Would you be OK with a ban on abortion if

[TheFarseer]

Poll question: Would you be OK with a ban on abortion if

all women had an irrevocable right to government provided birth control AND an exception to the abortion ban if birth control failed or the life of the mother was in danger and other extenuating circumstances if I forgot any.

[bearfan454]

1. Never !

A woman can do whatever she wants with her own body, no matter what the pukes want.

[Hosnon]

12. I gotta disagree and at the same time pray that I don't start a

flame war. Roe v. Wade deals with the issue of balancing the privacy of the woman with the state's duty to protect all of its citizens.

At some point the blob of cells is a citizen and therefore the state has a duty to at least engage the issue.

I don't want to give women the ABSOLUTE right to have an abortion just as I don't want to give the government the ABSOLUTE right to say that women can't. As always, the most reasonable route probably is within the gray area between the two extremes.

[Karenina]

35. Your language reveals your stance...

"I don't want to *give* women the ABSOLUTE right to..." Self-determination? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Women control reproduction as their bodies are involved. It is axiomatic that when that basic biological fact is recognized, societies benefit. There is nothing "extreme" about a woman making an unimpeded choice.

[Hosnon]

37. This is where we will have to probably disagree. Roe v. Wade

acknowledges that the state at some point has an interest in the life of the child because it is the state's responsibility to protect its citizens. It is just as unreasonable to say that a fetus is not a person until it physically exits the womb as it is to say that a blob of cells is a person. (On edit: A better example is that it is just as unreasonable...as it is to say that a fetus is a person once the sperm fuses with the egg.)

Women have a right to self-determination; we all have a right to self-determination. However, no one has an absolute right to self-determination. That right ends where another's right to self-determination begins - which is an important aspect of Roe.

Regarding my language: I believe you are referring to my use of the word "give." Were I in court I would agree that such parsing of a word is reasonable but not in everyday discourse. We can talk about theoretical Rights that are inalienable but the people of each country must work to ensure they exist in reality. I didn't mean to imply that I personally can give or take rights - I meant that the Constitution performs that function in our country for all practical purposes and that I don't want we as a people to give such an absolute right to women.

[Karenina]

40. I no longer have a dog in this fight...

I'm an old lady who fought for our rights decades ago and as such have limited patience for paternalistic froth. I'm THRILLED and DELIGHTED to live in a place where abortion is a private decision between a woman, her medical practitioners and those SHE chooses to involve in the discussion. Public discourse is considered CRASS.

I check in occasionally to see if you Amis have found a clue and am always disappointed.

1. Women are capable of making correct decisions.
2. NO CHILD need come into this world unwanted by its mother.
3. Societies fare better when women control their reproduction.

[calimary]

41. Where do you live, Karenina? Sounds like a great place - at least

for women. Too bad it isn't here.

Like you, I now no longer have a dog in this fight either. But my daughter does. And many of my girlfriends aren't quite my age, either and could still get pregnant. And of course, all my daughter's friends and my son's female friends...

I've fought this fight, too. I'm old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. I've told this story here before, so apologies if it's boring, but my late father-in-law, who was an MD, once told us about finding a young woman by the side of the road, bleeding to death. He put her in his car and drove her to the hospital, thereby saving her life. She was hemmorhaging from an illegal, coathanger-style abortion. He said that's what motivated him to favor safe and legal abortions.

Besides, no newborn should be unwanted. Nor should any newborn be found, wrapped up in plastic or a sheet or something and dumped in a trash dumpster. Which will happen far more frequently in the future if we lose Roe v Wade. You can take that to the bank.

Sigh... it's HORRIBLE to live in a country where you feel like your "leaders" are against you, and everything you regard as important. Like privacy rights. Like clean air. Like clean water. Like open, pristine wilderness with no oil drilling, McDonalds, mini-malls or other business exploitation. Like the right not to have somebody else's idea of morality shoved down your throat (or up your vagina, as the case may be).

[Hosnon]

42. Your efforts are definitely worthy of respect.

I respect what you have done. However I'm not quite sure what you are labeling 'paternalistic froth.' What I have said stems from Roe v. Wade because it makes excellent sense.

At some point in the pregnancy, the decision becomes more than just the mother's. Roe v. Wade acknowledges this and I think it is a reasonable statement.

