Did anyone watch NOW with Bill Moyers last Friday night?

He had a segment called "Women's Reproductive Rights." The link is here:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/politicsofchoice.html

This web site really doesn't do the piece justice so I wanted to note what I gleaned from the segment.

The segment was basically about how the Bush administration is working very methodically to change our abortion laws. Those interviewed on this program claim Bush's ultimate goal is to completely end abortion. They cite recent executive and legislative activity as their proof of his extremely well thought out and “sneaky” strategy.

Here's the skinny:

First, two days after the President took office he changed the Mexico City Policy, which requires non-governmental organizations that receive U.S. funding to agree that they will neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20010123-5.html

The above decision has other affects on those countries that are more harmful in the long run in my opinion and I’d like to explore that here as we discuss this issue.

Second, the President is slowly changing the way people think about a "fetus" by changing the description of a fetus to "unborn" or unborn baby" or "unborn child." As we are all aware, language is used as a tool to control perceptions, attitudes, etc.. Pro-choice advocates acknowledge that his strategy is working. People’s views on abortion are changing.

Third, the Partial-Birth Abortion Bill passed the Senate and is up for consideration in the House. Many see this as the first step in legislatively rolling back in a woman’s right to abort.

Fourth, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act states, any person who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection ( B ) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

This legislation will been aided because the murder of Laci Peterson.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.146:

You should read this and ask yourself is the language such that a doctor could be accused of murder for performing an abortion.

My question is:

Do you believe this administration is slowly making changes that could one day end abortion?

No, I don't. This is always the issue when a Republic president is in power, which is why there are a lot of 'one issue voters' in America. Many fear the slippery slope.

I don't see abortions becoming illegal, ultimately. Refusal of government funding of abortions doesn't pave the way for this. Partial birth abortions are rare, and should not be allowed unless the life or health of the mother is at risk. If the baby is viable, how could a law defend that on the basis of a whim? It is clear and direct infanticide.

As far as Bush changing the 'language' from fetus to baby...Since fetus is a medical term, as is 'spontaneous abortion' in the case of a miscarriage, he can call a fetus a baby until he is blue in the face and that will not replace the true, medical word.

Since Roe v Wade, we have had a series of Republican presidents, and not one has eliminated abortion as a choice for women. I don't see refusal of abortion funding, outlawing of infanticide, or repeated use of the word 'baby' to replace 'fetus' any closer move in that direction. I believe, rather, that NOW is isolating itself and becoming increasingly extremist in comparison with the rest of the population.

Not for lack of desire to do so, but because the Supreme Court wouldn't let them. That picture is likely to change when Stevens and Ginsburg retire (it's part of the reason why Stevens hasn't yet) and are replaced by judges more to the right wing's liking.

Actually, the current talk is for Renquist and O'Connor to retire this summer.

President Bush is free to refer to fetuses as "the unborn" or "babies" or whatever. Nothing insidious about that.

As Platypus points out, it is (however absurdly) a Constitutional issue. Only a change in the Supreme Court (or overwhelming change in voter preference) will change the official stance on the legality of abortion.

Do you (collective you) support abortion under any of the following circumstances?

The mother has a disease that if left untreated will cause her death. The treatment will severely deform, perhaps kill the unborn child.

The unborn child has a birth defect like anencephaly.

A child or woman was raped and became pregnant.

They all are solid reasons for abortion, in my opinion. I believe abortion is an important procedure women should have access to, however I also believe there should be qualifying factors.

Abortion, for many of the "social" or “economic” reasons, is unacceptable. It sickens me to think that every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Think about that - 4 million babies born in America every year and a little over 1 million abortions.

Women should be able to choose an abortion if that child or the mother’s life is in danger. Woman should be able to choose an abortion if they were violated and become pregnant.

To quote from an article from ifeminist:



As long as both sides adhere to a no-compromise position ~ from trying to protect "live birth abortions" on one side to insisting that abortion under any circumstance is murder on the other ~ we make nearly impossible the only route to rarity. Kathleen Parker

The qualifiers I listed at the top of this post as acceptable reasons for abortion are rare.

Social and economic abortions are far too common. They make up the majority of abortions.

