Home - List All Discussions

Isn't choice?

by: JasonFontaine

A matter of consequence? Why would you take choice away from the purest form of innocence?
Choice, in many cases - begins with sex. After conception - isn't his convenience?
With no head - the egg was thought of as dead. It had no legs. How would it walk or run? Maybe in time - it will have some.
It's a symbolic discussion on our interpretation of "choice". That's all. We choose life. Because, once it begins - even in the smallest of form - a seed, an egg (fertilized) - it is not dead....unless we make this "choice"....now isn't that convenient?
http://findurmessage.blogspot.com/2008/10/king-chicken-and-egg.html

reply from: Spock

I found my message. It's GTFO.

reply from: JasonFontaine

At least you didn't DESTROY the purest form of innocence. What you did, IS choice.
Abortion is convenience.
Thanks for helping me prove my point!

reply from: Sigma

For some it may be convenient. For others it may not be. What exactly is your point? Your original post just rambles.

reply from: JasonFontaine

Choice begins BEFORE conception. If you "create" something from this decision - this choice - and THEN decide you do not want it - this is convenience. You are making the decision on behalf of the fetus. And, even though it cannot run or walk or talk like all of us - in time - given time - chances are it will. But no, this unborn you "decided" to kill....and call it "choice".
That's all I was saying...

reply from: Sigma

It's true that some abortions are done for these reasons, but certainly there are theraputic abortions, where there is something wrong with the fetus. In those cases it isn't because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant.

reply from: Rosalie

Says who, you? Seems like it. Well, here's a shocker: I disagree. As long as there's another human being directly, physically dependent on MY body and thus affecting my body, life and health, I have the choice to decide whether I want that being to remain there or not. It is my body it's attached to, it's my health and life that's at stake by its presence and therefore it's my choice.
Me choosing to have sex doesn't mean that I automatically consent to carry the possibly resulting pregnancy until the end. It's creepy and degrading that anyone would even think that.
Your interpretation of choice and/or when it begins is absolutely irrelevant to me and every other intelligent, responsible female who cares about her health.

reply from: JasonFontaine

So Rosalie - you agreed with Bush on the war too? I mean - if life is as casual as you say it is - and we have every right to destroy what we don't see fit - you do support this stance - do you not?
How utterly selfish. You trump choice but give no such choice to the weakest, purest form of innocence. Wow....pretty disgusting.
But - that is your "choice" now - isn't it?

reply from: Rosalie

No. I support women's right to make private, medical decisions in all areas of their lives.
Which part of that do you not understand?
Why are you so obssessed with the 'innocence' of the fetus?
You know nothing about the choices I've made. But I definitely do support every woman's choice because I believe only the individual woman is capable to make such life-changing choice for herself.

reply from: Sigma

Selfish or not... whose choice could it possibly be besides the woman's?

reply from: TraderTif

Therapeutic abortion? Seriously??
Makes me wonder if I could take my parents into the backyard and shoot them; call it a "therapeutic termination", because their health problems ruin their "quality of life", or whatnot. Nothing to do with me not wanting to take care of them. Certainly not.

reply from: JasonFontaine

It's the woman's choice...just don't let it become a matter of convenience. No "State" can regulate convenience or choice. Only, the individual can do this...

reply from: Sigma

To clarify, you dispute that therapeutic abortions exist?

reply from: Rino

Me choosing to smoke doesn't mean I consent to getting cancer, therefore I have no responsibility for my cancer if I choose to smoke. I would be a victim of circumstances beyond my control.
I can not swim, but jumping into the pool does not imply my consent to drown, therefore, as a victim of circumstances beyond my control, I might reasonably drown another in order to save myself.
No, intentions and desires do not determine culpability. Only actions do. It is disingenuous to imply that a pregnant woman is a victim of her unborn child and therefore may reasonably defend herself against the unsolicited invasion even by lethal means.

reply from: Sigma

Knowing there's a chance of an accident means that getting behind the wheel of a car disqualifies you from medical intervention?

reply from: TraderTif

In the terms you describe (where it is the fetus that has the health problems), yes, I dispute that. In what other circumstance is "killing the patient" considered "therapeutic"??

reply from: mbrace5

Havent you all found it very interesting when a woman says "its my body". Lets see, she thought is was OUR body for the time it took to get pregnant. And if the child is carried to term then it is OUR child. I havent seen very many that have said, "ya know, I thought about aborting our child but I didnt so you dont have to pay child support"! Double Standard at its best!

reply from: Sigma

No, a therapeutic abortion is for the benefit of the woman's health. An abortion is never done for the benefit of the conceptus That's nonsensical.
Do you deny these exist?

reply from: Sigma

I don't think it's ever anyone elses body besides the woman's. It isn't any less hers because she's having sex :-\

reply from: mbrace5

I don't think it's ever anyone elses body besides the woman's. It isn't any less hers because she's having sex :-\
And I agree with you. I said that to make a point. The point is the woman can have an abortion and not have to explain anything to the father. But, if she has it then all of a sudden the father is important. I know of a case here in NC where a lady aborted one child of a man then delivered another one of his 12 months later. She sued him for child support. He wasnt a broke guy and his attorney suppeoned the first abortion record for court. I know that he had to pay but it wasnt very much at all. They settled out of court. Wheather or not that was right is not up to me but it happened. His reasoning was why was this one good enough to have and the other not. With just such a short time in between.

reply from: Sigma

It's not really up to him whether she decides to let her body be used or not, regardless of the timing involved :-\

reply from: mbrace5

It's not really up to him whether she decides to let her body be used or not, regardless of the timing involved :-\
So does a man have any say in a family matter other than financial?