Regarding your points:

1) I agree completely - I don't know anyone who says/believes otherwise.
2) I disagree - I don't know any adopted children but I'm sure there are many who were not wanted by their mothers but are glad to be alive.
3) I can tacitly agree with this but it seems like a sociological conclusion which I know little about and have never seen positive or negative proof regarding its truth.

I apologize if we have disappointed you but at some point the issue concerns two people, not just one.

[Karenina]

58. Paternalistic froth

is men posting polls about women's sovereignty over their own bodies being offered up on the altar of male control. *Look* at what has happened in Iraq.

If you have no experience or connexion to adoption, adoptees, birth parents and the quagmire that it can be, I would respectfully ask you to hold your uniformed counsel.

Perhaps, you are willing to educate yourself about women's roles in the cohesion of society. Your post reveals an appalling ignorance on the subject.

Got any kids??? Your concerns read most vicarious. :shrug:

[Hosnon]

93. I would prefer that I not be held accountable for the errant actions

of other males throughout the world.

As to my experience with adoption, etc.: I admit that I have little to no experience on the subject but I don't think that that precludes me from saying that it is an almost certainty that not all children born from mothers that did not want them wish they had not been born. Yes it may make aspects of life extremely difficult but not every child born from a mother that did not want him/her has committed suicide.

It does not seem to me that my post reveals any ignorance on my part as to women's roles in the cohesion of society. However, I do admit to my ignorance as to whether or not societies are better or worse when women control their reproduction.

And no, no kids.

I want to try to remain civil and I believe I am doing so. I would appreciate the same (perhaps turn down the condescending tone).

Edit: S/G

[Karenina]

101. Sorry, Sweetiekins

You get to my age, having personally faced and dealt with these life-altering issues, raised kids (older than you are), lived abroad, learned and forgotten half a dozen languages, dealt with men's default sense of superiority IN DOZENS OF CULTURES, patience with wet-behind-the-ears young males begins to fray. Surely you have met older women down there in Ole Miss who simply speak their minds. ;-)

You write well and are obviously intelligent and educated.
If you are interested in your OWN GROWTH rather than parroting your default programming, you would do well to read Maimonides. "Teach your tongue to say, I DO NOT KNOW, and you will progress."

WOMEN CONTROL REPRODUCTION. When men attempt to control women's reproduction DEATH AND CARNAGE ARE THE RESULT.

I read some time back of a South American Indian tribe that believed it took 3 men to impregnate a woman. SHE got to choose. Every pregnancy was celebrated by "high-fives" amongst the men. The children were born into a culture where the "sensitive types" attended to infants, the "playful types" ran around with the toddlers, the "prof types" taught the ways of the tribe, the "spiritual types" passed on their knowledge and the "warrior types" taught the protection of their culture. DAMN that modern technology!

[Hosnon]

102. Think nothin' of it, Pookie

I can understand your frustration with men my age but it does little good to anyone to jump to a conclusion about someone. Internet discussions can be difficult because the only form of expression is written word (which I think is the main reason for flame wars...there are no disarming chuckles or facial expressions on a message board).

And I'm working on building my travel/language portfolio. Speak Portuguese and a little French and have been to Brazil and am off to Quebec tomorrow.

I guess I need to update or elaborate my profile. I went to undergrad at UGA in Athens which is a quite liberal place. I'm back in GA for the summer but do attend grad school in Mississippi. So I don't really know any older women in Mississippi like that but I know quite a few in Georgia.

And thank you for the recommendation. I got my degree in Philosophy and have always held as one of my basic principles: I know that I do not know, a la Socrates. I will check out this Maimonides individual.

I don't do much parroting of a default program. I was definitely not raised in a traditional household and my parents were proactive in letting their kids' opinions develop as independently as is possible.

My view is consistent with that expressed in Roe: it is the choice of the mother and/or father up to a certain point at which the government has an interest to protect a citizen.

Perhaps things do work better if the female has absolute control over reproduction but that seems to run parallel to the line of thinking I often hear that a family works better with the man in charge or marriage works better with one man and one woman. It just doesn't seem that the rights of an individual, say the father, can be disregarded because the system works better to exclude them.

So now that we know each other a bit better maybe we can continue the discussion...I find that if you whittle away at a disagreement long enough there is either no fundamental disagreement, just a failure to communicate, or there is an important fundamental disagreement, one which probably can't be resolved.