We have to do something about that. We have to find a middle ground and I believe that is what the Bush administration is trying to do. Changing the word "fetus" to "unborn child" raises awareness. It changes the way we think about life inside the womb and is an intelligent way to approach the issue.

Subtle verbiage changes in laws can and does lead to changes in thought processes. Changes in thought processes lead to behavior changes. More responsible behavior may lead to fewer abortions.

But we have to be ever mindful and watchful that the choice is not taken away completely.

Subtle changes in laws, a couple of changes to the Supremes and Roe v Wade can be deemed unconstitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree, but...sources, please.

No, I didn't see it, but I'll keep my eyes peeled for it. It would be so easy for me to let this develop into an abortion rant, but I'll try to answer the question. Yes, I do think the Bush administration is trying to take away abortion rights. The first sign of this was refusing foreign aid to countries that would use the money to perform abortions. And yes, I have noticed in the speeches that he does not say fetus, he says unborn. I don't think I've ever heard him say fetus once. Unborn this, Unborn that...life life life...blah blah blah. I think that if he sees that the slow, methodical strategy doesn't work, he'll switch to another one, probably more proactive and blatant. Either way, I firmly believe he wants to ultimately end a woman's right to choose.

Abortion FAQ:

http://www.ppcna.org/abortfaq.html

and

The Alan Guttmacher Institute:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/abslides/

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html

Most Important Reason Given for Terminating an Unwanted Pregnancy

Inadequate finances 21%

Not ready for responsibility 21%

Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%

Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%

Too young; not mature enough 11%

Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%

Fetus has possible health problem 3%

Woman has health problem 3%

Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%

Other 4%

Average number of reasons given 3.7

If Scott Peterson is convicted of killing his pregnant wife Laci, do you think he should be charged with one count of homicide for murdering his wife or two counts of homicide for murdering both his wife and unborn son?

Do you see the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" now known as the "Laci and Conner's Law" as a strategy of stealth designed to undermine supreme court guarantees on abortion?

We already have a thread dedicated to discussing the law and Peterson's baby here: Scott Peterson - Double murderer?, Is killing an unborn fetus murder?

Let's keep this thread to discussing the Bush administrations' actions regarding abortion law.

Jaime,

I am so sorry. I performed a search using the name Laci Peterson and the only thread that came back was this one. I was curious as to why this subject hadn't been discussed on the boards. Just didn't look hard enough I guess.

Yes, of course they're trying to, and why would that surprise anyone? Is it shocking a President would try to do what he's said over and over again he believes in, and that agrees with his party's platform? Especially when if he didn't at least make a credible attempt his political coalition would unravel?

But it isn't likely they'll be more than modestly successful, for reasons that others have already given. Ultimately it is a constitutional question and will be decided by the Supreme Court, or over time by change in public opinon.

I'm still trying to figure out what "reproductive right" has anything to do with the slaying of a seperate child currently residing inside of a woman.

Anyways, from my understanding, there is no actual constitutional authority to kill an unborn child, there is the judicial decree of the "Right To Privacy" which in Roe vs. Wade was further extended by Judicial fiat to say that punishing a woman or doctore for the killing of a child residing inside of a woman violates her right to privacy. Basically, an unborn child is the woman's property (by judicial decree), erroniously labeled "a part of her body" when in reality - according to medical fact (see sources below), the unborn child, a completely seperate entity attaches itself to the woman for sustinance, and detatches and emerges at the proper time.

I admire the honesty of the women who say that the life of an unborn child is not worth 9 months of their discomfort, even if I disagree with them. Unlike the others who lie to themselves and others, making claims of "It's a bunch of unliving, unfeeling, cells!" and "It's a part of a woman, just like her hair and fingernails, to dispose of, or allow to grow as she wants."

In addition, it creates another great injustice - if a woman knows she is an unfit parent, and the father would get custody, rather than pay tens of thousands in child support over the next two decades, she just snuffs out the life of the child, whereas, if a father who cannot prove a mother is unfit (practically the only way for a father to get custody of a child) were to kill the unborn child, he would be charged with murder in many jurisdictions.

