NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that many of you hold a strong belief in the right to get an abortion, so what if that right was overturned? Here's a poll

I know that many of you hold a strong belief in the right to get an abortion, so what if that right was overturned? Here's a pollIt would be an argument in favor of staying in Germany.

I would watch many red states turn quickly blue.

You think people would stop having sex because of it? Stop having hot, sweaty, loud sex? At 03:00 AM? Please?? :(

:p

Buy stock in companies that produce metal coathangers. :)

Buy stock in companies that produce metal coathangers. :)
Good plan, I say!

As a non-American I am abstaining from voting.

As a non-American I am abstaining from voting.
Ah, sorry, I voted but went for the 'other' option.

I wondered why I was the only one to have voted. :rolleyes:

Ah, sorry, I voted but went for the 'other' option.

I wondered why I was the only one to have voted. :rolleyes:

The poll wasn't up when I posted, but I submit that my "other" is far better than yours. :p

I don't think we have the right to vote on whether choices can or can't be made by individuals. Choices are what they are, and black and white is what they tend not to be.

It's a very interesting question, and one with a possibility of coming about in the not to distant future (presumably why there are so many abortion threads bouncing around).

I think flights to Canada would become a little bit busier.

I would weep for my country.

And then, as Gartref said, I would watch a lot of red states turn blue.

And then, as Gartref said, I would watch a lot of red states turn blue.
But the anti-abortion machine would probably come out with loads of propaganda and 'facts' about how "since abortion was banned, crime has fallen by 193% and our economy has more than tripled in size!"

An exaggeration, yes, but they would do everything possible to keep the ban.

Besides, they can turn as blue as they like - they couldn't overturn a Supreme Court decision until someone dies/retires.

Besides, they can turn as blue as they like - they couldn't overturn a Supreme Court decision until someone dies/retires.

I guess I forgot to mention "I would make a Scalia voodoo doll and stick pins in it." :p

I would make one too.

I would vote. I would protest.

And I would laugh in 18 years when the red states turned blue and abortion was re-legalized anyway.

Banning abortion would be pointless. Why? The majority of folks that get abortions are left-wing pro-choicers. If these people were to not abort their festuses, the American right would in little a generations time be overwhlemed by American lefties who were saved from the grasp of death. Then, the abortion legislation would be repealed, and the cycle would start all over again.

I'd enjoy the fact that Massachusetts would likely legalize it anyway, then I would watch the anti-choice crowd expose their hypocrisy and attempt to have a national ban passed, even though one of their biggest arguments against Roe v. Wade has been states rights.

Banning abortion would be pointless. Why? The majority of folks that get abortions are left-wing pro-choicers. If these people were to not abort their festuses, the American right would in little a generations time be overwhlemed by American lefties who were saved from the grasp of death. Then, the abortion legislation would be repealed, and the cycle would start all over again.
Are you sure of that? Just because people are for/against abortion, doesn't mean they will/won't have one...

I'd enjoy the fact that Massachusetts would likely legalize it anyway, then I would watch the anti-choice crowd expose their hypocrisy and attempt to have a national ban passed, even though one of their biggest arguments against Roe v. Wade has been states rights.
You can imagine the defenses now. States rights doesn't cover the right to murder!!!

But if a national ban were passed it wouldn't be funny would it?

If Roe vs Wade were repealed, I'd start a campaign for a proper abortion-enabling Bill.

For, frankly, the legal reasoning behind Roe vs Wade is nothing to win high merits in the esteem of any profesor of law.

It happens to do the job, thanks to stare decisis, but like a man driving to his work in a wreck on wheels, one can't help wishing he'd get there with a slightly more respectable platform.

Besides, they can turn as blue as they like - they couldn't overturn a Supreme Court decision until someone dies/retires.


Theres been talk about a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to privacy for years, but no one has bothered because SCOTUS has so consistantly upheld privacy cases like Roe. If that changes, I don't think it would be too unlikely that we'd end up with a 28th amendment. After all, as long as the amendment was written as a right to privacy, the pro-life crowd would have quite a bit of trouble selling an opposition to it.

Then again, that would require that the Democrats remembered what they're supposed to do when they smell blood in the water...

If Roe vs Wade were repealed, I'd start a campaign for a proper abortion-enabling Bill.

For, frankly, the legal reasoning behind Roe vs Wade is nothing to win high merits in the esteem of any profesor of law.

It happens to do the job, thanks to stare decisis, but like a man driving to his work in a wreck on wheels, one can't help wishing he'd get there with a slightly more respectable platform.


There were better arguments, but building up from Griswold was the safest course of action at the time. A 9th amendment argument or a competing rights argument would have required the court to make a much larger step than simply presenting a new interpretation of existing precedent.

