Miers, Roe, SCOTUS, and a world without abortion ... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-19-2005, 10:26 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Miers, Roe, SCOTUS, and a world without abortion ...

okay, this is NOT your typical FYM abortion thread.

let's consider the following:

[Q]Miers Once Vowed to Support Ban on Abortion
But Conservatives Still Question Nominee's Views

By Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; Page A01

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers once pledged that she would "actively support" a constitutional amendment banning abortions except to save a mother's life, participate in antiabortion rallies, and try to block the flow of public money to clinics and organizations that help women obtain the procedure.

Those 1989 written promises to an antiabortion group, made as she was campaigning for a seat on the Dallas City Council, came to light in documents that Miers delivered to the Senate yesterday. They emerged one day after she assured two senators that no one knows how she would vote on Roe v. Wade , the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide.

President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Learn more about Miers's background and nomination.
Nominations to the High Court

Miers also disclosed that she was briefly suspended by the District of Columbia Bar recently for not paying her annual dues.

While providing the most definitive evidence to date that she has publicly opposed broad abortion rights, yesterday's disclosure did not appear to quell doubts among some conservatives that Miers, the White House counsel and a longtime friend of President Bush, is a sound choice to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for a pivotal seat on the nation's highest court. Her attitude toward abortion has become a central issue in the controversy surrounding her rocky nomination to the court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101800715.html

[/Q]


let's imagine, now, that Miers is confirmed. she joins the court. a few years from now, she and Roberts deliver on Bush's coded promises to "the base" and Roe v. Wade is essentially overturned, and abortion is now illegal in all 50 states except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger.

what are the consequences -- good or bad -- of making abortion illegal? what would this world look like? what would be different, what would be the same, and what would women do with unwanted pregnancies? how would they respond? if you are a woman, imagine yourself pregnant in a country where you cannot have an abortion. what would you do? would you have made different decisions, either before getting pregnant or aftewards?

i really don't want to get into an "abortion: right or wrong?" thread, but i am interested to know how people think of just how making abortion illegal would impact them personally.

both boys and girls. and homos.

discuss.

oh, a caveat: unacceptable responses would be -- "we'd live in a world where thousands of babies aren't slaughtered in a quotidian holocaust" or "women will be treated like cattle, bought and sold for their breeding capabilities."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-19-2005, 01:32 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
daygloeyes2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: No Emily's Allowed
Posts: 26,459
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Very interesting questions. I never really thought about these things before.

If I did wind up pregnant and found myself in a situation where I could not or did not want to carry the baby(though personally I don't think I could ever get an abortion), I would have to carry the baby. Or, I might possibly turn to more extreme measures such as terminating the pregnancy myself or getting an abortion performed illegaly.
__________________

__________________
daygloeyes2 is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 01:45 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 02:32 PM
I could both positive and negative things happening. First women who wanted abortions would either go to another country to have it done or do it through some back alley method. This would be terrible and put women at great risk. Making abortion illegal here, will not stop people that really want it done.

If people have abortions done, is that a crime? What would be the punishment? Just a couple things that come up too.

A positive I see would be people that hopefully take more responsibility regarding sex. Use condoms or some sort of birth control. I know that many people only choose abortion as a last resort, but there are some poeple that may see it as an easy way out.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 02:41 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:32 PM
Re: Miers, Roe, SCOTUS, and a world without abortion ...

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
okay, this is NOT your typical FYM abortion thread.

let's consider the following:

[Q]Miers Once Vowed to Support Ban on Abortion
But Conservatives Still Question Nominee's Views

By Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; Page A01

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers once pledged that she would "actively support" a constitutional amendment banning abortions except to save a mother's life, participate in antiabortion rallies, and try to block the flow of public money to clinics and organizations that help women obtain the procedure.

Those 1989 written promises to an antiabortion group, made as she was campaigning for a seat on the Dallas City Council, came to light in documents that Miers delivered to the Senate yesterday. They emerged one day after she assured two senators that no one knows how she would vote on Roe v. Wade , the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide.

President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Learn more about Miers's background and nomination.
Nominations to the High Court

Miers also disclosed that she was briefly suspended by the District of Columbia Bar recently for not paying her annual dues.