:hi:

[Karenina]

103. That's "Tante Pookie" to you, Babykins!

I graciously accept the handle as long as my honorific precedes it! ;-)
You are correct that we are all somewhat disabled in our communications online as the greater part is non-verbal. Nonetheless, we are up to the task and must simply do our best.

The only conclusions I "jumped to" were that I'd come across a thoughtful, very intelligent, inexperienced, 20-something, white male. Forgive my default assumptions, but having been younger than, older than and mother to, I trust my instincts. That makes you MY KID too, like it or not. :evilgrin: :hug:

What I would ask you to examine IS your "default programming." Please google TIM WISE, he is someone who really "gets it." It's like spyware. You don't even realize it's there until your programs start crashing.

The State has NO INTEREST in a woman's personal decisions about her body UNLESS it has an agenda for its "potential" citizens. Are you familiar with the history of Germany or Romania?

When we speak of "protecting citizens" does that include those who have fought wars for TPTB and their families? Does that include ensuring clean air, water, food and shelter, education, artistic expression, health care, social cohesion, respect for the social contracts, protection, infrastucture on all levels, physical and psychic for the living and breathing? If a woman perceives that these preconditions are NOT IN PLACE and does NOT want to bring a child into the current morass, SHOULD SHE BE FORCED TO? WHO BENEFITS? Think about it and please get back to me.

[BoneDaddy]

94. all or none

Please stop making the war in Iraq to blame MEN. I know a great deal of men who support women's right over their bodies and who were against the war. Their are plenty of women who drive around in "soccer mom" vehicles sporting their support for the war and who are vehemently against abortion.

Please refrain from making global statements about gender. I agree with the horrible effects of paternalism, but ALL men do not think this way.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[roguevalley]

48. until men get pregnant, then it IS the woman's right to absolute power

in this matter. NO ONE ELSE!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

81. Really?

Do people who don't possess a driver's licenses have the right to say that other people can't drive more 25 mph in school zones? Do people who don't have children have no right to demand that child abuse be a crime? While I support a woman's right to choose her own biological destiny, the argument that women can trump the rule of law because they possess a uterus is patent nonsense.

[Andromeda]

85. Yes, and until you grow a uterus

and can get pregnant keep your hands and your opinions about MY body to yourself!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. Doesn't work that way...

and until we rewrite the rules of basic democratic government, it will never work that way. I wish you and your uterus the best of luck.

[Hosnon]

91. I agree with Jeff in post #81

Rules and regulations for a certain class don't necessarily and aren't decided only by the members of that class.

If that were the case, the law-making functions of the government would have to be splintered into as many subsets as there are different types of individuals.

The important criterion is adequate rational capacity, not any particular physical characteristic.

[dhinojosa]

100. HOLY SHIT! WELL PUT....

and I'm a man, well a progressive one. :)

[Andromeda]

86. Do you have an absolute right to your penis?

Do you want somebody telling you where you can put it? No? Then stop telling women what they can and can't do with their uterus's.

Women have ABSOLUTE sovereignty over their bodies and all it's parts. THAT includes anything that may be growing inside of it.

The government and YOU have no right to tell a woman that she has to have a child because somebody with a penis says so.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

88. No, I don't.

There are any number of laws that I can violate by putting my penis in places where it shouldn't be.

[Hosnon]

92. Nope:

I know plenty of people who I could offend and would want to have me thrown in jail if I exercised an absolute sovereignty over my body.

And I don't think anyone said that the fact that a man has a penis makes him able to tell a woman what to do with her child - that responsibility would, if it does exist, grow out of the duty that the government has in protecting its citizens.

[tishaLA]

99. An embryo is NOT a citizen

I am unaware of any court ever upholding that silly notion. Where do you get this stuff?

[Hosnon]

105. Ah, but I didn't say that an embryo is a citizen

At some point it becomes one. Perhaps I should have clarified. Some cases in the 1950's began to evolve the definition of a person because individuals were getting away with killing an infants while they were still in their mother's womb.

Edit: And sorry for the delayed respone...didn't see your post down there:)

[xxqqqzme]

2. medical procedure - no legislation required

n't

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. ?Banned unless it is not-banned?

When would this actually ban anything?
Saying you can't get one unless you are pregnant would be just about the same wouldn't it?

[TheFarseer]

6. I just didn't want a wave of people telling me

people can be on the pill and still get pregnant. Just because people had a right to birth control doesn't mean everyone would get it. I had considered that half the bush voters are too stupid to use the pill but, hey nothing is perfect - not even this poll.

[TriMetFan]

4. As a women I wouldn't tell another women

what she can do with her body even though I'm against abortion. This is something that is between a women and her God and no one has the right to tell her what she can do with her body. I think they need to come up with some form of birth control for men.

[Rambis]

5. I will answer as John Kerry did

Personally, I do not agree with abortion but and I am not going to tell a 13 year old girl who was raped by her father or stepfather or brother whatever the case may be that she has to notify her abuser that she is going to have an abortion or force her to have a child.

[Totally Committed]

26. When I was a Junior in High School, my best friend

got pregnant the night of the Prom. She loved her boyfriend (they had been next-door neighbors and sweethearts since they were kids. After college, they already knew they wanted to get married.)

But, her father was the mayor of our town... and a devout Roman Catholic. She was convinced she couldn't tell him or her mother, so she went into Boston and got an illegal abortion in a backroom of a filthy butcher shop (I'm not kidding...). She died from that abortion.

Since that day, I have made it one of my absolute goals in life to make sure that abortion is legal and contraception is available for everyone who is sexually active. Whether or not the woman or girl became pregnant through a loving relationship, a casual relationship, rape, or incest should make no difference. The CHOICE should be there. And it should be LEGAL. Not every woman or girl will choose abortion. But, the choice should be between her, her doctor, and her God (if she is a believer).

By not giving women sentient freedom of choice, we as a society, are telling them they are not trusted to make the "right" decision. We are less equal than males, and we are 52% of the population. I raised five kids. Three were girls. I have nine granchildren and five step-grandchildren, and the girls are coming of age. I will not give an inch on this. Not one inch. Kerry's answer did not go far enough. Whether or not he belives in abortion is beside the point. It's the law of the land, and he should support it and defend it for all his female constituents. White WASP men should not be the ones deciding or commenting on what a woman decides to do with her reproductive system. Actually, no man should.


TC

[Pool Hall Ace]

7. Under what circumstance would a woman get an abortion

other than her birth control failing, or her health was compromised?

Not OK with any ban.

[TheFarseer]

9. none others that I could think of in my hypothetical world

but I know many people on here are creative!

I'm just trying to find a compromise on the most un-uncompromisable issue ever. I've posted a few polls searching for one over the last year+ and haven't found much encouragement for my dream of a compromise to make this issue go away.

on edit - I must say this is my most unrealistic idea yet. Clearly I am grasping at straws.

[Mass]

38. A lot of reasons

- rape or incest for a beginning
- extreme difficulties that do not allow a person to think they can rais e a child at a moment of their age (economic difficulties, mental difficulties, ...)
- and probably a lot of other reasons that I do not imagine right now.

I am sorry, but for me, women (and as often as possible the person that shares their life) are the ones to make the choice.

Any other solutions means that the society considers women as totally irresponsible and monsters.

[HockeyMom]

10. My Aunt had one at 45

The so called change of life pregnancy. She was a grandmother and didn't want any more kids. By the way, this happened back when abortion was illegal. She paid her OB/GYN to say she had a heart condition and pregancy would endanger her life.

Women with the money and connections had no problem getting an abortion then. It was the POOR who went to the coat hangers and quacks.

[Coexist]

89. Have you seen Vera Drake?

What a great movie for pointing out the differences in how wealthy women and poor women have to live with vastly different health care choices.

[Totally Committed]

31. Rape or incest... n/t

TC

[shraby]

8. Never go back and this is coming from

a 63 yr. old gramma.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

14. lmao

So, can we stop this stupid fucking war that I am paying for?

Oh, and welcome to DU, yadda yadda yadda...

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

21. Well, I think you're wrong. The RW fundie women-hating scumbags

want control.

"It is, for the most part anyway, a 100% preventable procedure."

I take it you are against abortion? Or are you against women? Or against taxes? Or against medical procedures in general?

