Sunday, July 26, 2015

So then what happens?

So I saw a blurb that some congress folks are (gasp) putting forth a measure to defund Planned Parenthood. I can understand the conservative point of view about abortion and why they are so repulsed. And especially for William, a man who is perhaps more dedicated to the plight of the black man than Martin Luther King ever was, it is especially painful to realize how singularly abortion is wiping out the black race in America. What I don't understand, however, is what people who are opposed to abortion believe will change in America if abortion is outlawed per their wishes. Will people treat each other better? Or, is it simply a matter that this is wrong and it doesn't matter what happens as long as it is stopped. I am genuinely curious.


  1. Max there are some of out here who are pro choice, not that we believe in abortion but pro choice because it is none of the government's business. Too many times we pick and choose when we are going to demand complete freedom from government or have the government intervene into peoples lives. We can't have both. This is a very personal matter for those who wish to go through it. They are the ones that have to live with the emotional consequences.

  2. In some States you need parental permission to occupy a commercial tanning bed. Yet a girl can visit PP and have an abortion without parental notification.

    Why does PP lobby against PP being obligated to
    display a simple sonogram prior to killing a baby?

    Roe v Wade is hardly settled law. It is an unconstitutional ruling that came out of the early feminist era.

    1. I watched Rick Santorum on Rachel Maddow, and I started to understand your third point a little better. For far right people, everything they disagree with is unconstitutional and all that needs to be done is pack the court with people who think they do and then all problems are solved. What the rest of society thinks is immaterial. Fascinating

    2. Lately I hear more and more the term ‘settled law’. As history has shown, nothing is settled and some of the most hideous laws stayed on the books for decades before someone mustered the voice and courage to challenge it. One point I will agree with you on Mike is that the right… as well as the left have a blind spot in legislation they that supports their world view. Just as state sponsored segregation was unconstitutional so too is state sponsored integration. The harm of the later, I hope, will be seen an acted on just as happened with the former. Nothing in my opinion is settled unless it is clearly supported in the document from which all laws are born and must conform in a review by a bench of constitutional judges… How would you react prior to Brown for someone to say that separate but equal is ‘settled law’?
      With Roe, the government only had one question to answer and that is where life begins because after all, the constitution guarantees life in equal measure for all… not just for the convenience of some. Where the falter is in this law is to protect those who choose abortion for convenience from hearing ridicule from a society that doesn’t agree with it. Abortion was legal during the drafting of the constitution, but society had the final say about how you were accepted or rejected afterwards…

    3. "Nothing in my opinion is settled unless it is clearly supported in the document from which all laws are born and must conform in a review by a bench of constitutional judges…"

      Therein lies the rub. Some segments of this country have this concrete view of what the constitution says, and in their opinion, anything that does not conform to that iron clad view is hence, unconstitutional. As to the ridicule piece, see my comment at the bottom. Why is it woman must wear the scarlet letter and not men? Why can't we tattoo the words, "I father a child and walked away" on the foreheads of men who do so? Does that violate their freedom?

  3. But I remain genuinely curious. What happens if it is outlawed? I appreciate the response, but no one really addressed the question that was asked. To your second point William, the answer is obvious, what is hoped for is that if a pregnant woman watches a sonogram, she will be shamed into taking the pregnancy to term. Also, it is not medically necessary.

  4. Back alley cut and rip shops. That's an easy answer. Abortions are going to happen. People want them at times for good reason at others for bad ones. But they want them and where there is a market there is a provider. Supposing as William states the law is unconstitutional although the court who's sole purpose is to determine such things says it isn't. Would it not be just as unconstitutional to infringe on the right of a woman to control of their own body and what's in it. Again I stress it is a personal matter and none of the governments business one way or the other. But William to ease your mind I am not in favor of any late term abortion.

    1. Historically, Rick, that is exactly what happened in the past, so I have no doubt it would happen again. It's easy from a moral standpoint to just say, this is murder and the supremes have it wrong. Then one can simply ignore everything else as immaterial.

    2. No one is saying abortion in some instances should not occur. The government should have no part in the doctor patient relationship period. The half billion dollars a year that PP obtains from our taxes should be privately raised. Personally I feel betrayed when a portion of my tax dollars go towards the resale of fetal tissue.

    3. Um, I think there are plenty of people who are precisely saying it should not occur. You can't be taken seriously William when you say the government shouldn't be involved and then ask the question why is it wrong to force a woman to watch a sonogram. If you can explain how this logic squares, I promise I won't flame the response.

      This is another honest question, if you are outraged by the alleged lives slaughtered by abortion, do you feel the exact same way for the people we needlessly slaughtered going into Iraq? I honestly am asking that question.