reply from: Sigma

I couldn't say what the man in the relationship has a say in, but I can tell you what he does not have a say in. He cannot tell the woman she must have sex with him, and cannot say that she must remain pregnant.

reply from: mbrace5

And I agree that she doesnt have to have sex with him. But, if she chooses to then shouldnt they both decide what happens to the child? BTW, I do enjoy speaking with someone that is not hostile but does recognize a differant opinion. TY

reply from: Sigma

Aye, I'm of the opinion that neither side has malicious intent and have noble goals. There's not much reason for true hostility.
Certainly the pregnancy is both of their responsibility but the woman is in a unique position regarding what she must contribute the pregnancy relationship. Our desire for fairness would initially tell us that the father deserves a say, but the biology of the situation does not allow this option since the basic rights of the woman dictate that her body cannot be used against her will.

reply from: mbrace5

I agree that her basic rights say that. But, take the legal stand point out of it. Shouldnt it be a mutual decision? I am not big on a court telling us(both men and women) what we can or cant do regarding family. I think that should be left up to two responsible people. Im lookin at the morale side of things.

reply from: TraderTif

No, a therapeutic abortion is for the benefit of the woman's health. An abortion is never done for the benefit of the conceptus That's nonsensical.
Do you deny these exist?
Did you not use the phrase "but certainly there are theraputic abortions, where there is something wrong with the fetus."??
And killing this "imperfect" child is considered therapeutic?? How?!?!???

reply from: Sigma

Something wrong that threatens the health or life of the woman.
There may be fetal anomalies when pregnancy outcome is likely to be birth of a child with significant mental or physical defects or high likelihood of intrauterine or neonatal death.
Also, about 1 in 1000 pregnancies have an incident of malignancy, which includes cervical cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, leukemia and a few others.
While there is a certain amount of guesswork involved when a doctor estimates the mortality and morbidity of the pregnant woman, the term "therapeutic abortion" is used to indicate the abortion was performed to preserve the health and perhaps life of the woman involved.

reply from: Sigma

Oh, ideally it should be. Both the people involved should discuss what they want from the situation.

reply from: mbrace5

Oh, ideally it should be. Both the people involved should discuss what they want from the situation.
yeap, and Ideally there would be no need for "convience" abortions. Just serious medical issues but who are we to decide. Thats up to people that know what it does to a family when it happens. Like the courts, they are experts!

reply from: TraderTif

Something wrong that threatens the health or life of the woman.
I've also heard the term used, for example, to refer to abortion preformed because the child had Down Syndrome. (That was more of what I had in mind when you phrased it that way.) I can't understand how that could ever be described as "therapeutic".
I have no problem with a woman seeking life-saving treatment, even if this results in the indirect death of the child. However, I do not believe that direct abortion is justifiable even in those circumstances.

reply from: Sigma

Absolutely, in an ideal world abortion would not be desired. The world is a messy place unfortunately

reply from: Sigma

The term can be used in cases such as this for the mental health of the woman. This is likely the more controversial uses, certainly.
However, in cases of severe deformation or impairment it seems less of a 'convenience' and more of a way to avoid severe emotional and financial burdens.
You're likely in the minority with the view that abortion is not justified to save her life.

reply from: TraderTif

The term can be used in cases such as this for the mental health of the woman. This is likely the more controversial uses, certainly.
However, in cases of severe deformation or impairment it seems less of a 'convenience' and more of a way to avoid severe emotional and financial burdens.
So, could I use this same line of reasoning to kill someone that is a "severe emotional and financial burden" on me? Or, could the state use this line of reasoning to kill off "inconvenient" patients?
You're likely in the minority with the view that abortion is not justified to save her life.
Perhaps I am. But I can't see how much difference it makes. The mother can still get life-saving treatment.

reply from: Sigma

If they are attached to your body and using your organs, then it could be justified.

reply from: LexIcon

If they are attached to your body and using your organs, then it could be justified.
You mean attached like this? http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS347US347&q=siamese+twins

reply from: Sigma

It depends, which twin do the organs belong to?

reply from: LexIcon

Define attached.
A newborn frequently gets directly attached to his mom's teats and indirectly to every organ that has contributed to her milk production.

reply from: LexIcon

It depends, which twin do the organs belong to?
Pre-birth, to which of the twins did the organs belong?

reply from: Sigma

Unless you wish to contend that, while pregnant, the woman does no more than feed the conceptus I don't see the relevance. If pregnancy is more than feeding then the two are not directly comparable anyway.
Is that your contention?
Yes, that was my question to you. In the case of conjoined twins, to which twin does the body belong?

reply from: LexIcon

Unless you wish to contend that, while pregnant, the woman does no more than feed the conceptus I don't see the relevance. If pregnancy is more than feeding then the two are not directly comparable anyway.
Is that your contention?
You haven't defined "attached," but now I also want you to define "feed."
Yes, that was my question to you. In the case of conjoined twins, to which twin does the body belong?
I would say that the body belongs to each twin.

reply from: Sigma

Are the connotations somehow inadequate? Though I suppose I can guess your intention. You wish to say that "it must be justified to kill a newborn suckling on its mother's teat if it's justified to have an abortion".
Would that be the gist of your argument?
Agreed. There is no clear way to say that the body belongs to one or the other in the case of conjoined twins. In the pregnancy relationship, however, the body in use is clearly the woman's.