I would protest in the street (in various places), write letters/articles/editorials in protest constantly and everywhere, use the power of my vote to keep abortion legal in my state and prevent a national ban, AND move to another country. As long as abortion is legal in my state (Massachusetts), I will keep a home there to maintain residency and come home to vote (like a sea turtle). If a national ban is passed, I will move altogether.

I would probably also stage a tax strike by refusing to pay all or a portion of my taxes until women's rights are memorialized in the Constitution. No taxation without representation!

(I'm self-employed, so I could do that. There are actual rules for doing it. I think I'll start researching them now, before I need them.)

Train an army of abortionist and keep choice alive.

how come there aren't any pro-life options. there are millions of us you know.

I'd arrange a million person orgy on the steps of the Capitol.

Now that's protest, baby.

how come there aren't any pro-life options. there are millions of us you know.

Because, frankly, we've all heard your opinions and don't really care. If you get pregnant and choose to keep the kid, kudos. But at least you had the choice and nobody forced it on you.

If you're a male, then stfu. You have no say so.

Because, frankly, we've all heard your opinions and don't really care. If you get pregnant and choose to keep the kid, kudos. But at least you had the choice and nobody forced it on you.

If you're a male, then stfu. You have no say so.
Now that's a mature, helpful and positive contribution, in the spirit of free speech and open debate.

I'd arrange a million person orgy on the steps of the Capitol.

Now that's protest, baby.
I'll videotape it and sell it on the internet. It'd be a historical moment you know.

If you wait until Roe is overturned, then you've already lost the war. The key is now--I have little doubt that unless something hand-of-god-ish happens, Roe will be gone inside of five years.

First step is to act locally, especially on the state level. Work to get legislators elected who will get the right to choose written into state law regardless of what SCOTUS does with Roe.

Second, work to get members of the House elected who will vote against any attempt to make a federal law banning abortions nationwide--let them know that this is a single issue dealbreaker for you. The anti-abortion crowd has done that for decades, to the point where politicians know that it's more beneficial for them electorally to sell out pro-choicers than anti-abortionists. We need to let them know the reverse is true, that they'll pay with their jobs if they sell us out.

Third, work with local activists to set up networks to help women in states where abortion is outlawed the second Roe is overturned--there are something like 19 states with such laws on the books left over from the 70s. That's where you'll likely be crossing the line into civil disobedience at some point. As part of that, work on economic boycotts of states that refuse to recognize a woman's right to choose. I won't be going to South Dakota this summer during my road trip across the country for that very reason. I'll drive through Mississippi without gassing up or eating. Et cetera.

Now that's a mature, helpful and positive contribution, in the spirit of free speech and open debate.

I have nothing helpful or positive to say to anyone who would take a woman's choice away from her own body. Nothing at all.

I'd arrange a million person orgy on the steps of the Capitol.

Now that's protest, baby.

Can I have the film rights?

I will give you 1/2 ;)

Oh, I really want to hear from the people who will Sabotage anti-choice/Republican operations and property or attack Republicans!

Are you sure of that? Just because people are for/against abortion, doesn't mean they will/won't have one...
Why do you have do always bring reality into this? ;)

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of American conservatives I know, the religous right I'm talking about, that I lived with everyday for a very long time, will not ever have an abortion. Unless of course they're posers. Which could be very likely. Anyhow, I've been called a baby muderer and such enough times to be sour about it, even though it would be phsyically impossible for me to have an abortion. I also am certain I haven't impregnated anyone.

I found the idea rather charming. I had another draft of it somewhere that came off more humorous.

There were better arguments, but building up from Griswold was the safest course of action at the time. A 9th amendment argument or a competing rights argument would have required the court to make a much larger step than simply presenting a new interpretation of existing precedent.


I'm not doubting word you say, but then again, the hypothesis starts with the repeal of Roe Vz Wade.

With that as a startingpoint, my aim would be to produce a new Law to enable abortion, but written in such a way as to not embarass it's proponents...

The assumptions that are being made are incredible. Do people really think that liberal states like New York, Florida, California, and so on will ban abortion if Roe is overturned? Nonsense. In fact, I'd bet that fewer than 10 states would actually do something to limit abortion availability.

The thread title and the poll don't match up. If Roe v. Wade were repealed that would not translate to a national ban on abortion.

The assumptions that are being made are incredible. Do people really think that liberal states like New York, Florida, California, and so on will ban abortion if Roe is overturned? Nonsense. In fact, I'd bet that fewer than 10 states would actually do something to limit abortion availability.

South Dakota is doing it now even with RvW in place.

South Dakota is doing it now even with RvW in place.
So it's one of my ten. I'm sure Alabamastan will follow if Roe is overturned, but not many more. There aren't many states where the population will support that decision, in my opinion. Something else will happen, too. The pro-choice advocates will become much more focused on the states that are on the fence.

