
  • FWIW, below are some of the reference materials that drive my questions:
    • Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
      
    • Born Unwanted: The developmental effects of denied abortion -- The link if for a summary of the study. I have looked and cannot find a free version of this book; however, it may be available for free (ebook download or pdf) here...I don't know. I do know the title is among those they have.
      
    • The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Teen Childbearing
      
    • Unwanted Pregnancy and Associated Factors Among Nigerian Women -- This papers is referenced not because I think Nigerian women are the point, but because I see the human condition as being constant regardless of where one lives. Obviously, I recognize the difference between the societal factors affecting Nigerians and those affecting Americans. Many individual motivators (emotional and physical) affecting women as mothers, however, are certainly not different.
      
    • Pregnancy Intentions and Happiness Among Pregnant Black Women at High Risk for Adverse Infant Health Outcomes
      
    • The Consequences of Unintended Childbearing
      
    • Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status
      
    • Abortion, unwanted childbearing, and mental health

I can't respond to lengthy posts that have multiple quotes like that on my phone.

Between my eyesight and my lack of familiarity with the functions... its just too much.

LOL Okay.

Well, if you get round to it on a pc, great. If not, I understand; I rarely type more than one sentence if I have to use a phone to communicate in writing.