DarkWizard12

There was no such thing as abortion 200 years ago. Thats why it needs to be settled at a STATE level.

Its amazing to me how Grannie is claiming that pro-lifers are on a "culture war" when in fact, it was her group that has been doing the culture war since the 1960's! Yea. Did ANYONE besides me notice that, if you took OKGrannie's post:and replaced "anti-choice(r)"words like..oh I don't know....Pro-choice(rs), fascists, socialists, feminists, mexicans, or Ethiopian-Beast-Midgets, it would be just as accurate?
We have a WORD for that, its called "propaganda".

OKgrannie

One has to BE an individual before one can have or exercise individual rights.

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

OKgrannie

Abortion has been around for a while:
Abortion in History
"The oldest extant writings on contraceptive practices come from Egypt and date to the nineteenth to the eleventh century BCE.

John Riddle in Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Harvard University Press, 1992) studied ancient medical texts, identified the plants in their contraceptive and abortifacient potions, and determined that the ancient contraceptives and abortifacients were probably effective and as safe as giving carrying a pregnancy to term. These herbals were commonly used by all strata of society. Although some plants were added to and other plants were dropped from the herbal lists over the millennia, many plants, plants which modern science has determined contain natural chemicals that could cause a woman to miscarry or become infertile, remained on the lists for thousands of years. After all, would the same plants show up in medical texts for thousands of years if they were not safe and effective? 2 Many traditional societies without access to Western medicine still use herbal potions as contraceptives and abortifacients. If modern women use safe and effective herbal contraceptives and abortifacients, why couldn't ancient women have used them?"



History of abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC."


This is what I mean by "culture war", I guess you are too young to remember the controversy.

Culture war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1990 paleoconservative commentator Pat Buchanan mounted a campaign for the Republican nomination for president of the United States against incumbent George H.W. Bush in 1992. He received a prime time speech slot at the Republican National Convention, which is sometimes dubbed the "'culture war' speech".[1]

During his speech, he said: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." [1] In addition to criticizing "environmental extremists" and "radical feminism," he said public morality was a defining issue:

The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America — abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat — that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.[2]

A month later, Buchanan elaborated that this conflict was about power over society's definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation and popular culture as major fronts "

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

DarkWizard12

STRIKE THAT. MISTAKE KNOWN. NOW FURTHUR EDITTING.

EDIT: I meant the: "legalizes". 200 years ago, it WAS uncommon, unless you have proof otherwise.
BTW, where does it say that ONLY a PERSON has the right to life? BEcause you see, A fetus is a POTENTIAL person, and that is a fact. Therefore, by kiling it, you are DENYING ITS POTENTIAL TO BE A HUMAN BEING. What cruel person does that?

LEaves me out, I'm not a "buchaninist". I just want abortion to be lef tup to the states. Unlike you because, you know, can't have people VOTE for their rights/priviliges now.

OKgrannie

Abortion became criminalized in the mid-1800's, it wasn't that uncommon. Abortion in American History

"In When Abortion Was a Crime, Leslie J. Reagan demonstrates that abortion has been a common procedure -- "part of life" -- in America since the eighteenth century, both during the slightly more than half of our history as a nation when it has been legal and during the slightly less than half when it was not."

A fetus is a potential person, so is a sperm and an egg. By using a condom, you are denying the sperm/egg its potential to be a human being. What cruel person does that? You see, while something is potential, it is NOT actual, so we don't treat potential the same as actual. You are a potential corpse, but we aren't burying you yet.

You, you know, can't have people VOTE for people to NOT have their rights/privileges now.....Abortion is not a matter for popular vote, it is an individual and private matter, IOW, not a subject for the public to decide.

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

DarkWizard12

"In When Abortion Was a Crime, Leslie J. Reagan demonstrates that abortion has been a common procedure -- "part of life" -- in America since the eighteenth century, both during the slightly more than half of our history as a nation when it has been legal and during the slightly less than half when it was not."
[/quote]

So I was right, 200 years ago it was uncommon.
Wrong. A sperm and an egg are not potential lives. Why? Because, apart they are cells just like skin cells. In fact, they are even LESS than skin cells. They only contain HALF of DNA needed to BE a person, or to be politically popular, a POTENTIAL person.

Either way, its either already a life, or a potential life. Really now, I would like it if you could just...LIST all the differences between a "person" and a "fetus". Really, just how much difference is there?
Ah, I see double negative. I thought you were agreeing with me there

If it was simply my "right to wave my arms around wildly", then you would be correct. 9th amendment is to protect those rights not mentioned in the constitution. However, our founding fathers were smart. They knew that there would be this thing called "controversy". Appropriately, they added article 10, so that in any case rights such as "abortion" is proven to a controversial right, it is, by the constitution, to be voted by the states.

By the way, you can't have people vote not to give people their right to life either. So, you know, I thought that might be a good compromise.

OKgrannie

Read carefully...you'll see it says abortion was a common procedure since 1700's both when it was legal and when it was not, I believe that includes 200 years ago.

A sperm and an egg are essential ingredients for a potential person, so I guess that makes them "potential".

There is a great difference physically for the baby after birth, I think you can figure that out for yourself. Some other characteristics:

Term Paper on Philosophy. Essays, Research Papers on Abortion & Cultural Relativism
"Only the members of the moral community have "full and equal moral rights". (Warren, 206) Warren proposes that at least some of the following characteristics are necessary to be considered a person: (1) consciousness, (2) reasoning, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types, (5) self-concept and self-awareness. A fetus has none of these characteristics and therefore do not the moral rights people do. "


Article X says that the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE. Those powers are currently exercised BY THE PEOPLE, and that is where they should remain. The government has no business regulating pregnancy. LOL, you think it is a compromise to remove rights from women in order to give fetuses rights?

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

tryreading

I realize you've already been properly corrected on this, but want to add that before the mid 1800s abortion before 'quickening' wasn't an issue. And quickening was when the baby or fetus began to move, according to the mother. In other words, the pregnant woman made the decision on when it was too late, or not, to end a pregnancy.

One other thing, even the Catholic church was okay with abortion until quickening in colonial times. It wasn't until 1869 that the Catholic bosses decided that abortion should be considered a serious issue at conception.

Iriemon

If McCain is elected, good chance you can kiss Roe goodbye.

1069

McCain isn't going to get elected, but even if he were to get elected, he's no threat to Roe.
After reviewing his history, I not only believe he's prochoice and socially liberal/ libertarian, but also that he would not appoint conservative judges to the SC. And even if he did, the democratic house and senate would reject it.
I think he's just pandering it the fundy Right to get elected.
I doubt it's going to work, though.
Democrats like him better than his own party does.
If McCain really wants to get elected, he ought to present himself as a fiscal and military conservative and a social liberal/ libertarian, which his entire history in politics shows him to be, and pander to the democrats instead. He could probably get a lot of them- the older, more moderate and traditional ones- to cross over and vote Red, especially considering that their only other options are a possibly radical black man and a woman that everyone hates.