So it's one of my ten. I'm sure Alabamastan will follow if Roe is overturned, but not many more. There aren't many states where the population will support that decision, in my opinion. Something else will happen, too. The pro-choice advocates will become much more focused on the states that are on the fence.

Very true. Chances are it would lead to a concensus among the states and SCOTUS would make the right to choose a de facto part of the Constitution.

Actually I would be happy. I may be pro-choice but not letting the states decide for themselves is wrong. Thats all roe does is prevent states from choosing. If it were repealled, California, Massachuetts and the like would still have abortion Im guessing. So actually it would be a good thing.

Since I live in the uber-blue state of California, it won't affect anything here. As a state, we even rejected parental notification for girls under 18 in the last election.

It would be another sign of how America is slipping back into the 1950s though and another notch in the pro-moving to Europe collumn.

I don't think its really in jeopardy though, there are at least 5 votes on the Supreme Court to uphold Roe, probably 6 - I don't believe Alito will vote to overturn it.

The assumptions that are being made are incredible. Do people really think that liberal states like New York, Florida, California, and so on will ban abortion if Roe is overturned? Nonsense. In fact, I'd bet that fewer than 10 states would actually do something to limit abortion availability.


Florida is hardly liberal. Its become a solidly Republican state, the Democrats are just too god damned stupid to realize it.

Florida is hardly liberal. Its become a solidly Republican state, the Democrats are just too god damned stupid to realize it.
It may seem to be a Republican state to folks in California, but when it's right next door, it's easy to see how there are large pockets of liberals present.

There may be pockets of liberals, but there is a Republican governor, state legislature, and congressional delegation.

If you wait until Roe is overturned, then you've already lost the war. The key is now--I have little doubt that unless something hand-of-god-ish happens, Roe will be gone inside of five years.

First step is to act locally, especially on the state level. Work to get legislators elected who will get the right to choose written into state law regardless of what SCOTUS does with Roe.

Second, work to get members of the House elected who will vote against any attempt to make a federal law banning abortions nationwide--let them know that this is a single issue dealbreaker for you. The anti-abortion crowd has done that for decades, to the point where politicians know that it's more beneficial for them electorally to sell out pro-choicers than anti-abortionists. We need to let them know the reverse is true, that they'll pay with their jobs if they sell us out.

Third, work with local activists to set up networks to help women in states where abortion is outlawed the second Roe is overturned--there are something like 19 states with such laws on the books left over from the 70s. That's where you'll likely be crossing the line into civil disobedience at some point. As part of that, work on economic boycotts of states that refuse to recognize a woman's right to choose. I won't be going to South Dakota this summer during my road trip across the country for that very reason. I'll drive through Mississippi without gassing up or eating. Et cetera.
Excellent points, worth repeating.

I'd like to emphasize economic boycotts especially -- not only should we avoid putting our money into states like South Dakota, we should also organize to help women in such states get jobs in other states so they can move. Anti-choicers say they represent majority opinion. I say they don't and that the only reason states that have these fundamentalist legislators pushing through these extremist regulations don't immediately suffer population drains is because they rely on a large segment of their rural or working class populations being too poor to up and leave. Let's test it. Let pro-choice business-owners in pro-choice states advertise jobs in anti-choice states and see what happens.

Oh, and as long as Americans are not put under travel restrictions, there should be no civil disobediance in just helping women in anti-choice states commute to other states to get abortion if they need them. Perfectly legal.

I have nothing helpful or positive to say to anyone who would take a woman's choice away from her own body. Nothing at all.

once a woman becomes pregnant, it no longer is just her body. it's incredibly arrogant for us to say when life begins. and yes i am a man. one thing that gets forgotten is a man's right as a father. why shouldn't a man have a say in whether or not his child is aborted? if the woman keeps the child he is financially responsible, and so should be a part of the decision.

Actually I would be happy. I may be pro-choice but not letting the states decide for themselves is wrong. Thats all roe does is prevent states from choosing. If it were repealled, California, Massachuetts and the like would still have abortion Im guessing. So actually it would be a good thing.
States rights when it comes to legislating civil liberties is not a good idea. That concept has led to nothing but conflict in this country from the arguments over the Constitution -- the Bill of Rights was added later over objections that nothing in the original document would stop states from establishing religion, restricting political action, and restricting other rights -- to the Civil War, and through the civil rights movement and current arguments over censorship of the arts and media. We are a nation, not the United Nations. The states are not entirely sovereign. We are citizens of the United States, not of South Dakota or New York or Minnesota, etc. In this country, the federal government is in charge of protecting the rights of all citizens. That means the states don't get to decide who is allowed to have which rights; they can't establish different rights systems from the other states.