reply from: LexIcon

Are the connotations somehow inadequate? Though I suppose I can guess your intention. You wish to say that "it must be justified to kill a newborn suckling on its mother's teat if it's justified to have an abortion".
Would that be the gist of your argument?
Basically. The only difference is how the baby is attached to its mother and being fed.
Agreed. There is no clear way to say that the body belongs to one or the other in the case of conjoined twins. In the pregnancy relationship, however, the body in use is clearly the woman's. The only difference here is the way in which two bodies are joined. especially when organs are shared.

reply from: Sigma

There is more of a difference than that. The woman does much more than simply feed the conceptus. She provides the body for the conceptus. She processes it's waste, provides oxygen (breathing for it), shelters and protects it and, yes, provides nutrients. For at least part of the pregnancy, the conceptus has no functioning 'body' as we know it.
However, even were you correct there is still a vital difference. A woman can decide to stop breastfeeding. If you insist they are equivalent then the woman can stop supporting the conceptus as well.
Just so I understand... you are saying that the woman's body belongs to the conceptus in much the same way the conjoined twins both "own" the body?

reply from: LexIcon

There is more of a difference than that. The woman does much more than simply feed the conceptus. She provides the body for the conceptus. She processes it's waste, provides oxygen (breathing for it), shelters and protects it and, yes, provides nutrients. For at least part of the pregnancy, the conceptus has no functioning 'body' as we know it.
However, even were you correct there is still a vital difference. A woman can decide to stop breastfeeding. If you insist they are equivalent then the woman can stop supporting the conceptus as well.
This is why I asked you to define "attached" and "feed." If a woman decides to stop breastfeeding, and that is the ONLY way that she had sustained the life of her advanced "conceptus," then it will die, only now she could be charged with murder.
Just so I understand... you are saying that the woman's body belongs to the conceptus in much the same way the conjoined twins both "own" the body? Exactly.

reply from: LexIcon

Not exactly. She provides nutrients. The body of the "conceptus" is constructed according to its own unique genetic blueprint.
You should have caught this.

reply from: Sigma

To discuss the issue doesn't require any advanced definition. We're accomplishing a discussion regardless.
You're assuming more than the scenario warrants. If a woman decides to stop breastfeeding... it could mean she is using formula or has given the infant up for adoption or she gave it up under the safe-haven laws. The point is: At any point she may decide to stop breastfeeding.
If we decide that she has the right to stop using her body to feed another, then she has the right to separate her body from the conceptus. The question then becomes does she have this right? If you have to say "well she can't do it while pregnant because it kills the conceptus" then unfortunately you concede that the two situations cannot be directly compared.
Exactly.
Ok, yikes.
This doesn't seem to make any sense, though. With conjoined twins they always shared a body and that is why, to my mind, you cannot tell which it belongs to. With the pregnancy relationship, the woman obviously (I hope it's obvious to you too) had sole possession of her body beforehand. Therefore it is fair to say that you are artificially judging that the body belongs to the conceptus as well since we can tell who was born with that body (thus establishing 'ownership').
How do you establish ownership of the body in question? Just by who is currently using it?

reply from: Sigma

She provides the body in that all the normal bodily processes that I listed (to name a few: eating/digesting, breathing, filtering waste) is accomplished by her and not the conceptus. The conceptus uses her stomach, her kidneys, her lungs etc etc. Though I guess you would say those organs also belong to the conceptus?
It's similar to a parasitic symbiotic relationship.

reply from: LexIcon

To discuss the issue doesn't require any advanced definition. We're accomplishing a discussion regardless.
You're assuming more than the scenario warrants. If a woman decides to stop breastfeeding... it could mean she is using formula or has given the infant up for adoption or she gave it up under the safe-haven laws. The point is: At any point she may decide to stop breastfeeding.
If we decide that she has the right to stop using her body to feed another, then she has the right to separate her body from the conceptus. The question then becomes does she have this right? If you have to say "well she can't do it while pregnant because it kills the conceptus" then unfortunately you concede that the two situations cannot be directly compared.
Excuse me for not adding that no other source of sustenance for the advanced "conceptus" would have been provided, i.e., Mom really does want her advanced "conceptus" to die, which is why she stops breastfeeding the little parasite, and no, I don't believe that she has any right to do this.
Exactly.
How is it not obvious to you? A pregnant woman is no longer in sole possession of her body. She shares it with the "conceptus." Your problem is that you want to accord an ABSOLUTE right to the mother to do TO her "conceptus" whatever she pleases, and THAT reasoning has given this country more than 55 million elective abortions since 1973.
Ownership is a selfish argument.

reply from: LexIcon

She provides the body in that all the normal bodily processes that I listed (to name a few: eating/digesting, breathing, filtering waste) is accomplished by her and not the conceptus. The conceptus uses her stomach, her kidneys, her lungs etc etc. Though I guess you would say those organs also belong to the conceptus?
It's similar to a parasitic symbiotic relationship.
Exactly, and it is a wonder to behold!

reply from: Sigma

Well, if you want to say that pregnancy is equivalent to breastfeeding you can't quite change what "breastfeeding" is and expect your point to stand. Then it's "if you make it so if you stop breastfeeding the infant immediately dies then it can be compared". And it's a little dishonest too since you're trying for the 'infanticide' emotional reaction without actually having a situation that promotes infanticide (since your hypothetical doesn't actually exist).
But alright, let's go with it why not. Why don't we make it simplier. It's not an infant it's a man. He is surgically attached to you. If the connection is severed that man will die. Do you have the right to decide you don't want him using your body (presuming that you never legally decided to let him be surgically attached)?
I contend that there can be nothing legally wrong with detaching that man because you never signed an agreement letting him use your body as his own.
How do you determine ownership of her body? Just by who is currently using it?
As I said, in the case of conjoined twins they both always were in possession of their shared body but that is not the case in the pregnancy relationship. Yes, I agree that the conceptus is now using the woman's body as well but I cannot see that it confers any implication that the conceptus now has a right to it. Especially since that right is enforced legally (hence the legal system enforces legal ownership of her body to someone else). I'm sure you see the similarities to slavery inherent in the situation.
I want to accord a greater (though not absolute) right to the woman to refuse to allow her body to be used. The fact that it may result in the death of the conceptus is unfortunate but cannot justify the hideous nature of the alternative.
No question. It would be self-less and kind to share your body with someone else. It would be selfish to deny that. Selfishness should not be illegal, though, nor is it morally unjustified.

