Jessica, I'm offended by your use of foul language on this blog. But then again, I'm offended by just about everything you write. If your goal is to charge up the extreme left, anti-family NARAL supporters then you may well succeed. But I sincerely doubt you'll gain any sympathy or support from decent, respectful Americans by throwing around the F word.

What the hell is wrong with people? I just found this at your site: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/trends/issues_abortion_bans.cfm.

It says that there are 15 states that have laws right now that would make abortion illegal immediately if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

It may not be that many doctors, but it's a lot of women. Including me, I live in one of these states.

I'm offended by your use of the term 'anti-family' to describe NARAL supporters, Jim. I'm tired of people like you who assume that those who are pro-choice and pro-women's rights are against families. I like families just as much as the next guy, but I don't see how being pro-choice is against families. (NARAL isn't 'extreme left' either. I don't think reproductive rights is an extreme request.) Please explain, if you could.

Jim Jefferson;

If you find that you are consistently offended by anything and everything that is posted to this blog why, oh why do you keep coming back? Are you afraid that if trolls didn't pop up on each and every thread we might forget that such as you exist?

You know, everyone is talking about Karl Rove and while I feel very strongly about him as well, of course, if it's between Karl Rove and women having the right to an abortion, I don't give a crap about Karl Rove. You know, when someone has an abortion it's still in the stage of a couple cells, not a live baby. When you take a live baby and slaughter them, I would be against that too of course, but that's not what abortion means. It means the right for women to have a choice. You have to remember, people who are anti-abortion, that you might be talking about some 12, 13, 14 year old girl who was raped and got pregnant and contracted AIDS. It happens too often. And also, if a kid couldn't find a home, even through adoption (which also happens too often) and had to grow up on the streets homeless and starving, would you still say that was meant to be? Also, people like President Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. who call themselves pro-life because they're anti-abortion?? They say they're pro-life and they're willing to make a stink about a woman having an abortion because she knows she can't take care of the baby, but they're also willing to go into Iraq and kill thousands of civilians as well as American troops for money and oil... is that pro-life? And when people are sentenced to the death-penalty for a crime, which doesn't undo what the victim lost and simply takes another human life... is that pro-life? I just think you really have to re-consider your "pro-life" rantings and what they suggest and mean for all different groups of people. Including women.

"...a little {expletive deleted} sick of ... articles coming out saying that if Roe is overturned it won’t make a difference."

Roe overturned will make a huge difference. I spent some time and a goodly reserve of my dwindling eyesight today review in great detail the opinions written on the series of cases involving a host is issues around Roe the Jusctice Roberts wrote while he was Justice Rehnquist's law clerk. I was trying to answer I posed yesterday: Will Mr. Roberts, with his reprutation as a "strict constructionist" argue and vote to return the powers granted to the Federal government under Roe to the States or will he endorse the Statist line of his mentor Mr. Rehnquist and follow the lead of mr. Thomas and Mr. Scalia?

I am here to report that I now firmly belive Mr. Roberts will not follow a 10th Amendment construct: He will vote-perhaps gradually but with the determination of a lifetime of beliefs-to take the Statist model and grant the power to regular this medical procedure to the Federal goverment. In other words, he will not turn back the clock, he will turn the clock around.

Roe took what had been a patchwork of State regulations and decided on various grounds-especially privacy-that Consitiutional protection included the right to decide when and how to terminate. Remember, the Constitution specifically refers to "all person's born"-and this was also used by Mr. Blackmun in his decision that spoke for the majority in 1973.

The States will simply turn the argument around and, I feel pretty confident in predicting that within a short period of time, abortion rights as we now know them will be gone, declared illegal in the United States, except in circumstances such as "the life of the mother".

In the real world, that means a legal test fbefore any doctor can provide this service. It means a magistrate-not a doctor, not the woman, not the family, not the husband, will decide. It is, for us old enough to remeber, not a return to the bad old days-it is infact much worse. it will allow the grwoth of a new special judical branch of bureaucrats to interpose their will on the most personal and private of decsions. Worse, any system designed in this way will prove unresponsive and layered in legalese and bureaucratic inertia. They might as well give the power to decide to the Post Office.

I know I have been shrill and umcompromising and angry and resently on these pages-and to those I have offended, I am sorry. My goal was then as now to prevent the women of American from arriving at the place that, I now see, where have just arrived at. That we have suffered a dramatic and unmitigated defeat is obvious. The question before us is how do we handle this catastrophe?

Jim Jefferson, I'm personally offended that you would even bring up the "F word" in such a serious situation. Obviously, you not only disregard the words of God,you know being a prolife person or whatever, as in FREE WILL, that includes speech, but the amendment that gives us freedom of speech. A woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes, and not have to ask the government if it's ok.. Think about it... if a woman doesn't have a safe and legal way to get rid of an unwanted baby, that only leaves bringing a child into the world that will not be cared for, or she will FIND a way, in turn could hurt not only the fetus, but also the mother. By the way, please don't send any mean messages, I'm 16.

Well, what many women think they ought to do is have an abortion.