Allowing states to ban abortion will polarize this country to such an extent -- way beyond where we are now -- that if it does not lead to a Constitutional amendment to enable women's right to choose, it will strain the fabric that holds the nation together.

Oh, and as long as Americans are not put under travel restrictions, there should be no civil disobediance in just helping women in anti-choice states commute to other states to get abortion if they need them. Perfectly legal.
That'll be next on the agenda. I mean, we're talking about people here who are saying that the rights of a clump of cells outweigh the rights of the host and are justifying it by calling the clump a child. Why wouldn't they make it against the law to cross state lines to get an abortion?

The assumptions that are being made are incredible. Do people really think that liberal states like New York, Florida, California, and so on will ban abortion if Roe is overturned? Nonsense. In fact, I'd bet that fewer than 10 states would actually do something to limit abortion availability.
Let's not be coy here. You know that the first thing that will happen once Roe is overturned will be a hard push by the anti-abortionists to pass a federal ban, and it'll happen too. States' rights be damned--they don't care, and neither do their buddies on the Supreme Court.

[1] That'll be next on the agenda. I mean, we're talking about people here who are saying that the rights of a clump of cells outweigh the rights of the host and are justifying it by calling the clump a child. Why wouldn't they make it against the law to cross state lines to get an abortion?


[2] Let's not be coy here. You know that the first thing that will happen once Roe is overturned will be a hard push by the anti-abortionists to pass a federal ban, and it'll happen too. States' rights be damned--they don't care, and neither do their buddies on the Supreme Court.
1. At that point it will become civil disobediance. Yay, underground railroad. Here in New England, we still have the secret cellars, all ready to go. :)

2. Too right.

That'll be next on the agenda. I mean, we're talking about people here who are saying that the rights of a clump of cells outweigh the rights of the host and are justifying it by calling the clump a child. Why wouldn't they make it against the law to cross state lines to get an abortion?


Let's not be coy here. You know that the first thing that will happen once Roe is overturned will be a hard push by the anti-abortionists to pass a federal ban, and it'll happen too. States' rights be damned--they don't care, and neither do their buddies on the Supreme Court.
I don't think that a simple majority of Republicans in Congress will make a federal ban the slam-dunk that you are worried about. Not every Republican is a Santorum. There's always a Specter to balance it out.

States rights when it comes to legislating civil liberties is not a good idea. That concept has led to nothing but conflict in this country from the arguments over the Constitution -- the Bill of Rights was added later over objections that nothing in the original document would stop states from establishing religion, restricting political action, and restricting other rights -- to the Civil War, and through the civil rights movement and current arguments over censorship of the arts and media. We are a nation, not the United Nations. The states are not entirely sovereign. We are citizens of the United States, not of South Dakota or New York or Minnesota, etc. In this country, the federal government is in charge of protecting the rights of all citizens. That means the states don't get to decide who is allowed to have which rights; they can't establish different rights systems from the other states.

Allowing states to ban abortion will polarize this country to such an extent -- way beyond where we are now -- that if it does not lead to a Constitutional amendment to enable women's right to choose, it will strain the fabric that holds the nation together.
well hell's bells, why dont we just get rid of states altogether like. Keepin states like bama and Mississippi from bannin what they see as an unjust thing aint right. If someone wants an abortion that lives there they can always go to another state.

We are citizens of the United States, not of South Dakota or New York or Minnesota, etc.


Actually, according to the 14th Amendment, we're citizens of both the United States and our individual state. Also, the amendments to the Constitution didn't apply to the state governments until the 14th Amendment was pased

I don't think that a simple majority of Republicans in Congress will make a federal ban the slam-dunk that you are worried about. Not every Republican is a Santorum. There's always a Specter to balance it out.
Come on--Specter showed his true colors when he voted against cloture and then for Alito. He sold out his pro-choice followers, just as Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman did. A federal ban will happen because politicians know that they have more to fear from an organized group of single issue voters like the anti-abortion crowd than they do from pro-choicers.

That's the thing about being a single issue voter--your politicians can shit on you on every other issue and still count on you because (not you personally Myrmidonisia) you, the single-issue voter, are too much of a chump to realize what's being done to you.

That'll be next on the agenda. I mean, we're talking about people here who are saying that the rights of a clump of cells outweigh the rights of the host and are justifying it by calling the clump a child. Why wouldn't they make it against the law to cross state lines to get an abortion?

That's an interesting idea you have there. I live in a country where abortion is illegal, but due to the influence of The X Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X) women have had the constitutional right (supported by the majority, no less) to travel to Britain to get an abortion since 1995. Do you have reason to believe that American pro-life advocates are more fanatical about it than their Irish counterparts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ireland

Letters, voting, protests are my choices. Plus generous donations to pro-choice people.