reply from: LexIcon

IMO, the entire "pro-choice" argument can be reduced to this statement of FACT: "I was here first!"

reply from: Sigma

I would hazard that having a right to your body and what happens to it is cherished by most people in the country.

reply from: LexIcon

Well, if you want to say that pregnancy is equivalent to breastfeeding you can't quite change what "breastfeeding" is and expect your point to stand. Then it's "if you make it so if you stop breastfeeding the infant immediately dies then it can be compared". And it's a little dishonest too since you're trying for the 'infanticide' emotional reaction without actually having a situation that promotes infanticide (since your hypothetical doesn't actually exist). How would you know? Have you been to Haiti lately?
This only holds if the woman is raped.
Well then, why should the woman have a right to kill her SLAVE?
The hideous nature of the alternative???
"Greed is good." Gordon Gecko

reply from: Sigma

I'm talking about modern American society, since I am talking about adoption and safe-haven laws.
How is that? I'm not aware of women signing waivers allowing anyone to use their body. The conceptus has no legal grounds to use her body against her will.
My example still stands.
How is the conceptus her slave? In the example of the man attached to her I didn't say he was her slave. I said she has a right to stop him from using her body against her will and without her consent.
Yes. Saying that her body no longer legally belongs to her is draconian.
It is?

reply from: LexIcon

I'm talking about modern American society, since I am talking about adoption and safe-haven laws.
Strange, I thought we were talking about abortion-on-demand.
Good God, check the fine print in the contract!
How is the "conceptus" NOT her SLAVE? It is utterly at her mercy. She OWNS it.
Excuse me, I thought that you were referring to the actual birth of the "conceptus."
"It's MY body!!!"

reply from: Sigma

In America, since I was citing laws specific to that nation.
Exactly! It's ridiculous to think there was a legal agreement between the man and woman, therefore it is equally ridiculous to think the woman has any legal obligation to remain connected to him, even if he would die without that connection.
I said she owns her own body and may deny its use to someone else.
And so you conclude that "greed is good"?

reply from: SpitMcGee

Claiming one's body as one's own? How unbelievably greedy.

reply from: LexIcon

Hmm...I don't recall reading that in the ground rules.
I wasn't thinking about the crass "legal agreement between a man and a woman," but the deeper existential agreement between mother and child.

Even after that "someone" has been conceived.
And so you conclude that "greed is good"?
No, I conclude that the will to abort an inconvenient pregnancy because of claims of ownership is damnable.

reply from: LexIcon

Once she williingly submits to sexual intercourse, she is bound before God to accept the consequence of that action. Sure, she can legally have her "conceptus" aborted and turned into compost, but WE AREN'T THE MEASURE OF TRUTH about such things, in case you hadn't heard.

reply from: Sigma

My legal argument cannot hold outside the limits of the Constitution :-\ If you are unwilling to continue the discussion with this limitation we can end it here.
This certainly may exist, but it cannot be legally enforcable because it is not a legal agreement. Similarly, there must be an agreement between the man and woman in my example for that connection to be legally enforced.
She may have a personal moral obligation, but that is a personal obligation. Not a governmentally enforcable one. Without that agreement, it would seem that the woman may, legally, terminate the connection if she so chooses even if it would kill the man to lose that connection.
Or born for that matter, imo.
It may or may not be morally reprehensible... but it is a personal, moral matter.

reply from: Sigma

This very well may be true. Morality, however, is a personal matter and she must search her own relationship with God to find these answers.

reply from: LexIcon

Isn't the Constitution a living document that can mean whatever the hell Harry Blackmun, et al., though it meant at the time they inflicted Roe and Doe on the nation?
That is, kill.
May not be! How fashionably, self-congratulatorily, WORTHLESS!

reply from: LexIcon

This very well may be true. Morality, however, is a personal matter and she must search her own relationship with God to find these answers.
What do you think?

reply from: Sigma

I'm not sure how much you want to go into Constitutional theory...
Or allow to die, as in my example of the man and woman. In either case death would result, yes.
Or may indeed be.

reply from: Sigma

I'm basically agnostic, so a personal relationship with God is not something I usually speculate on.

reply from: LexIcon

What I know about Constitutional theory is that Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wafe, refused to address the question of when human life even begins, while insisting on referring to the living thing in the womb as a "potential" life, definitely NOT a "person" under the 14th Amendment, and without EVER deciding when that "potential" life would become an ACTUAL human life, and ALL OF THIS being in PERFECT CONCORD with the will of the framers of the Constitution, 7 of 9 said, to which I say, BULL*****.
No, It is always KILL.
Or may indeed be.

reply from: LexIcon

I'm basically agnostic, so a personal relationship with God is not something I usually speculate on.
The argument from religious authority gets nowhere. I prefer the civil rights argument. It isn't just to EXCLUDE the unborn from legal recognition simply because of where they happen to reside.

