Does the Public Understand Roe v Wade?

[Clip-Clop]

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

taxes paying for what? abortions?

rest easy:

For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

taxes paying for what? abortions?

rest easy:

For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services

As soon as the first woman who has her insurance subsidized by an exchange in IL receives an abortion public money (mine)will be used, Henry Hyde be damned again.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

As soon as the first woman who has her insurance subsidized by an exchange in IL receives an abortion public money (mine)will be used, Henry Hyde be damned again.

BTW come to think of it my tax dollars have already paid for abortions just not Federal tax dollars. Unless Cook County Hospital/Stroger wasn't actually performing abortions they say they do and bill for?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

You tax dollars have never paid for one abortion, and they do not pay for any abortions. That's illegal. Get the facts straight

[Danzig]

and what do you know, on my home page, a headline to this story:

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae6...eae5026c58605f

which is a crystal clear illustration of why roe v wade must be left alone.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

If our tax dollars paid for abortions maybe we would save money in the long run. Think about it.

[Danzig]

joey, i think part of why some have an issue with your posts on this subject. you expect complete respect for your position on this issue-yet you have absolutely no respect for people with an opposing point of view.
you blame the scotus for what you construe as an unconscionable act-you are aware, are you not, that ever since the dawn of time, people have found ways to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy?
and you say it 'will become a human'. perhaps, perhaps not. my mother suffered three miscarriages, my friend had a stillborn child. i could go on and on in that vein, but what's the point? you have absolutely no ability to feel empathy for anyone who you feel is completely wrong, thus there is no way you could ever see this subject in any way other than your own.


'In other words, there was no legal abortion before 1973. In times past, people would have found a way to have the baby and make it work. Or they would have planned better.'

the first sentence is incorrect. the last...what? so, you actually think people don't bother, or don't care, to use prevention because they can just go to a clinic? that's absurd-and flies in the face of the fact i posted earlier. birth rates are down, as are abortions. what does that tell you? well, you'd probably think it means less sex-but that's not the case. one thing it points to is that people, especially students, are more educated about using bc, rather than just being told 'don't have sex'.

[Danzig]

gotta love that google. some excerpts on the history of abortion in the u.s.:


Abortion Was Legal
Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed.

Making Abortion Illegal
In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women.
and

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.


1.2 million a year before roe v wade. the current estimate? 1.2 million a year, with a higher population than what was in the late 60's.


so, blame scotus if you wish. or recognize that the only thing that changed pre-roe to post-roe, is criminality. oh, and safety of course. but who cares about safety, we're talking about women here.

[Danzig]

didn't know about this case:

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.


that is crazy!! it was illegal for unmarried folks to use bc. my my oh my. yeah, we're the 'intelligent' species alright.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird


there's the link to the article about the ruling. and beware, those of you who say that the right to privacy isn't an enumerated right-the equal protection clause is what was used to produce this ruling, and others, as well. anyone want to go down that slippery slope? we yelp about losing rights-but i guess some are trying to make sure others suffer exactly that!

[GenuineRisk]

And if I haven't been clear - it is the current state of the law that I find objectionable. That law - decided by nine unelected Supreme Court justices in 1973 - has led other citizens down this path. In other words, there was no legal abortion before 1973. In times past, people would have found a way to have the baby and make it work. Or they would have planned better.

No, they had self-induced abortions by jamming a coat hanger into their uterus, often perforating themselves and dying very grim deaths. Or were cut to bits by back-alley abortionists. Or stuck an electrical cord into their uterus and electrocuted themselves. Or drank bleach. Or... there is ample documentation of the numerous, gruesome ways women killed themselves in attempts to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies. Many of these women left children and spouses behind.

I had a friend who was in ballet school in the late 1960's and she told me it quickly got around the school that there was a doctor who would provide abortions to any girl who needed one, no questions asked. Because his own daughter had gotten pregnant, was too afraid to tell him, and died from a back-alley abortion. He wanted to make sure no other parent lost a daughter the way he had.

Roe v Wade, by the way, does not guarantee a right to abortion at any point; it says states may make no law unduly limiting access during the first trimester and permits increasing levels of difficulty during the second and third trimester, which is why it is extremely difficult to get a late-term abortion. The awful thing about that being that late-term abortions are very rare, and are sought out by people who want the child but have discovered that there is something seriously wrong with the fetus. As in, brain outside the body level of wrong. So our current government sees fit to make an awful, painful decision for parents even harder, and to limit women's access to safe care in such situations. Yay small government! (weeps)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So our current government sees fit to make an awful, painful decision for parents even harder, and to limit women's access to safe care in such situations. Yay small government! (weeps)

Government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus and legislate government-forced childbirth, but not to take away the right to have AK47's and multiple-round ammunition.