Oh and I'd support secession from the Union if they actually passed a Federal abortion ban. There comes a time in the course of human events...:p

The thread title and the poll don't match up. If Roe v. Wade were repealed that would not translate to a national ban on abortion.
Sorry, I didn't realise that for a while. I'm not American.

Allowing states to ban abortion will polarize this country to such an extent -- way beyond where we are now -- that if it does not lead to a Constitutional amendment to enable women's right to choose, it will strain the fabric that holds the nation together.
Hell yeah! That would be good to watch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spartacus_fight.JPG

well hell's bells, why dont we just get rid of states altogether like. Keepin states like bama and Mississippi from bannin what they see as an unjust thing aint right. If someone wants an abortion that lives there they can always go to another state.
Letting every state just do whatever it wants without any regard to national unity is not the way to hold a country together.

What if some states decide it is unjust to stop white people from refusing to live near or do business with or give jobs to black people because it violates their rights of association (which is a false interpretation of the right of association that is favored by racists)? Should they be allowed to reinstate racial segregation? And if those states decide that a black man talking to a white woman is a provocation to violence, should the rest of the country sit silent while black men are lynched, as they were from the Civil War through the 1960s?

You say abortion is unjust to fetuses. If you really think that's a human rights issue, are you really going to stop trying to ban it at your state's borders? I think banning abortion is unjust to women and I do think it's a human rights issue. Should I sit by and watch women be oppressed within my own country?

That's an interesting idea you have there. I live in a country where abortion is illegal, but due to the influence of The X Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X) women have had the constitutional right (supported by the majority, no less) to travel to Britain to get an abortion since 1995. Do you have reason to believe that American pro-life advocates are more fanatical about it than their Irish counterparts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ireland
The loud ones are. This is a fight that's been brewing from long before Roe. The real money and activists behind this movement essentially want a return to the 13th century as far as woman's rights are concerned. The less extreme are just useful idiots in the battle.

Actually, according to the 14th Amendment, we're citizens of both the United States and our individual state. Also, the amendments to the Constitution didn't apply to the state governments until the 14th Amendment was pased
Well, the 14th Amendment has been passed, so now the Amendments to the Constitution do apply to the states. Federal law governs. So if anti-choice states do not try to get a national ban under federal law, they are fools, because even without Roe, their in-state abortion bans could still be challenged and possibly overturned by appeal to federal law.

It would be an argument in favor of staying in Germany.

Then I'd be in favor of Germany Invading and Liberating my country from the police state that we are gripped in.
Along with any other country that chose to help liberate us.

Come on--Specter showed his true colors when he voted against cloture and then for Alito. He sold out his pro-choice followers, just as Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman did. A federal ban will happen because politicians know that they have more to fear from an organized group of single issue voters like the anti-abortion crowd than they do from pro-choicers.

That's the thing about being a single issue voter--your politicians can shit on you on every other issue and still count on you because (not you personally Myrmidonisia) you, the single-issue voter, are too much of a chump to realize what's being done to you.
I'll give you that single-issue groups are effective. That's why I make donations to a couple of them every year. So the question becomes who is the squeakier wheel? Pro or Anti? They're both pretty loud.

The other issue is whether or not a repeal of Roe even means that a federal ban is allowable. That might be unconstitutional in it's own right.

The loud ones are. This is a fight that's been brewing from long before Roe. The real money and activists behind this movement essentially want a return to the 13th century as far as woman's rights are concerned.
I'd like some evidence for this please.

I'll give you that single-issue groups are effective. That's why I make donations to a couple of them every year. So the question becomes who is the squeakier wheel? Pro or Anti? They're both pretty loud.

The other issue is whether or not a repeal of Roe even means that a federal ban is allowable. That might be unconstitutional in it's own right.
Well, I'll refer you to the partial-birth abortion bill. It's been found unconstitutional in the past, not because of federalism or because it falls outside the purview of Congress to regulate it, but because of the lack of health and life of the mother standards, which were required, I believe, by Casey. That case is coming before SCOTUS this term, I believe, and if the law is upheld (as I expect it will, given the court's current makeup), then that will be precedent for a federal abortion ban if Roe ever goes.

Use the power of my vote, and not worry about getting Roe v. Wade reinstated. Abortion (even legal abortion) is expensive, so having people who want abortions buy a plane ticket or drive to another state in the short-term (honestly, there aren't that many abortion clinics in some of these states anyway) does not strike me as a terrible inconvenience. Instead, I would push for legalizing abortion through legislation, like every other country on this planet does.

once a woman becomes pregnant, it no longer is just her body. it's incredibly arrogant for us to say when life begins.

Then don't.

one thing that gets forgotten is a man's right as a father.