reply from: Sigma

In the decision, they decided they did not have to decide when "life begins". The question before them was whether Texas was justified in violating the woman's Constitutional rights. Since they concluded the conceptus could not have a Constitutionally protected "right to life", Texas had no basis to claim they had a compelling State interest to protect.
To answer the challenge to State law, they didn't need to address that question
You can look at it that way if you want, but I think there is a difference between the two.

reply from: LexIcon

In the decision, they decided they did not have to decide when "life begins". The question before them was whether Texas was justified in violating the woman's Constitutional rights. Since they concluded the conceptus could not have a Constitutionally protected "right to life", Texas had no basis to claim they had a compelling State interest to protect.
To answer the challenge to State law, they didn't need to address that question
The very reaon why they decided that the "conceptus" had no Constitutionally protected "right to life" was because they -and Harry Blackmun in particular- wanted to make elective abortion legal, PERIOD.

reply from: LexIcon

Regarding Roe v Wade and Doe v. Bolron, consider this word of warning:
"As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." Justice Byron White: Doe v. Bolton

reply from: LexIcon

Consider Harry Blackmun's CONSTITUTIONAL view of things:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."
In other words, "We don't know what we're dealing with, and refuse to even speculate about it, therefore, instead of allowing for reasonable doubt to temper our remarks, we instead declare open season on the unborn. It's what the Constitution demands. Surely you agree."

reply from: Sigma

It's reasonable, certainly.
For one thing, the Constitution already makes distinctions based upon where a person is born, so there seems no injustice in that. Secondly, whether or not the conceptus has legal recognition doesn't change that abortion may be legally justified (recall my example).
Lastly, the woman's rights must be violated in order to uphold any rights the conceptus might be granted. In a choice between a possible injustice and a definite injustice, I believe the woman must have priority in our considerations

reply from: Sigma

Justice Potter Stewart, a judge on the Roe v Wade case said in his concurring opinon:
Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

reply from: Sigma

More like: It is not relevent to deciding upon this case.

reply from: LexIcon

Justice Potter Stewart, a judge on the Roe v Wade case said in his concurring opinon:
Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
Eisenstadt v. Baird had to do with contraception. Doe v. Bolton basically decreed that any "health" reason at all was sufficient to warrant an abortion. That is, the Court defined "health" as "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient."

reply from: LexIcon

More like: It is not relevent to deciding upon this case.
Willful ignorance is bliss, eh?

reply from: Sigma

Eisenstadt supported Roe. Whatever came after, the essential nature of abortion is considered fundamentally protected.

reply from: Sigma

I obviously cannot change your mind on that, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

reply from: LexIcon

It's reasonable, certainly.
For one thing, the Constitution already makes distinctions based upon where a person is born, so there seems no injustice in that. Secondly, whether or not the conceptus has legal recognition doesn't change that abortion may be legally justified (recall my example). Umm, where a person is BORN is not where he or she GESTATES.
The woman's rights MUST be violated? The "conceptus" is the ENEMY!!! Good God, it's no wonder the feminazis are barren!

reply from: LexIcon

Eisenstadt supported Roe. Whatever came after, the essential nature of abortion is considered fundamentally protected.The idea that Eisenstadt supports Roe is logically fallacious. That the Court didn't care is no surprise.

reply from: LexIcon

I obviously cannot change your mind on that, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
What I don't get is how you can accept Blackmun's admission of IGNORANCE about what he was considering as a JUSTIFICATION for decreeing abortion-on-demand. Reasonable doubt is usually sufficient to stay the executioner's hand, but NOT when it comes to those "potential" lives that Blackmun was so very eager to snuff out, CONSTITUTIONALLY.

reply from: Sigma

Why is one an injustice and the other not?
Consider the scenario. A woman is pregnant and she doesn't want to be. If she can have an abortion then the rights of the conceptus are violated, yes? If she cannot have an abortion, then her rights are violated.
You can't have it both ways.

reply from: Sigma

In what way is that false?
I don't think you understand what they were making a decision about.
It would be similar to thinking the Court needs to decide whether chocolate is tasty before they can make rulings on gun control. It just doesn't matter to the decision they're making. They didn't need to determine the answer to the question in order to rule whether Texas was justified in restricting women's rights. There is no "reasonable doubt" because it was not a criminal case.
They did not justify abortion. They did not say abortion is good or even that it's a right. They said it was a private matter that the State did not have grounds to be involved in.
And I agree with them. It should be a moral issue, not a question of legality.

reply from: LexIcon

Why is one an injustice and the other not?
I'm not the one arguing that the "conceptus" is a thief.
Consider the scenario. A woman is pregnant and she doesn't want to be. If she can have an abortion then the rights of the conceptus are violated, yes? If she cannot have an abortion, then her rights are violated.
How tragic that a pregnant woman CAN'T kill her "conceptus" at any time and for virtually any reason at all...in Europe, that land of liberal values where abortion is far more restricted than here in the 55 million plus elective abortions U.S.!
You can't have it both ways.

reply from: Sigma

No, you're arguing that discrimination based on residence is an injustice. However, the Constitution already discriminates based on location of birth, so I'm not sure where the difference lies.
I know it's sarcasm, but I'm unsure what you're really trying to say.

