<p>McCain, people!</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>McCain’s partial “solution:”</p>
<p>Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them </p>
<p>On “Meet the Press,” McCain said he had “come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions” to an outright ban on abortions. “I don’t claim to be a theologian, but I have my moral beliefs.” If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. “But I would not prosecute a woman” who obtained an abortion.</p>
<p>Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of “selective prosecution.”</p>
<p>That “solution” didn’t work really well before. Prosecute (execute?) the doctors who can give a safe abortion! At least if not all states outlaw abortion, it will be great for the travel industry. </p>
<p>If all states jump on the bandwagon, rich girls take a trip to Sweden and poor girls get to have a go at “self-help” abortion. Ah, wealth does have its privileges.</p>
<p>07Dad, since you are so passionate about this issue, do you have concerns about the lack of providers (now, I mean) who will perform abortions in many places in the US?</p>
<p>Clearly you’re right about men 07 - I was being a bit flip, but I don’t hear too many men discussing it. I agree that women are harder on women about it, but I don’t find too many men who feel strongly enough about it for it to be an issue. My brother is very liberal socially and is pro-choice, but he votes his pocketbook, so he is a Republican.</p>
<p>And 07Dad - why do you interject “(execute?)” into your argument?? Nobody said anything about executing anyone - that kind of hyperbole takes your argument into the absurd & undermines any valid points you might otherwise make!</p>
<p>Oh wait! The abortion doctors ARE making executions! (What does the Hypocratic Oath say - “First, do no harm”?). </p>
<p>Seems like it would be fair to target the doctors since they are the ones who are LICENSED in the abortion scenario & the ones who actually perform the “procedure” - not the mothers.</p>
<p>bz2010: To use the noun “execution” you make the assumption that the fetus being aborted is a person/has a life. There are any number of people who would disagree with that.</p>
<p>Ah, yes, that is one of the main points of controversy - at what point does “life” begin? </p>
<p>If one looks at the issue from a strict biological/scientific point of view, then one would ask, "At what point does the fetus dispaly the six characteristics of life?<br>
- Living things are made of cells
- Living things obtain and use energy
- Living things grow and develop
- Living things reproduce
- Living things respond to their environment
- Living things adapt to their environment</p>
<p>Does anyone disagree that a fetus is a living thing?</p>
<p>Arguing that we should make abortion legal so that fewer people use coat hanegrs is like arguing that we should make rape legal so that fewer rapists dump their Victims’ bodies into the lake when they’re finished.</p>
<p>Interesting premise, Vyse…</p>
<p>“Arguing that we should make abortion legal so that fewer people use coat hanegrs is like arguing that we should make rape legal so that fewer rapists dump their Victims’ bodies into the lake when they’re finished.”</p>
<p>Well there’s the compassionate conservative point of view I have come to know and hate. What a completely non-sensical statement. </p>
<p>Whether a coathanger is used or a safe medical procedure, there will be no baby, but with the coathanger, you stand a good chance of losing the mother too.</p>
<p>zoosermom asked:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heavens, Yes. </p>
<p>As you recall, doctors who performed abortions have been assaulted and some killed by pro-life gunmen. The pressure tactics used at the clinics and direct threats (even short of death) against abortion providers has definitely achieved its goal of reducing the availability of safe abortions. And as with any service, by making the availability of the service providers less, arguably the cost of the service increases. </p>
<p>bz2010 said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactlly the thinking that flows from fetus as person/abortion as murder. The doctor is the mother’s paid hitman of the unborn person. The pro-life premise makes this a “legal fact.” And, that fact means the mother and the doctor are both murderers subject to bing executed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In criminal law there is the law of parties that makes the crime shared by the aiders and abetters. And there is a crime of murder for hire. Under the Texas penal code, murder for hire is a capital offense with the death penalty available upon conviction. The elements of the offense makes the actually killer and the one that hires the killer both guilty. </p>
<p>Pro-life has as a basic premise that abortion is murder. In a pro-life world, Mom and the doctor are both murders AND in many states they have committed the capital offense of murder for hire which carries the death penalty. Pro-lifers cannot forget what their solution will bring about.</p>
<p>The idea that in the pro-life brave new world somehow the mother is less a murderer is a joke. Who decided to murder the fetus? Mom. Who sought out the doctor to kill the fetus? Mom. Who paid the doctor to murder her fetus? Mom (or her husband or parents or boyfriend). Would the doctor have killed the fetus except for Mom seeking the doctor out? No. Mom WANTS the fetus dead, the doctor is only in it for the bucks. And if Mom wants to have an abortion because she cannot afford to raise another child or she is concerned about getting an education to better her life, Mom is also in it for the money. </p>
<p>Oh, and in this new world, the doctor would not be licensed to commit a criminal medical procedure.</p>
<p>“Whether a coathanger is used or a safe medical procedure, there will be no baby, but with the coathanger, you stand a good chance of losing the mother too.”</p>
<p>But the incidence of abortion will be reduced drastically. The fact that some people use poor judgement isn’t anymore a defense of legal abortion than the rape example I gave.</p>
<p>Vyse Is it your idea of a positive solution to have the woman die in a coathanger abortion to lower the number of repeat aborting women?</p>
<p>Here is **Ron Paul **on abortion issues:</p>
<p>Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. </p>
<p>To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:
Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor’s home state waive the parental notification required by that state
Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor’s home state have been satisfied
Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act</p>
<p>Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005 </p>
<p>Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.</p>
<p>Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman’s actions with respect to her pregnancy. </p>
<p>Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004</p>