You're not a father until you can take an active role in the care and nurturing of the child. You can't do diddly while it's in the womb.

if the woman keeps the child he is financially responsible, and so should be a part of the decision.

His opinion matters, but his decision does not.

Nothing, but that's only because it doesn't really matter to me either way. Then again, I'm a man so it's not quite as important or pressing an issue...honestly, I don't think I'd care enough to do anything other than say meh.

Since I'm a guy it doesn't afffect me much. I guess if I knocked a girl up and she needed an abortion I'd just take her to Mexico or Canada or something. Or maybe just wait til she's very pregnant and kick her down a flight of steps.

Train an army of abortionist and keep choice alive.

Theres already a home abortion manual out on the internet simply as a protest to the South Daktoa thing, imagine how much information will be available if such a farce went national.
http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-women-of-south-dakota-abortion.html

As for your army of abortionists, heres an interesting story about an organization called Jane which was active in Chicago until 1973(and for quite awhile after, depending on who you talk to).
http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUFeature/TribTheater.html

You cannot stop freedom, you can only present hurdles.

If you're a male, then stfu. You have no say so.

Hey, put that tired old line in a box, will ya? Abortion is an important issue with far-reaching implications for personal sovereignty. What the government can and cannot force an individual to do with their body against their will doesn't stop at the uterus. Sure women are on the front line, but I'm not going to stand by and wait for it to be my turn. This shit needs to be confronted by men and women, breaking into tribes just makes it easier for the government to find weak targets.

I'm not doubting word you say, but then again, the hypothesis starts with the repeal of Roe Vz Wade.

With that as a startingpoint, my aim would be to produce a new Law to enable abortion, but written in such a way as to not embarass it's proponents...

Thats all well and good, but honestly, I'm gonna come right out and say it. Fuck the civil discussion and orderly procession of law. There is only one proper response to a tyranical government and it involves a length of rope at least six feet shorter than the distance between the ground and the strongest branch of a tree.

Actually I would be happy. I may be pro-choice but not letting the states decide for themselves is wrong. Thats all roe does is prevent states from choosing. If it were repealled, California, Massachuetts and the like would still have abortion Im guessing. So actually it would be a good thing.

Have you taken a good look at what happens when you let individual states decide what restrictions they want to put on constitutional rights? Look up the disparity in gun laws across the United States and consider whether you want abortion to be as...varied.

We already send abortion ships to such hellish places as Poland and Portugal. I guess the same human rights mission could be made transatlantic.

I wolud rejoice

I wolud rejoice

I woludn't

I'd do what I can legally, but banning abortion nation-wide is just going to give organized crime a new cash cow they can feed off of and fuel their other operations. Which is going to give police all over even more headaches.

As for your army of abortionists, heres an interesting story about an organization called Jane which was active in Chicago until 1973(and for quite awhile after, depending on who you talk to).
http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUFeature/TribTheater.html

You cannot stop freedom, you can only present hurdles.
Also, consider the number of trained abortion doctors in America now. If their procedure was outlawed I can imagine that some would go underground. If they recruited and trained enough people, the government could have an unstoppable abortion 'guerilla' movement on its hands.

Thats all well and good, but honestly, I'm gonna come right out and say it. Fuck the civil discussion and orderly procession of law. There is only one proper response to a tyranical government and it involves a length of rope at least six feet shorter than the distance between the ground and the strongest branch of a tree.
No, you're wrong. It involves guns. Loads of guns. Rifles for all!

once a woman becomes pregnant, it no longer is just her body. it's incredibly arrogant for us to say when life begins. and yes i am a man. one thing that gets forgotten is a man's right as a father. why shouldn't a man have a say in whether or not his child is aborted? if the woman keeps the child he is financially responsible, and so should be a part of the decision.
Here we go again. :rolleyes:

It is always her body. The embryo/fetus is a separate life-form parasitizing her body's resources for it's own purposes. But it remains her body. Every part of it. Including the uterus. If she wants to let an embryo/fetus use it, that's her right. If she does not want to let the embryo/fetus use it it, that's her right, too. The embryo/fetus has nothing to say about it.

The man has even less to say about it. If he would like her to go through with a pregnancy, he can express that wish and offer to help as an inducement to her, but he does not own her body and he cannot force her to do anything or let an embryo/fetus do anything with it that she doesn't like. The end.

That's an interesting idea you have there. I live in a country where abortion is illegal, but due to the influence of The X Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X) women have had the constitutional right (supported by the majority, no less) to travel to Britain to get an abortion since 1995. Do you have reason to believe that American pro-life advocates are more fanatical about it than their Irish counterparts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ireland
Ireland may be willing to live with an unenforced and unenforceable law, but then Ireland is a much smaller country with fewer citizens to please. I don't know if the US government has ever been able to please all or even a clear majority of its people on much of anything for more than a month at a time.