reply from: LexIcon

In what way is that false?
How dense are you? The one involves prevention of conception. The other involves TERMINATION of the life of the "conceptus."
I don't think you understand what they were making a decision about.
It would be similar to thinking the Court needs to decide whether chocolate is tasty before they can make rulings on gun control. It just doesn't matter to the decision they're making. They didn't need to determine the answer to the question in order to rule whether Texas was justified in restricting women's rights. There is no "reasonable doubt" because it was not a criminal case.
They did not justify abortion. They did not say abortion is good or even that it's a right. They said it was a private matter that the State did not have grounds to be involved in.
And I agree with them. It should be a moral issue, not a question of legality. Bull*****. They held that the unborn aren't "persons" under the 14th Amendment, therefore it was permissible to kill them at any time during pregnancy and by any means available.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, check the quote I provided:
Eisenstadt v. Baird provided the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child
That necessarily includes the decision whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. In fact, several decisions from the Court have found that marriage, procreation and family life are all private matters that enjoy Constitutional protection.
They held that the term has never had pre-natal application, yes. Therefore the State does not have the justification to restrict a woman's Constitutionally protected right to privacy. There is no "right to abortion". The decision said that abortion is a private decision that the State does not have the justification it would need to restrict it.

reply from: LexIcon

The case was actually moot. Norma McCorvey had already given birth,. She was not a rape victim, and by her own admission was used by Sarah Weddington to make an "abortion" argument. Did that matter to the Supremes? Not at all.

reply from: Sigma

Given that a normal gestation is too short compared to the time needed for a case to get to SCOTUS, their decision to hear the case is reasonable. To do otherwise would forever bar cases involving pregnancy.

reply from: LexIcon

Yes, check the quote I provided:
Eisenstadt v. Baird provided the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child
That necessarily includes the decision whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. In fact, several decisions from the Court have found that marriage, procreation and family life are all private matters that enjoy Constitutional protection.
It does not logically follow that preventing conception should be construed as permission granted for abortion-on-demand. That the Court would make such a leap is why I hold it in contempt.
They held that the term has never had pre-natal application, yes. Therefore the State does not have the justification to restrict a woman's Constitutionally protected right to privacy. There is no "right to abortion". The decision said that abortion is a private decision that the State does not have the justification it would need to restrict it.
Privacy. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that this argument was absurd. Human life as private property! Didn't this country fight a war over that hateful idea? Yet it is PRECISELY what the Court and you have cited as justification for the ongoing butchery that none dare call a "right to abortion!"

reply from: LexIcon

Given that a normal gestation is too short compared to the time needed for a case to get to SCOTUS, their decision to hear the case is reasonable. To do otherwise would forever bar cases involving pregnancy.
That is, the Court seized the occasion to legislate from the bench.

reply from: LexIcon

Time to hit the sack. Good night.

reply from: Sigma

However, if you accept that the decision to bear or beget a child is and must be a private one, it does follow that abortion is a private decision under the same reasoning. Keep in mind that privacy is not an absolute right, but in this case there is no compelling State interest in order to violate it.
You're making leaps that the argument does not make.
Secondly, in this very thread you advocated giving ownership of the woman's body to the conceptus as soon as it is concieved. To me, the only owner of any life is one's own person. So, I think you're angry at the wrong side.

reply from: Sigma

Well, I disagree. I don't believe they could have reasonably rejected the case.

reply from: LexIcon

The decision to bear or beget a child PRECEDES bearing or begetting a child.
No, I wrote of co-ownership.

reply from: LexIcon

Well, I disagree. I don't believe they could have reasonably rejected the case.
The Court could have reasonably declined to hear the case and sent it back to Texas.

reply from: spinvortex

Well, In the opinion of the court, Blackmun conceded that, at some point, the life, or even "potential life" of the "conceptus" warrants consideration.
The argument, legally, appears to be "at what point, and to what extent." The original trimester breakdown was an attempt to make some kind of delineation, and clearly illustrated the fact that the SCOTUS considered the right of the "conceptus" not to be killed outweighed "lesser" (than life itself) concerns of the mother even prior to birth.
It can certainly be said to be a conflict of rights, just as Sigma has articulated. After birth, there is no question that the mother may not exercise any right she is assumed to have in such a way as to infringe on the rights of her child, and in cases where a conflict exists between the rights of mother and child, wherein one or the others rights will unavoidably be compromised for the sake of the other, the right to life is almost universally recognized to be more significant and therefore take precedent.
I believe that, if we are being reasonable, that concept must apply to "the conceptus" as well, at least at some point prior to birth. What we have, however, legally speaking, is abortion on demand at literally any point during pregnancy, entirely at the discretion of the mother, dependent, of course, on her ability to find an abortionist willing to perform the procedure. I think a reasonable person (one familiar with abortion law, at least) must concede that the current legal situation, therefore, violates the spirit of the original ruling as well as the amended version where the trimester breakdown was abandoned.
Anyone who fails to acknowledge that any pregnant woman may legally abort, at her own discretion, and at any point up to birth, is clearly in denial of reality. Any person who denies that this violates the spirit of the decisions involving abortion clearly fails to understand the decisions in question.
Most prolifers do not take the more extreme position held by posters on this forum, and grudgingly concede that legal abortion is a necessity in our society, but object to the current state of affairs. It is not necessarily legal abortion that most object to, but legal abortion on demand, which is currently, for all practical purposes, unrestricted.

reply from: LexIcon

Thanks for the post!
I expect that mine is an "extreme position," yet I allow that abortion may be a medical necessity, in which case you try to save both lives, if possible.
As for as the Court, I most strenuously object to Blackmun's complete unwillingness to grant the benefit of the doubt to the PROCESS whereby the "potential life" does indeed become ACTUAL LIFE at some point prior to birth, since the Court never defined what it meant as a constitutional matter.
BTW, I don't recall spotting the word "conceptus" in any of the Court's rulings, and "potential life" is meaningless, so henceforth I intend to refer to this womb bound and indisputably human creature as a "baby."