    4. Of course it all depends on the world as you see it. The value you place in family and responsibility. Every time the subject of abortion comes up Mike, you continually repeat the same mantra. You can understand the repulsion of the right but you can also see the need. Of course the definition of the word need is important… and how you deal with the huge gap between need and want. I too see the need in some circumstances… but I am still quite vocal about the difference between that need and the ‘get out of responsibility’ free card that is used to satisfy a good 95% of operations performed. When you actually take a position that some abortions are wrong and that they damage the value people place in life and family and humanity… then I will believe that you have some other opinion than the rather bazar utopian future the left has in store for the part of humanity that is actually given the opportunity to survive….
      You are correct, there are quite a few people who would abolish all abortion. They are the same ones who believe that the government has the right to create and enforce sodomy laws against consenting adults, but there are a hell of a lot more people in this country who lose their voice over the use of procedure used as aid to guilt free sex…. And as par usual, anyone who speaks in degrees about anything like … say… smaller government, will be accused of the desire to abolish all government.

    5. Here's the thing max. You suck people into a conversation about one thing and then turn a corner into a dead end street. What the hell does Iraq have to do with abortion? This is why it is impossible to be anywhere near a level playing field in any discussion with a true leftest.

      The Chinese communists just took the baby thing to the elimination of a couple of generations or girls with their one child policy. Probably a logical conclusion for a communist, but an absolute abomination for the rest of the world to contemplate. Where does Rachel Maddow fall in that debate?

      And yes, I believe that when the life of the mother is at stake, a rape has occured, or incest is involved the doctor patient relationship should take this into account. Just as I believe the same doctor should provide modern technology (sonogram) where available to advise the woman in a mature thought out manner. I believe almost every doctor would provide this if it not for government looking over his shoulder.

    6. Rick.. two quick points… the supreme court gets it wrong a lot… mainly because it seems to have either forgotten how to read the constitution or that populous ideas trump Article V. How in the hell was separate but equal gleaned in the constitution… where is forced integration gleaned in the constitution. ‘Life’ is a direct concern of the constitution … its one of those provisions government in all of its capacity is supposed to insure. Of course the Roe decision was about garnering the court friends rather than making a clear decision. The best idea I have heard in a long time is that if you can hear a heart beat you have a life that needs protection. No ambiguity, no trimester hocus pokus, no "but I couldn't decide".

      The other thing of course as King points out in relation to the second amendment is that we don’t seem to associate our rights with any form of linked responsibility. The right was the right to have sex… most everything we do has a consequence and with sex, becoming a mother or a father is part of the responsibility. What with political correctness, hate crimes and protest exclusion zones no one has to feel the responsibility of their actions socially or morally. But hey… such is the master plan of a utopia with a beautifully culled gene pool. Who says survival of the fittest is dead… some folks have just been duped into believing that it is…

    7. To your last para there William, fair enough. I think you make some assumptions about providers, however, that is hard to support. No one is forcing doctors to NOT show a sonogram.

      As for the Iraq mention, I think it is fitting in terms of showing our hypocrisy as a nation. We are allegedly horrified at the murder of babies through abortion, a totally selfish act (allegedly) but are not horrified when we kill innocent people because they had the misfortune of being born in a shithole corner of the world where our enemies find sanctuary. The bottom line is that we have an abundance of callousness and complete disregard for life in this country that exceeds the effect of abortion. The abortion crowd is concerned with one piece of the respect for life issue, and seemingly disinterested in the rest of what is required to nurture a life and help that soul live to whatever highest purpose it may.

  5. And what everyone refuses to address.

    People make a choice abortion or not (regardless if it's legal or not) then they live with the consequences. Some are guilt ridden others are not.

    Who would take all the unwanted children? The people having the child would be great parents providing for the children? Government makes it most difficult to adopt today and that is unlikely to change. Who would care for the children William? You hate paying PP and you hate welfare. Seems like a conundrum.

    1. Louman I did say that in the final line of my first post. It is those who chose abortion who have to live with the emotional consequences. I know a young lady who chose abortion and she has been bothered by it ever since. Now it seems female problems (don't know if it is abortion related or not) my render her unable to ever have kids for the rest of her life. She has to live with that now. Forever.

    2. I find it interesting that government makes it more than difficult to adopt when so many children are without a good home. People want to make abortion illegal yet have no answer what to do the with the millions of children that would be unwanted.

    3. “Who will take all the unwanted children..”

      Rolls off the tongue with perfect ease in this modern utopian progression we find ourselves. It makes plenty of since in a world where you teach your children in public schools about sex in the 3rd grade and install IUD’s in 6th graders without the knowledge or consent of the parents. In a society where marriage vows are about as important as a party toast and divorce is as easy as the Hollywood standard of ‘irreconcilable differences’. Particularly sane in a society that creates government ‘social’ programs that force fathers away from their families and responsibilities.

      But it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in a healthy connected society.

      Nicely designed little progressive world we are creating. Not long ago I reread three of the most iconic big brother stories but I read them as a trilogy. First Fahrenheit 451, then 1984 and ended with Brave New World. The time chronology is off but the progression is spot on. We haven’t quite reached the stage that we are actually burning our history yet but between the Taliban, Isis and the progressives we are well on our way…

  6. TS,

    I had a lengthy exchange with a few people on this topic probably a couple years ago at this point. I don't have a problem taking a stand, as you ask, in saying that some abortions are wrong and that abortion can be damaging. I won't, however, single out abortion as somehow being worse than all the other callous action that occurs in our society. I am strongly in favor reducing abortion as much as possible, but not through outlawing it.

