But why stop with a world where all fetuses are respected. Gotta dream big here. A world where all people are respected. Where all people are fed and given shelter. Where war, murder, assault, rape, etc. are unknown. Where mutual respect of all human beings is the given. Where banana splits can be consumed all day with nary a pound of weight gain (sigh). Sure, ok. When we get all this stuff, I’ll rethink my pro-choice position.

However, back in the reality-based community, I am troubled by various correlations that anti-abortion policies tend to be aligned with, whether in predominantly anti-abortion U.S. states (like Mississippi) or countries. Tend to have the highest maternal and infant death rates. Relatively fewer resources devoted to prenatal and maternal health care. Less commitment to health care for all citizens. Higher teen pregnancy rates. And, it seems, higher abortion rates overall. (Yes, an apparent paradox: where abortion is outlawed, the number of abortions goes up, albeit of the illegal kind). Interesting thought: if you sincerely want to make abortion rare, make it legal! Provide decent health care for all citizens! Provide an adequate safety net for all pregnant women, so those who are pregnant really feel that they have a choice. Some feel that they don’t have a choice because they don’t see that they have any way they can support a child, even if they would like too. And how about more services for battered women, while we’re at it, since a number of women are pressured into abortions by battering partners, or fear the consequences of having a baby with a battering partner around and demanding his “rights.”

Just a few thoughts.

“…On Wednesday, John Kerry told the Associated Press that he was open to the idea of appointing anti-abortion judges ‘as long as it doesn’t lead to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade…’”

“…Despite the fcta that we won Roe V. Wade under the anti-choice Nixon administration and we did not have abortion providers in over 85% of all counties under Clinton, many see a Democratic Party presidency vital to securing abortion rights. Kerry’s statements kill the myth we are guaranteed pro-abortion judges if he becomes president, it also kills the other argument that ABBers have been promoting: you know, the one that claims that we can build a movement after we get a Democrat in office and that Democrat will do all of the right stuff. John Kerry said that he would be open to appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court only 24 days after what many have said was the largest demonstration in American history. Movements work, but the two party system does not. –Brandy Baker

Lukas

Thanks. That’s really super to hear.

Not necessarily. You can have judges who are personally pro-life but so respect precedent and the rule of law as professionals that they wouldn’t overturn Roe v. Wade unless there was some incredible, compelling case.

We’ve even seen this on the present Supreme Court: there are a whole lot of pro-life Justices on there, and they’ve made it quite clear they’re not willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, because it’s the law of the land. They may chip away at the edges (and really, that’s what we need to guard against), but Roe v. Wade is so central to so many lines of other cases on privacy that it’s not going to be overturned outright.

Boy, it’s always really easy to get wound up over rights you don’t have to sacrifice, isn’t it?

>>I guess I wasn’t being clear. I’m willing to grant that banning abortion will cost women’s empowerment. However, my position is that the cost is worth it.

I have NEVER SEEN a “pro-life” politician or spokesperson advocate for criminal penalties for inappropriate siring. I have not seen “pro-lifers” support universal male DNA databases of legal quality (ie, chain-of-custody, and all the details required by courts) for paternity determination. Furthermore, these people do not make themselves known in the child support enforcement debates either. If “pro-life” politicians and spokespeople made these issues front-and-center integral parts of their legislative agendas, I might believe that they truly are not against women’s autonomy at the expense of men’s autonomy.

Amanda says: “[W]e all believe in choosing the time your children are born, and even in choosing whether you have them at all.”

Would this change if Roe were overturned? I did not realize Roe dealt with forced sexual intercourse. If I am not mistaken, it would take overturning Casey v. PP, repeal of section 1985, and a wholesale belief in fundamental religion by the entire country for women to lose the right to choose the time their children were born and whether or not to have them at all. There are many more steps involved after an overturn of Roe. It will not get overturned because it is safer to regulate abortions than to disallow them. Our country took the same tack with alcohol in the 30’s. It had nothing to do with the alcoholic’s fundamental right to do whatever she wanted with her body. It was just better to regulate it than outlaw it. Come on stop with the rhetoric and say it like it is. Thanks to cases like Casey, sexual abuse laws and policies, and the ERA women have the right to choose when they want to have children. Roe was a way to protect women from back alley abortions. Overturning Roe will not take away a woman’s right to choose when she will be pregnant, but it will take away safety protections for women who choose to terminate their child.

When did the ERA actually get into the Constitution ?

Nobody ever tells me anything. Amp, I thought we were friends !!

Did you really think that, or are you just shit-disturbing again? (As I’m quite sure you know that private parties cannot prosecute anyone, I’m guessing the latter.)

Step up to the plate, jstevenson. You can be the innovative crusader for compulsory universal male legal-standard DNA typing for a national database, in preparation for your crusade to establish criminal penalties for non-contracted siring.