Also...who did you vote for?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

33. "you should find a different place to live" lmao, that almost sounds like

some other folks I know! :eyes:

I think we are at about 20% RW scumbags at this point. There are a bunch of Americans who don't know enough about the REAL issues, and vote against their self-interest (but at least kweers ain't getting married!).

"against the feminazi divorce lawyers"

Whoa, feminazi? Where you from again? :rofl:

ENJOY YOUR STAY!

[BlackVelvet04]

39. Feminazis??????

You didn't vote? I find it hard to care what the opinion is of someone who can't be bothered to vote.

[TheFarseer]

59. I think I know what he said eventhough the message was deleted

they always argue about their tax dollars when it's something they don't want - that usually costs peanuts and pays in the long run. Somehow flushing a trillion dollars down the toilet for an illegal war that half of us didn't want is just fine. That's the top reason my compromise won't work, because they would never go for it either. You start to wonder if God puts a dollar under every fundy wacko's pillow for each baby born in America.

[Pathwalker]

18. Then, I don't want my tax dollars spent on WAR!

Or salaries of Rrepublican Office holders, or "faith-based" ANYTHING, or the military, or the DEA, ... getting the idea, yet?

[Coexist]

90. I agree - I am sick of hearing about pro-lifers not wanting their

tax dollars spent on sex education and stem cell research. I don't want any more of my damn tax money spent on this war.

[ComerPerro]

13. No, and only because I think that birth control would be hard to get still

I have a feeling the fundies would bomb pharmacies that distribute birth control pills, and you will find pharmacists who refuse to distribute it based on religious reasons. Hell, the latter already happens.

And, to me, its a moot point, because something like this would never pass.

Imagine asking red staters to pay for birth control with their taxpayer money.

I know, I know, its bullshit, but that's how the GOP would spin it.

[bunny planet]

15. Hell no.

[genius]

16. My concern is for teenaged girls and rape victims.

A ban could not based on reality or human actions but would necessarily be arbitrary and uncaring.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Better Question - If it swept Repubs from power?

Would people be accepting of the temporary overturning of Roe V. Wade if: It lead to the Dems controlling congress and the executive for the next 40 years?

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I'm with Clinton on this.. keep it legal, make it rare.

[union_maid]

22. No

I don't deny the seriousness of the abortion issue, or the moral dilemma that it can present, especially after the first few weeks. However, this is not a decision that's appropriate for the government to be making. No law can ever take in the various issues that a woman might have to deal with. The government should do its best to encourage the use of birth control and family planning and then stay out of it.

[Totally Committed]

23. Over my dead body!

No way, no how, never surrender!

TC

[McCamy Taylor]

24. This isnt Germany. This is the USA. We dont tolerate paternalism here.

[flaminbats]

27. If every circumstance was identical..why even have a court system?

men should be the last ones to decide when abortion does or doesn't occur, but we're only a single justice away from again having an all male Supreme Court.

[Talismom]

28. Forget it! Now way are we going to hand over control over our bodies!n/t

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Would you be OK with forced castration for political reasons?

If not, then don't even post this shit

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Too complicated

First of all, contraception is not 100% fool-proof. Any woman who is sexually active has to be aware of that fact.

If contraception failed, poor women would be in the back alleys or poking themselves with knitting needles, just like in the old days.

The rich would always find a doctor who would swear up and down that the woman's life was in danger. Or else they would fly to Europe, which is what they did in the late 1960s.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. i would be ok with an abortion ban as long as

men could become pregnant. AND become pregnant as a result of rape.
And be called 'welfare kings' for having children without having jobs that can keep up with inflation and oil prices while the 'rich' vote against raising the minimum wage.

[gkhouston]

34. turn the question on its head:

would you be okay with the government forcing women to have abortions under certain circumstances?

Once you yield to the principle that women don't have a right to privacy which includes making their own reproductive choices, banning abortion and mandating abortion are merely two sides of the same coin.

How do you feel about those questions now?

[roguevalley]

51. Force no one. Its a damned choice. No one has the right to make

it for someone else. Ever. Period.

[gkhouston]

55. Oh, believe me, I agree with you.

But I never cease to be amazed that the people who are so intent on taking away our right to choose fail to realize that by doing so they would establish a precedent that would make it easy, further down the road, for a different assortment of nutjobs to mandate the very thing they're seeking to ban. Perhaps they think that could never happen, but it does in China.