As it currently stands, Roe vs. Wade could be reversed with either:
A. Judicial review - the currect Supreme court reviews the case, or a similar one.
B. Constitutional Amendment - The constitution is greater in authority than the court.

Given the appointments the G.W. would like to make, I think A may come along sooner or later.

Most anti-abortionists simply want an end to elective abortion, not physically required abortions. As it currently stands, according to Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 410 U.S. 113, 1973 and Doe vs. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court, 410 U.S. 179, 1973 abortion in all 50 states for the full nine months of pregnancy is legalized for social and economic reasons. It created a new basic constitutional right for women in the right to privacy which was "broad enough to encompass a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy." In addition, it stated that the law protects only legal "persons" and that "legal personhood does not exist prenatally." In addition, there were to be no legal restrictions at all on abortion in the first three months, no restrictions from then until viability, except those needed to make the procedure safer for the mother, and abortion was allowed until birth if one licensed physician judged it necessary for the mother's "health."

And of course, the SC defined health in Doe vs. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-40, IV, p. 11, Jan. 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-18, p. 38, Jan. 1973 with:

abortion could be performed: ". . . in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."
and
"Maternity or additional offspring may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically or otherwise, to care for it. In other cases the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors that the woman and the responsible physician will consider in consultation."
In addition, viability is what the doctor says it is, according to Colautti vs. Franklin, 429 U.S. 379, 1979

-Robert

Sources for medical fact of beginning of life:
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981:
Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Beginning of human life? -- "at conception."
Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception."
Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."

This arguemnt is erronious in that 'the unborn child' is not a separate 'entity' such as a parasite or alien (as in not of herself) figure you describe. It does not 'take up residence' and the woman simply become a vehicle.
Her fertilized Egg attaches to the uterus a few days after conception and cells divide and grow there into a baby over time. It does not detach and emerge at the proper time, she MUST feed it by feeding herself, and through her body and effort birth it. A woman is NOT a baby making vessel and the growing fetus is not in charge or in any way self supporting. The fetus cannot live outside the female body until 6 and most common 7 months after gestation and is even then weak and sick, needing incubators and months of health care.

In other reproductive arguements recently several men have decried that males should NOT be responsible for unwanted children; there are many many more single mothers out there than single fathers, and many more males in the courts denying having to pay a dime for their 'unwanted children'. These things turn a circle around women who have so few choices when it comes to all this moral preaching and contrastingly closed wallets.
I find it interesting that it is mostly males who have the strongest views against abortion and also the strong views against supporting children, especially if not their own (programs etc). Make up your minds.

My argument is not erronious in anyway.

First, it is erronious to refer to the new being, as her fertilized egg - which would imply that it is still an egg, and that is belongs to the mother. It is, at that point, a zygote, an entirely new human being, no longer a "part" of the mother.

As for feeding it, the mother makes no concious choice to feed it, it is an autonomic function, something over which nature gives you no control. If a zygote attaches itself to the wall, your body feeds it, of its own accord. As for effort, medical science shows that it is the fetus that decides when to initiate labor.

As for living conditions, should the current state of viability determinate personage? Many 6 month olds are not capable of living on its own, let along a fetus. So, if you would be in support of viability as the judge of when personage begins, then a persons livelihood is determined by the current state of the medical system? If, in the future, we are able to sustain 3 week old zygotes, will that be the point at which you, yourself say - no more abortion - it's viable! The determination of 7 months is highly arbitrary, simply determined by the current status of medical science - which, if done to todays standards, would have to be much earlier, as now premies are viable at much earlier than 7 months.

Now, for your statement concerning men and their statments.

IF women are not accountable to raising children they do not want, why should men? It is simple equality. Consider - we're not even asking for full equality. If that were the case, then men should have the right to terminate an unwanted child, reguardless of the woman's wants - after all, as you have stated - it's just a fertilized egg. That means half of the new child is the man's.

However, if you want men to be responsible for their mistakes, perhaps you should want women to be responsible, rather than the current advocation of irresponibility characteristic in the wholesale slaughter of fetuses, rather than raising the child, allowing the father to raise it, or allowing others to adopt it.