I don't see how anyone can argue the abortion issue using biblical texts as their backup - not everyone subscribes to one particular religion.

Nate,
If you are against the thought of an abortion, then don't be associated with someone who has one. But do not deny the women of today the chance to make a decision of their own. That's what I dont get with you people. If you are against abortion, then don't freakin have one! I mean, what's left to be said?

"you never see a dedicated follower of Christ bombing anything, right?"

uh, see numerous abortion clinic bombings and I'm sure a handful of other incidents. The media just tends to give more airtime to bombings committed by Muslims. I am not and do not want to be a dedicated follower of Christ, but I consider myself a very informed, not crazy person. Please don't pass judgment on people you don't know.

I find it refreshing that 16 year Morgan has the temerity to address a subject as controversial as Roe v. Wade. I applaud her courage as she explores the alternatives and develops a social conscience. Perhaps it is Morgan and others like her, because of their intellectual curiosity and efforts to develop as adults, who will confound those who are are wiser.

Morgan,

The SC (when they decided Roe) over stepped their authority to create a right that was not specified in the Constitution. The constitution also says that if there is no law specified in the Constitution then those laws and powers would be given to the states to decide. The "Right to an abortion" should be decided by the states. But PP and NARAL can't have that since they don't have as much control over each states legislators then they do over the SC. They also know that where the people speak, they lose power. The majority of the american public would ban 95% of abortions performed if their will had been set into law. The surveys that Dr. Nathanson talked about when he said that the majority of Americans want abortion laws loosened was a complete and total lie. They never did those studies that showed those figures, but every single survey has said that they don't want abortion completely the way it is.

When it's a life and death issue like abortion, I'm going to deny or support denying anyone taking a life. I'm against the Death Penalty as well, mistakes are made, innocent life can be taken in the DP, but in abortion, innocent life is taken 100% of the time. Why kill an innocent baby? Just because the mother doesn't want him or her? What if someone said your life wasn't worth living, how would you feel???

"...a fellow citizen of heaven..."

Well, maybe not quite yet, but I am having trouble getting my insurance agent to return my calls.

I have seen just too much death in my lifetime, and I am tired of it. I am of an age and of a mood to resolve hard choices not as a voice of or for extremes but on the basis of compromise between the realities shared by all humans while at the same time maintaining the moral equation in balance that takes into account the world not as we might wish it to be, but as it is.

Today, we are all witness to religious fanatics and what they have proven themselves capable doing in the name of God. But to paraphrase the old song, I would rather die not to make men holy but would die to make them free. At the end of the day I stand by the Constitution and will leave the rest to God to sort it all out. He will do that anyway.

At this time, our nation has just too many internal divisions. We must all take the responsibility to compromise to, if not end them, then at least reduce the damage to our sense of unity of purpose that has been the result. Too many brave men and women are counting on us to form a united front against those who would return the rights of women to the lowest stanards of the Middle Ages. I guess it our soldiers of freedom that I can't help thinking of.

I have enjoyed posting among you all for this second round but, as it always must, the wheel turns again and I must go. Where I must go now, there are no computer terminals-at least not for the patients-I think. It is with regret that I say AVE ET ATQVE VALE.

Remember what Dante found in the deepest circle of Hell.

Nate, I commend you for the deliberate and concise way you are addressing Morgan. How awesome is it that there actually is a venue in which some folks participate by stating facts and not get bogged down in personalities and by not insisting that their views are not only correct but that anyone who disagrees is ignorant. Quite the lesson here for young Morgan

"One may have heard and prpoperly understands but chooses to remain in their sins and is willing to risk his life in hell for eternity - Crazy."

You are entitled to your opinion, but your religion is not mine. So I don't understand why your religious arguments against abortion should persuade a person like me.

Nate said:

[[The SC (when they decided Roe) over stepped their authority to create a right that was not specified in the Constitution.]]

The Constitution does not state that the people have the right to marry or have children either. So, shall we conclude we do not possess those rights? I don't think so. The purpose of the Constitution was not to define the rights of the people; rather, it was to define the limited powers granted to the government.

[[The constitution also says that if there is no law specified in the Constitution then those laws and powers would be given to the states to decide. The "Right to an abortion" should be decided by the states. ]]

Glad that you brought this up. Let's take a look at Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, here we have it. The government cannot grant rights to certain groups while denying other groups those same rights, particularly not rights which are *detrimental* to other groups. Citizens cannot be forced to donate blood, tissue, organs, or other body parts. Forcing pregnant women to donate their bodies and its byproducts to the development and nourishment of a zygote/embryo/fetus is seriously inconsistent with American legal practices and Constitutional law because it bestows upon the "unborn" a right which the born do not even possess. In this light, granting a zygote/embryo/fetus the right to life would not be giving it *equal* rights, but rather, rights which *supersede* those of all born persons, since no one else has the right to usurp the bodily integrity of another in by demanding that person's bodily resources without said person's explicit and continuous consent. In conclusion, such a law blatantly discriminates against pregnant women and strips them of the right to bodily integrity which all other born citizens possess, thereby making a statewide ban on abortion unconstitutional and in clear violation of the Equal Establishment Clause.