reply from: Sigma

Yes, the decision whether to give birth does indeed precede birth.
Yes, whereas before the woman was the sole owner. You are giving at least some ownership of the woman's body to someone else. That is closer to slavery than anything I advocate.

reply from: Sigma

No, he conceded that at some point States may, if they choose, restrict abortion since, at some point, their interest can be compelling enough to justify that restriction. Whether this warrants consideration is up to the States, not the Court.
The Court does not assign value to human life or indeed if the conceptus even is human life. They merely decided whether or not the State law that was challenged was Constitutional. They decided it was not on the grounds that the State had no compelling interest that would justify abridging the woman's rights.

reply from: LexIcon

Yes, the decision whether to give birth does indeed precede birth.
Yes, whereas before the woman was the sole owner. You are giving at least some ownership of the woman's body to someone else. That is closer to slavery than anything I advocate. I'm not the one giving at least some "ownership" to "someone else," a.k.a., the baby, the woman is.

reply from: LexIcon

No, he conceded that at some point States may, if they choose, restrict abortion since, at some point, their interest can be compelling enough to justify that restriction. Whether this warrants consideration is up to the States, not the Court.
The Court does not assign value to human life or indeed if the conceptus even is human life. They merely decided whether or not the State law that was challenged was Constitutional. They decided it was not on the grounds that the State had no compelling interest that would justify abridging the woman's rights.
States have tinkered with the margins, but the central holding of Roe stands. The Court's intention was to legalize abortion on demand. It did so by decreeing that at no point during pregnancy does the baby become a "person," and thereby entitled to due process consideration and protection under the 14th Amendment. If any state could have trumped this dehumanizing ruling, it would have done so by now.

reply from: Sigma

Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. You're using the legal system to transfer 'ownership' of her body to the conceptus against her will and without her consent. This is closer to slavery than anything I advocate.

reply from: Sigma

This is not quite the case. The "castle doctrine" adopted by some states allow for the use of deadly force when defending your own property.
North Carolina, for example, states: A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry [...] if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
Texas presumes lethal defense is reasonable if unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment
Washington state says: Homicide is also justifiable when committed [...] In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is
etc etc. Life is not an absolute right.

reply from: Sigma

That's sort of the crux. You want to "trump" the ruling, not work within it's bounds.
While I don't have all the answers, Roe itself does not prevent at least some restriction of abortion.

reply from: LexIcon

Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. You're using the legal system to transfer 'ownership' of her body to the conceptus against her will and without her consent. This is closer to slavery than anything I advocate.
Nice try, but that's exactly how a pregnancy works, and it was "the legal system" that reduced it to a question of private property rights at the expense of the legitimate claims of biology, even if the woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Yours is indeed the slave argument.

reply from: Sigma

There is no biological process that can possibly grant or recind legal rights. People (specifically, the government) do that. Pregnancy is a physical process... legal rights are conceptual. So, no, pregnancy does not work that way. 'Ownership' has no meaning in biology. It is conceptual.
Biology does not obligate us to legally behave in any particular way.
I do not advocate anyone owning us except ourselves. You advocate that ownership can be given to others if they happen to be using our body. In what way do I advocate slavery?

reply from: spinvortex

Let us not quibble over irrelevant semantics. Obviously no state would be allowed to act in the interest of a fetus if it warranted no consideration...
The fact remains that no state is currently given any such "choice" to prevent any abortion at any point during pregnancy for any reason. Abortion is available "on demand" throughout pregnancy...
No, you are incorrect. They specifically stated that, "at some point" the legitimate interest of the state in protecting even potential life becomes sufficiently compelling to warrant state intervention. That is hardly the same as saying the state "had no compelling interest" as you claim.
It was also clearly stated that legal precedent denies an unlimited "right to privacy" implying that a woman may do as she wishes with her own body.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

reply from: spinvortex

This is not quite the case. The "castle doctrine" adopted by some states allow for the use of deadly force when defending your own property.
North Carolina, for example, states: A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry [...] if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
Texas presumes lethal defense is reasonable if unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment
Washington state says: Homicide is also justifiable when committed [...] In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is
etc etc. Life is not an absolute right.
So, do you then assert that "the conceptus," which arrives at its unfortunate position of complete dependency through no fault of its own, can be compared to a felon with obvious or assumed malicious intent that would justify violence in defense against this "invasion?"
I believe this argument to be disingenuous, to say the least...

reply from: spinvortex

There is no biological process that can possibly grant or recind legal rights. People (specifically, the government) do that. Pregnancy is a physical process... legal rights are conceptual. So, no, pregnancy does not work that way. 'Ownership' has no meaning in biology. It is conceptual.
Biology does not obligate us to legally behave in any particular way.
I do not advocate anyone owning us except ourselves. You advocate that ownership can be given to others if they happen to be using our body. In what way do I advocate slavery?
We are legally responsible for the children we bring into this world. Which, then, "owns" the other? What level of responsibility to another constitutes their ownership of us in your view?

reply from: PanhandleGuy

You people are still debating Sigma seriously?

reply from: Sigma

I think it is an important distinction. The Roe decision invalidated a Texas state law prohibiting abortion on the grounds that the State did not have a compelling interest that would justify violating the woman's rights, at least during the time-frame that the Texas law covered. That is a fact.
From Roe: Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest,"
[...]
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception
[...]
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion
[...]
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State
Privacy is considered 'fundamental' by precedent.
They did say that at "some point" this interest can become compelling, but the Court does not (and cannot) make laws restricting abortion. The States do. So the only action that SCOTUS can take is to invalidate the State law that covers the time-frame that the State doesn't have that 'compelling interest', and that's it.
Absolutely, no right is absolute.
State's can create laws restricting abortion, even now. If it does not infringe upon the time-frame that is protected by a woman's privacy then there is no reason for SCOTUS to invalidate that law. I'm not sure why you say States cannot make those laws.
Absolutely not. The point of that post is to show that the 'right to life' is not unconditional in any way, shape or form.