While providing the most definitive evidence to date that she has publicly opposed broad abortion rights, yesterday's disclosure did not appear to quell doubts among some conservatives that Miers, the White House counsel and a longtime friend of President Bush, is a sound choice to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for a pivotal seat on the nation's highest court. Her attitude toward abortion has become a central issue in the controversy surrounding her rocky nomination to the court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101800715.html

[/Q]


let's imagine, now, that Miers is confirmed. she joins the court. a few years from now, she and Roberts deliver on Bush's coded promises to "the base" and Roe v. Wade is essentially overturned, and abortion is now illegal in all 50 states except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger.

what are the consequences -- good or bad -- of making abortion illegal? what would this world look like? what would be different, what would be the same, and what would women do with unwanted pregnancies? how would they respond? if you are a woman, imagine yourself pregnant in a country where you cannot have an abortion. what would you do? would you have made different decisions, either before getting pregnant or aftewards?

i really don't want to get into an "abortion: right or wrong?" thread, but i am interested to know how people think of just how making abortion illegal would impact them personally.

both boys and girls. and homos.

discuss.

oh, a caveat: unacceptable responses would be -- "we'd live in a world where thousands of babies aren't slaughtered in a quotidian holocaust" or "women will be treated like cattle, bought and sold for their breeding capabilities."
The United States as a country did just fine for the first 197 years of its history without having abortion be legal. Of course, many will say that there would be a rise in "Back Alley" Abortions and as a result more death to women seeking an abortion under unsafe conditions. This may be true to some extent, but at the same time, birth control is much more widely available than it was over 30 years ago and banning abortion will probably lead many to be more responsible when it comes to using birth control than current figures indicate. This could also lead to more protection from STDs as people seek to better protect themselves from pregnancies that cannot be aborted legally.

Also, RUA46 and other morning after drugs may become legally available in the United States or a large underground market for such drugs will expand.

Overturning "Roe v. Wade" in the 21st century United States would not be a complete return to pre- Roe V. Wade conditions prior to the early 1970s.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:03 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 03:32 PM
I'd go to another country and get an abortion. No matter what the cost.

I guess if there was no way I could do that I would find someone here that would provide an abortion. I'm sure that for the first several years (at least) after becoming illegal there would still be doctors willing and able to provide such a service.

And then I would try to find a way to permanently leave this country.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:21 PM   #6
War Child
 
Sparkysgrrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under the table and screaming
Posts: 754
Local Time: 11:32 AM
Re: Miers, Roe, SCOTUS, and a world without abortion ...

I'm dead tired and can't be arsed to type it all up again, but when I asked in another thread this -

A woman in her late twenties, with a long family history of depression/alcoholism. Is recently coming out of living in a homeless shelter for 2 years, has a job she enjoys, nice apt, still struggling but getting her life back together. Has no health insurance. Due to her family history, she has known her whole life, she never wanted to give birth to a child, or get married.

Is in a monogamous long term relationship, has been on birth control for 5 years, and yet STILL becomes pregnant.

What is she supposed to do in this situation?


I was speaking for myself and many others in similar situations. Sometimes it seems like people don't think of these things when an issue comes up. Like what would they seriously do if they were in that situation, when you come to a point you never thought you'd be in. I've known many 'pro-life' people who have had abortions, because when it comes down to it, they could not be faced with having another child.
It's not that far fetched a thing to happen, it's not some grand hypothetically question like "you're stuck on a raft with 5 family members, who do you eat first"

I don't even know how people don't think of this stuff.
__________________
Sparkysgrrrl is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:27 PM   #7
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 07:32 PM
More sexual responsibility.

Which in turn would also lower the amount of STD cases in the US.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:34 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
More sexual responsibility.

Doubt it. I think the percentage that has sex irresponsibly with the thinking they can just get an abortion is very very small.


Unfortunately I think poor sexual education would still exist.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:34 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
More sexual responsibility.

Which in turn would also lower the amount of STD cases in the US.
But how would you enforce the sexual responsibility and make sure that people really are responsible?
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:39 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:32 PM
Well, abortion IS illegal here in lil' oul Ireland, so I think I can offer some perspective. It is possible to obtain information about abortion clinics abroad, also contraceptives of various forms are readily available, but abortion is illegal in all circumstances..... except where there is a threat to the life of the mother.

What we do effectively, is we export the problem to the UK. Of the (probably) hundreds of flights between Dublin and London every week, you can pretty much guarantee on many of those flights there is someone going over to have an abortion.

How Canada would hypothetically cope with a similar influx from the US, I have no idea.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:55 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 02:32 PM
There was actually a fairly long and well written article in a Canadian paper a couple of years ago about how American Fundamentalist groups would then turn their attention to revving up their base in Canada because it would be immoral that all women have to do is fly up to Buffalo or Seattle or wherever, cross the border and have a D&C, no questions asked.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 04:26 PM   #12
War Child
 
Sparkysgrrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under the table and screaming
Posts: 754
Local Time: 11:32 AM
flying to canada for an abortion, eeks!

