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.

**raises hand** Me.

I am an anti-abortionist in the fine tradition of our feminists fore-mothers, who to a women believed that abortion actually did nothing more than reinforced the idea of women as second-class citizens. Consider, are women really on equal footing with men if the prevailing thought is that a woman who is also mother will not be a productive, contributing member to her company? Or that a woman who is also mother must stop furthering her education?

Let’s face it, Roe is an obsolete ruling, made during a time where a baby wasn’t viable if it was born more than a couple of months early. Modern technology has pushed potential viablity almost to the midway point of natural gestation. Birth control is more reliable. Adoption is not a shameful family secret. Times have changed. People on both sides of Roe need to change with them.

I am a person who believes that life begins at conception. I’m still pro-choice though. When human life begins is not the issue for me. However, I’m not really in favor of late-term abortions, as I believe women should have the decency to make a decision sometime within the first trimester, at the very least. For pro-lifers this is still a horrendous act, but I’m OK with it. If I’m wrong, and if there’s a God, and if there’s a hell, and if there’s a devil, I’m sure I will pay later. I’ll take that chance, though, and I would appreciate it if some people in this country would allow other people in this country to decide for themselves if they want to burn in hell.

By the way, how many of you anti-abortionists out there are also pro-life? What I mean to ask is whether you are for or against the death penalty. I think if you are against abortion, you should be against the death penalty - if you claim to be pro-life.

Me? I say we kill babies and spare criminals. I can say that because I’m not pro-life and am not expected to be consistent. (People who are going to burn in hell don’t have to be consistent, by the way.)

I hope you’re not suggesting that legislators have more expertise than judges. At least all judges have had legal training. Some legislators are qualified to do almost nothing, except pander to their constituents, who are not experts either.

Others (like Justin) believe the human being emerges at some arbitrary stage such as “viabilty” or “consciousness”, or third trimester…ect. Despite the inherent ambiguity of this position (well, which stage is it?) These people see it as self-evident that the unborn is not a human being and therefore the right to kill it is as clear as the right to flush out a tape-worm.

I argue that it is self-evident that Rosa Parks was a human being and therefore entitled to equal protection under the law. I would disagree with Justin that it is self-evident for human value to emerge only after the late-term of a preganancy. My voice should be heard in a democracy!

Cal, that’s a losing strategy from the get go. States’ rights work for some things, but have a pretty poor track record when it comes to equal rights. Or perhaps you’re forgetting Rosa Parks.

This stupid governor and his elected legislative body think they understand the bichemistry and physiology of this sexually-transmitted disease enough to regulate its treatment?

Its time to put these administrative medical decisions back in the hands of the experts: the judges.

Brian, please explain what you mean about the SC’s interpretation of the words “specific intent.” Do you think that means there will be an exception for those things, or do you think that means you will not be able to get abortions for any of those things?

Cal, it will be many, many years before this mess is out of the hands of the judiciary. And, when it does finally go to the states, just what do you think the result will be? And, you’re right, we should let men abort the children they’re carrying too. I would be all for that, just as soon as one of you becomes pregnant.

What I’m wondering is, what’s the rush? It’s still far from certain whether SCOTUS will actually be inclined to overturn Roe. South Dakota’s already set itself up for embarassment if their law fails, but the copycat states may have it even worse.

As a wise man once said, “Who’s the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?”

I concur. It is one thing for the majority of the people to vote on it, its another to have it stuffed down the throats of eveyone through judicial fiat from the High Court in 1973, and call it a “constitutional right”. If NY and California feel the need to procure abortions for everyone, let them suffer the consequences down the road. There is no need to be siphoning my tax dollars off to pay for someone else’s abortion. They should choose: either “government stay out of my life” or “government subsidize my abortion”, you can’t have it both ways.

And by the way, the language of this law prevents things like the morning after pill, which doesn’t do anything to the collection of cells, except create an environment where they can’t flourish. This is not abortion, and yet the right considers a microscopic collection of cells more important than the rights of a woman to plan her own life.

One last thing. This law does not allow women who have been raped by a stranger or a family member the right to get this procedure. So your whole “consensual sex” argument is not only moot, it’s completely ill-informed.

Who wants to bet the SC will rule that “specific intent” language includes the life, health, rape, and incest caveats?

Please, abortion has never been about “freedom over her own body”, its always been about the control and destruction of the unborn who are regarded by the PC movement as literal sub-humans who deserve neither our concern nor attention. Defend the innocent! Defend the helpless! (Unless you’re unborn.)

Funny how eveyone seems to forget a woman often “excercized her freedom” in having consensual sex before getting pregnant. However, as I recently heard, “things happen on weekends”. As if “things happening” justify abortions.

All I know is, if I “excercise my freedom” to “control my body(by killing the unborn who is presumably part mine, as is the case in abortion)” I get sent off to prison of a murder charge.

Equality and Liberty? fat chance.