As for how extreme these people can get -- well let me put it this way: The primary argument for why slavery was a moral system was "God made blacks to serve whites." Now that's obviously self-serving bullshit, but enough people bought into it enthusiastically enough that it became the driving issue of an entire Civil War. Now compare that lame excuse to the much more emotive anti-choice propaganda of "Save the babies!" Also, remember this movement already includes extremists willing to shoot doctors and bomb clinics. Trust me, this fight has plenty of ugly left to reveal. The anti-choice movement is on a Mission from God(tm) and they will not be satisfied with a lip-service situation such as exists in Ireland.

As for how extreme these people can get -- well let me put it this way: The primary argument for why slavery was a moral system was "God made blacks to serve whites." Now that's obviously self-serving bullshit, but enough people bought into it enthusiastically enough that it became the driving issue of an entire Civil War. Now compare that lame excuse to the anti-choice propaganda of "Save the babies!" Also, remember this movement already includes extremists willing to shoot doctors and bomb clinics. Trust me, this fight has plenty of ugly left to reveal.
Most pro-lifers in Ireland are Catholic and oppose abortion because they think it is murder. However I don't think they have ever used violence against pro-choice people. (Though America does have more of a culture of casual violence than we do.)

(Though America does have more of a culture of casual violence than we do.)

*coughsBelfastcoughs*

I know that many of you hold a strong belief in the right to get an abortion, so what if that right was overturned? Here's a poll

take extra care to use rubbers.

The Right doesnt want to reverse Roe V Wade...and they really dont want to ban abortion. If they did, they would have to stop calling for a reversal of Roe V. Wade and a ban on abortion.

Roe V. Wade is a rallying point for republicans. The pro-life lobby creates armies of republican voters who may vote very differently if abortion was banned...a reversal would effectively give people what they wanted from the republicans, and the republican party would no longer have an issue to rally around(except maybe airport security or something, but the power isnt there, since people dont affiliate thier religion with that).

Say Roe gets reversed, lets even say a ban on abortion comes about. The underground clinics that would spring up would do what they did before Abortion was legal, by creating an unclean and unsafe environment. Then the republicans would lose power without the pro-life voters, abortion would be legalized again, and hopefully the Dems wouldnt make the mistake of letting people forget why abortion should stay legal.

Come on--Specter showed his true colors when he voted against cloture and then for Alito. He sold out his pro-choice followers, just as Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman did. A federal ban will happen because politicians know that they have more to fear from an organized group of single issue voters like the anti-abortion crowd than they do from pro-choicers.

That's the thing about being a single issue voter--your politicians can shit on you on every other issue and still count on you because (not you personally Myrmidonisia) you, the single-issue voter, are too much of a chump to realize what's being done to you.

Nothing in Alito's judicial record indicates he would overturn Roe. Just the opposite in fact.

Most pro-lifers in Ireland are Catholic and oppose abortion because they think it is murder. However I don't think they have ever used violence against pro-choice people. (Though America does have more of a culture of casual violence than we do.)
Exactly. A smaller country, a more homogeneous population. Easier to manage a social balance for co-existence. Compare that to the US where regions span the continent. Our population will soon reach 300 million. All religions and/or philosophies, all races, all languages, massive differences in lifestyles, income brackets, social classes. Add a history of racism, xenophobia, and periodic outbreaks of radical religiosity (this isn't the first time this has happened). Lots of fuel for hostility, for paranoia that demagogues can exploit. Lots of room for crazy extremists looking for a fast track to heaven, too.

Oh, I really want to hear from the people who will Sabotage anti-choice/Republican operations and property or attack Republicans!

Arson might be fun.

And Rick Santorum would be well advised to watch himself.

The Right doesnt want to reverse Roe V Wade...and they really dont want to ban abortion. If they did, they would have to stop calling for a reversal of Roe V. Wade and a ban on abortion.

Roe V. Wade is a rallying point for republicans. The pro-life lobby creates armies of republican voters who may vote very differently if abortion was banned...a reversal would effectively give people what they wanted from the republicans, and the republican party would no longer have an issue to rally around(except maybe airport security or something, but the power isnt there, since people dont affiliate thier religion with that).

Say Roe gets reversed, lets even say a ban on abortion comes about. The underground clinics that would spring up would do what they did before Abortion was legal, by creating an unclean and unsafe environment. Then the republicans would lose power without the pro-life voters, abortion would be legalized again, and hopefully the Dems wouldnt make the mistake of letting people forget why abortion should stay legal.
This may describe what pro-life politicians really want, but I don't think it applies to the radical religious rightwing voters. Those people really are not single issue voters. Abortion is just one item on their agenda, which aims to make the US a "Christian" nation and includes religion in public education, censorship of the arts and media, eliminating gay rights, and rewriting US law to make it conform to their scriptures. All of these issues are already active out in the public arena.