<p>So, Ron either is “soft” on abortion since he would allow an end run around state abortion limitation laws, or is extremely “tough” on abortion because he won’t vote for anything, even if it protects the fetus, that does not criminalize the mom’s actions, or if she is a minor, the actions of her guardians that result in injury or death of the fetus.</p>
<p>OK-- WHO are the pro-life candidates???</p>
<p>I find the “Feminists for Life” organization to be absolutely repugnant. I also can’t say for sure, but I would bet that they have a strong religious foundation (which they chose not to emphasize, for fear of alienating people).</p>
<p>Google the “we the people act”. Ron Paul’s idea is basically that giving this issue to the feds is unconstitutional, and is asking for trouble. So he basically votes against anything that defines this issue on the federal level either way. (Although he did vote to end partial birth abortion).</p>
<p>I’m saying that we cant allow baby murder just because some people will react violently. Should we also legalize burglary so that thiefs can safely sack your house without having to brandish a firearm and potentially kill you?</p>
<p>The “coat hanger” argument is tenuous at best, and that’s being generous.</p>
<p>unregistered, what exactly do you find to be repugnant about the Feminists for Life website? I am very familiar with it, and have never seen anything remotely religious on it. It’s actually quite feminist in its outlook.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether it’s tenuous or not, coat hanger abortions are a reality if Roe v. Wade is overturned. A reality! Ever since the watering down of Roe v. Wade began, underground movements have been active in training non-medical people to do abortions. </p>
<p>The question is, how do you prevent these? They WILL happen; HOW do you prevent them?</p>
<p>To use your own argument, just because burglary is against the law, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Just as reversing Roe v. Wade won’t mean abortions won’t happen. What do you propose to stop those coat hanger abortions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see the FFLs as a thinly cloaked misogynistic group that seeks to perpetuate their goals under the guise of feminism. I find this to be incredibly deceptive and, yes, repugnant.</p>
<p>I think that the propaganda on the FFL website is absolutely disgusting, and blatantly one sided. Just as I would be disgusted by a pro-choice group that did not talk about the risks of (and alternatives to) abortion, I am repulsed by the “stories of women who are mourning”. There are no stories of the countless women who did not regret their abortions - or the women who gave birth when perhaps the most humane and intelligent decision would have been to abort. Believing that other women should be denied the choice because some women inevitably regretted their decision is, to me, the most blatantly anti-feminist opinion possible. Yes, women deserve the right to comprehensive, balanced information (and good support networks, and effective birth control…) but after all is said and done, some women still will want abortions. They need to have this right.</p>
<p>“Commemorating the lives of women lost to abortion” is another cheap political shot. I see no mention of the countless women who have died from illegal abortions (or childbirth). How can they purport to be feminists, acting in the best interest of women, when they present such blatant propaganda? </p>
<p>This is not to say that I disagree with what the FFLs claim to stand for - I, too, think that women should have better support systems (both financially and socially). I think it’s a great tragedy when a woman is forced through eternal circumstances to abort a fetus whom she would, under ideal circumstances, love to raise. They are extremely myopic in their outlook, however, and I adamantly disagree with the quote on the front page about “unplanned joy”. Not all women want to be mothers - many women do not want to be mothers, and it has nothing to do with economic or social pressures. Others do not want to be mothers right now. I know plenty of my peers feel that they would not be emotionally ready to raise a child at this time, or that childbirth/rearing does not fit in with their current life plan - this is not because it would not be economically feasible. </p>
<p>That said, I would like to see what the FFL organization is doing. Are they doing work that actively supports women in achieving their goals? Are they helping to prevent unwanted pregnancy? How are they working towards this? I found nothing on their website which answered these questions. If they are acting in the best interests of women, why not support women without the flagrant propaganda? Why even give such a disgustingly biased portrait of abortions? I’d like to know precisely where their money is going, because as it stands, I’m absolutely repulsed by them. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people say they’re doing something and act in complete opposition to it - I can’t believe the audacity. </p>
<p>Do I think that someone can truly be a feminist and pro-life? I’m torn on this one. I certainly feel that it is possible to be personally pro-life and a feminist, but I don’t think it’s possible to actively try to restrict women’s abortion rights while purporting to be a feminist.</p>
<p>OMG that is a brilliant name for a website- “Feminists for life”. Would be funny if it were not so sad. </p>
<p>Sorry you can’t be feminist and anti-choice. Just not possible. </p>
<p>That is like saying you are Christian and anti-christ.</p>
<p>Vyse said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WOW! Where to start? </p>
<p>First, abortion (or “baby murder” in the statement) is already legal, so any analogy to “legalizing burglary” is false in its inception. Second, to make any sense of this silly analogy, you would have to agrue against making burglary (abortion) legal to make it safer for the burglar (the mom), not the homeowner. Legal abortions are already safe for the mom (and way safer than childbirth), so this analogy falls apart.</p>
<p>Oh, the Ron Paul issue. Giving the abortion issue to the states isn’t going to change anything. That’s the level of government that has the existing laws on abortion. You have to assume that *Roe v. Wade *gets overturned so that the states can constitutionally ban abortions to get any significant changes.</p>
<p>And, the truth in Ron Paul’s position is that it will never result in abortion being outlawed across the United States. Why? Because under Ron Paul’s view it is a state, not federal issue. So, California and Mass (say as examples) would be free to not ban abortions. One state cannot make what the mom does while “visiting” in California or Mass a crime when former-mom returns. So, Ron Paul’s system is pro-choice in effect.</p>
<p>In Texas, we don’t have legalized casino gambling. However, there are gambling boats that leave from Galveston, Texas and the gambling starts just outside the Texas jurisdiction. Abortion is going to be “big business” if it is banned. Abortion junkets just outside state lines.</p>
<p>It still will be grossly unfair that wealthy girls will find it relatively easy to get a safe abortion and poor girls will not. But, I guess that doesn’t matter to pro-lifers.</p>