[TheFarseer]

62. I actually would be OK with that

If a woman is somehow completely unable to take care of the child (maybe she is severely retarded and was raped for example) I wouldn't have a problem with that. I have alot of views on reproduction that many people wouldn't like - none of them have to do with taking away a woman's right to choose. My stance on abortion is identical to John Kerry's.

[Dulcinea]

36. Absolutely not.

Parenthood is a tough job & should be VOLUNTARY.

Women should be the bosses of what goes into & comes out of their uteruses, not old men in Washington or Rome.

Dulcinea
mother of 2

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

44. Omigawd, are you saying abstinence works?!?!?!?!?!

Holy fuck, where have I hear THAT bullshit before!!! :rofl:

Oh, and welcome to DU, yadda yadda yadda... :eyes:

[OneTwentyoNine]

45. 5...4...3..2..1 n/t

[GracieM]

50. lol

[brook]

46. Never.

This should never have become politicized - nor would it have - if men were the childbearers. No man should have dominion over a woman's body. Especially not a bunch of hypocritical psuedo Christians and pork-pushing pols.

I'm from the coat-hanger, back alley era - and yes, the clean, safe procedures one could pay for - and I am appalled that anyone would want to plunge us back into those 'dark ages'. We will have advanced as a society when abortion is safely legal and available for all - and rarely, if ever, discussed publicly.

[roguevalley]

47. since the power structure is man dominated and MEN CAN'T GET

PREGNANT, so this is all academic to them, no. Until men can get knocked up and get to face the spectrum of reactions women face from euphoria to horror, then nothing should change and men and their power structure should butt the hell out of the discussion.

[GracieM]

49. I'm a little afraid to post this...

I don't agree with Roe v Wade. Not the result really, but the reasoning. I tend to be a strict constructionist (Bush would prolly actually like me as a judge).

I studied Wade and others in school and I struggle to find the right to an abortion in the text of the constitution.

That being said, I believe women must have the freedom to control their bodies. I believe abortions should be legal and that Roe v Wade should be ratified in a constitutional amendment.

[roguevalley]

53. Hi Grace. Welcome. Its a conundrum but then there are that many

different types of people and beliefs out there. On something this private and touchy, it should be those involved that make the decision. I see the same thing here for this as I saw for Terri Schiavo. No one but those involved had the right to decide.

[GracieM]

54. I think we agree

Or at least I agree with what you said.

It is hard to believe that we could actually deny a woman an abortion.

I don't know if this clears anything up on how I feel about it, but I hate Roe v Wade and I hate abortion laws. Or does that just make it muddier?

[Mairead]

56. Give it more thought

If you are a 'strict constructionist', then you know that the Constitution limits government power, not individual rights (a trip through the various essays and transcripts of the ratification debates will make that clear). By strict construction, the state (I mean the term in the general sense of 'sovereign or quasi-sovereign government', not state as in Massachusetts) has no powers other than those specifically granted by the language.

Since there is no place in the document that grants the state the power to limit Choice, it doesn't have it.

[GracieM]

57. I thought the US Constitution enumerated fed powers

not powers of the states. The states retained all power not specifically denied to them. The power a sovereign had in 1700's was pretty damn absolute.

So I agree with part of your statement. I don't think the fed has the power to ban abortions.

[Mairead]

61. If you read the Bill Of Rights and supporting documents

(the main body of the Constitution being more of an international business contract than anything else) you see that the two key provisions are in Amendments 9 and 10:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Nine makes clear that it is government power that's being limited, not people's rights.

Ten makes clear that unless some power is given specifically to the national government, the power resides in the individual states OR in the people. Since in a republic (unlike a monarchy), the final authority is in the hands of the people, the clear implication is that the states have no power not specifically given them by the people.

So if the power isn't specifically granted to the nation, and isn't specifically granted to the individual state, then neither of those bodies have it. The people retain it in every such case.

Choice is one of those cases: neither the national Constitution nor (as far as I'm aware) any state Constitution has a provision allowing government to limit Choice. So, on a strict-construction basis, government has zero authority to meddle.

[GracieM]

63. The power to ban abortions

is not delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states, so Amendment X "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Let's assume that the power is not reserved to the states but to the people. So "the people" have the power?