If Roe gets overturned, these voters will not go home satisfied. They will continue to push for a national ban and get busy on their other issues.

Arson might be fun.

And Rick Santorum would be well advised to watch himself.
Are you planning to kidnap him and force him to work at a toddler day care center? I'm pretty sure that would make him change his position on abortion.

I would:

- Vocally protest, carry out acts of civil disobediance, and generally make a nussaince of myself.

- Write letters to people in protest

- Use my vote to nix ANY anti-choice candidate.

- Advocate for secession from the United States of Jesusland

- Help run and organize illegal abortion clinics to ensure safety for the women and to protect their rights.

Are you planning to kidnap him and force him to work at a toddler day care center? I'm pretty sure that would make him change his position on abortion.

Actually, now that you mention it, that sounds like a good plan. Hmmm...

The thing is, a lot of people think that Roe V Wade legalizes abortion.

It doesn't. It illegalizes illegalizing abortion.

If Roe V Wade were repealed, it would just mean states could illegalize abortion if they wanted. It would still be legal in liberal states, and clinics there would just shuttle women who wanted abortions over to their clinics.

And frankly...I am very pro-choice, up to the point of sentience. But I'm also for states' rights. Maybe states should have the right to illegalize abortion, so long as nothing's stopping women from getting to states where it's legal.

Have you taken a good look at what happens when you let individual states decide what restrictions they want to put on constitutional rights? Look up the disparity in gun laws across the United States and consider whether you want abortion to be as...varied.
Actually, I like the different states, it allows them to reflect the true voice of their people more than the federal government

*coughsBelfastcoughs*
That's organised violence. Also, Ulster is in many ways culturally different from the south.

Arson might be fun.

And Rick Santorum would be well advised to watch himself.
I would advise a policy of subtle sabotage. I would oppose attacking or killing Republicans, because that would confirm their propaganda that pro-choice people are murderous.

Well, I'll refer you to the partial-birth abortion bill. It's been found unconstitutional in the past, not because of federalism or because it falls outside the purview of Congress to regulate it, but because of the lack of health and life of the mother standards, which were required, I believe, by Casey. That case is coming before SCOTUS this term, I believe, and if the law is upheld (as I expect it will, given the court's current makeup), then that will be precedent for a federal abortion ban if Roe ever goes.
Sorry about the late reply, but work intrudes from time to time.

I think the late-term/partial birth ban is more window dressing, in that the procedure is not widely employed except as a protection for the health of the mother. More than that, it represents bad legislation for a good cause -- the division of infanticide from abortion. So again, I don't see the groundswell for a federal ban on all abortions.

Actually, I like the different states, it allows them to reflect the true voice of their people more than the federal government

Which is a wonderful thing, all the way up until you get to constitutional rights. The moment you begin to talk about rights whose privation would be justification for civil war, thats when states no longer get to have their voice. I'm all for a diverse society, but I refuse to tollerate an aspect of that society which does not respect the basci tenets of freedom outlined in the constitution. Those are the ground rules, if a government steps beyond them it is time for that government to be excised.

Which is a wonderful thing, all the way up until you get to constitutional rights. The moment you begin to talk about rights whose privation would be justification for civil war, thats when states no longer get to have their voice. I'm all for a diverse society, but I refuse to tollerate an aspect of that society which does not respect the basci tenets of freedom outlined in the constitution. Those are the ground rules, if a government steps beyond them it is time for that government to be excised.
you preach about denying freedom, but what about the states that dont want abortion? Arent you just denying them their freedom to not have it?

you preach about denying freedom, but what about the states that dont want abortion? Arent you just denying them their freedom to not have it?

States don't have freedom, they are semi-autonomous governing bodies hound by the constitution. States are not people, they are not individuals, they don't get to have rights. Individuals within a state who do not want an abortion have the freedom to not have one, but they do not get to tell someone else if they can have one.

Would you support a state that didn't want porn, or independant news sources and so decided to ban them? What about a state that thought the whole "equal rights" thing in the 14th amendment was a bad idea and thought they'd just impose special limts on a certain segment of society(gays, jews, blacks, women, take your pick)? Perhaps a given state believes that having to get a warrant for a search is too much trouble so they just ignore the 4th amendment, would that be ok?

Take a good look at the bill of rights. Every single right mentioned(or implied, gotta love the 9th) is an individual right or a limit upon the power of the government to force and individual to do something. Our country isn't built on tryanny of the majority, its built on minding your own business, living your own life. Extremists on both the right and the left seem to have forgotten that.