    Lou makes the great point, what is part of what motivated my question up top. What happens then? I am a huge proponent of creating a society that has the ability and willingness to adopt the babies that born from an unintended pregnancy. I've read quite a few stories from woman who had abortions and carried some level of regret their entire lives and I've read other stories from women who felt so trapped, so hopeless and so completely unable to care for a baby that they chose to have an abortion rather than subject that baby to a near guaranteed life of hardship. We seeming want all women who become pregnant to carry that child, but once it is born, we then want to bitch about food stamps and other programs when the mother can't afford raise that child. Conundrum indeed.

    In a perfect world, no one ever has sex without thinking about pregnancy and further never has sex without intending to have a baby. Also in that perfect world, a woman will think to herself, I can't afford to have a baby, so therefore I won't have sex until a do so. And still further in that perfect world, a woman will realize that God intended for her to be here on earth for nothing more than to bear children to a husband she should never question. Women terminate their obligation to becoming pregnant by having an abortion. Men terminate their obligation by simply walking away and fucking someone else. I don't hear much from those opposed to abortion about how to fix the second part of that equation.

    1. I am a huge proponent of creating a society that has the ability and willingness to adopt the babies that born from an unintended pregnancy.

      It's not society that is a problem but government and all the rules and time frames put in place by government.

      As a person deemed to old to adopt a child, I went overseas where they welcomed me and my money with open arms while American children sit without families.

      And there is no fix to the second part of the equation as proven by the magnitude of single parent families headed by women.

    2. No one here recognizes the obvious correlation between the rise in the abortion culture and the number of unwed mothers and fatherless children? Life has become very very cheap since the Roe v Wade decision.

      To answer louman query about adoption. Clearing government out of the adoption business and reestablishing religious organizations as honest brokers would help enormously.

      PP terminates about 320,000 babies a year. Why can't a large majority of these children survive and be absorbed by loving families like yours Iouman?

    3. You would have to ask out politicians the answer to that question.

      Prior to adopting, you need to meet numerous objectives.
      1. Home studies to ensure you have an adequate home.
      a) one with you.
      b) one with the spouse
      c) together to ensure family stability.
      2. Financial documentation.
      3. Job documentation. Need to ensure you can support a child.
      4. References to ensure your good character.
      5. Proof of marriage.
      6. Proof of citizenship. (ROTFLMAO)
      7. Proof of ages of both prospective parents.
      8. Etc.

      Or anyone can just have a kid, no strings attached.

    4. I am, we are asking our politicians that very question right now! Aren't we? There is a national debate going on except where the media doesn't cover the issue. Yesterday people marched in about 60 cities supporting life. Exposure of these PP witch doctors is In full swing with reportedly nine more videos on the way to sustain the arguments.

      Why can't common sense reign? Why can't congress defund or at least suspend payments to PP until they take corrective actions? I favor total defund of course. Why can't doctors and women make their own reasoned choices without big brother and the eugenisists holding court? Why can't religious communities once again lead the organization of adoption?

      Prior to Roe v Wade all these things took place. There was always unwanted pregnancy, it didn't start ironically when women got the pill and felt obligated to open their legs to any ass hole with a hard penis. Ot oh, the pill didn't work, so let's go down to PP and flush it all away, yippee!

      70% of black babies, 40% of all babies are born to unwed mothers. Quite a legacy PP and the eugenisists have left in their wake in 100 years.

    5. Abortion is legal William. When you place unnecessary restrictions on abortion, you are getting between a doctor and their patient. You want abortion nearly ended, therefore you can't make this connection. You suggest a few responses back that Roe V Wade marks a turning point of where we started to have an explosion of single mothers. No mention is made of that fact that the 70's became known as the "ME" generation. You single out abortion because you are opposed to it, and that's fair enough. What isn't fair is that you then pretend nothing else matters. Today's generations are far far more selfish than my grandparents generation was.

      Your third para down here is full of old white man logic. It's always the fault of the woman who wantonly spreads her legs for any asshole with a stiff dick, and never the fault of the stiff dicked asshole who hits it and quits it and moves on. It would be nice to see conservatives turn on men as decisively as they have on women.

    6. Yeah, all conservative men hate women. Your brain is full of mush max.

    7. I love generalizations they are so instructive.

    8. "Abortion is legal William. When you place unnecessary restrictions on abortion, you are getting between a doctor and their patient. You want abortion nearly ended; therefore you can't make this connection. "

      Two points I would make about this comment: 1. I feel exactly the same way about lawyers and proactive judges getting in between the associations citizens choose to make or not make with each other. The only way to define a society that has legislated articles of conduct beyond harm to someone else is a dictatorship and certainly not a democracy. I can guarantee that you would fell the same if roe had lost or if sodomy laws were upheld.. these is the ambiguity in the 1964 civil rights act that you cannot see.. 2. Yes, I would like to see all most all abortions ended… I would also like to see a society that nourishes rather than destroys family and responsibility. When you fix the later, the former takes care of itself.

      With respect to the 'ME' generation and its' getting worse... I refer you back to the distruction of the family, responsibility and values... all very progressive outcomes.