-Robert

I do think Roe v. Wade is horribly bad constitutional law because the reasoning for the expansion and federalization of the implied right to privacy on which it is based is untenably tenuous, a "thin tissue of crap" to use a Buckleyism, and so it should be overturned, but that's a separate debate.

If this were true then it could live outside the mother. It is in fact still part of the mother and will be until birth or termination. Cells can be grown initially outside a mother, and possibly one day a full test tube baby, but there is more to growing babies than cells. Surely you can see this as intertwined, hence your anti-abortion stance, unless you see women as a baby making machine? If the mother was simply a feeding and growth system as you describe, then why should any woman feel inclined to motherhood? Too much trouble, put it in a test tube! Yes its an egg, but mother and child are one, not two entities for some time.
If the mother is malnurished, too weak to support the child growth, ill, or the fetus chromosomally incorrect the body dumps the egg, often in the 7-10 week period. No matter how you would like to see this, the mother is an integral part of the growth and birthing process as well as spiritually attached.

In many cultures women eliminate unwanted birthed babies knowing that they cannot support the new life. I cannot debate this with you here because this is not an abortion debate per say, and we will be told such promptly Im sure.



If I am correct, basically what you are saying is, that if women have abortion rights then men should not have to be responsible for unwanted children, based on gender decision equality. And, if abortion were illegal it would, then and only then, be right that men be responsible to raise their children; both parties being equally culpable.
So what you are in fact saying is that as long as abortion is legal, men have no responsability towards (his) unwanted child as well as she has the option of termination.
The problem is, here we get into government control or lack of, and not personal decision. Many women feel for personal or religious reasons that abortion is wrong. This has no bearing for them on what is legal or moral to the rest of society today. Abortion may be legal, but she cannot do it. Is she simply alone because 'he' says , too bad, you can get an abortion, its legal, if you dont then I want no part of it?

In your post you seem to take both an anti-abortion stance and an anti- male responsability stance based on legalities of todays standards as if all people fit into the legal box. This is really tons of excuses to get out of responsability. Ive said before, put a condom on, step up and take responsability for when you want babies or not and quit the blame game.
There are many adoptions and men raising children alone, but much less than women raising children on their own, so WHO seems to be balking responsability for the most part between the two sexes?
As long as men keep denying their kids and disappearing when it comes to taking care of them rightly, women will continue to make decisions about what children mean to them, a decision that affects your whole life, not 9 months. It not only what happens in the body, its a life decision.



Im sure this would be a viable option if there werent so many squirming around and lack of interest.

If this (zygote is not a part of the mother) were true then it could live outside the mother. It is in fact still part of the mother and will be until birth or termination.

So, does this mean that an injured woman is part of a ventilator, as she could not live without it? Or is the ventilator simply lifesupport, providing oxygen, the same way a mother's body does?

From the beginning, the egg is released, even though still inside the mother. There is no connection to the mother at that time. The egg will never connect to the mother, unless it is combined with a sperm. Once it combines with a sperm, it begins division, and after a bit, connects itself to the mother.

I can appreciate what you're saying, but the majority of the medical profession disagrees with you Artemise.

In addition, medical fact states that the fetus decides when to begin labor, not the mother. However, you are correct in that if the fetus is damaged or the mothers body is screwy in some way, it will autonomically abort the child. How exactly this autonomic funtion somehow makes a completely seperate being "part of the mother" you have still not explained.

Also, please leave spirituality out of this debate, as that is a road you do NOT want to travel down. Spiritually, according to the vast majority of spiritual experts, a new beings life beings at conception.

Also, about your "religious anti-abortion" defense, a mother does not have to abort in order to avoid responsibility. How many children today are raised by aunts, uncles, grandparents, or completely adopted to someone else?

As for male responsibility, the system is inherently twisted against men, so you would expect them to stick around and get screwed over? Without digressing to far, in today's system, a man cannot gain custody unless he can prove beyond all doubt that the mother is grossly unfit. In addition, child support is forcibly taken, even if DNA evidence proves the child is not his. Even more perversly, many men support their children (house them more than 50% time) and STILL have to pay child support to the mother.