And I'll be damned if I'm going to Tijuana for an abortion.
__________________
Sparkysgrrrl is offline  
Old 10-20-2005, 12:30 AM   #13
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Local Time: 07:32 PM
If Roe v Wade was overturned, it would simply mean that the individual states would decide if it is legal/illegal within their borders. But, being liberals, I'm sure none of you are really ever interested in facts. Just throw some shit up against the wall, and whatever sticks is the truth for you.
__________________
theblazer is offline  
Old 10-20-2005, 12:32 AM   #14
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by theblazer
But, being liberals, I'm sure none of you are really ever interested in facts. Just throw some shit up against the wall, and whatever sticks is the truth for you.
Once again the troll brings light to the forum.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-20-2005, 03:44 AM   #15
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Well, abortion IS illegal here in lil' oul Ireland, so I think I can offer some perspective.
If I may pester you with a few questions then...

What exactly are the penalties? Do they apply only to the woman, or do they extend to anyone who helps her obtain an abortion? What's the moral logic behind making an exception for cases where the mother's life might be threatened? And what percentage of Irish women give their babies up for adoption?

**********************************
I agree with STING2 that an overturn of Roe v. Wade would not be tantamount to a return to the 1950s, though I don't share his optimism(?) about increased availability of RU486, nor about reliable access to effective, affordable contraception. In any case, there's no such thing as 100% effective contraception (voice of experience here...).

I find the notion of criminalization of abortion as an incentive to greater "responsibility" misguided. The implicit threat of "And we'll punish you [women] with a kid you don't want if you misbehave!" is a sadly ironic consequence--but an inevitable one--of framing unwanted pregnancy in terms of obligation to the state. As a parent and a human being, I'm all for greater sexual and procreative responsibility, but this starkly punitive approach does no justice at all to my moral reasons for supporting these things--on the contrary, it undermines them. It will not build care and compassion; it will not build respect for the institution of family; and it will not build reverence and gratitude for the wonder and privilege of bringing a new life into the world. You cannot legislate those things into being.

What I believe it will increase is fear, humiliation and embitteredness, just as I've already seen in a few girls I've known who were forced by their families to bear children their hearts (not their egos or wallets) could not be brought to welcome. I do appreciate that for some there is at least the negative rationale that it would prevent murder, but neither my religion nor my conscience accord with this view, and I can't accept as righteous or just a state that equates women who opt to resist an enforced pregnancy with those who kill out of hatred.

How an individual woman would be affected by having to bear (and most likely raise) an unwanted child depends on her life situation. Obviously, for most the best (i.e., least-worst) scenario would involve a securely committed relationship with a devoted and supportive partner, in a financial situation not burdened by debt, lack of insurance or sub-poverty-line income. Next best would be said financial stability, plus a devoted and supportive family--but this is unlikely, given the stresses placed on family bonds by the stigma associated with carrying an unwanted child outside a committed relationship.

Ultimately that supportive relationship, whatever form it takes, is the most badly needed thing: money will be needed too, of course, but the notion that purely monetary child support somehow constitutes "sharing the burden" is morally bankrupt bullshit.

But realistically, most women won't have any such luck, and will wind up walking the better part of this road alone, with whatever support friends can offer here and there. As anyone who's watched a girl or woman go through this situation can attest, it is a socially stigmatizing experience, not at all comparable to the exchanges of joyous anticipation which surround a woman carrying a *wanted* child, and which provide welcome compensation for the pains and--cloying pregnant madonna stereotypes notwithstanding--physical indignities of pregnancy.

Whether or not the adoption rate would increase if abortion were criminalized is an interesting question. I've seen no clearly pertinent statistics on this, but am inclined to suspect most women's sense of agency and destiny would be sufficiently altered by this experience that they'd feel psychologically unable to plunge back into their old lives as if nothing had happened--not to mention that friends, colleagues and relatives wouldn't regard them the same anymore anyway. It could even, I suppose, create a paradoxical, trapped-here-together kind of bond to the baby, with a corresponding opportunity to reimagine motherhood as a resistance to the whole cycle of forced submission (symbolically completed by giving the baby up for adoption after going through all that). But whether this would really be a good reason to keep a baby...I don't know. Doesn't seem like the sort of mother-child bond God intended, but that is not for me to judge.

Great thread idea Irvine.


~ Peace
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com