[[The majority of the american public would ban 95% of abortions performed if their will had been set into law.]]

Please provide a credible source for this assertion. Regardless, this is irrelevant. The wants of the majority do not trump the rights of the minority.

[[When it's a life and death issue like abortion, I'm going to deny or support denying anyone taking a life. I'm against the Death Penalty as well, mistakes are made, innocent life can be taken in the DP, but in abortion, innocent life is taken 100% of the time. Why kill an innocent baby? Just because the mother doesn't want him or her? What if someone said your life wasn't worth living, how would you feel???]]

I really wish people could articulate and support their opinions without resorting to trite, emotionally laden rhetoric. Abortion does not kill a baby. Baby is a term of endearment. What abortion does it safely and legally remove an unwanted embryo or fetus. Also, why do pro lifers constantly stress "innocence," as if a z/e/f possesses the sentience and personhood in order to be "innocent" or "guilty." And as for the last statement: Had my mother decided to abort me, I wouldn't feel anything because I never would have known.

Gil said:

[[Surely if a person examines the life of Christ they would conclude that he was an incredibly good, moral, loving, gentle man. Who would argue against that? If we all (all of man kind) lived according to His example, wouldn't this world be a much kinder place to live? Even if you do not recognize that He was God in human form. Wouldn't it be a better world if we all followed His example?]]

Absolutely, as Jesus was a liberal and compassionate man. The laws of logic dictate that Jesus, and any other compassionate individual, would hold a pro choice stance.

Honestly, though...I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with prosletyzing. If you're aiming for being disrespectful, you're achieving your goal.

[[But even in the long term, how many women will be affected adversely? Not many.]]

I'd say a damn good many. According to the CDC, the ratio of legal induced abortions to live births in the US in 2001 was 246:1,000. Over 1,000,000 abortions occur in this country yearly. According to AGI, 24% of all pregnancies end in legal induced abortion. Do you honestly believe forced gestation will NOT wreak havoc upon these women's lives or that the vast and sudden increase in population will not cause social and economic catastrophe?

[[The fact is most of us women have no interest in keeping Roe alive.]]

Proof? According to CNN/USA Today Gallup polls, 65% of Americans want the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. Jee, I'd say that's the majority of the country, wouldn't you?

[[The second reason that abortion proponents fear losing Roe so much is because they know that the majority support that abortion does enjoy is because most Americans are ignorant to the facts of prenatal development and the actual brutality of abortion.]]

Interesting that you say this because I've found that ignorance on such topics overwhelmingly resides on the pro life side, whose members claim babies are being brutually murdered by having scissors jammed into the backs of their skulls and their brains sucked out. In reality, at the time the vast majority of abortions are performed (91% by 12 weeks), the pregnancy is still in embryonic stage, void of a fully assembled or functional cerebral cortex. The embryo has no capability to feel pain, no sense of awareness, nor is it close to being viable (capable of surviving outside the womb). Unlike the lies "pro lifers" like to perpetuate, most abortions are either performed medically, via RU-486, an abortifacient which causes the lining of the uterus to breakdown by blocking the natural production of progesterone during pregnancy, creating a miscarriage of sorts), suction cutterage/vacuum aspiration (in which surgical instruments are used to widen the cervix, a tube inserted into the uterus and connected to a vacuum, and the embryo removed by suction), and by dilation and cutterage (d & c -- during which a metal rod is used to widen the cervix and a cutterage is used to scrape the inner lining of the uterus). Nothing barbaric or gruesome about that, is there?

astateofennui,

I don't know who you are, but I totally agree with everything you said, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing with these people anymore. LOL keep talking.... someone has to.

I see that the Society for the Advancement of Misogyny still have their bony little asses parked here. When you guys leave, please clean up after yourselves. And take those soiled little napkins especially.

"astate"
I have been posting here for a long time {took a little medical leave for awhile} You are wasting your formidable intellect argueing with the misogynists here. There are many friends here who would love to discuss the issues with you in an intelligent manner. How can you get anywhere with people that exibit the manners of a two year old?
People whose sole purpose is to convert you from your "evil, wanton" ways? They do not hear a word you say. Their purpose is not one of legitimate debate. To them you are a "bitch of NARAL" as I saw one description. I for one, welcome you to the blog here.

astateofennui:

"and by dilation and cutterage (d & c -- during which a metal rod is used to widen the cervix and a cutterage is used to scrape the inner lining of the uterus). Nothing barbaric or gruesome about that, is there?"

You're right, there's nothing barbaric SOUNDING about your description of the d&c procedure. How about changing "scrape the inner lining of the uterus" to read "scrape away and kill the tiny, developing baby."

Both are true descriptions. One speaks to the graphic and bloody violence of abortion, the other masks it.

I'm no doctor, but it has been determined that a fetus IS capable of feeling pain as early as EIGHT WEEKS. It is at this point in development that the following necessary structures are in place: sensory nerves (which detect pain), the thalamus (part of the brain that receives pain message from sensory nerves), and motor nerves (which are directed by the brain to pull away from the hurt).