[Kazan]

Grey Wolf 2009: He would likely agree with that as well - I personally find that the best option -- but I define the date of viability to be when the baby can survive outside the mothers body without advanced (expensive) medical care

now what do you do with the unwanted child? Abortion can be much more humane than allowing an unwanted child to be born

[Krackers87]

man, i wanted to go to it, but i had to baby sit my frigin sis...

[Rictor]

Take her along, with a sign that says "For the love of God, this is what happens when you don't abort" :D

[Krackers87]

LOL! omg would i of loved to do that.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Krackers87
man, i wanted to go to it, but i had to baby sit my frigin sis...

I feel for you, Krackers. There were lots of people at the march who mentioned to me that they had friends who wanted to go, but had to stay home or at work for one reason or another.

It's kind of heartening when you think about it. There were 1.15 million people at the March and there were more people that wanted to show up but couldn't, for one reason or another. If they (and you) had been able to make it, there would have been even more people at the March.

Even so, 1.15 million people marching at the Mall is by no means anything to sneeze at.

Originally posted by redmenace
The rulings of the supreme court is still an opinion. By their opinion in Bush vs Gore they saw that irrepible harm was being brought to Bush. It is an opinion and a judgment. I recognize they might be experts at the constitution, but when you boil down to it, there rulings are nothing more that an opinion.

Except that these opinions carry the weight of the US Constitution behind them, so they have the force of law. And what happens when you disobey the law? You get arrested. Duh. Opinion or not, you (and everyone else in the USA) are still required to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Don't like it? Then move to another country.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Rictor
Take her along, with a sign that says "For the love of God, this is what happens when you don't abort" :D

I saw signs similar to that, but they had a picture of Attorney General Ashcroft instead.

Come to think of it, there were lots of great slogans and signs at the March.

One example: I saw a sign that said "I travelled 3,000 miles to say five letters: F.U. G.W.B."

Another sign said "Abort Bush before his second term."

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Su-tehp

Except that these opinions carry the weight of the US Constitution behind them, so they have the force of law. And what happens when you disobey the law? You get arrested. Duh. Opinion or not, you (and everyone else in the USA) are still required to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Don't like it? Then move to another country.

but of course you should object and take part in civil disibedience if you think a law is immoral.
And like I said the Judicial branch has opinions, the only thing special about their opinions is the fact that they have duelly appointed power given to them by the constitution.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by redmenace
but of course you should object and take part in civil disobedience if you think a law is immoral.

Morality has nothing to do with the law. The law is in place to keep society functioning. Many moral systems (from religion or spiritual beliefs or whatever) dovetail with the law in many places, the prohibition against murder for one. But the law forbids murder because a society could not function if people wantonly killed each other with impunity, while religion/morality forbids it because it is wrong to rob another person of his life. Same result but for different reasons.

Seeing as how America has people of many different religions due to its Constitutional clause of religious freedom, it's the height of imbecility and stupidity to say that Christian morality is the system that should rule America. There are Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Wiccans and many other religions practiced here in America. To make one system of morality above the rest would shortchange everyone who is not of that morality. That's unconstitutional, so it is forbidden. America has MANY moralities, not just the Christian one.

(Hell, there are as many Christian moralities as there are Christians. Not every Christian agrees with every tenet of their church. My mother was the best Catholic I ever knew, and she was pro-choice, just like all of her other friends, Catholic, Jewish or otherwise.)

The law is NOT governed by the Bible, but by the Constitution. Morality is irrelevant; it's the Constitution that governs in matters of the law. I went to law school, I know this.

Originally posted by redmenace
And like I said the Judicial branch has opinions, the only thing special about their opinions is the fact that they have duelly appointed power given to them by the constitution.

Which, like I said, have the force of law. Whatever the Supreme Court says is what the country has to abide by. Unless, of course, you feel the need to resort to civil disobedience, but you'll get arrested for flouting the law if you do so. And rightly so. We can't choose which laws we can abide by. Civil disobedience is a valuable tool for political change, but don't complain about getting arrested if you use it.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Kazan
Grey Wolf 2009: He would likely agree with that as well - I personally find that the best option -- but I define the date of viability to be when the baby can survive outside the mothers body without advanced (expensive) medical care

Can't remember exactly what that point was. I know that at 8 months a child is fully developed and ready to be born (quite a few are born at about 8-8.5 months). I believe the point of viability without adv. medical care is sometime between the beginning of the third trimester and 8 months. If I were making policy, I'd probably say that abortions during the third trimester should only be undertaken in situations where it is impossible to save both the mother and the child.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
If I were making policy, I'd probably say that abortions during the third trimester should only be undertaken in situations where it is impossible to save both the mother and the child.