Make the system equal, including equal options to get out of the responsibility (or is it only ok for mothers to kill children) and you'll see much less dead-beat dads (even though one out of ever three pregnancies results in a dead-beat mother (read:abortion), according to planned parenthood).

-Robert

You speak for the majority of the medical profession? Great! Maybe you can ask them if blood is part of the baby, and where that comes from.
I am also trying to figure out how any of this is regarding the question,'Is the administration making changes that will effect Roe v Wade one day?'

MrsPigpen,

This is related, as it is a rebuttal of an attack against a post that answered the orginal question posed.

As for speaking for the majority of the medical profession, you can choose to be annally retentive, or, you can refer to the sources I have posted on similar topics. Or do I need to post the exact same sources each and every time I make a post that relies on the exact same information?

-Robert

I believe NOW is discrediting themselves with their radical stand on abortion, on the one side. How can anyone favor whimsical late term abortion? How can any mother raise her children and still believe in the individual woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy? Why do so many people fear that slippery slope so much they are unwilling to compromise? Why do people who find abortion on demand morally repugnant still back the woman's right to 'choose'?

Because on the other side, there’s the radical, too. Unfortunatley, it goes beyond the ifeminist article Beladonna quoted. It isn't abortion clinic bombers and doctor shooters, because that element is self-evident. Not the religious radicals who believe that the zygot is sacred and premarital sex should be a capital offense. Those are more fringe elements of the population. The true scary affront to women everywhere (as seen by many abortion 'supporters') is the stereotypical sexual predator type of man. The man with completely frivolous regard for the sex act, and absolutely no respect for women, The complete hypocrite who seduces and avoids responsibility while loudly and proudly claiming moral superiority over a woman who takes a day after pill if a condom rips. The morally bankrupt person who wags his finger at another because it’s easy. That isn’t the type of person who just LOVES babies and wants to save them. There are a lot of victims of those types of men. That is what makes the issue of abortion so deeply personal, and the reason radical organizations like NOW are able to sway a lot of supporters into their folds. What’s worse than abortion on demand by the woman carrying the child? The potential of that type of hypocrite having power over any woman’s body and pregnancy.

You do, in fact, need to re-post your sources in each thread that you participate in. Not everyone reads every single thread. It has nothing to do with anal retention.

What I want to know is, when are they going to repeal that pesky 1st degree murder law. How dare they interfere with a man's (or woman's) right to choose.

The answer to that one, Raimi, is that there IS NO federal law against 1st degree murder. That's a state law, in every state. That's because the federal government has no jurisdiction over common crimes, and if abortion is murder, than it would be a common crime too. Conversely, it has no jurisdiction to mandate that states allow abortion either, that is if the Justices applied the plain language of the Constitution instead of making stuff up to suit their political views.

Cyan, if a person cannot only be bothered to read a reply, without reading the replied to post, or the post that that referred to, do they really deserve such?

Or shall I now demand sources for every single thing stated as fact at any time? Reguardless, it seems there is a time limit on editing posts, so here are those sources for those who could not be bothered to read them the first time:

Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 410 U.S. 1973
Doe vs. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court, 410 U.S. 1973
Colautti vs. Franklin, 429 U.S. 379, 1979
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981
---

In addition, given time to reconsider the matter, and read the underlying judicial decree on the subject, I doubt this administration is slowly making changes that could one day end abortion. Rather, according to current law and judicial decree, all abortions after the third month maybe carried out until viability. Viability is when the doctor says it is.

So, for abortion to end (after the third month), all that needs to happen is medical science to advance to the point where third month fetuses are viable, with disbarement for any doctor who claims they are not.

For those earlier than three months, it is a bit more trickier. You would need a reversal of the two afformentioned cased by the Supreme court, or a constitutional amendment. Of course, if embryos earlier than three months become viable due to advances in medical science, then the court will be in a conflict - as what do they consider more important - the privacy of a woman's insides (the only thing even remotely constitutional about abortion) or the entire life of a child (who would then be viable, due to whatever medical advances).

-Robert

The first time a fertility clinic worker is tried for murder or manslaughter for dropping a tray of fertilized eggs, Ill take the pro-life position seriously.