Equal rights means that somebody who can’t get pregnant doesn’t have a right to tell somebody who can get pregnant what to do. To say it another way, women should have the right NOT to be pregnant, since men can never be in that situation.

I realize this isn’t a popular perspective with you Cal, but that’s the point when anybody of the liberal persuasion is talking about equal rights and abortion.

Cal, you object to the term “equal rights� because men don’t get to decide whether or not babies their sperm helped to create should be aborted?

No, I object to it because I can’t think of what male “right” is the “equal” of the womans’ “right” to get an abortion in the way the South Dakota bill denies.

Semantics is reality. There’s a guy named Orwell you ought to read, but I don’t think you’d like him very much.

If the Supreme Court punts on this issue, both Federal and State will have the opportunity to craft laws. If the Feds make one, there will most likely then be a battle over whether the federal law preempts the state laws. I don’t know who would win that battle, but you cannot assume that just because the Feds make a law, that it will be out of the state’s hands. This will very much be a state-by-state issue Cal.

By the way – thanks for being so consistent on this blog. We can always could on you to get personal in the middle of a reasoned debate.

We just called them communists and make them unemployable and untouchable.

Except they got to write books and lecture about it, and eventually got their jobs back, except the Rosenbergs. I look forward to Nick Berg’s book.

Concerning my response to the kicking and screaming comment Cal, I’m pretty sure you know exactly what I meant by that.

For the life of me and in all sincerity, I don’t. What’s the connection between slave-holding states in 1865, vs. those that never had many slaves and rid themselves of the institution (along with the bulk of their black populations) in the previous generations, and the abortion debate today. Is it because all the slave states were heavily Democratic?

How many infidels did McCarthy behead?

No, we didn’t behead them in this country. We just called them communists and make them unemployable and untouchable. But yes, the equivalence between us and them is not apt and that’s why I haven’t made that connection.

Concerning my response to the kicking and screaming comment Cal, I’m pretty sure you know exactly what I meant by that.

“The American religious right wants to turn back the clock to the imagined purity of the 1950s, McCarthyism, House UnAmerican Activities Committee and all, and then finish conquering the world. The Islamist religious fundamentalist want to turn back the clock to the imagined purity of the 7th century and then finish conquering the world. ”

Fascinating too that you use character assassination to form your ideas.

Justin, sorry for the off topic. Last word from me.

That’s pretty much my point because nobody should be surprsied about which states were dragged kicking and screaming.

Funny, I don’t see Dakota Territory on the list ….

No, if the religious right wins on abortion, America can proudly and ecstatically look forward to becoming a “Christian State� pretty darned soon. Just like Iran is an “Islamic State�.

The American religious right, insofar as it is a political entity, in its most extreme form, wants to turn back the clock to the imagined purity of the 1950s. The Islamist religious fundamentalist want to turn back the clock to the imagined purity of the 7th century and then finish conquering the world. Your moral equivalence is as shallow as your rant.

So what you’re saying is you think that federal legislators should vote on this and make a federal law governing all of the states?

Yup. You’d probably end up with a protected right to abortion, with some restrictions. Sort of like most European nations have, or perhaps like the Pennsylvania law. No one who was passionate on either side would be happy. But I bet it would come down somewhere near where polls show the American people are comfortable with it. And the Supreme Court could go back to doing what it is supposed to do.

Why is it (not just with this issue but with most of the serious matters in the US) topics are always presented as “black” (let us say the new legislation prohibiting ALL abortions) or white ( the converse of anything and everything is permitted).

Let us remember a few facts -

First, no one at any time has suggested that abortion should be made compulsory. Therefore if YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS legislate against abortion and/or contraception you can be quite free to go that way if you desire.

Second, IT IS A MATTER OF CHOICE. I stand indicted of the charge that there should be some limitations. I agree that PBA in the third trimester is abhorrent – because we have the ability to keep that baby alive if it were born premature. But outside of those controls, the choice should be open.

Third, in a free country WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE to tell someone else how their life should be lived? WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE to tell another what they should believe, what is right, what is wrong?

Fourth, and before you sling it back at me, the rights of the fetus SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARENTS. So, if there is a future reckoning to be held (I personally doubt it very much but that is MY belief) then the judgement will be against the parents. There will be no comeback against you because you allowed another to commit a sin. So why, on that basis should it be your concern on how another might endanger his or her immortal soul? Do you care about the soul of the murderer who is executed by the State for his crime? Do you think that the person who loads the injection and administers it has condemned him/herself to eternal damnation? Do you oppose the death sentence as rigorously and vehemently as you do abortion? Where are the campaigns to stop the death penalty?

No, if the religious right wins on abortion, America can proudly and ecstatically look forward to becoming a “Christian State” pretty darned soon. Just like Iran is an “Islamic State”.

Praise Be!! Allahu Akbar!!

[Rant off]

Five years is not too bad for murder. This is unfortunate because we can’t seem to call a spade a spade. Pro-choice = murder. Sad, but true.

Who said state legislators? I mean, let it be a federal legislation. Why assume I said something I didn’t?

My apologies.

So what you’re saying is you think that federal legislators should vote on this and make a federal law governing all of the states? Just want to be clear.

Some states got rid of slavery long before the Feds did, and other states were dragged kicking and screaming. So I wouldn’t say that states rights have a poor record overall – different states have different records, and the record of the Feds (unsuprisingly) comes down somewhere in the middle.

That’s pretty much my point because nobody should be surprsied about which states were dragged kicking and screaming.

Meredith, my objection is to the term “equal rights,” not any aspect of the reality. I happen to think it matters what words mean, and don’t mean. Evidently, you don’t. Bully for you.

On the other side, you have gay marriage in Massachusetts, the right to die in Oregon, and the right to use pot for medicinal purposes in California. Some states got rid of slavery long before the Feds did, and other states were dragged kicking and screaming. So I wouldn’t say that states rights have a poor record overall – different states have different records, and the record of the Feds (unsuprisingly) comes down somewhere in the middle.

Re: abortion, the best I can come up with is:
1) I’m never comfortable with abortion.
2) The earlier it occurs, the less uncomfortable I am – I can certainly see something preventing a clump of cells from implanting being legal – but it doesn’t take long for the clump to cease being merely a clump.
3) If the woman’s life is truely in danger, or if she is at real risk of serious physical injury, I don’t see that she should be stopped.
4) If the baby’s prospects are “incompatible with life” (e.g. brain won’t develop, etc), I don’t see that she should be stopped.
5) When babies get to the point that they probably feel pain, any abortions should be anesthatised.

Pro-abortionists do not believe that a woman who is also a mother will not be a productive, contributing member to her company. You must belong to the branch of feminism who believes that women complaining about having equal rights makes them seem weak, or that if women bring a sexual harassment suit, they are admitting that they need help and protection from men. That’s a great tough-girl attitude, but you can keep it.

The point is that I should be able to choose whether or not I think it would be wise for me to me a single mother and career woman, a married mother who stays at home, or any number of other options. All women should be able to make these decisions for themselves and/or with their partners. What is very disempowering for women is to have the government dictate what their lives will look like.