Yeah. Yay

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

joey, i think part of why some have an issue with your posts on this subject. you expect complete respect for your position on this issue-yet you have absolutely no respect for people with an opposing point of view.
you blame the scotus for what you construe as an unconscionable act-you are aware, are you not, that ever since the dawn of time, people have found ways to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy?
and you say it 'will become a human'. perhaps, perhaps not. my mother suffered three miscarriages, my friend had a stillborn child. i could go on and on in that vein, but what's the point? you have absolutely no ability to feel empathy for anyone who you feel is completely wrong, thus there is no way you could ever see this subject in any way other than your own.


'In other words, there was no legal abortion before 1973. In times past, people would have found a way to have the baby and make it work. Or they would have planned better.'

the first sentence is incorrect. the last...what? so, you actually think people don't bother, or don't care, to use prevention because they can just go to a clinic? that's absurd-and flies in the face of the fact i posted earlier. birth rates are down, as are abortions. what does that tell you? well, you'd probably think it means less sex-but that's not the case. one thing it points to is that people, especially students, are more educated about using bc, rather than just being told 'don't have sex'.

Fair enough - if I come off that way, I apologize. It's an extremely polarizing issue for everyone concerned, and if it were not life and death, I would not react as strongly, nor would others.

I do mean to attack strongly the position of pro-abortion, but I do not mean to attack the people holding that position. I seek to frame the argument and flesh out the logic to change minds.

As to the last point - of course people take precautions, but no precautions (save abstinence) are 100% effective. And people should be educated on what all the precautions are. But - here's the thing - you did everything you could. You took precautions, but through bad luck or some bizarre circumstance, a pregnancy occurred. There is, somewhere, an answer to "Where does life begin?" If that answer is "conception", then it would be morally very wrong to destroy the developing life that started at conception. When any of us (I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here) engages in behavior that MAY cause a pregnancy - that is a risk we undertake. We try to reduce that risk as much as possible if we are not planning to expand the family. But should it occur, the responsibility for it is ours, and nobody should die as a result.

The issue and all it encompasses, along with it being a "allow to live and develop or terminate" decision is going to maximize the passions on both sides. Any lesser issue with a broader spectrum of options could not bring all this emotion.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I seek to frame the argument and flesh out the logic to change minds.

No, you want everyone to think like you do.

Don't you think peoples minds are pretty made up about this issue? I mean, are you unearthing some new argument here?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

No, you want everyone to think like you do.

Don't you think peoples minds are pretty made up about this issue? I mean, are you unearthing some new argument here?

Polls have shown it hovering around 50/50 for decades. Likely means that people stick to their point of view - it's been remarkably constant.

New? Probably not. But different than how the media treats the issue, and different from the 1973 court decision's supporting philosophy, maybe.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Fair enough - if I come off that way, I apologize. It's an extremely polarizing issue for everyone concerned, and if it were not life and death, I would not react as strongly, nor would others.

I do mean to attack strongly the position of pro-abortion, but I do not mean to attack the people holding that position. I seek to frame the argument and flesh out the logic to change minds.

As to the last point - of course people take precautions, but no precautions (save abstinence) are 100% effective. And people should be educated on what all the precautions are. But - here's the thing - you did everything you could. You took precautions, but through bad luck or some bizarre circumstance, a pregnancy occurred. There is, somewhere, an answer to "Where does life begin?" If that answer is "conception", then it would be morally very wrong to destroy the developing life that started at conception. When any of us (I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here) engages in behavior that MAY cause a pregnancy - that is a risk we undertake. We try to reduce that risk as much as possible if we are not planning to expand the family. But should it occur, the responsibility for it is ours, and nobody should die as a result.

The issue and all it encompasses, along with it being a "allow to live and develop or terminate" decision is going to maximize the passions on both sides. Any lesser issue with a broader spectrum of options could not bring all this emotion.

yes, it is a risk. but not everyone looks at things the same way when it comes down to cold, hard reality. it's why i suggested people have some empathy in regards to people making choices. i know you think that everyone makes the decision lightly, without care. that's simply not the case. nor is every action that results in pregnancy the same.
as i've shown in the excerpts posted above, abortion is no more common after roe/wade then it was before. your comments otherwise are incorrect. the morality of the issue hasn't changed one bit in this country over the years, over the centuries actually.
what it comes down to, as with so many other things in life, is that each individual must decide for him or herself. and i promise you, there are people who are pro-choice who would never seek an abortion, and there are people who are pro-life who would. because when it comes down to it-reality is much different than talk. actions taken are far different than hypothetical situations discussed.