reply from: Sigma

Does legally responsible imply ownership? I'm not convinced that's true.

reply from: LexIcon

You're not sure why?
Roe's Dissenters on the Court

Byron White was the senior dissenting justice. Associate Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. Justice White wrote:
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."
White asserted that the Court "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." Despite White suggesting he "might agree" with the Court's values and priorities, he wrote that he saw "no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States." White criticized the Court for involving itself in this issue by creating "a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it." He would have left this issue, for the most part, "with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."
Rehnquist elaborated upon several of White's points, by asserting that the Court's historical analysis was flawed:
"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today."
From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions, parental notification laws, spousal mutual consent laws, spousal notification laws, laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals but not clinics, laws barring state funding for abortions, laws banning intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion), laws requiring waiting periods before abortion, or laws mandating women read certain types of literature before choosing an abortion. Congress in 1976 passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).
________________________________________________________________
Tell us, Sigma, how many of the post-Roe state laws that limited or regulated abortion, and did "not infringe upon the time-frame that is protected by a woman's privacy," were subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, they are originalist who don't believe in the 'living document' view of the Constitution. I do not follow that framework.
I just cannot agree with their reasoning when they say things like this: "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter"
The Fourteenth came out of the experience of slavery. The entire Amendment is intended to limit a State's power in regards to individual freedom. Before the adoption of that Amendment there would be a point to allowing States to restrict abortion or not if they so choose and SCOTUS could not interefere. But after it's adoption, the power of the States was sharply reduced. The Bill of Rights was also Incorporated against State power at that point.
This quote seems to fly in the face of all precedent.
Obviously none of them adhered to the standard if they were stuck down. Roe explicitely said that abortion could be restricted at a certain point in the pregnancy. There is nothing in Roe that says States cannot restrict abortion.

reply from: PanhandleGuy

I know you know the above is wrong, but I just thought I'd point that the above is wrong.

reply from: Sigma

How, specifically, is it incorrect?
The Fourteenth was adopted after the Civil War as one of the reconstruction Amendments. And, as Representative Thayer said at the time: [The Fourteenth] is but incorporating in the Constitution of the United States the principle of the civil rights bill which has lately become a law.
The Civil Rights Bill was heavily influenced by the English Jurists Sir Edward Coke and Sir William Blackstone (Wilson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, referred to Blackstones principles as "the great fundamental civil rights"), who both agreed that regulatory laws must substantially advance the purpose for which the government had imposed them.
Thus the intent behind the Fourteenth was to limit governmental power to substantive purpose (thus "substantive due process") and advance individual freedom.

reply from: LexIcon

Obviously.
Obviously, you haven't answered my challenge.

reply from: Sigma

The Fourteenth isn't about slavery, it's more generalized. The drafters didn't want States to have unlimited power to restrict individual freedom. Thus restricting the State's ability to violate liberty is a valid power of SCOTUS.
You want a number? None.

reply from: LexIcon

You forgot Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth; Colautti v. Franklin; Akron Center for Reproductive Health v. City of Akron; Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Pennsylvania; and Stenberg v. Carhart. That's five.

reply from: Sigma

And why were those laws struck down?

reply from: LexIcon

And why were those laws struck down?
You tell me. They met the "time-frame that is protected by a woman's privacy" standard that you set.

reply from: Sigma

If you don't know why they were struck down, how do you know they met the time frame put down by Roe?

reply from: LexIcon

If you don't know why they were struck down, how do you know they met the time frame put down by Roe?
They were struck down for reasons other than a failure to satisfy the "time-frame that is protected by a woman's privacy" standard that you set. We both know that.

reply from: Sigma

I don't know why they were struck down. That is why I asked.
Keep in mind also that a "compelling State interest" just means that it's possible to restrict it, not that everything the State does would be justified.

reply from: LexIcon

I don't know why they were struck down. That is why I asked.
Keep in mind also that a "compelling State interest" just means that it's possible to restrict it, not that everything the State does would be justified.
Excuse me, but you're the one who APPEARED to be proposing the "time-frame" standard as an absolute of sorts, and I know that you know better. You're right on top of things, I'm sure.
In any case, http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/31-abortion.html

reply from: Sigma

No, I said that nothing in Roe prevents States from restricting abortion. That is a true statement past the "compelling interest point".
You said: States have tinkered with the margins, but the central holding of Roe stands. [...] If any state could have trumped this dehumanizing ruling, it would have done so by now.
If a law is invalidated that is outside the perview of Roe, then it is not reasonable to state that Roe created "abortion on demand".

reply from: LexIcon

No, I said that nothing in Roe prevents States from restricting abortion. That is a true statement past the "compelling interest point".
You said: States have tinkered with the margins, but the central holding of Roe stands. [...] If any state could have trumped this dehumanizing ruling, it would have done so by now.
If a law is invalidated that is outside the perview of Roe, then it is not reasonable to state that Roe created "abortion on demand".
Agreed. It wasn't Roe that created abortion-on-demand. Roe "merely" created the right to have an elective abortion. It was rather Roe's companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, with its "health" exception that encompassef "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient" that created abortion-on demand.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics