NationStates Jolt Archive

Pretty much anyone who is pro-choice and who has followed the legal debate surrounding abortion will tell you Roe v Wade has always been far more about privacy and reproductive choice than it ever was about abortion. Many on this forum have noted that the basic logic behind the Roe decision was based on a decision known as Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that delineated the right to privacy and that extended that right into the sexual arena. We've warned that the right-wing in the US won't be satisfied with merely rolling back Roe, that they're working on even bigger fish, namely the codification of allowable sexual conduct.

Well, in Wisconsin, the right-wing has shown their hand. (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/07/27/64850)Wisconsin has passed a bill entitled UW Birth Control Ban-AB 343. This bill prohibits University of Wisconsin campuses from prescribing, dispensing and advertising all forms of birth control and emergency contraceptives. Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, introduced this bill based on the belief that “dispensing birth control and emergency contraceptives leads to promiscuity.”
Now, even if we ignore that LeMahieu's beliefs on this matter are based on about as much evidence as the average Whittier post, which is to say none at all, my question is this: what the hell business is it of his whether or not college kids are promiscuous? What state interest is there in delineating who sleeps with whom and how often in college?

Also disturbing is the lack of foresight that has gone into this restriction, because it affects far more than horny co-eds.With this bill, rape victims will no longer be able to turn to campus health services to obtain emergency contraceptives to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or receive postrape counseling and education — adding even more stress to a traumatic event. Students who want birth-control prescriptions, emergency contraceptives or even information about preventive birth control are forced to seek out these services at off-campus clinics. To this list, let me add that it will also make it more difficult for committed and/or married couples who live on campus who are looking to hold off on starting a family until after college--a responsible decision to say the least--to obtain contraception.

The ironic twist of this is that this policy could very likely result in a higher number of abortions. Contraception helps women avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore takes abortion off the table. It is estimated that birth control and emergency contraception helps prevent 35,000 unintended births and 800,000 abortions per year in the US.

This is where the poorly-named pro-life movement is heading, folks. Abortion is just the front--privacy is what they're looking to get rid of.

See, if we have more kids, especially more kids born into low-income/single parent situations, we will eventually have cheaper labor.

Good Christ, your country really is going to pot in a big way.

Does mr. LeMahieu even know what reality is like ? Must be ncie living in a fantasy world where nothing ever goes wrong...

If i studied at UoWisconsin i'd go hand out condoms just to get in his face. If i'd get arrested im sure i could make one hell of a speech in court.

Does mr. LeMahieu even know what reality is like ? Must be ncie living in a fantasy world where nothing ever goes wrong...

If i studied at UoWisconsin i'd go hand out condoms just to get in his face. If i'd get arrested im sure i could make one hell of a speech in court.
From what I can tell, that wouldn't be illegal. What would be illegal would be the campus health center providing birth control pills (which many women take to regulate their cycles more than for birth control), emergency contraception like the morning after pill, or for the campus store to sell condoms.

I was going to get into this in the original post, but it was already long-winded enough--what this is really about is that hyper-religious people are wanting to punish others (especially women) who have (and enjoy) sex. That they catch rape victims or married couples in their legislative net doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest.

grrrrrrrrrrrr. students there should do what some of the most prominent women in Irish politics did in the 1970's. Cross the boarder in attempts to buy hundreds of tablets of the pill. However on entering a chemist they all realised they had to have a perscription, so they bought hundreds of packets of aspirin. On returning to Houston station, when asked do they hav e anything to declare they responded yes and threw all their aspirin to the ppl nearby! So most likely some poor women got knocked up. But still the fought against the man!

I don't post much, but I felt compelled to today, because I think the fundamental reason why there is so much hate and missunderstanding between people on different ends of the political spectrum is because they do not bother to take the time to understand the other side.

While you made a good argument I think it is far more likely that most pro-lifers are concerned about the life of the child while most pro-choicers are concerned about privacy and the right of women to make decisions about their body. Pro-lifers for the most part are not anti-privacy or anti-choice they just value the life of the child over such choices. Pro-choicers value choice over the life of the child, though this isn't unreasonable from their perspective that the fetus is not a person.

There are pro-lifers that have only joined the pro-life movement because they are really anti-choice and its easy to find quotes by them. These people are the minority. If Roe v. Wade was overturned it would not expand to other privacy issues because there would not be enough support from the core pro-lifers.

I can also give examples of pro-choicers who aren't really concerned about choice, but are more anti-life. Some of them are even anti-choice and support forced abortions as population control mechanisms. Those people are the minority as well.

The reason you hear so much about the people who don't represent the core of the movements is twofold.

1. The opposing sides want to vilianize the other. The biggest fears of most pro-choicers are that pro-lifers will take away all their sexual freedoms so pro-lifers are vilianized in such a way.

2. They want to bring the argument back into their own perspective of the issue. Pro-Choicers want to focus on the right to make decisions about your own body. But this isn't what pro-lifers are concerned/arguing about. They are worried about the right for someone to live.

Sorry for the typos and lack of evidence to back up what I'm saying, but I need to get to work. I think what I have said will probably ring true for those who have studied US politics.

grrrrrrrrrrrr. students there should do what some of the most prominent women in Irish politics did in the 1970's. Cross the boarder in attempts to buy hundreds of tablets of the pill. However on entering a chemist they all realised they had to have a perscription, so they bought hundreds of packets of aspirin. On returning to Houston station, when asked do they hav e anything to declare they responded yes and threw all their aspirin to the ppl nearby! So most likely some poor women got knocked up. But still the fought against the man!
I have a different suggestion as to strategy. Ever read Lysistrata? The women of Wisconsin ought to refuse to get busy with the men of Wisconsin until the law is repealed--period, end of discussion. If the men want to deny women the right to protect themselves from pregnancy, then the men better turn to another outlet for gratification. That law would change pretty quickly.

you're exactly right Der Drache

Nazz, you're making what I consider a common (in my view) mistake, you don't want the government to get involved in your personal decisions, but you do want them to help you carry them out.

All he's done is attempt to remove the government from the equation. He didn't make it illegal for private businesses to sell those products, just the university, so if you want contraceptives, go buy em yourself, don't expect the government to help you do things its leaders don't support. If you want those services back, go elect someone who will give them back to you, that's how democracy works.

What would interest me here is, are all shops (chemists and so on) on a Campus owned by the college? If not, what right does the state have to tell the shops what they are allowed to sell and what not?

you're exactly right Der Drache

Nazz, you're making what I consider a common (in my view) mistake, you don't want the government to get involved in your personal decisions, but you do want them to help you carry them out.

All he's done is attempt to remove the government from the equation. He didn't make it illegal for private businesses to sell those products, just the university, so if you want contraceptives, go buy em yourself, don't expect the government to help you do things its leaders don't support. If you want those services back, go elect someone who will give them back to you, that's how democracy works.

I don't post much, but I felt compelled to today, because I think the fundamental reason why there is so much hate and missunderstanding between people on different ends of the political spectrum is because they do not bother to take the time to understand the other side.

While you made a good argument I think it is far more likely that most pro-lifers are concerned about the life of the child while most pro-choicers are concerned about privacy and the right of women to make decisions about their body. Pro-lifers for the most part are not anti-privacy or anti-choice they just value the life of the child over such choices. Pro-choicers value choice over the life of the child, though this isn't unreasonable from their perspective that the fetus is not a person.

There are pro-lifers that have only joined the pro-life movement because they are really anti-choice and its easy to find quotes by them. These people are the minority. If Roe v. Wade was overturned it would not expand to other privacy issues because there would not be enough support from the core pro-lifers.

.

.

The fact remains that there are several cases of pharmacists refusing to sell the morning after pill on pro-life grounds. I make no claim that these people represent every pro-lifer, but it does happen a lot. It happened just recently at my university. What's more, a pro-life legislator in my state is trying to pass a law making it illegal to fire a pharmacist who refuses to fill one of these prescriptions. These drugs only prevent fertilization and do not kill a baby in any way.

If these people are outside of the mainstream of the pro-life movement, then the mainstream pro-lifers need to condemn them or else they are bound to be painted with the same brush.

you're exactly right Der Drache

Nazz, you're making what I consider a common (in my view) mistake, you don't want the government to get involved in your personal decisions, but you do want them to help you carry them out.

All he's done is attempt to remove the government from the equation. He didn't make it illegal for private businesses to sell those products, just the university, so if you want contraceptives, go buy em yourself, don't expect the government to help you do things its leaders don't support. If you want those services back, go elect someone who will give them back to you, that's how democracy works.
Here's the thing: America's not a democracy. If, for instance, our leaders did not support providing health care to Asian people, it wouldn't be a case of "bummer, guess we'll have to wait until the next elections to get some new leaders." Our Constitution mandates that certain rights and equalities be protected, and neither our leaders nor our fellow citizens are supposed to have the power to violate those rights...that was the point when the Founders went out of their way to ensure America wouldn't degenerate into a true democracy or a dictatorship.

Now, some people believe that the right to contraception fits under the right to medical treatment, or right to privacy, or right to equal treatment, or a variety of things along those lines in one combination or another. They would argue that denying a woman the right to get contraceptive care is like denying a black person the right to get dermatological care because they are black. On the other hand, some people believe that contraception isn't necessary medical care, or that the government isn't obligated to provide medical care at all, or that certain individuals do not have the right to make private decisions about their medical care, or things along those lines. This is the real issue at hand.

This is where the poorly-named pro-life movement is heading, folks. Abortion is just the front--privacy is what they're looking to get rid of.
This may be the agenda of some, but I know many, many people who oppose abortion on moral grounds and have no intention of regulating sexuality in general. I suspect you're overstating your case ... again.

... the mainstream pro-lifers need to condemn them or else they are bound to be painted with the same brush.
Only by those who have their own hidden agenda of discrediting their opponents.

Only by those who have their own hidden agenda of discrediting their opponents.

I'm not sure what you mean by that Eut. Would you care elaborating? *hefts argument bomb*

-snip- Dispensing birth control and emergency contraceptives leads to promiscuity. -snip-What the--?!! This makes about as much sense as-- *cough*a certain poster we won't mention for fear of being banned for flaming who repeats the same conservative pro-religion arguments over and over again in any debate, whether it be about religion or socialism or abortion or gun control*cough* --well, anyway, will someone please explain this to me?

While you made a good argument I think it is far more likely that most pro-lifers are concerned about the life of the child while most pro-choicers are concerned about privacy and the right of women to make decisions about their body. Pro-lifers for the most part are not anti-privacy or anti-choice they just value the life of the child over such choices. Pro-choicers value choice over the life of the child, though this isn't unreasonable from their perspective that the fetus is not a person.

I am a Pro-Choice Female. I have never had an abortion. I know many women who have. In my personal beliefs, it is not that I don't think a child should have choices it's that a fetus cannot make that choice, verbally. Also, how many children do you know would willingly choose to have a prostitute, crackhead mother who can't take care of the child? Look, the whole thing is, the government has no business telling me what I can and cannot do with my vagina. If it comes down to it, I believe that men should either have mandatory vasectomies (spelling?) after, say, three illegitimate children or are not allowed to have vasectomies when they would like to because if a fetus is a person, so is a sperm.
And, if you really want to get technical about it, women should be banned from having menstrual periods because eggs and sperm are what make a fetus so when the eggs drop during a woman's period, they are technically killing a fetus, now aren't they?
Just something to think about. In any case, the government has no business telling me what I can and cannot do with my vagina. Deal with it. :p

You know, the morning after pill would actually prevent abortions by keeping women who made a mistake, got raped, or just had a birth control malfunction from actually getting pregnant in the first place.

I am pro-choice but as the mother of two wonderful kids, I believe that abortions should only be performed in the first trimester (unless there's a case of serious birth defects or the mother's life in in danger) and partial birth abortions are just plain wrong. I resent the current conservative air that the US has taken. Most women don't use abortion lightly. It's a very difficult decision to make. A lot of soul seaching, penny counting, and relationship analyzing goes into making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. However, it's been my experience that once that decision has been made, most women are at peace with it.

We need to teach our kids how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease instead of making a moral judgement on their LACK of morals for having sex in the first place. I have a 7 year old daughter and I will tell her that it's better to wait but, just in case she doesn't, I want her to be prepared. So, when the time is right, I will teach her about birth control. Hopefully, it won't be illegal in the US to take the pill by the time she's ready.

BTW, in case you're wondering: I was one of those "good Catholic girls" who got pregnant in my late teens. When I became sexually active, I was too ashamed and scared to ask how to protect myself and within 12 weeks of becoming sexually active, I was pregnant.

Well I always disagree when a religion tries to interfere with government. If they want to be involved (violates the constitution by the way-separation of church and state) then they should pay the admission that everyone else pays--TAXES! How in the hell is birth control going to add to promiscuity? It is nobody's business but the couple what they engage in. This is a responsible act on their part. The government has no business telling people they cant have sex or use birth control. Personally Im anti abortion. I understand the pro argument but it isnt their body that is ripped to shreds-it is the unborn. Cant give up the baby but I can rip its body limb by limb is illogical. Im not agains emergency abortions to save the mother and when the baby is severly messed up but to me this should not be a form of birth control. Otherwise I am all for contraception and all that and if these idiots want to prevent abortions they would be too.

I am not specifically targeting anyone but for those of you who are all about making contraceptives harder to get or even totally illegal, I say this:

IT'S RI-GOD-DAMN-DICULOUS! (the caps aren't me yelling, just being enthusiastic, and I'm not trying to be rude to people who don't use Gods name in vain).

Look, teens and adults are going to have sex. It's been going on since the beginning of time, hell, there's countries where girls, not women, girls, are forced into marriage AND have to consumate it in front of their whole village and then be totally exploited by having their husband show the bloody bed sheets to everyone. These certain girls can be as young as 12! (maybe younger).

Here in America, yes there are sexually active teens and yes there are single adults who are not married. These people have sex! How can you tell me that it is a good idea to take the only thing that is saving these people from AIDS and children when they are too young to have them?

Contraceptives need to be available to everyone. They are not going to cause people to be promiscuous. They stop unwanted children and definitely unwanted diseases.

Sure, if you choose to be promiscuous and get pregnant you can always put the baby up for adoption but most people want babies from other countries like china because as far as freedoms go, our country does blow other countries out of the water. American babies get taken after 3rd world countries' babies. Also, how many women do you know would be able to go through nine months of pregnancy without getting attached to their baby as well as go through the X amount of hours of painful labor just to have their kid taken away all because they were not allowed to use a condom or birth control because some man in Washington, D.C. that they've never met and who doesn't have a vagina or a uterus told them NO? That's crap!

What if the mother does choose to keep the baby only because she doesn't want to have a back alley abortion (bicycle spoke or coat hanger anyone)? Abortions will happen legal or not. Let's not let our women die of horrible infections or become sterile because they couldn't find a clean place to get an abortion. What if she is in no condition to take care of a child? An abusive drunk who never wanted the kid to begin with or a smack addict who didn't even know she was pregnant to begin with (yes, it has happened!).

Think about these things before you impose your white-picket fence, church every sunday beliefs on the rest of the imperfect, dysfunctional world. :p

Teenage birth rates (1995-1998)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_tee_bir_rat

USA 52.1/1000
UK 30.8/1000
NZ 29.8/1000

:D

This is where the poorly-named pro-life movement is heading, folks. Abortion is just the front--privacy is what they're looking to get rid of.

although this statement may be true for some, I'm pro-life but I'm also pro-birth control. I'm of the belief if safe, protected, sex was practiced MORE, fewer abortions would be necessary. Anything that cuts down on abortions is worth at least investigating IMO.

Notice that everyone is blaming religion for the pro-life movement? Just because someone values life it doesn't mean that they are hyper-christians. Stop using them as scapegoats.

although this statement may be true for some, I'm pro-life but I'm also pro-birth control. I'm of the belief if safe, protected, sex was practiced MORE, fewer abortions would be necessary. Anything that cuts down on abortions is worth at least investigating IMO.
While I am pro choice I agree on the birth control sentiment … why I think it is ultimately the woman’s decision it is easier if it is a decision that does not have to be made because they took precautions well before it is ever an issue

Only by those who have their own hidden agenda of discrediting their opponents.
Say what you like about it, but that is the way activist politics always works. Mainstream environmental activists regularly condemn ecoterrorists because it is important for people to know that they don't stand for that. Mainstream pro-life activists need to do the same or they are tacitly allowing their message to be co-opted. The fact is, situations like that happen pretty regularly, and the people who do it always identify themselves as pro-life. And the fact is, it is not only going to be the pro-choice contingent that makes the connection. Poeple who identify with pro-life movement are going to hear this and identify as well. Not everyone is reasonable and a leader. There are lots of followers.

Basically, if the pro-life movement doesn't want to be identified with these people, they need to make that clear or its going to happen.

Well I always disagree when a religion tries to interfere with government. If they want to be involved (violates the constitution by the way-separation of church and state) then they should pay the admission that everyone else pays--TAXES! How in the hell is birth control going to add to promiscuity? It is nobody's business but the couple what they engage in. This is a responsible act on their part. The government has no business telling people they cant have sex or use birth control. Personally Im anti abortion. I understand the pro argument but it isnt their body that is ripped to shreds-it is the unborn. Cant give up the baby but I can rip its body limb by limb is illogical. Im not agains emergency abortions to save the mother and when the baby is severly messed up but to me this should not be a form of birth control. Otherwise I am all for contraception and all that and if these idiots want to prevent abortions they would be too.


Those that believe a fetus is a child and deserves the chance to live are not necessarily a religion. I'm in agreement on your stance with abortion though. All of it. Including the prevention part.

Notice that everyone is blaming religion for the pro-life movement? Just because someone values life it doesn't mean that they are hyper-christians. Stop using them as scapegoats.
You say that but a large amount get up on the soapbox preaching about gods will … if they use Christianity so Prevalently in their arguments expect some evaluation of the faith they are using

From what I can tell, that wouldn't be illegal. What would be illegal would be the campus health center providing birth control pills (which many women take to regulate their cycles more than for birth control), emergency contraception like the morning after pill, or for the campus store to sell condoms.

I was going to get into this in the original post, but it was already long-winded enough--what this is really about is that hyper-religious people are wanting to punish others (especially women) who have (and enjoy) sex. That they catch rape victims or married couples in their legislative net doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest.
Hmmm, I have a new idea for a business. Hey Nazz, what say me and you buy some land just outside of the University and set up a general contraceptives shop? I'm betting we could make quite a bit of money.

Ignoring all the moral side debates, when it comes down to it banning contraceptives and abortions doesn't change human nature... people just go underground to abort unwanted children and people use homemade protection. While I am pro choice I can see why people are against abortion but in the end banning it just drives it underground which makes the whole sitaution a lot more dangerous and rather than helping the problem it makes it worse.

Furthermore as nice as it to say everyone has the right to live, even the unborn, we must remember that rights are not concrete... they are an human invention not a natural law. To add to this there are already enough unwanted, negleted and abused children in this world and bringing more unwanted children into this world sure as hell won't help anyone including them. My housemate is a foster child and although his life has been good compared to some people his childhood was still shit and he has more insecurties than I could poke a skyscraper at.

We can't look at this problem as a sheer moral or accedemic debate but rather we should look at the real life consequences. Whatever we believe banning abortion or contraceptives won't help what ever problems exist or are percieved.

People will always go around and kill each other. Guess that means we should legalize murders, too? :p

While you made a good argument I think it is far more likely that most pro-lifers are concerned about the life of the child while most pro-choicers are concerned about privacy and the right of women to make decisions about their body. Pro-lifers for the most part are not anti-privacy or anti-choice they just value the life of the child over such choices. Pro-choicers value choice over the life of the child, though this isn't unreasonable from their perspective that the fetus is not a person.

Emotive language helps no one. Even if you think that the embryo (the majority of abortions don't even involve a fetus) or fetus is a human person, calling it a child is technically incorrect. Even the most liberal of definitions would place the "child" mark at the fetus level, excluding about 60% of all abortions.

The fact remains that there are several cases of pharmacists refusing to sell the morning after pill on pro-life grounds. I make no claim that these people represent every pro-lifer, but it does happen a lot. It happened just recently at my university. What's more, a pro-life legislator in my state is trying to pass a law making it illegal to fire a pharmacist who refuses to fill one of these prescriptions. These drugs only prevent fertilization and do not kill a baby in any way.

Your last sentence is technically incorrect. The morning after pill does not prevent fertilization. It prevents implantation in the case that fertilzation occurs.

Birth control pills, on the other hand, work by preventing ovulation (therefore preventing fertilization).


I am pro-choice but as the mother of two wonderful kids, I believe that abortions should only be performed in the first trimester (unless there's a case of serious birth defects or the mother's life in in danger)

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to know that 90% of all abortions in the US occur within this time period. The majority of those afterwards occur because of medical necessity.

and partial birth abortions are just plain wrong.

Suppose you really, really wanted a baby. Suppose your doctor informed you that the fetus you were carrying had severe hydrocephalus, and that the fetal head had reached a size of 50 cm. Your vagina can only dilate to about 10 cm. There is no possible way you can deliver this fetus naturally without crippling or killing yourself. The fetus, even if delivered by a C-section has absolutely no chance of surviving, as the pressure from the fluid on its head has arrested development. Your doctor advises that you have a dilation and extraction procedure. It sounds gruesome, but will end the pregnancy without any invasive procedures. You will be highly likely to be able to carry a successful pregnancy in the future.

Is it "just plain wrong" if you decide to follow your doctor's advice?

Contraceptives need to be available to everyone. They are not going to cause people to be promiscuous. They stop unwanted children and definitely unwanted diseases.

Or provide regulation and make being a girl a little easier.

I was on the pill for two years before I ever even considered having sex. I have never been promiscuous, but have been on the pill for about six years now. Go figure.

Notice that everyone is blaming religion for the pro-life movement? Just because someone values life it doesn't mean that they are hyper-christians. Stop using them as scapegoats.

Notice that valuing life does not mean that you have to be part of the "pro-life" movement. Notice that even having a personal belief that abortion is wrong does not mean that you have to attempt to force that belief upon others through the "pro-life" movement.

Hmmm, I have a new idea for a business. Hey Nazz, what say me and you buy some land just outside of the University and set up a general contraceptives shop? I'm betting we could make quite a bit of money.

Are you going to be able to provide said contraceptives at the same rate as most campus health centers? At any pharmacy outside of campus, I would have to pay at least $30-40/month for birth control pills. On campus, I pay $10/month for the same pills. I'm fairly certain that condoms can be obtained for free.

Pretty much anyone who is pro-choice and who has followed the legal debate surrounding abortion will tell you Roe v Wade has always been far more about privacy and reproductive choice than it ever was about abortion. Many on this forum have noted that the basic logic behind the Roe decision was based on a decision known as Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that delineated the right to privacy and that extended that right into the sexual arena. We've warned that the right-wing in the US won't be satisfied with merely rolling back Roe, that they're working on even bigger fish, namely the codification of allowable sexual conduct.

Well, in Wisconsin, the right-wing has shown their hand. (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/07/27/64850)
Now, even if we ignore that LeMahieu's beliefs on this matter are based on about as much evidence as the average Whittier post, which is to say none at all, my question is this: what the hell business is it of his whether or not college kids are promiscuous? What state interest is there in delineating who sleeps with whom and how often in college?

Also disturbing is the lack of foresight that has gone into this restriction, because it affects far more than horny co-eds. To this list, let me add that it will also make it more difficult for committed and/or married couples who live on campus who are looking to hold off on starting a family until after college--a responsible decision to say the least--to obtain contraception.

The ironic twist of this is that this policy could very likely result in a higher number of abortions. Contraception helps women avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore takes abortion off the table. It is estimated that birth control and emergency contraception helps prevent 35,000 unintended births and 800,000 abortions per year in the US.

This is where the poorly-named pro-life movement is heading, folks. Abortion is just the front--privacy is what they're looking to get rid of.
The problem with this sort of argument is the possibility that some pro-life individuals are only interested in protecting the lives of fetuses. Although this certainly is not true of all pro-life individuals, your argument is entirely useless when debating one who is only concerned with protecting the lives of fetuses.

Well, in Wisconsin, the right-wing has shown their hand. (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/07/27/64850)

my question is this: what the hell business is it of his whether or not college kids are promiscuous? What state interest is there in delineating who sleeps with whom and how often in college?




I'm not sure there is an answer to your question here. In her article, Kristina Shaw, the vice president for the National Organization for Women, Minnesota Chapter only quoted one snippet from State Rep. Dan LeMahieu. I have no idea what he fully said, nor how he feels and i have no idea what the bill actually states without an unbiased opinion.

I'm not going to debate pro-life or pro-choice, nor the agenda of any political organization. I will ask this though, what is the hardship of having to walk less than 5 blocks from the Univeristy to the nearest clinic (i pulled up mapquest for the UoW which is in Madison WI, the capitol, and then searched for the nearest clinic which is on West Mifflin st - about 5 blocks)? What business does an educational institution have other than education? Maybe i'm wrong here, but i don't see the point of this argument really. From what little information i have about the bill, the bill bans contraception distribution on college campuses, but does not ban contraception. People still have access. Since access to contraception is still available, i also don't see how a conclusion can be made that our right to privacy is in jeapordy.

I'm not going to debate pro-life or pro-choice, nor the agenda of any political organization. I will ask this though, what is the hardship of having to walk less than 5 blocks from the Univeristy to the nearest clinic (i pulled up mapquest for the UoW which is in Madison WI, the capitol, and then searched for the nearest clinic which is on West Mifflin st - about 5 blocks)? What business does an educational institution have other than education? Maybe i'm wrong here, but i don't see the point of this argument really. From what little information i have about the bill, the bill bans contraception distribution on college campuses, but does not ban contraception. People still have access. Since access to contraception is still available, i also don't see how a conclusion can be made that our right to privacy is in jeapordy.
I've got mixed feelings about this topic, but my partner just made an interesting point as he was reading over my shoulder:

"I'm lactose intolerant, right? If I don't take one of these little pills before I eat cheese or ice cream or whatever I will get a very very unhappy tummy, and will be out of commission for quite a while. So what if our university decided that my lactose-pill-dealies (that's the generic name, of course) were not to be distributed on campus? What if they told me that I should really avoid eating dairy food anyway, but if I'm going to insist on eating dairy then I can just haul my ass to the more expensive off-campus pharmacies to get my pills?

I would feel pretty damn pissed about that. Why should the school get to dictate my medical care in that way? Maybe they believe eating dairy is bad, or that my time would be better spent eating appropriately holy carbohydrates, but that's none of their damn business. If they're going to provide health services, and if they're going to use my tuition money and my parents' tax dollars to do it, then they should have to provide comprehensive care regardless of their personal feelings about the morality of the given treatments."

The problem with this sort of argument is the possibility that some pro-life individuals are only interested in protecting the lives of fetuses. Although this certainly is not true of all pro-life individuals, your argument is entirely useless when debating one who is only concerned with protecting the lives of fetuses.
Except then you get into the debate reagarding at what point does the fetus become alive or considered to have rights. It seems to me that a clump of two cells has more rights than many living people in the eyes of Christian conservatives, which is sad to say the least.

I offer a simple solution that applies to not just abortion, but euthenasia as well. A human does not have the obligation to live when it cannot live independently i.e. outside of the mother or on life support. In either case it is the person themselves or the next of kin who decides whether or not they should continue to live. This excludes the death penalty, however.

I've got mixed feelings about this topic, but my partner just made an interesting point as he was reading over my shoulder:

"I'm lactose intolerant, right? If I don't take one of these little pills before I eat cheese or ice cream or whatever I will get a very very unhappy tummy, and will be out of commission for quite a while. So what if our university decided that my lactose-pill-dealies (that's the generic name, of course) were not to be distributed on campus? What if they told me that I should really avoid eating dairy food anyway, but if I'm going to insist on eating dairy then I can just haul my ass to the more expensive off-campus pharmacies to get my pills?

I would feel pretty damn pissed about that. Why should the school get to dictate my medical care in that way? Maybe they believe eating dairy is bad, or that my time would be better spent eating appropriately holy carbohydrates, but that's none of their damn business. If they're going to provide health services, and if they're going to use my tuition money and my parents' tax dollars to do it, then they should have to provide comprehensive care regardless of their personal feelings about the morality of the given treatments."

Hmmm, where to start. First, i didn't say pharmacies. I said clinics. I have no idea where the nearest pharmacy is from UoW. Clinics are different in a number of ways.

Second, i agree with your question - why should a school have any say of your medical care? But for that matter, why are they dealing in things other than education?

Third, are you telling me that a person with lactose intolerance doesn't carry their meds with them for meal time? I know the point you're making regarding access and whatnot, but (aside from rape) sex is something that you can normally expect or even plan, and if it's not then don't you normally carry some type of protection for just such an occasion?

Fourth, i have no idea how the UoW's health care system is run. I do know that not all tuition money goes towards it, nor do all the tax dollars the University recieves. But if the university is recieving grant money or other type of government funding for it's health services, then i believe they (the government and hence we)have a right to say how and where it's going to be spent.

And finally, lmao at the layman's medical terminology "lactose-pill-dealies." That's just funny :D

Except then you get into the debate reagarding at what point does the fetus become alive or considered to have rights. It seems to me that a clump of two cells has more rights than many living people in the eyes of Christian conservatives, which is sad to say the least.

I offer a simple solution that applies to not just abortion, but euthenasia as well. A human does not have the obligation to live when it cannot live independently i.e. outside of the mother or on life support. In either case it is the person themselves or the next of kin who decides whether or not they should continue to live. This excludes the death penalty, however.
First, I believe that whether a fetus is a person (or when it becomes one) should be the focus of the debate. Secondly, I would prefer a definition of life/personhood that does not factor in the level of dependence of an individual. A very young child is entirely dependent on adults for its survival, but I would definately count him/her as a living person. I think that all individual humans count as persons. The question then becomes, at what point does the fetus become an individual (Obviously it is human from the very beginning.) A case could be made that an embryo is an individual from conception, or that a fetus does not become an individual until after it has recieved all the necessary hormones from its mother during pregnancy.

Hmmm, where to start. First, i didn't say pharmacies. I said clinics. I have no idea where the nearest pharmacy is from UoW. Clinics are different in a number of ways.

Roger that, but on our campus the school clinics live in the same buildings as the pharmacies, so that's probably why it got muddled at our end.


Second, i agree with your question - why should a school have any say of your medical care? But for that matter, why are they dealing in things other than education?

On this my partner and I differ in opinion. He feels that providing health care to students is simply the most practical option, particularly for massive universities like the one we attend, and that it makes good business sense for the schools.

I'm more with you, in that I think schools should be spending their money on educating. However, in this particular case the school in question is running health services off of money from the students and their families...if they are going to provide health care using students' money, then I don't think they get to exclude contraceptive medical care.


Third, are you telling me that a person with lactose intolerance doesn't carry their meds with them for meal time? I know the point you're making regarding access and whatnot, but (aside from rape) sex is something that you can normally expect or even plan, and if it's not then don't you normally carry some type of protection for just such an occasion?

Um, yes, but you do have to buy those meds at one point or another. Normally you've got a pack that you carry around when you think you'll need them (in my partner's case this means always, because he is an Eagle Scout and feels the need to carry around everything he might conceivably need if he were going to be stranded on a deserted island for 20 years) but sometimes you run out and need to get more pills.


Fourth, i have no idea how the UoW's health care system is run. I do know that not all tuition money goes towards it, nor do all the tax dollars the University recieves. But if the university is recieving grant money or other type of government funding for it's health services, then i believe they (the government and hence we)have a right to say how and where it's going to be spent.

From what I understand, the health system at UoW is paid for by student fees and not by tax dollars.

Even if tax-payer dollars are supporting the UoW health care, then it seems to me that "we" don't have the right to deny contraceptive medical care..."we" don't have the right to deny treatment for lactose intollerance, no matter how many of "us" believe that dairy-eating is bad, so why should "we" have the right to deny reproductive health care?


And finally, lmao at the layman's medical terminology "lactose-pill-dealies." That's just funny :D
He also refers to all vitamins as "Flintstones Chewable Morphine." Sometimes I can't decide whether I want to laugh or smack him.

Hmmm, I have a new idea for a business. Hey Nazz, what say me and you buy some land just outside of the University and set up a general contraceptives shop? I'm betting we could make quite a bit of money.

had the same idea myself last night when i read about this - i know just the spot in stevens point, wi. but then i remembered that wisconsin actually has a democratic governor these days, so this won't even last long enough to be struck down as completely unconstitutional.

First, I believe that whether a fetus is a person (or when it becomes one) should be the focus of the debate.
Why on Earth should it be? Even if a fetus is granted all the rights of a born human being, that would not preclude abortion. As I have so often pointed out...

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

There is no particular reason why a fetus should be granted MORE rights than any born human person has, so there is no inherent reason why the personhood of a fetus needs to be contested.

Pretty much anyone who is pro-choice and who has followed the legal debate surrounding abortion will tell you Roe v Wade has always been far more about privacy and reproductive choice than it ever was about abortion. Many on this forum have noted that the basic logic behind the Roe decision was based on a decision known as Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that delineated the right to privacy and that extended that right into the sexual arena. We've warned that the right-wing in the US won't be satisfied with merely rolling back Roe, that they're working on even bigger fish, namely the codification of allowable sexual conduct.

Well, in Wisconsin, the right-wing has shown their hand. (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/07/27/64850)
Now, even if we ignore that LeMahieu's beliefs on this matter are based on about as much evidence as the average Whittier post, which is to say none at all, my question is this: what the hell business is it of his whether or not college kids are promiscuous? What state interest is there in delineating who sleeps with whom and how often in college?

Also disturbing is the lack of foresight that has gone into this restriction, because it affects far more than horny co-eds. To this list, let me add that it will also make it more difficult for committed and/or married couples who live on campus who are looking to hold off on starting a family until after college--a responsible decision to say the least--to obtain contraception.

The ironic twist of this is that this policy could very likely result in a higher number of abortions. Contraception helps women avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore takes abortion off the table. It is estimated that birth control and emergency contraception helps prevent 35,000 unintended births and 800,000 abortions per year in the US.

This is where the poorly-named pro-life movement is heading, folks. Abortion is just the front--privacy is what they're looking to get rid of.



Hi, I'm afraid to inform you that you're not a psychic and you haven't figured out the inner-workings of my mind. Hate to break it to ya, but pro-life is about saving children from murderers. Opposing promiscuity, which I support, is a completely different issue.

Hmmm, I have a new idea for a business. Hey Nazz, what say me and you buy some land just outside of the University and set up a general contraceptives shop? I'm betting we could make quite a bit of money.
Ah, the sweet, sweet, sweet smell of capitalism.

I personally support the decision on principle. I don’t want the government handing out birth control to anyone. If I lived in Wisconsin, that would be my money they were spending. For private companies on the University or near it, or anywhere else, sure, sell them if you want. At a private university, sure. They could sell them too.

Hate to break it to ya, but pro-life is about saving children from murderers.

not if we take the actions of the 'pro-life' movement to be indicative of their goals. any honest examination at the 'pro-life' movement's leaders' words and deeds shows that the whole thing is about the power to control women and sexuality. i am sorry if you do not feel that this is what you believe, but if you work with the 'pro-life' movement it is what you objectively support.

not if we take the actions of the 'pro-life' movement to be indicative of their goals. any honest examination at the 'pro-life' movement's leaders' words and deeds shows that the whole thing is about the power to control women and sexuality. i am sorry if you do not feel that this is what you believe, but if you work with the 'pro-life' movement it is what you objectively support.



par·a·noi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-noi)
n.
A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

I'm not going to debate pro-life or pro-choice, nor the agenda of any political organization. I will ask this though, what is the hardship of having to walk less than 5 blocks from the Univeristy to the nearest clinic (i pulled up mapquest for the UoW which is in Madison WI, the capitol, and then searched for the nearest clinic which is on West Mifflin st - about 5 blocks)? What business does an educational institution have other than education? Maybe i'm wrong here, but i don't see the point of this argument really. From what little information i have about the bill, the bill bans contraception distribution on college campuses, but does not ban contraception. People still have access. Since access to contraception is still available, i also don't see how a conclusion can be made that our right to privacy is in jeapordy.

There are several reasons that many students go to student health care facilities. One is that college students are often uninsured. Some health insurance of the parents will continue to cover the students up until a certain age, but drops them afterwards. Your average college student cannot afford health insurance, so some of their fees are used to fund a campus health center that all students can use - keeping the general health of the students on campus high.

Campus health centers generally are less expensive - again, a big necessity for many college students. As I pointed out, birth control pill would cost about $40/month in any major pharmacy. At Planned Parenthood, they are about $30/month. At my campus health center, they are $10/month. I can afford that.

Finally, for those students who do have health insurance, they often get insurance through the school. These insurance plans require that a student go to the student health center before going anywhere else. If you go somewhere else on anything other than an emergency before going to the student health center, the insurance company doesn't pay for anything at all.

You cant be a murderer if it is legal by deffinition
So you are not saving children from murderes sorry (or trying)



Then the Gestapo and SS weren't murderers either ;)

....why did the thing I replied to get moved to be the subsequent post?

Hi, I'm afraid to inform you that you're not a psychic and you haven't figured out the inner-workings of my mind. Hate to break it to ya, but pro-life is about saving children from murderers. Opposing promiscuity, which I support, is a completely different issue.
You cant be a murderer if it is legal by deffinition
So you are not saving children from murderes sorry (or trying)

I personally support the decision on principle. I don’t want the government handing out birth control to anyone.

are you aware that in wisconsin, students still have to pay money to purchase birth control through health services? it is cheaper because part of your tuition subsidizes health services, but we aren't talking about free stuff here. also, are you aware that this bill not only prevents distribution, but also prescribing or even advertising birth control and emergency contraceptive. and that isn't limited to just health services, but to all people on uw property.

You cant be a murderer if it is legal by deffinition
So you are not saving children from murderes sorry (or trying)
So, is execution murder? Were the Inquisitions murder? Just want to see if you views are consistent, not criticizing.

So, is execution murder?

Execution according to the law could not be murder, by definition.


Were the Inquisitions murder? Just want to see if you views are consistent, not criticizing.
That's actually a good question...did the laws of the time actually permit the practices of the Inquisition, or was it a case of certain powerful individuals and groups going above and beyond what the law permitted?

Pharmicists should have that right. I personally see nothing wrong with the morning after pill and I don't understand why they do, however, if it goes against their personal or religious beliefs, they should not be forced to administer it. Now, if the pharmacy doesn't want to hire people that won't comply with their standards, then they should have that right as well.

And they should have the right to fire a pharmacist who does not make her objections known before being hired, but refuses to administer the medication - a right that many lawmakers are trying to remove.

When a pharmacy that carries such birth control pills or the morning after pill hires a pharmacist, part of their job is to administer that medication. If they have a moral objection to doing so, then they can certainly refuse, get fired, and wear their pink slip as a badge of honor. If it means that they cannot get a job as a pharmacist anywhere, then they should work in a field that does not require them to do something that goes against their moral compunctions.

Also, several emergency contraceptions do more than just prevent fertilization. Many prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Meaning, by most Christian view-points, that a baby is being killed.

Most Christian viewpoints do not consider a zygote a "baby". There are a select few - and the Catholic church has rather recently decided that in its history (before then, a fetus was not considered life until the quickening), but one can hardly make the statement that it describes all Christians.

Roger that, but on our campus the school clinics live in the same buildings as the pharmacies, so that's probably why it got muddled at our end.


On this my partner and I differ in opinion. He feels that providing health care to students is simply the most practical option, particularly for massive universities like the one we attend, and that it makes good business sense for the schools.

I'm more with you, in that I think schools should be spending their money on educating. However, in this particular case the school in question is running health services off of money from the students and their families...if they are going to provide health care using students' money, then I don't think they get to exclude contraceptive medical care.


Um, yes, but you do have to buy those meds at one point or another. Normally you've got a pack that you carry around when you think you'll need them (in my partner's case this means always, because he is an Eagle Scout and feels the need to carry around everything he might conceivably need if he were going to be stranded on a deserted island for 20 years) but sometimes you run out and need to get more pills.


From what I understand, the health system at UoW is paid for by student fees and not by tax dollars.

Even if tax-payer dollars are supporting the UoW health care, then it seems to me that "we" don't have the right to deny contraceptive medical care..."we" don't have the right to deny treatment for lactose intollerance, no matter how many of "us" believe that dairy-eating is bad, so why should "we" have the right to deny reproductive health care?


He also refers to all vitamins as "Flintstones Chewable Morphine." Sometimes I can't decide whether I want to laugh or smack him.

I had an awesome reply all typed up and i hit submit reply and nothing happened - it didn't post. It was really good too. You'll just have to take my word for it.

The fact remains that there are several cases of pharmacists refusing to sell the morning after pill on pro-life grounds. I make no claim that these people represent every pro-lifer, but it does happen a lot. It happened just recently at my university. What's more, a pro-life legislator in my state is trying to pass a law making it illegal to fire a pharmacist who refuses to fill one of these prescriptions. These drugs only prevent fertilization and do not kill a baby in any way.

If these people are outside of the mainstream of the pro-life movement, then the mainstream pro-lifers need to condemn them or else they are bound to be painted with the same brush.


Pharmicists should have that right. I personally see nothing wrong with the morning after pill and I don't understand why they do, however, if it goes against their personal or religious beliefs, they should not be forced to administer it. Now, if the pharmacy doesn't want to hire people that won't comply with their standards, then they should have that right as well.

Also, several emergency contraceptions do more than just prevent fertilization. Many prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Meaning, by most Christian view-points, that a baby is being killed.

Why on Earth should it be? Even if a fetus is granted all the rights of a born human being, that would not preclude abortion. As I have so often pointed out...

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

There is no particular reason why a fetus should be granted MORE rights than any born human person has, so there is no inherent reason why the personhood of a fetus needs to be contested.
That is a wonderful point. You are right that, as a matter of fairness, either abortion must be allowed, or in the final three cases at least some types of organ donation must be required. I have, in fact, seen this argument before and my opinion has not changed. Organ donation should be required when its necessity is created by the potential donor's fault. Furthermore, most pregnancies are not life threatening. (As for those that are, even if you do believe that a fetus is an individual human, and even if you do find it ethically wrong to kill another even for the sake of one's own life, holding anyone to those ethical standards is simply too much to ask.) I do believe that any type of organ donation which is not life threatening should be required in instances where the necessity for the donation is created by the potential donor's negligence. Since my arguments only apply to necessities for donation resulting from some kind of fault or negligence on the part of the the potential donor, however, abortion should certainly be allowed in cases of rape, regardless of the fetus's status as an individual human.

I do believe that any type of organ donation which is not life threatening should be required in instances where the necessity for the donation is created by the potential donor's negligence.

You are certainly welcome to your viewpoint.

Some of us, however, are opposed to slavery in any condition - even if someone else thinks that it is warranted by negligence or even criminal actions on the part of the person being made a slave.

And when you condone one person having a right to claim control over the body of another, you are advocating slavery.

There are several reasons that many students go to student health care facilities. One is that college students are often uninsured. Some health insurance of the parents will continue to cover the students up until a certain age, but drops them afterwards. Your average college student cannot afford health insurance, so some of their fees are used to fund a campus health center that all students can use - keeping the general health of the students on campus high.

Campus health centers generally are less expensive - again, a big necessity for many college students. As I pointed out, birth control pill would cost about $40/month in any major pharmacy. At Planned Parenthood, they are about $30/month. At my campus health center, they are $10/month. I can afford that.

Finally, for those students who do have health insurance, they often get insurance through the school. These insurance plans require that a student go to the student health center before going anywhere else. If you go somewhere else on anything other than an emergency before going to the student health center, the insurance company doesn't pay for anything at all.


I didn't say pharmacy, i said clinic. Clinics are often different in a number of ways - including cost wise.

Pharmicists should have that right. I personally see nothing wrong with the morning after pill and I don't understand why they do, however, if it goes against their personal or religious beliefs, they should not be forced to administer it. Now, if the pharmacy doesn't want to hire people that won't comply with their standards, then they should have that right as well.

Also, several emergency contraceptions do more than just prevent fertilization. Many prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Meaning, by most Christian view-points, that a baby is being killed.
I totally disagree. Becoming a health care worker means accepting that you must put your patient's needs and wants ahead of your own. To become a pharmacist but then deny certain medications to your customers is like joining the army but insisting that you be allowed to pick which battles you're willing to fight in...if you don't want to have to do the job, don't sign up for it.

Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, introduced this bill based on the belief that “dispensing birth control and emergency contraceptives leads to promiscuity.”

jeebus, i just found out that this fascist fucktard's district starts just 2 miles south of where i'm currently sitting. of course, the guy from this district isn't any better. stupid reactionary eastern wisconsin. at least the cities are growing, so things will get better eventually.

(i know, i know, my thing on the side still says idaho. but i'm in wisconsin at the moment)

That's actually a good question...did the laws of the time actually permit the practices of the Inquisition, or was it a case of certain powerful individuals and groups going above and beyond what the law permitted?
I’m pretty sure they were very legal in Spain, at least.
What’s slightly ironic about your statement is, some people say that abortion goes above and beyond what the law permits.
Anyway, the point is there is more to life that legal definition. If that is all we go by, we may as well be robots.

You are certainly welcome to your viewpoint.

Some of us, however, are opposed to slavery in any condition - even if someone else thinks that it is warranted by negligence or even criminal actions on the part of the person being made a slave.

And when you condone one person having a right to claim control over the body of another, you are advocating slavery.
I am merely condoning the right of one person to regain that which has been taken by another through fault or negligence even in cases in which such a regaining requires the taking of material from the offender's body. If you want to call that slavery, then you have extended the definition of slavery to include actions, which under certain situations, I find entirely permissible. That does not mean that I support all forms of what you call "slavery."

I didn't say pharmacy, i said clinic. Clinics are often different in a number of ways - including cost wise.

Yes, and I demonstrated the price difference between a clinic and a campus health center by mentioning the price at the Planned Parenthood clinic.

I am merely condoning the right of one person to regain that which has been taken by another through fault or negligence even in cases in which such a regaining requires the taking of material from the offender's body. If you want to call that slavery, then you have extended the definition of slavery to include actions, which under certain situations, I find entirely permissible. That does not mean that I support all forms of what you call "slavery."

You are not talking about taking "material from the person's body," you are talking about taking body parts from the person's body. There is a huge difference between, say, money, and a person's body part. What you are saying is, "This person hurt you, so you have the right to force them to go under anesthesia, which may kill them, have a surgery, which may kill them, and take one of their body parts, all against their will." You are giving one person (albeit a person who has been wronged) rights over the body of the other person. That doesn't extend the definition of slavery - it is the very definition of slavery.

By your reasoning, we should just go back to the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality. If someone shoots you in the arm and it has to be amputated, you should be able to remove theirs. If someone mugs and beats you up, you should be able to do the same to them.

Luckily, we're a bit more civilized than that these days.

I don't post much, but I felt compelled to today, because I think the fundamental reason why there is so much hate and missunderstanding between people on different ends of the political spectrum is because they do not bother to take the time to understand the other side.

While you made a good argument I think it is far more likely that most pro-lifers are concerned about the life of the child while most pro-choicers are concerned about privacy and the right of women to make decisions about their body. Pro-lifers for the most part are not anti-privacy or anti-choice they just value the life of the child over such choices. Pro-choicers value choice over the life of the child, though this isn't unreasonable from their perspective that the fetus is not a person.

The point he was making is that while most rank and file anti-choicers are merely opposed to abortion because they think it's killing a child, the anti-choice politicians are only playing on that sentiment as a means to an end. Notice that under Clinton's pro-choice policies the abortion rate declined every year of his administration. They've gone up since Bush came into office with his anti-choice agenda.

Conclusion:
Democrats - Pro-choice and Anti-abortion.
Republicans - Anti-choice and Pro-abortion.

If republicans were really anti-abortion then they'd embrace the pro-choice policies that result in fewer abortions and expanded civil liberties. The republians have seen the administrative model that results in fewer abortions, and they want no part of it, because it results in respect for privacy rights. So if abortions decrease under Clinton and increase under the last few Republican presidents, then what is it that they're really after? If their policies don't result in less abortions then clearly, they're playing the rank-and-file anti choice people for chumps.


There are pro-lifers that have only joined the pro-life movement because they are really anti-choice and its easy to find quotes by them. These people are the minority. If Roe v. Wade was overturned it would not expand to other privacy issues because there would not be enough support from the core pro-lifers.

I can also give examples of pro-choicers who aren't really concerned about choice, but are more anti-life. Some of them are even anti-choice and support forced abortions as population control mechanisms. Those people are the minority as well.

Please do. Tell me of one single American politician who is in favor of coerced abortions and madatory sterilization. I've never heard of such a thing, except perhaps for a handful of judges who offer it as an alternative to jail for child abusers who have already had their kids taken away.

The reason you hear so much about the people who don't represent the core of the movements is twofold.


1. The opposing sides want to vilianize the other. The biggest fears of most pro-choicers are that pro-lifers will take away all their sexual freedoms so pro-lifers are vilianized in such a way.

2. They want to bring the argument back into their own perspective of the issue. Pro-Choicers want to focus on the right to make decisions about your own body. But this isn't what pro-lifers are concerned/arguing about. They are worried about the right for someone to live.

Actual prominent Republican politicians are trying to control sexual behavior from the legislature. Rick Santorum is likely to be a presidential candidate in the 08 run, even if he doesn't make it out of the primaries, and he has come out and said that people do not have a right to keep their personal sex lives private, that the government has a right to control your bedroom. You can't deny that the sexual authoritarians are a prominent force in American politics.


Sorry for the typos and lack of evidence to back up what I'm saying, but I need to get to work. I think what I have said will probably ring true for those who have studied US politics.

In the history of American politics perhaps, but Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not longer the lunatic fringe. They're the lunatic core of the Republican party.

You are not talking about taking "material from the person's body," you are talking about taking body parts from the person's body.
That is, in fact, precisely what I meant.
There is a huge difference between, say, money, and a person's body part. What you are saying is, "This person hurt you, so you have the right to force them to go under anesthesia, which may kill them, have a surgery, which may kill them, and take one of their body parts, all against their will." You are giving one person (albeit a person who has been wronged) rights over the body of the other person. That doesn't extend the definition of slavery - it is the very definition of slavery.
Yes there is a great difference in those two things. That is why I only advocate such a forced organ donation in cases where it is both necessary and usefull (i.e. It is not legitimate to simply take out another persons organs as punishment. This act must be done only to fill the need which has been created by the person at fault.)
By your reasoning, we should just go back to the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality. If someone shoots you in the arm and it has to be amputated, you should be able to remove theirs. If someone mugs and beats you up, you should be able to do the same to them.

Luckily, we're a bit more civilized than that these days.
I do not believe in the reasoning of "An eye for an eye" because it is not always useful to take another's eye, even if that individual has destroyed yours. If you can take the offenders eye and use it to fulfill the need which he/she has created, then I believe it is entirely legitimate to do so.

grrrrrrrrrrrr. students there should do what some of the most prominent women in Irish politics did in the 1970's. Cross the boarder in attempts to buy hundreds of tablets of the pill. However on entering a chemist they all realised they had to have a perscription, so they bought hundreds of packets of aspirin. On returning to Houston station, when asked do they hav e anything to declare they responded yes and threw all their aspirin to the ppl nearby! So most likely some poor women got knocked up. But still the fought against the man!

That is AWESOME! That was quite the statement against the gov't. The fact that they couldn't actually get birth control pills and ended up throwing the aspirin at bystanders just reinforced the enire point of the manoeuvre. Denying women the right to birth control and rape couinselling is just plain wrong. Its a choice they should be able to make themselves. The women at that college campus certainly don't need or want guidance and direction from a crotechety old man using his power to force them to adhere to his personal and religious beliefs.

Something tells me the Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, has either an atrocious or non-existent sex life. I hope his wife is having an affair with a male pornstar, she deserves it for putting up with him.


Personally, I refuse to feel guilty for bustin' a nut, but I take it upon myself to have contraceptives handy, because it seems unfair to put a girl through the ordeal of an unwanted pregnancy just because I didn't want to use a condom.

jeebus, i just found out that this fascist fucktard's district starts just 2 miles south of where i'm currently sitting. of course, the guy from this district isn't any better. stupid reactionary eastern wisconsin. at least the cities are growing, so things will get better eventually.

(i know, i know, my thing on the side still says idaho. but i'm in wisconsin at the moment)


You libs really love throwing the word "fascist" around so loosely, whether accurate or not.

Furthermore, this (http://www.answers.com/slavery&r=67) is the definition of slavery as the term is actually use rather than a fabricated definition to support one's argument.
I really should not have said that. One could argue that the statement constitutes a flamebate. At any rate it was not very nice and I am editing it out of my previous post. The fact that you accused me of supporting slavery is not a good excuse. Sorry. (Now I have to give you my spleen or risk being called a hypocrite. ;) ) On top of that I typed in the wrong URL for my hyperlink.
To make my point in a way that actually contributes something positive to the debate: If you want to use that definition of slavery, I contend that the act of slavery is in some cases legitimate. After all, imprisonment, even if it is used only to temporarily remove violent offenders from the public until it is evident that they have learned the error of their ways and are thus no longer a threat, would qualify as slavery using your definition.

Pharmicists should have that right. I personally see nothing wrong with the morning after pill and I don't understand why they do, however, if it goes against their personal or religious beliefs, they should not be forced to administer it. Now, if the pharmacy doesn't want to hire people that won't comply with their standards, then they should have that right as well.

Also, several emergency contraceptions do more than just prevent fertilization. Many prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Meaning, by most Christian view-points, that a baby is being killed.
The pharmacist has that right. The pharmacy should have the right to fire them for not doing their job.

You libs really love throwing the word "fascist" around so loosely, whether accurate or not.

not a liberal. care to play again?

That is AWESOME! That was quite the statement against the gov't. The fact that they couldn't actually get birth control pills and ended up throwing the aspirin at bystanders just reinforced the enire point of the manoeuvre. Denying women the right to birth control and rape couinselling is just plain wrong. Its a choice they should be able to make themselves. The women at that college campus certainly don't need or want guidance and direction from a crotechety old man using his power to force them to adhere to his personal and religious beliefs.

Something tells me the Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, has either an atrocious or non-existent sex life. I hope his wife is having an affair with a male pornstar, she deserves it for putting up with him.


Personally, I refuse to feel guilty for bustin' a nut, but I take it upon myself to have contraceptives handy, because it seems unfair to put a girl through the ordeal of an unwanted pregnancy just because I didn't want to use a condom.
Of course this means that I am missing the whole point of the thread, which is that whether abortion should be legal or not conservatives are making entirely fundamentalist and unreasonable policies. I do not think that they are merely trying to destroy our right to privacy. That would simply be gratuitously evil. I think that they are making policies that would be considered even more conservative than the policies they actually support so that, when the left reacts to the completely illogical restrictions on personal freedom within those policies, merely getting rid of those restrictions will look moderate and bi-partisan. Any attempt by the liberals to completely do away with the policies would then appear radical and sectarian.

This may be the agenda of some, but I know many, many people who oppose abortion on moral grounds and have no intention of regulating sexuality in general. I suspect you're overstating your case ... again.
Hey--the legislation speaks for itself. If the pro-life movement is all that concerned about it, then they can damn well do something about this crap and tell their legislators to back off of this stance. Until then, I can inly assume that these anti-abortion legislators speak for their anti-abortion constituents.

On this my partner and I differ in opinion. He feels that providing health care to students is simply the most practical option, particularly for massive universities like the one we attend, and that it makes good business sense for the schools.

I'm more with you, in that I think schools should be spending their money on educating. However, in this particular case the school in question is running health services off of money from the students and their families...if they are going to provide health care using students' money, then I don't think they get to exclude contraceptive medical care.


The reason being, as I understand it, is for schlops like myself. If we are to insist, as one of the last industrialized nations in the world to do so, that we're on our own for medical expensise and that if we really want them we should pressure our employers, students-who are already poor for the most part-are particularly vulnerable. Imagine that a student, like myself, who doesn't have health care. BAM! I get struck by a rare disease, Male Pregnancy. I don't have health care to take care of it, I'm working at best part-time or slave wage and don't have access to medical care there-parents are poor, maybe I'm the first to go through college, I'm out. Now I have a huge medical bill and student loans ain't gonna cover it. I have to drop out to work off the bill, but six months later my student loans come due, three months to Jnr. I don't have the education I'm having to work to pay off, so I'm still in the Joe Job.

So, to protect it's own investment in the students, a college has to provide health care. Rich kids or kids with their own health care at least here in Cali have the option of opting out as long as they are covered some how.

It all would be moot if people where more comfortable footing the kitty for everyone to get health care rather than helping Dave of Bloodsucker Dave's Insurance buy a bigger yacht...but that's another thread.

In many cases, universities provide the major, if not only, source of basic health care for their students. Also, there are plenty of students whose entire lives, while they're students, is based in and on the campus--they rarely leave the campus for anything. They live there, shop there, eat meals there, and get their health care needs taken care of there--some don't have transportation to go off campus, and since most cities' public transportation, if they have public transportation at all, is a joke, to expect a student to leave campus for something as simple as birth control pills is ridiculous.

Two quick points to make about this whole issue: One is that it's apparently DOA, as the governor is a Democrat who's already promised a veto and the state AG has said it's unconstitutional (I assume the state's constitution, although it's also probably covered by Griswold), and the vote wasn't veto-proof.

Second is basically what i told Eutrusca above--if you're anti-abortion and you disagree with this legislation, then you need to make that view known to your anti-abortion legislators so that they know about it as well. They're not going to listen to us pro-choicers--some of them think we're Satan-spawn to begin with. But it's your responsibility to let them know they've stepped over the line as far as you're concerned.

par·a·noi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-noi)
n.
A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
Extreme, irrational distrust of others.


troll
Noun

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Then the Gestapo and SS weren't murderers either ;)

Hmm that probably counts as a Godwin......

Pharmicists should have that right. I personally see nothing wrong with the morning after pill and I don't understand why they do, however, if it goes against their personal or religious beliefs, they should not be forced to administer it. Now, if the pharmacy doesn't want to hire people that won't comply with their standards, then they should have that right as well.

Also, several emergency contraceptions do more than just prevent fertilization. Many prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Meaning, by most Christian view-points, that a baby is being killed.

Actually no they should not have that right and they should be fired if they claim it.

A pharmicist is supposed to fulfill prescriptions and answer questions about their use.

When he countermands the decession of a DOCTOR; he is practicing medicine which he has no right to do. Unless of course he is a licensed MD.

If a pharmacist has religious issues, then he needs to find a new line of work or go set up a Christian pharmacy.

So, is execution murder? Were the Inquisitions murder? Just want to see if you views are consistent, not criticizing.
Not if they are legal in the country they were purpetrated in

They would have been killing or taking of a life or possibly (depending on the situation) crimes against humanity

They can even be wrong

But unless it is an ILLEGAL taking of a human life it is not murder

Hmm that probably counts as a Godwin......
I would venture to agree

Actually no they should not have that right and they should be fired if they claim it.

A pharmicist is supposed to fulfill prescriptions and answer questions about their use.

When he countermands the decession of a DOCTOR; he is practicing medicine which he has no right to do. Unless of course he is a licensed MD.

If a pharmacist has religious issues, then he needs to find a new line of work or go set up a Christian pharmacy.
Yeah--I remember all the false analogies that came out when this first started happening, all of which ignored the fact that pharmacists learn very early on in their training that the only time they can countermand a doctor's prescription is when they see the potential for danger in drug interaction, which doctors sometimes miss. It's a matter of field of expertise.

One thing that disturbs me about this debate is the short shrift that pharmacists seem to receive--they do far more than just put pills in bottles. They have extensive training, about as much as an MD does, but specifically dealing with drugs and their effect on the human body and on each other.

But conscience shouldn't come into it. If you're an MD and you don't want to perform abortions, even if you're an Ob/Gyn, no one can force you to do so. You just refuse to perform them and the patents can find someone else. But if you have a personal problem dispensing a legal prescription, then you need to find another line of work, because it's an irreconcilable conflict.

To make my point in a way that actually contributes something positive to the debate: If you want to use that definition of slavery, I contend that the act of slavery is in some cases legitimate. After all, imprisonment, even if it is used only to temporarily remove violent offenders from the public until it is evident that they have learned the error of their ways and are thus no longer a threat, would qualify as slavery using your definition.


Actually, that is completely inaccurate. When we put someone in prison, we remove their freedom to move around as they please. We do not remove their sovereign right to their own bodies. We do not and cannot force prisoners to undergo medical experimentation or to undergo any type of medical procedure due to the fact that we do not remove that right. While a prisoner is in prison, they cannot move about the world as freely as they could if they had not committed a crime. They do, however, still have the same right to their own bodies that all human beings do - and they still make their own medical decisions.

I have heard that some 40 million babies have been murdered since the 60s. Since those who have abortions tend to be democrats and abortion was outlawed then John Kerry might of won the 2005 election with the increase of living voters!

Since those who have abortions tend to be democrats and abortion was outlawed then John Kerry might of won the 2005 election with the increase of living voters!

Last I checked, political affliliation wasn't part of the information obtained from women undergoing abortion. Are you psychic, or are you just making things up?

I have heard that some 40 million babies have been murdered since the 60s. Since those who have abortions tend to be democrats and abortion was outlawed then John Kerry might of won the 2005 election with the increase of living voters!
I am honestly interested in seeing any data people have about whether there really is a link between political affiliation and abortion rates. In my experience (I have volunteered at a clinic that offers family planning services) there isn't any noticable correlation between political party and likelihood to have an abortion, but that's just annecdotal and therefore not really solid at all.

Interestingly, a significant fraction of the women who came to the clinic seeking abortions during my tenure were self-described "pro-life." They felt abortion was wrong, but that their personal case was special or different from all other women's situations somehow. Some of them even admitted they believed their own abortion was morally wrong, but they went ahead with it anyhow.

Interestingly, a significant fraction of the women who came to the clinic seeking abortions during my tenure were self-described "pro-life." They felt abortion was wrong, but that their personal case was special or different from all other women's situations somehow. Some of them even admitted they believed their own abortion was morally wrong, but they went ahead with it anyhow.

why does this not surprise me in the slightest?

Yeah--I remember all the false analogies that came out when this first started happening, all of which ignored the fact that pharmacists learn very early on in their training that the only time they can countermand a doctor's prescription is when they see the potential for danger in drug interaction, which doctors sometimes miss. It's a matter of field of expertise.


Ahh but that is in the case of getting a drug that may cause say heart damage while treating an issue vs using another drug that will do the same thing.