How do "the people" wield power? They vote.



I have not studied every state constitution, but I don't think many are based on enumerated powers like the fed constitution is. I could be wrong though.

Getting back to my original post, Roe v Wade was not decided based on whether or not a state had the power to legislate on abortions, it was decided based on a right to privacy that included a right to abortion.

[Mairead]

68. "it was decided based on a right to privacy"

We hear rightwingers claim that RvW is bad law because there's no right of privacy in the Constitution. Which only means they don't understand the Constitution (one of many documents they claim to revere when it's obvious that they've either never read or never understood them)!

Since no Constitution specifies that we lack the right to privacy, we automatically have it. But privacy was the 'basic' or 'underlying' right that implied the right to Choice. The important fact is that no Constitution denies us either privacy or Choice.

As to enumeration, at least several of the original 13 had them; it was because they were felt so necessary --because of the history of Crown encroachments on implicit individual rights in Britain-- that they were finally added to the US Constitution. There was a real danger that it wouldn't be ratified otherwise (George Mason walked out rather than sign off on a Constitution that didn't spell out that it's a limitation on government).

[GracieM]

64. I have to go

I just wanted to say again that I support a woman's right to choose and support a Constitutional amendment forever putting it in writing.

[Mairead]

69. "I support a Constitutional amendment"

It might have to come down to that, I suppose. Jefferson knew what he was talking about when he remarked that the ruling class always encroaches.

[RB TexLa]

52. if by "abortion ban" you mean overturning Roe...

Which is not what overturning roe v wade would do. No, no if it is a ban in some other fashion too.


I am male and Roe v. Wade still applies to me, I have the right to control and regulate my body, no one has any say in that, not the government, not my wife, no one but me.

[jonnyblitz]

60. you are kidding right?

probably not. :scared:

[bonzotex]

65. no no no never no...

Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not a crime. There doesn't need to be any caveats or exceptions. It's the woman's personal and private decision period.

[ismnotwasm]

66. No

It doesn't matter when "life" begins. It doesn't matter that fetus's turn into human beings. It doesn't matter that men and women can be irresponsible with sexual activity. It doesn't matter if a women uses serial abortion for birth control. It doesn't matter that adoption is an option. The government cannot tell me I have to bear a child. There is no argument, even the "murder" one I usually have with my father that changes that. Right now, in my present state of mind, I can think of no legislation more reprehensible that one that would force women to carry any fetus to term. I respect choice, the one to carry a pregnancy to term, and the one to end it. It's not my business. It's between a woman and her health care provider.

[TheFarseer]

67. so, just curious

what do you say to your father when he says, "what about the rights of the child?" I've never had a good answer for that.

edited because 'you' has a 'y' in it!!!!!!!!

[Karenina]

71. Don't wear those in-ear headsets

when exercising. They can cause severe hearing losses over time. It's also recommended that they be removed when someone speaks to you...

[ismnotwasm]

72. Usually "bullshit, you don't know what you're talking about"

He is not a religious or educated person. He just follows right wing talking points. I sometimes counter with medical facts ie. Actual pregnancy begins with implantation or up wards of 25% of all pregnancies self terminate--often without the women knowing about it. I ask him If we shouldn't spend millions of tax dollars to stop this travesty? He doesn't say anything about the rights of the child, he just says abortion is murder. Doesn't care what happens after. Sometimes I tell him about all the frozen embryos in fertilization clinics and "why isn't everybody screaming about that? We need to pass laws to shut those clinics down, and how come nobody is bombing them?",If life is so sacred. Many of these fertilized eggs are just tossed, without thought, without choice. Very few women have abortions without a LOT of thought and consideration.

[JerseygirlCT]

73. There's no foolproof birth control. None.

And the mother's life and HEALTH (including emotional health) must always be a consideration.

In addition, I think you'd find that a large number of abortions have financial implications. Will the gov't provide for any children born?

This is all silly, b/c you know the answer. They won't. They don't. Children all over our country go to bed without food or homes or loving parents. It's sickening. And if we spent the time spent on fighting abortions fighting poverty and hunger and neglect we'd be in a damn sight better position today.

[fortyfeetunder]

78. That's right!

The Virgin Mary had an immaculate conception....

