2006-07-23 06:29:48 · 15 answers · asked by rottenkid4560 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Bravo Coragryph: somebody who actually got what I was trying to elude too. See Jane Magazine August issue. It will blow your minds. Jennifer Baumgardner writes an article about South Dakota and the near total ban on abortion. So we all have something to worry about because 'our' rights are gravely in jeopardy. So yes be afraid.
2006-07-23 08:20:37 · update #1
I believe that once a woman becomes pregnant her body belongs to that unborn person until it is born. If she didn't want to be a mother she should have used protection or better yet, abstained! If Bush were to overturn this ruling, more power to him (and to all of those unborn children out there). I think you are grasping at yet another way to cause division.
2006-07-23 06:37:05 · answer #1 · answered by sittin tight 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, it would be the Supreme Court overturning it. Despite what he thinks, Bush cannot overturn laws.
That being said, it's really amazing to me how many people don't see the freight train hiding being their little conservative posterboard...
Do you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterilizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right.
As soon as Casey is overturned (for those who forget: Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992) we've lost freedom from government interference in reproductive choice.
The thing about the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing entirely unrelated issues. Pro-life people say "abortion is bad". Pro-choice advocates say "The government should be making personal decisions that like". It's not about abortion. Never has been. It's about who gets to make the decisions.
The question distills down to this: someone is going to choose. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority (through enacted laws). If the majority gets to choose, then they are effectively imposing their belief system -- which is almost always religiously-based -- on everyone. If the individual gets to choose, then it allows for those people who happen to believe that a 6-week old collection of cells is not yet a person, as well as those who believe it is.
But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, if women lose the individual right to choose, and the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to state control.
New York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.
Or North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide. Right?
South Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. Or mandating that women serve as surrogates so every embryo ever created has a full chance to become a senator. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide? When the states can't even follow the existing rules of law?
Once the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not. That's just might-makes-right (or right-makes-might) majority-rule bullying.
Right now, the conservatives happen to be in the majority, so many of them seem to have no objection to imposing their religious and moral views on others.
Do you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians? Do people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must? Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.
The concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.
Why can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
2006-07-23 13:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By utilizing the term "ladies" in a general address, you're assuming that all those humans of the type female (in today's use of the word "lady") agree with Roe v. Wade. I frankly find that most facets of modern feminism (including almost unrestricted legalized abortion) do more to hinder than further the cause of women's rights and gender equality.
President Bush overturn Roe v. Wade! Hahahahahaha! He might be able to pursue (at best) questionable foreign policy intitiatives and violate the constitution on a regular basis (as with so many administrations before his), but he hardly has the power to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thanks for the laugh.
2006-07-23 13:52:48 · answer #3 · answered by ohevshalomel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Join NARAL now. Check into what's going on in South Dakota. Write to your congressman or woman and let them know how you feel about your reproductive rights. Make sure you know what you are up against with the candidates in the next election and for GOD'S SAKE, VOTE!!!!
The Choice is ours to make. Keep it that way!!!
Good question!!!
2006-07-23 13:35:06 · answer #4 · answered by Bethany 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, if/when Roe v Wade gets overturned, it will be the US Supreme Court that does it. Not W or any other president.
2006-07-23 13:37:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's unfortuntate, really. While I personally feel that abortion should only be considered or performed in certain situations or circumstances, it's not my business (or anyone elses) what a woman chooses to do with or to her own body, and it's not my place to force my religious or moral views down someone elses throat.
2006-07-23 13:36:57 · answer #6 · answered by WhyAskWhy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, no it isn't. He's not touching that one. He only has another yeaar in office, and Roe vs. Wade is hardly at the top of his list. Stop trying to flame a fire where there isn't even a spark.
2006-07-23 13:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by tsopolly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The next thing you know, we'll all be ordered to wear
Pilgrim dresses.
If he does over turn it, & a women dies from a back alley
abortion, can he be sued for wrongful death?
Women got to get it together - we ARE their Equal &
we Are capable of making our decisions.
2006-07-23 14:21:43 · answer #8 · answered by Calee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the government should have never had to get involved with what a woman does with her body, and don't think they should now....I am against abortion, personally, but I don't think I have the right to tell a woman she can't do it, it is her body....if you take it away, you take away a freedom......being pro choice is not bad.....but pro life makes theirs, and then thinks everyone should follow their thoughts.....hmmmmm....aren't we all so hypocritical....damn, I love this country
2006-07-23 13:54:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
monkadunk you idiot, roe vs wade allowed for abortion, if it is overturned, that means abortion is outlawed!
sittin tight has the right idea
2006-07-23 13:38:05 · answer #10 · answered by thelogicalferret 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