And many people would agree with you. I don't favor a ban on thrid trimester abortions, but if one were going to pass (and the Supreme Court has already ruled that the state "has an interest to protect a fetus once it reaches viability"), I would add the caveat that in cases of incest and rape, a thrid trimester abortion should be permissible as well as for the health of the mother.

In fact, Bush signed in November a federal "partial birth" abortion ban, but it was so vaguely worded that it could be construed to ban abortions as early as three months and had NO exception for the health of the mother or for cases of rape or incest.

The ban was sued in federal court before Bush even signed it. It looks likely that the ban may violate earlier Supreme Court cases that said that a ban on abortions could not pass constitutional muster if they made no exception for the health of the mother. That means Bush's "partial birth" abortion ban is almost certainly going to be ruled unconstitutional. The Republicans were warned about this while the bill was being debated in Congress, but the right-wing refused to make an exception for the health of the mother while they still could. They shouldn't be the least bit surprised if and when the ban gets ruled unconstitutional.

[Grey Wolf]

Why would a victim or rape or incest wait until the third trimester for their abortion?

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Why would a victim or rape or incest wait until the third trimester for their abortion?

There are several reasons. There are so few abortion providers in the country that in many cases, women (especially poor women) have to save money for weeks or months to get enough money to pay for the trip across state lines to the nearest clinic. 87% of all counties in the US have NO abortion provider.

(In fact, I just found out at the March that medical students get more training on dispensing Viagra than for how to perform abortions or prescribing contraception. I'm NOT kidding.)

Then there's the expense of getting an abortion itself. Abortions aren't covered by Medicare, so lots of women who get raped wind up having to pay for the abortion out of their own pocket. If they have to travel a long ways to the nearest clinic, it takes even longer to save up for this added expense, especially if they're poor.

Teenagers who get raped while living in states that require parental notification to get an abortion are sometimes too frightened or too ashamed to tell their parents they got raped until their pregnancy becomes obvious, usually around six months or so. Ditto for wives who get raped and live in states that require spousal notification for an abortion (although I can't remember if the spousal notification laws were overturned. I think so).

There are other reasons as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Can't remember exactly what that point was. I know that at 8 months a child is fully developed and ready to be born (quite a few are born at about 8-8.5 months). I believe the point of viability without adv. medical care is sometime between the beginning of the third trimester and 8 months. If I were making policy, I'd probably say that abortions during the third trimester should only be undertaken in situations where it is impossible to save both the mother and the child.

I generally agree - i put the mohters health over the featuses

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Kazan
now what do you do with the unwanted child? Abortion can be much more humane than allowing an unwanted child to be born

I'm adopted, as is my sister.

[Setekh]

How old were you when you were adopted, Bob? Or were you and your sis adopted from birth?

[Bobboau]

from birth, so about a day or two I guess,
I honestly never think about it, unless it's brought up.

my parents were top of the line at the time, but my dad ****ed some stuf put about 7-8 years ago, but that stuff happens to people all the time.
that's a nice story there, don't **** around on mom and talk online when your computer science son can hack your E-mail. the ****ing idiot, he had to know I could do that sort of thing, I mean it was ****ing AOL, it's so easy to get into someones email in AOL that calling it hacking is just downright inacurate.

[Kazan]

Bobboau: you were one of the lucky ones - note the operative word 'can'

[Bobboau]

realy?
I supose that's posable, but prety much everyone I've ever met who was adopted had a similar story, maybe it's St.Louis.

[Rictor]

Well, adoption is one thing. Basically, anyone who adopts really, really wants a kid. So they're not going to be bastards. But if you have a kid as a result of faulty contraceptives or something, and do not abort though you want to, that child is going to grow up as "an accident". Oh sure, the parents will love him and all, but not as much as if he was an intentional child.

Well, thats the theory anyway.

I think of it like this. A fetus is not "alive" becuase all living this have an interaction process with the world around the, They interact. Animals, tree, people, they all do it. A fetus, however, has no give/take, it just has take. It sits there as takes from the mother, and has no sort of "action" occuring. As opposed to when its born, and it starts breathing, eating, learning and all that.

Not the strongest arguement, I admit, but its someting to think about.

[Bobboau]

there are many paracites in the world, they are considered alive

god damn it how the hell did I end up on this side of the abortion issue!

interestingly, I beleve there is some biblical definition that says life begins at first breath. don't know were and won't back this up, just something I remember hearing.