[baldguy]

74. Would a ban on Free Speech be OK if a college education was free?

Would it be OK for Dominionism to be declared the Official Religion of America if gay marriage were legalized?

No, no & no!

We CANNOT get into the mindset that can contemplate trading away ANY of our Constitutional rights.

[electron_blue]

75. puleeeez

Doesn't seem like you've thought about this very hard.

[TheFarseer]

77. ha

I think about how to defuse abortion constantly. The problem is it refuses to be defused. There is no good compromise. Any compromise will deny both sides their most basic argument.

[Yupster]

79. I think abortion up to

fetal viability is the compromise position which would have the most begrudging support.

Of course that would make each extreme unhappy.

[gkhouston]

98. Why would we need to ban abortion *after* fetal viability?

How many women are actually having abortions after fetal viablity unless their health or lives are greatly endangered? How many doctors would be willing to perform such a procedure unless they felt the woman's health or life was endangered? What's wrong with letting the woman and her doctor, who actually know the facts of the situation, make the decision?

[electron_blue]

96. the reason I said you haven't thought about it very hard

is that you suggest abortion would be allowed if birth control failed.

How would a woman prove she used birth control?

Get a note from her partner saying he used a condom?

Get a note from her doctor saying she had a prescription for bcp?

Get a note from the pharmacist who dispensed the pills to her?

gasp -take the woman's word for it?

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Doctor/patient confidentiality

I'll cave and say that theoretically, since abortion isn't mentioned specifically in the constitution, that the states can "ban" it. But in order to enforce such a ban, they would have to violate privacy rights. There's something called doctor/patient confidentiality, what goes on between the doctor and a patient stays between a doctor and a patient. Even if a law enforcement officer were to happen to stumble in on an abortion being performed, his being there is illegal, due to doctor patient confidentiality, and therefore the case should be thrown out.

[cynthia]

80. No way

We must never take away a woman's right to choose what will happen to her body. It is encouraging when statistics show that the number of abortions decreased when Clinton was our president. Legal, safe and RARE. A society that respects its people (including its women) will prosper.

[IndianaGreen]

82. American women are entitled to same abortion rights as Soviet women

Lenin removed all of the Tsarist abortion restrictions. Soviet women had more rights under the Bolsheviks back in 1922 than American women do today.

[orleans]

83. pardon me if i get too graphic but....

when women can pass a law that says you (and by "you" i mean the universal male "you") have to walk around with your d*ck in a metal chasity tube and pee through a hose and the only person who has a key to take the equipment off your "equipment" is your wife, and only for the purpose of having intercourse and then it must be replaced, and you have absolutely no control or say about your reproductive business (and masturbation is out of the question because all those little spermies have lives of their own and we don't want them unnecessarily destroyed which is what happens when you masturbate) then we'll talk about men having control over reproductive rights of women.

i won't tell you what to do with your penis and you don't tell me what to do with my uterus. deal?

"If Roe goes, whoever has political power will determine the most basic, intimate, life-changing and life-threatening decision women--and only women--confront. We will have a country in which the same legislature that can't prevent some clod from burning a flag will be able to force a woman to bear a child under whatever circumstances it sees fit. It is hard to imagine how that woman would be a free or equal citizen of our constitutional republic."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20050801&s=pollitt

[Zhade]

84. No.

My sisters' right to control their own bodies is NOT up for negotiation. PERIOD.

[hayu_lol]

95. Choice is non-negotiable.

It must not ever be threatened again.

[warrens]

97. The issue isn't a ban on abortion

It's a federal law telling states they can't make it illegal, and providing federal funding for abortion for low-income women.

While I feel badly for women in places like Massabama, overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal anywhere. State laws would come along quickly in the Red states, certainly, but I am pretty sure that anyone who wanted an abortion could still get one.

Meanwhile, for these asshole "moderate women" who are so terrified that some evil Muslim is going to kill them that they voted for nazis, it will be a kick in the face when they see what they have done. Those "moderate" chickenshits accounted for over 10 percent of the vote, and I hope their kids die in Iraq before the kids of any sane person who voted against fascism. And I hope their daughters all get knocked up and they have to spend thousands of dollars to send them to sane states. Fuckers. Fucking fuckers.

[Auntie Bush]

106. No comment...Nothing more to add.

[bigwillq]

104. NO!

We need to protect the right to choose.