However, they don't know why a woman was prescibed birth control. A friend is an MD and he said he doesn't alway prescribe it for sexual use. Some women are helped with their periods by using birth control(at least I think I remember what he said, it might have been something else. No coffee yet. ;) ).


One thing that disturbs me about this debate is the short shrift that pharmacists seem to receive--they do far more than just put pills in bottles. They have extensive training, about as much as an MD does, but specifically dealing with drugs and their effect on the human body and on each other.


Well there is a differnce between some new drug that might say hurt your heart and something that you might be having SEX! :eek:


But conscience shouldn't come into it. If you're an MD and you don't want to perform abortions, even if you're an Ob/Gyn, no one can force you to do so. You just refuse to perform them and the patents can find someone else. But if you have a personal problem dispensing a legal prescription, then you need to find another line of work, because it's an irreconcilable conflict.

Doctors that don't want to perform an abortion usually will refer the patient to somebody else. From the reports I read, the "christian" pharmies tend not to do that.

In the matters of small town usa, there aren't too many pharmies around(as I saw in one news report).

What about the assholes that keep the prescription because they don't want you to go somewhere else because its immoral?

People shouldn't have to go through the process again just because some jackass is sticking his nose in somebodies business.

You want to save peoples morals then stop being a pharmie and become a preecher or a priest.

However, they don't know why a woman was prescibed birth control. A friend is an MD and he said he doesn't alway prescribe it for sexual use. Some women are helped with their periods by using birth control(at least I think I remember what he said, it might have been something else. No coffee yet. ;) ).

You are correct. I myself was precribed birth control pills shortly after my first period (a long time before I was even interested in having sex) because I have a chronic anemic condition that the birth control helps to moderate. Many women who suffer difficult periods find some relief when they take birth control pills, as well, and women with very irregular periods often like the stabilizing impact that the Pill has on their cycles. There are even now a couple of birth control pills that have been shown to help clear up acne!

I have heard that some 40 million babies have been murdered since the 60s. Since those who have abortions tend to be democrats and abortion was outlawed then John Kerry might of won the 2005 election with the increase of living voters!

mmmm?

Well in the case of one nurse I know. She had two abortions because they were tested for downs syndrome.

She had a brother and an uncle that had a rather nasty version of it.

Can a severe downs person vote?

Hmmmmmm

You are correct. I myself was precribed birth control pills shortly after my first period (a long time before I was even interested in having sex) because I have a chronic anemic condition that the birth control helps to moderate. Many women who suffer difficult periods find some relief when they take birth control pills, as well, and women with very irregular periods often like the stabilizing impact that the Pill has on their cycles. There are even now a couple of birth control pills that have been shown to help clear up acne!

Thank you for the clarification! :)

Thank you for the clarification! :)
I'm always willing to spout off about the wonders of the Pill. :) I thank my foremothers that I am lucky enough to have access to such wonderful medicine.

See, if we have more kids, especially more kids born into low-income/single parent situations, we will eventually have cheaper labor.

I like the way you think. ;)

mmmm?

Well in the case of one nurse I know. She had two abortions because they were tested for downs syndrome.

She had a brother and an uncle that had a rather nasty version of it.

Can a severe downs person vote?

Hmmmmmm
Well, looking at who's in the white house, I would guess they are voting in records numbers.

Of the two main parties Democrats support abortion more. Im not saying that all of those who had an abortion are democrats I am simply saying that the number of abortions commited in the past 40 years if were never commited it would of added to a larger pool of democratic votes to major campaigns. With that thought it would of probally added more tax money, larger consumer and worker base, and invaluable genius that was never alowed to come into being.

After some debating I have only found two reasons for abortions, personal inconvience and feminist rage. Any other reasons for "pro choice"

Well, looking at who's in the white house, I would guess they are voting in records numbers.

Yea half of america must have downs syndrome.

Interestingly, a significant fraction of the women who came to the clinic seeking abortions during my tenure were self-described "pro-life." They felt abortion was wrong, but that their personal case was special or different from all other women's situations somehow. Some of them even admitted they believed their own abortion was morally wrong, but they went ahead with it anyhow.

Personally, I am a very liberal democrat who is unsure about my stance on abortion. I usually agree with pro-life more and so I tend to just say I am that. I do believe it to be murder but I don't know exactly support it being illegal. However, if I were ever in a situation where abortion was an option, I guarantee you I would be getting one despite my moral objections.

Actually, that is completely inaccurate. When we put someone in prison, we remove their freedom to move around as they please. We do not remove their sovereign right to their own bodies. We do not and cannot force prisoners to undergo medical experimentation or to undergo any type of medical procedure due to the fact that we do not remove that right. While a prisoner is in prison, they cannot move about the world as freely as they could if they had not committed a crime. They do, however, still have the same right to their own bodies that all human beings do - and they still make their own medical decisions.
Removing one's freedom to move around is a limitation of the sovereign right to one's body. Anyway, my overall point is that if you want to use that definition, slavery is sometimes justified. In fact, I would say that even if you use the following less broad definition of slavery: The state of being bound in servitude without consent.
the act is in some cases legitimate. If a man destroys another's property and does not have the ability to pay for the damages, I think it is ethically legitimate for the offended to demand labor in exchange for the damaged property. Obviously, however, in order to avoid rampant disorder, such a demand for labor should only be done with a non-biased judge presiding over the case.

After some debating I have only found two reasons for abortions, personal inconvience and feminist rage. Any other reasons for "pro choice"

If it was only that simple.

Women that get them usually don't talk about it afterwards. Especially if you live in bible thumping usa.

Feminist rage? :rolleyes:

Personal inconvience? It if was only that simple. Not every family is equiped to deal bad medical situations.

Examples.

1) A child born with Cystic Fibrosis. Lives 2 weeks in the hospitol under drugs and machinery. Mother thinks the girl never recognised her since she was heavily medicated. Family spends years trying to pay off the hospitols costs. Living many times on navy bean soup :eek: Father leaves the church because an asshole Priest told him God was punishing him. Thirty years later that event still hasn't left their minds.

What is gained by delivering such a child?

2) Woman has two abortions when both are diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. Brother and uncles have a rather nasty form of it.

What is gained by having to live with that?

3) Average family has a boy happy smart very outgoing. Decide on another. Born with Downs syndrome. Bad version as he requires 24/7 attention. Wife has to quit job. Husband about too lose his. Happy boy is just a shadow of her former self.

What is gained by having to live with that?

4) I know of two broken families over severe medical condition births.


Now not all children should be terminated because they have downs but if you have a case and a history off the nasty kind that will wipe you out financially, probably break apart your family especially if you don't have close relatives to help out.....

It's easy to judge especially when you haven't had to live that life.

There are women that probably do go the abortion route a little too easily. There are even some that are probably hard core enough to not give it much thought.

However, I think most probably debate it much more then you think. Some probably wait to the last possible moment hoping for a miricle.

Now you will probably see the abortion rates go up especially since the shrub signed the new bankruptsy laws that practically eliminate them. One bad medical situation and you are screwed forever. So if they have a case where it's endentured servitude over and abortion. Hmmmmmm.

Especially when you consider the costs of some kids. One guy I worked with had a kid that required 3 million in medical costs. He quit the company and went to another because the compies insurence plan dropped him after the 2 million mark.......

Hell, Black Forrest, I can give you another example. My sister-in-law has a child with a genetic degenerative nerve disease known as SMA. He's five now, but was never expected to live past his second birthday. The reason he's alive is because he gets around-the-clock nursing care from his mother, grandmother, and the sparse amount of nursing that Medicare provides.

Two years ago, she got pregnant again accidentally. She had the fetus tested and it came up SMA-positive--no surprise, since there's a one-in-four shot that any child she conceives with her husband will have it. She had an abortion for two reasons. One, she didn't want to put another child through what her current child was undergoing, and two, she couldn't handle the prospect of dealing with another SMA child.

That's what a lot of anti-abortion people don't understand. Most people, I would argue, don't get abortions because they're selfish and don't give a shit about it. I don't doubt that it happens, but Jesus, a woman in Connecticut just the other day fought with a cop over whether or not he should break her car's window to get her son out--she'd locked her keys in the car and it was 90+ degrees outside. Some people are just assholes. But regardless, we shouldn't trample on peoples' rights just because some people misuse those rights.

You are correct. I myself was precribed birth control pills shortly after my first period (a long time before I was even interested in having sex) because I have a chronic anemic condition that the birth control helps to moderate. Many women who suffer difficult periods find some relief when they take birth control pills, as well, and women with very irregular periods often like the stabilizing impact that the Pill has on their cycles. There are even now a couple of birth control pills that have been shown to help clear up acne!Same thing with my sister, which is why this pharmacist issue is so bogus. It pisses me off to no end.

And it boggles my mind why so many people refuse to see that the whole uproar over Roe v Wade is based on the idea that a woman should have control over her procreative abilities, that it's ultimately about privacy and who has control over a woman's life.

Why on Earth should it be? Even if a fetus is granted all the rights of a born human being, that would not preclude abortion. As I have so often pointed out...

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

There is no particular reason why a fetus should be granted MORE rights than any born human person has, so there is no inherent reason why the personhood of a fetus needs to be contested.

I can honestly say this arguement is like one ring to pwn them all. :cool: