Yes, it is in fact an insult to "barbarians". The "barbarian" tribes, or as we now call them, the Germanic tribes who did their part to bring down the Roman Empire, had restitution for a lose of a baby due to violence to the mother. The value of the child is clearly seen in their laws, ie. Salic Law etc. Only in modernity can we convince a women of aborting her baby without consequence, and that that is a right of the mother. Curious.

"roe has got to go" means a return to state law in keeping w the 10th admendment.

some will ban, others restrict notwithstanding what an indian reservation decides to do as in S Dakoda.

the "great experiment" that is states' rights will go on...

umm, i think you're wrong on this. i'm a law student who is about to be tested on constitutional law. Roe v. Wade and its follow-up case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey are must know cases for us.

Roe v. Wade said that government cannot interfere with a woman's right to choose during the first trimester; during the second trimester, regulations are permitted when designed to protect a woman's health, but not to futher the state's interest of protecting potential life; during the third trimester prohibitions on abortion are permitted so long as exceptions are allowed to protect the life or health of the mother.

planned parenthood v. Casey abandoned the rigid trimester approach. before viability, a woman has the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy. Government regulations of abortions prior to viability are not allowed if they place and undue burden on access to abortions. An undue burden exists if its proper purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. Subsequent to viability, the state may make regulations on abortion so long as there is an exception for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

the article that you have quoted is inaccurate if it says that Roe v. Wade allowed abortion in virtually any circumstance. as the baby becomes viable, the governments interest in protecting its life increases, and thus regulations to protect the child are permitted. to say that Roe v. Wade made abortions legal in virtually any circumstance is incorrect. the state is perfectly capable of preventing an aboriton after the baby is viable.

Mark,

No offense but all 4 choices are wrong, which is another reason why the debate on Roe frustrates me so much. Roe talked about a state's ability to restrict abortion. It is true that it strongly limited a state's rights to restrict abortion throughout pregnancy, but to say that it makes it legal is not technically correct. This is an important distinction. The reason is that if Roe is overturned, it does not make abortion illegal. It just gives states the right, if they so choose, to regulate it. What I would like to see is a poll of those who claim to understand Roe, and see what they say about what will happen if Roe is overturned.

bubba and SBulka,

The de-facto result of Roe was totally unrestricted abortion - "health" is such an un-definable term as to be meaningless. The US is one of the very few nations in the world which actually allows abortion past the first trimester.

Roe has got to go - it is horrific, and a complete twisting of both the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution...the result not of jurisprudence, but of a desire to have the laws say what they didn't say.

"Subsequent to viability, the state may make regulations on abortion so long as there is an exception for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

And then the state Supreme Court can overrule that state's voting population and its legislature, with the effect of one court or another guaranteeing the right to end unborn human life whenever it is convenient for the mother. Sorry: For the female carrying the child. "Mother" is hardly applicaable.

In my opinion, the entire problem with Roe v. Wade lies with the fact that SCOTUS handed control of the entire abortion issue over to the Federal government, in violation of the Tenth Amendment:

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.

With respect to Macker's invocation of the 10th amendment, I ask that you turn to the 9th amendment.

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

The federal constitution is silent on the issue, and as a result is a decision to be made by the people.
Furthermore, courts serve the role of overturning the decisions of a legislture when the decisions of the legislature are unconstitutional.

Roe is not even close to a de-factor pass for unrestricted abortion. Roe which was modified by Casey presents the state with a multitude of options for limiting abortion options.
Furthermore, "Health" is a very broad term which requires more scrutiny by the court, and the question I ask of you, who's life is more valuable the mother's, or the unborn baby's?

This is Mark, yesterday:

"For the love of God, please let go of your hatred..."

This is Mark, today:

"...you have to be a real, genuine, God-forsaken barbarian to think that abortion on demand is the correct course of action (heck, that is an insult to barbarians, actually) ... I mean, think about it: what kind of inhuman SOB would do such a thing?"

Mark, your hate-filled speech helps nothing.

The US is one of the very few nations in the world which actually allows abortion past the first trimester.

Since when does Noonan look to the rest of the world for advice? So, since you now seem to follow what the rest of the world thinks is right, you would be okay with abortions during the first trimester.

Integrity, get some.

bubba... the issue is not the life of the mother. I know no one that takes issue with abortion to save the mother's life (I'm sure there are some... but I've never known any personally).

What pro-life people take most issue with is abortion as birth control.

And because "health" is such a broad term, it can be used to say that anyone who doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy can claim that it will be detrimental to their mental health.

I always find it interesting how "concerned" liberals are over the 2500 soldiers who have lost their lives (yet CHOSE to join the military) but the 45,000,000 babies that have been aborted since 1973 at no choosing of their own.....silence on the left.

Interesting.

Warriornation +1

It's so intresting facts, and not many peoples know this...i think;)

You right-wing nut jobs are so simple minded that you think out lawing abortions will put an end to women seeking abortions. You are so wrong.
All you'll be doing is forcing young, scared, women into the back allys to be butchered by a God-forsaken barbarian with a coat hanger.
Wise up.

Some other interesting info:

6,500,000,000 = # people on Earth

840,000,000 = #people suffering from chronic malnutrition.

36,000,000 = # people who die each year from starvation.

6,000,000 = # children who die from starvation

5,000,000 = # people who die from water borne illness

2,000,000 = # people who die from HIV/AIDS

1,300,000 = # US abortions

529,000 = # women who die in pregnancy related causes

Don't you have something better to do?

More interesting stuff:

20,000,000 - 30,000,000 = # legal abortions worldwide

10,000,000 - 20,000,000 = # illegal abortions

13% = percent of women's deaths attributed to complications from illegal abortions

So my question is this, if you manage to "fix" Roe, what do you do with the other 95% of abortions? I suppose you could just follow up the ever so successful spreading of "freedom and democracy" with spreading your "version" of God's law to the rest of the planet. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind that at all.

3 more years

Ahh yes, justificaton from you of the abortion of 45,000,000 babies that had NO CHOICE (don't you preach choice) and yet you're up in arms daily at 2500 American men and women that CHOSE (that's a conjugation of CHOICE) to fight for their country.

You guys are so screwed up on the left it's no wonder it's been 30+ years since you got 50% of the nation to give your candidate the White House.

Where's your source 3more? I'd like to see those numbers. I'm always curious how folks can find out the number of illegal actions that aren't caught or reported.

There are many ills in this world, I agree, but each is it's own discussion, in this case we're talking about abortion so I think it best to focus there.

Overturning Roe V Wade will not make abortions illegal. All it does is open it up for the states to decide and I know for certain that California will vote to keep it legal. I'm sure you folks know other states that'll keep it legal. So I've never worried about making it illegal or "back alley" abortions. Heck most of the time the example of a "back alley abortion" is someone who can't pay for one in the first place, where do they go now?

If there are free abortion clinics now then I'm sure there will still be free ones in the future. Heck we've already got clinics providing rides to folks out of state to avoid notification laws so I don't think there will be any problems arranging transportation for those who wish to go out of state.

As for the abortion issue itself I've always been one to lean on the side of caution. Meaning why kill someone if you don't have to? Especially if it's all about birth control or not being able to take care of the kid. Assuming the numbers preseented earlier are true, 1.3 million babes are killed each year. Only a bit over 100 thousand kids are adopted each year. How many more of those kids could be adopted instead of killed?

Gack the source of my numbers didn't post.

http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_adopted/s_adopteda.cfm

Gozer

His numbers come from the same fantasy land numbers where most lefty numbers come from...the same that tell us there are 78 of X,Y,Z whale in the Pacific Ocean as if they've counted them all, the same that will tell you the earth is getting warmer based on temperature recordings of the last 30 years but ignore the last 4.5 BILLION years the planet has been around, the same numbers that tell us if you cut taxes we're going into a depression, and on and on.

These guys would scream and cry about anything and everything if you gave them a chance to.

warrior,

What he's doing is a typical leftwing absurdity - because we haven't cured hunger, we shouldn't be trying to end abortion...this is like saying "whats the point in fighting off the man-eating tiger if it won't cure rheumatism?" (that bit shamelessly paraphrased from C S Lewis).

Tney just want their dead babies, and nothing is to be allowed to stop them in their Culture of Death.

Does anyone think that newbie mike sounds like tail-between-the-legs ash? Or is it just a hazard of liberalism, to just keep rehashing the same tired old talking points that sounded stupid way back when they were fairly fresh?

"You right-wing nut jobs are so simple minded that you think out lawing abortions will put an end to women seeking abortions. You are so wrong.
All you'll be doing is forcing young, scared, women into the back allys to be butchered by a God-forsaken barbarian with a coat hanger.
Wise up."

