Pages

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Abortions Will Continue; No Matter What

I wasn't going to address this, but there is a rising hysteria out there and I feel I'd better talk about it now:

Abortions will continue.

There are lots of people running around tearing their hair out over this, but it's more of a publicity stunt for their particular cause, than a reality.

The sad thing is, they're making a lot of other people scared or euphoric over something that isn't possible.

As I said in my earlier post, there are only two types of judges. You can either have someone who:

1. Interprets the Constitution as an historical document (they make rulings based on what the Constitution actually says) or

2. Interprets the Constitution as a nicely written document written in another time, for another set of people, which can be ignored if it doesn't fit in with the times.

Most conservatives like #1, most liberals like #2. The difficulty with #2 is that it results in wild fluctuations in the law, and no stability.

The problem is that Roe V. Wade was decided using #2. So, if you ended up with a conservative court that follows #1, you might end up with Roe V. Wade being overturned. However, that's not as scary as it sounds to liberals. Here's why:

If Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, it would be simply because it is an issue that needs to be decided by the states. Some states would then OK abortion and some wouldn't. So if a girl in Georgia wouldn't be allowed an abortion according to Georgia law, she'd just cross the border into Florida and have one there.

Let's face it: for good or bad, abortions have become a part of our society these last 30 years. Many people see it as a right. Abortions will continue; no matter what.

45 comments:

blondie said...

Phew.

Tabasamu said...

I am very opposed to abortion. It is a matter of convenience, that has created the genocide of millions of black babies. I feel that abortion is not so much a matter of women's rights, as it is a tool to keep the welfare rolls down.

Let me be clear... I don't live on welfare and I don't approve of those who do.

bananarama said...

Ewww. This is a yucky subject because everyone gets so uptight about it. So I won't weigh in one way or the other... but I WILL say that what you posted was interesting, Saur - because I don't know anything about the supreme court, really.

Anonymous said...

I don't really care what they do with Roe v. Wade. We, as individuals still have the right NOT to choose an abortion. But I do think it is sick that abortion is treated as just another method of birth control and it can be preached from the pulpit of Planned Parenthood.

Jen said...

Read your comment at the jevanking blog and made my way over here to see your post on the abortion issue. Very well thought out post, and I agree with your interpretation of the constitution issue, however, I must respectfully point out that the state issue was at the very forefront of the Roe decision. Roe lived in Texas, where abortion was illegal. She could have travelled to a neighboring state where abortion was legal to obtain one. However, she was poor and without the means to do so. So in this case, abortion would be limited to the privileged who could afford to travel around to get one. While this is still better than nothing at all, it limits the freedom of those who aren't wealthy. In my comment I said we shouldn't be expecting a complete 180, i.e. Roe overturned completely. But as in the Planned Parenthood and Harris cases, rulings were handed down that began limiting who could have an abortion, when they could have it, who would pay for it, who had to consent, etc. These are the setbacks I'm referring to when I speak of minorities who should be concerned - not only women, but especially those who are not well off.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Jen,

True, but then we have to deal with the question: is abortion a right? If it is considered to be a constitutionally guaranteed right, then it would continue to be federally protected. If it is not considered to be a right, then it will be remanded to the states.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Oh this old 'red button' issue!

I don't really want to wade in as abortion doesn't get the heckles going in Europe, we believe that a woman can do what she wishes with her body; call us old fashioned.

I bemuses me why it's so hot in the US, is it becasue you're a Nation of born again Christians?

Saur♥Kraut said...

Daniel,

Well, we're definately not a nation of born again Christians, so let's dismiss that assumption.

And it's not old fashioned to be pro abortion in England, since England actually was one of the first countries to ban abortions in the late 1800s. It wasn't legalized till 1967 there. And apparently it's still a hot topic over there, too, according to the many articles on line that are published by The Times (London).

But if you're pro-abortion, all you have to do is simply state that.

I am not blogging about whether we should be pro or anti abortion, just about whether or not abortion will be abolished. And I'm sure it won't be completely abolished, though it may be modified here in the states.

jason said...

God, Daniel, you're git! You go into this blog and Polanco's blog and deliberately try to enflame the situations. What the hell is wrong with you? Aren't your arguments good enough on their own without lying, distorting, and trying to get everyone p*ssed off?

Saur♥Kraut said...

Jason,

If Daniel is having a bad day and trying to inflame things, then you won't help by provoking him any further. Give him a moment to back up and reflect before you jump down his throat... I realize you mean well, but it isn't helpful. ;o)

Anonymous said...

I would like to compliment Daniel. In all the posts I have read by him, he has yet to bash his country once. I'm guessing that he is slightly amused at how easily the "yanks" roll over for more. Way to go Daniel. You have hit on something.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Anonymous,

I didn't quite understand that last post. Are you saying that Daniel is better than most Americans because he doesn't speak negatively of his country?

If so, then I have many Brits for friends that do speak negatively of their country. Not all citizens can agree all the time (and isn't this the root of democracy? Healthy dissent?)

Anonymous said...

Saur, check out Daniel's site today.

Happy 4th.

Saur♥Kraut said...

I already did, and posted. I was a bit confused as to whether he was saying that all those people deserved to die on 9/11. But, thanks for the heads up!

Dan said...

The bigger debate all too often overlooked in the debate about abortion is not about abortion itself but about privacy, and whether a government, any government, has the privilege to tell you what you can do in your home, with your own body, i.e. can the government ban the use of contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut), can the government make gay relationships illegal (Lawrence v. Texas). There are bigger issues here. Somewhere, there's a fine line over which government should not be allowed to cross. I'm not going to say where that line is or should be. I only ask that when you debate abortion, take a moment to put aside the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong, moral or murder, and think about where you are asking for that line to be drawn (if the line even exists afterwards!) and whether you are comfortable with the consequences.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Dan,

An excellent point, and thank you for your contribution!

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Jason! This is not trolling or trying to inflame the issue, its my opinion so please get used to it.

Saur, abortion is a non-issue in the UK and that's not based on the media it's based on living here.

Stand by what I said, the obsession with abortion seems to be centred in a Christian world view.

As for my site I'll answer your question over there.

Take care!

Saur♥Kraut said...

Daniel,

Well...fairly said! But wouldn't you agree that there are many other faiths that are also anti-abortion?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

No doubt but I have little truck with faith of any sort.

and woe betide anyone who tires to bring religion into governence.

Not on my watch.

Anonymous said...

Daniel said - "Saur, abortion is a non-issue in the UK and that's not based on the media it's based on living here."

There are many in the US who oppose abortion or are not sure about abortion. Many faiths are involved in the opposition and there are even those who claim no faith. This country has issues with abortion (the taking of life) and this observation is based on living here. I am suprised that the UK has not discussion about an issue that has such moral consequence. Very interesting.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I think it comes down to faith.

The majority of people in the US believe in a God, I think the rate is up in the high 80s% with most being Christians.

In the UK the rate of faith is 40% with a similar perecentage of Christians, roughly 70%

Anonymous said...

Daniel, the answer is somewhat disturbing. I am not one the think that people of faith are the only ones to tackle such ethical and moral issues. What you are indicating is that because the majority population of the UK has no religious faith, there is no debate about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. Hard to fathom. Nothing to say about abortion as a form of birth control? No opinion about late term abortions? Not a word about when does life really begin? I would expect discussions about these questions in a civilized country that has a rich tradition of philosophical debate. What sort of apathy has penetrated the British culture? Americans are not apathetic people. In America you will always find debate. I suppose it is part of what gets us into trouble, but a big part of what keeps our country healthy.

SaurĂ¢™¥Kraut said...

Fascinating debate and contributions, thank you very much. I would jump in now, but I don't dare. My schedule is appallingly busy right now.

Kathleen said...

Saur, with the invention of the sonogram, the debate has even become more difficult. It is harder to debate the practice of late-term abortions when nearly every parent in America has been taking pictures of their children at numerous developmental stages while still in the womb. Very hard to trivialize the viability of a fetus (human being)with the huge medical leaps made in saving the lives of these short-term infants.

This is not an easy subject, but a serious moral debate about the value of life itself.

Daniel, I hope the citizens of the UK have not become so apathetic as to relegate this important issue to the dark corners as being not relevant. Religious faith is not the issue. Good people are not required by religion to consider moral matters.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Anon: When I say that it is a non-issue what I mean is that it garners none of the frothy mouthed hysteria it seems to generate in the US.

To use shorthand the issue is 'done'. It has been considered and a common sense attitude is in place, it's not apathy but a knowing sense of having a forward thinking attitude a woman making her own decision about her own body. What pisses me off is this glib assumption that women what the damn thing sucked out and to carry on f**king.

Having worked with young women making such decisions the proecdures are in place so that the decision is not made lightly.

Good grief. Leave a woman alone to make a decision about her body and her child.

May I add that abortion as contraception is a right-wing urban myth (I spent many years working with young mums, young women pregnant etc) and nothing to fear as long as sex education is good; ie: not trying to save your flower but use protection.

Moreover, we have ample laws in place to deal with late-term abortions. Up to that point an abortion is a seriously considered act.

Sorry but if a woman has got pregnant and doesn't want the child I respect her decision as a human to have an abortion.

Anonymous said...

Daniel, your assumption that the discussion of abortion as a form of birth control is a "right-wing urban myth" is way off. That discussion has seriously taken place in all political arenas in the U.S. There is alarming statistical data that indicates some women are having numerous abortions.