First, name-calling. A must.
Second, referring to a statement that was never made---that "out lawing abortions will put an end to women seeking abortions".
Third, the Back Alley argument---but hey, why have any laws at all if some people are going to break them?
Fourth, the infamous Coat Hanger finale. All together now....CLICHE !!!

There will always be irresponsible and selfish women who can't think past their own immediate needs. No law is going to change that.

But a law can, and will, send a message that abortion is WRONG. Right now, the pro ABORTION movement is still preaching that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing your child. It is not a child, it is not a human, it is just a "clump of cells". No, they have entirely too much vested in promoting the idea that abortion is just a simple "procedure", that there are no consequences, that it is not a moral issue.

Any pregnant woman is going to be able to find a doctor to kill her baby for her. Note that the new laws proposed would not allow for prosecution of doctors providing abortions.

But a law would send the message that killing one's baby is wrong, and immoral, and illegal. The subtext would be "Go ahead and do it if you are determined, but at least know that you are doing something wrong".

It's called personal responsibility.

It starts by not getting pregnant in the first place. It goes on to at least admitting that getting rid of the baby is a big decision, and one which the majority of citizens in your locale have determined to be morally wrong and therefore, illegal.

Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor. No one should interfere with that decision, especially men who father these children and skip away. In addition, the bible thumpers wish to do away with birth control. This is all about controlling women and their bodies - very Middle Age.

Warriornation, (lovely imagery for a grand peaceloving democracy btw)

I wasn't justifying anything, I was simply pointing out that with all the serious threats facing humanity, US abortion is small potatoes. Sorry, but it's as simple as that.

Gozer, most of the stats are easily available on the web. Mine came from the UN, emedicinehealth.com, and others. I don't think any are in dispute here, do you, and if so which ones? I'll send the link.

Mark, That's not what I'm saying. Again, I'm just pointing out the relative value of your efforts and money. Yes, we do have to make choices because we can't solve everything. I prefer a larger bang for the buck.

All, let's look at this another way. Lets say all of the aborted babies lived ok? Then what? Another 45 million people in the US. Add some for population growth and maybe we're at 50-70 million. That's an increase in the US of more than 20%! 20%! Think about that for a minute. To give that some persective, that's almost the total number of blacks and hispanics in the country(2000 census). In addition, nearly 60% of abortions are performed on young, single women, living below the poverty line. Many at 1/2 the poverty line. Given that wonderful start in life, a large number will end up in prison or at least continue to be poor and uneducated. So, what you're asking for is really a huge number of people that really drain society of resources it doesn't have even now. I realize that on some moral level, the idea of abortion is horrible to you but life on Earth doesn't have morals. You seem to imagine that all these lost lives would benefit us all in some way but, in reality, they would require even more from those already here.

P.S. I would have posted earlier but Mark has banned my home IP.

Almiranta wrote:

"But a law can, and will, send a message that abortion is WRONG. Right now, the pro ABORTION movement is still preaching that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing your child. It is not a child, it is not a human, it is just a "clump of cells"."

First of all there is no pro abortion movement, to be pro abortion would mean you're anti birth...the word you're looking for is choice. I know, Pro choice doesn't have the same "ring" on a bumper sticker but don't call out Mike on name calling then turn around and do it yourself.

Second just because YOU say it is wrong doesn't say it is...why should a clump of cells have any rights? If you get pregnant does that mean you can claim a zygote on your tax returns? I don't agree with procedures after specific levels of development have been reached, but to say a fertilized egg has rights is just teetering on fundamentalism

-It starts by not getting pregnant in the first place
I wish I lived in your perfect world, must be nice..not everything goes to plan in the real world the rest of us live in

Why do you cons continue to fight this as an emotional batter rather then tackle it as a States rights issue??? Don't you think you'd get more traction if you pursued a LEGAL angle on this rather than using the "bleeding heart" approach?

3MoreYears

Warriornation is because I went to Marquette University...the Marquette Warriors. Warrior Nation.

No different than Cowboy Nation, or Queer Nation in your case.

Some other interesting stats would be how many of the "anti-abortion" crowd have actually gotten abortions (in between picketing and yelling), or brought their daughters in for an abortion, only to be out picketing the next day. So much for the courage of their convictions.

Great link, GOPisDying. I wonder how the 'wingers around here will spin their way out of it.