What I am really interested in is the apparent concensus about the abortion issue that your country has reached. I guess I want to understand how the citizens of the UK arrived at a place where the debate about human existence has been resolved. Please, give us some details. I cannot envision all the citizens of this country agreeing that abortion is ok.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

No its not way off, if any politician is wasting their time on such a crass discussion then they are pandering to wing nuts. And if a woman wants more than one, frankly so what?

Abortion numbers are falling in the US, currently 16 per 1000 women. But the issue, a classic 'red button' is used for political gain and to stir up the Bush fan base and to get the Dems all confused.

If some UK politician made the (as Michael Howard did) mistake of bringing it up at an election he'd be laughed out of town. Abortion is ok (as you put it) in the UK. HURRAH!

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

PS: the UK is currently 17 per 1000.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps in the UK abortion is not treated as a method of birth control, but here in the US teens are taught about abortion right along side the other methods. I dare you to walk onto any high school campus and ask several teen girls what they would do if they got pregnant and you'd walk out with a different perspective.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Well...*sigh* I wasn't going to make my stand in this post, because the post was about whether or not abortion would continue, and not whether or not it is wise to have it continue.

I will say this much:

We all need to be very careful to realize that abortion itself is not a standard birth control method. It doesn't prevent pregnancy - it stops it.

So the question then becomes not a birth control question. It becomes this: Is it OK for a woman to terminate a pregnancy at will? And if so, at what point?

My thoughts are simple. Continued growth connotes life: Grass - alive. Rocks - not alive. Puppies - alive.

The moment that the sperm hits the egg, growth begins and we see continual meiosis. Thus, we realize that this thing is alive, no matter how small it is, or if it contains fully formed organs or not.

The question then is, should this life be equivalent to human life? I have heard it argued that a fetus is not a baby until it has fully formed organs, or until it could survive outside the uterus. I say, why take that chance?

And, if there is a god, and we are spiritual creatures that are more than mere meat, why anger him by destroying life?

I have also heard it said (by people who believe that we are no better than the animals) that an abortion should be of no more consequence than the slaughter of a cow for hamburgers.

However, I would also then ask "what price humanity?" Are we truly willing to say we are no better than the animals? If so, I hope that we are prepared to become total vegans.

I suppose that it could be argued that simply because we are mentally superior doesn't mean we are spiritually superior. But even if there is no god, should we really look upon the taking of a life lightly? Because, make no mistake about it, a fetus is obviously a human life. If we are OK with a mother killing her unborn baby, then are we OK with her killing a newborn, a 3 year old, or a 12 year old?

And thus I (who was once pro-abortion) have come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

May I direct you to this excellent post on the matter here: http://burnedoutparanoiddemocrat.blogspot.com/2005/07/ask-mister-reproductive-rights-person.html but I'll quote the last bit:

Response: Excuse me, but are you planning on picketing fertilization clinics anytime soon?

Statement: "Err..umm..what?"

Response: Fertilization clinics. You know--where couples who have trouble conceiving go through an in vitro process to get pregnant.

Statement: "I know what a fertilization clinic is. Why should I picket one? They're creating life, not killing babies!"

Response: Well, they're doing a little of both, actually. What do you think happens at these places? Do you think the doctor introduces Harry the Sperm with Sally the Unfertized Egg, leaves the two together in a room with candlelight and Barry White playing on the stereo, and lets the mood of the evening carry on? No, the doc puts Harry, along with Barry, Larry, Perry, Gary, and six or seven hundred thousand of their spermatozoon relations together with Sally and several dozen of her closest ovoid kin for a get-together of micro-bacchanalian proportions. It's an orgy in pyrex. And this takes place repeatedly over the months that the couple is trying to concieve. Once conception occurs, the clinic is now saddled with a hundred or so 'lives' for each couple. What do you think they're doing with those fertilized eggs? They're not enrolling them in preschool, that's for sure.

Jessica said...

I agree with Daniel that Christianity colors how and why Americans discuss abortion. It is the number one reason why the Christian Coalition exists as a political machine to reckon with. Maybe "we" as a nation are not all born-again Christians, but our presidents are.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be more than inconvenient. Abortions should be "safe, legal, and never." Banning abortion in any state would have a profound impact on our children, who lack any form of sex education in the schools, and among those who are most needy, like victims of rape and domestic violence. Of course this is a moral issue.

Anonymous said...

Well, if it makes you feel any better - I don't picket abortion clinic. And I don't agree with many of the "infertility treatment" methods, including the scenario you listed above. I believe we should stop messing with life as if we have the right to create it and kill it.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Daniel,

This is an excellent point and you are completely correct. Which is why, believe it or not, I am opposed to most in vitro fertilization. Not many people see this angle.

Jessica,

Well, that's OK! We'll just agree to disagree. We can't agree on everything.

However, be careful whom you decide to annoint as a 'christian.' So often people use the term 'christian' generically, which is why the term 'born again christian' was coined. But then that term was appropriated by the Christian fundamentalists and so people who are spiritual and practice christianity find that they have no terms that truly describe what they believe.

But, don't buy for a minute that George Bush is a Christian. He is no more Christian than Mahatma Ghandi was. He merely uses it as a tool to entice the gullible to fall in with his platform.

kathleen said...

I don't feel that I can judge the depth of belief in or relationship any person has with their higher power. I think that George Bush is a sincere Christian. I believe that Bin Ladin is a sincere Muslim.

Saur, I lean toward your belief about abortion. I appreciate the thought you have given this issue. If everyone gave this and other important moral issues as much thought we would see abortion statistics fall significantly.

Thanks for the discussion.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Kathleen,

Thanks! Welcome to the blog, btw. I see that you're getting more involved!

Kathleen said...

I am slowly getting more involved. I am just so, so busy. I really like the information and most of the discussion. I love your blog.

Lee said...

Love to get my thoughts in on this issue as I just left a comment on another site about this- many things have to be taken into account-first-if birth control would be taught an given to sexually active persons instead of allowing certain groups to stop it-that in itself would help-then you have the teens who are leaving their newborns [which at that point whith out a doubt is a human being] and literally 'throwing' them in dumpsters who I am sure if htey had the chance to have an abortion may not have done it. Lastly if they ever decided at this point to prevent abortions, women of all ages form everywhere would come out on droves and there would be a uproar unlike anything ever seen. It is a quick thought, but I wnated to add to the debate. Like your site, take care all, priorities/lee

Lee said...

p-s do not mind my spelling-problem with hand sand eyes-lee

Saur♥Kraut said...

Hi Lee, and welcome. I think you'd be surprised to find that abortion is not a simple "woman's issue" that would cause women to protest in droves (I picture women arriving in the Capital like Dawn of the Dead). There are many women that are opposed to abortion. You definately would> see an uproar, though, no doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that the possibility is for the Supremes to pass it back to the states.

Secondly, I don't know of any groups that are actually able to prevent knowledge of birth control methods in these times. I don't think there is one soul left in America that doesn't know about AIDS and how it spreads. I also am pretty certain that everyone over the age of 12 understands what condoms are.

Thanks for the input, though! Don't take this as discouraging your opinions.

Lee said...

Hi,-no, I am never discouraged-I see some of your points, now let's try to figure out why 'children' 'throw' their newborns in dumpsters, and what could be sone to prevent that. I live in the NYC/NJ area and this is so sad and more common than you think. Take care, priorities/lee

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lee,

I've been looking over your blog, BTW. I like it! I think the reason that girls throw their babies in dumpsters is because they believe they can get away with it, pure and simple. It's the easy way out. You don't have to tell Mom and Dad that you're pregnant (I am always amazed at how they can conceal this from their parents - I showed right away when *I* was pregnant!).

However, it seemed to be a fad that's fading away. Yeah, believe it or not, I think there are 'fads' like this. If a young girl sees enough press on throwing away newborns in dumpsters, she may decide it could work for her.

I haven't heard much of it happening any more. And, there are now new laws (at least in the state of Florida - I can't remember if it's Federal or not) that say that if a baby is left with a church or a charity, no one will try to find out who the parents are. This way the girl can keep her anonymity and not be punished for her decision that she can't keep the baby.

Lee said...

Glad you stopped by my site-always adding to it-Actually it is not a 'fad' unfortunately, at least not in the NYC and NJ area. Such a pity. One girl was abused by her own Father and it was his baby -she knew she could'nt tell him, and her Mother did'nt believe her about the abuse. That is isolated but still not the only time. She felt she had no one to turn too- so embarrassed, and ashamed [because he made her feel that way] and gave birth prematurely, and desperate, I supppose she felt she had no other choice. So many people feel teens should talk to teachers, or other adults if their parents are involved or if they feel they would be harmed if they told, but teens do not always feel they can trust them. Anyway enough on that subject for now-it can be debated forever! take care,priorities/Lee

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lee,

Good points. I think we need to make sure teens understand that they can talk in confidence to certain people or groups, and get the help they need there if they can't find support at home.

Dr Guitar said...

Didn't read all of the responses, but to me, the statement "abortions will continue" could certainly not be truer, and it means whether they remain legal or not. As long as people have unplanned pregnancies some will seek to terminate them. That's either under a doctor's care or with Lysol or some other chemical concoction, or by other extreme and unhealthy methods.