Say Anything Blog

Regardless, the obvious answer to the question is: The woman should be charged with premeditated murder and sentenced with whatever punishment is associated with that in the jurisdiction she’s being tried in.

No Rob, that is completely incorrect.

The doctor is performing an illegal medical proceedure.  And there are existing laws to handle this including loss of his/her medical license, jail time, and fines.

Inside their apartment on the East Side of Manhattan and in another in a two-story home in Queens, Iris and Eliezer Fernandez made grand promises—youth, delivered in a series of injections—and generally asked for only a small amount of cash in return, the authorities said. Men and women came to their door seeking fewer wrinkles, pouty lips, larger breasts.

Instead, the authorities said, the patients ended up scarred, disfigured and in most cases hospitalized after the Fernandezes, who held no American medical licenses, injected them with a drug similar to Botox. Ms. Fernandez told investigators she had a dental license in Venezuela, the police said.

The Fernandezes have admitted to two cases of performing medical procedures without a license, and they are suspected in two more, the authorities said. But they are not believed to be the only ones in the city performing the procedure.

In all, the authorities said, nine cases have been reported since mid-June, and in eight of them, those who had undergone the procedure ended up being hospitalized with life-threatening infections. The police said at least two of those were believed to have been performed by a transsexual named Natasha in Washington Heights, but they provided few details on those cases. One investigator said the total number of victims could grow to 50 or even 100.

This is akin to performing a medical procedure without a license.  Two sides of the same coin.

And that is the real issue.  This is a medical procedure.  States are allowed to regulate the medical procedures in their states based on existing laws.  Medical procedures do not constitute interstate commerce and therefore are a province of the state because of the 10th Amendment.

There is no need to target the patients that go to an unlicensed provider to get breast implants or botox or steroids or whatever.  The provider of drugs is who we target.  And states have the regulatory authority to charge unlicensed providers or providers providing illegal services and do it for all other medical procedures.

You treat abortion just like any other medical procedure and then by authority of the executive and legislative branches, you regulate the medical community and define the terms of practice.

So then what happens to a doctor that performs abortions in a state illegally or an individual without a medical license who does one?  In the first case the doctor loses their medical license and ability to practice in the state.  In both cases, they get fined significantly and sentenced to jail time. 

You start doing that and all the sudden women will not be able to find someone to give them an abortion.  Doctors that want to do it will go to states where they can.  Planned Parenthood will shut down or change their habits and recommendations.  They may refer women to cross state lines, then it is a crime of transporting a minor across state lines for an illegal medical procedure if the parents are not involved.  (solves parental notification issue)

And assume that several states will allow it still.  How do you propose mandating a first degree murder sentence in South Dakota for it while North Dakota allows it?

Why don’t you do some homework and find out what the penalties were.  After all, it was illegal for a long time in this country.  While you are at it, find out how many children died while getting abortions and how many were sterilized. 

Why don’t we move even further.  It should be attempted murder for a man to masturbate.  After all, each one of those sperm had a chance to become a life and he killed them all.  When a woman loses an egg it is because the egg is no good anymore and she has takes no action, so you can’t blame her.  But the men!  Do we add up the death of each sperm as a separate count in the penalty phase?

I also think we should force the government to follow every pregnant woman to see what she eats, if she smokes or drinks.  Since living in NYC is the equivalent of smoking 3 packs a day, I think that all pregnant women in NY should be sentenced as well.  Perhaps not life, but whatever you get for child endangerment.

And all those rape victims.  Well, we should just go right ahead and tie them down for the 9 months because you just know that they are going to be really problematic and fight back as hard as they can. 

Now, what to do with those pesky idiot who tried to use birth control and failed.  They have created a life not wanted.  I think there should be a penalty for that as well. 

Women are chattel anyway.  We all know it. They always have been.

As soon as there is a law that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want the child, the father will be forced to become the main caregiver, have to give up on his career, and make sure he spends at least 14 hours of every day at home with the child all this nonsense would stop.

But it is so easy to force another person to do what you want them to do.  Especially women. As I said before:  women are chattel:  property:  and nothing they desire has any right entering the discussion.

If she has cancer and the cancer treatments would kill the fetus:  too bad.  If she is gang raped:  too bad.  And if you are going to allow an abortion in either of those instances you are a sniveling spineless coward who has no courage of your convictions.  So pick one:  either women mean nothing or they mean everything in this equation.  You can’t have it both ways.

/what about the men who pay for the dirty deed. Ever hear of brain damage if you beat her enough because the whole family are part of a drug cartell. She will get one. cnn Barbara Star you are part of this whole problem Why do you not want to level with the prez and talk about the Native American flag you follow. Hermin how about your following of Star. I was raised by a war hero of two wars. A volunteer How dare any of you put him down in Belcourt and work with Warner Bros stealing info from my copyrights where god is mentioned and my grandfathers servic. and passing them on to people who know how to roll a good joint and thats it.

I see abortion protesters as I do Cindy Sheehan. They protest thinking that if they stop one thing from happening then the entire problem is solved and the world is a perfect place to live in. Reality bites and just because they stop abortion or the war from being legal (per say) that doesn’t alleviate any of the extremely crucial and serious issues that remain.

It should be attempted murder for a man to masturbate.  After all, each one of those sperm had a chance to become a life and he killed them all.

Sperms aren’t life.  They have the potential to become life.  As opposed to a fertilized female egg that is implanted in the womb and growing.

I love it when a bunch of red-faced pro-abortion women show up for an abortion thread.  So many people rationalizing the murder of unborn children because that’s more convenient than actually taking responsibility for one’s actions.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Women are chattel anyway.

No, we are treating you like an adult.  If you choose to have sex you need to accept the result of your actions.  You are treating the baby like chattel.  It is not your property to be disposed of because it is part of your body.  It is not part of your body it is a separate human being with its own genetic code.  In fact, hormones are needed to suppress your immune system to keep it alive and your body from rejecting it.  If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.  It is simple.

The woman should be charged with premeditated murder and sentenced with whatever punishment is associated with that in the jurisdiction she’s being tried in.

That’s certainly one way to look at it however I tend to side with Justin who wrote that the person committing the abortion is the principle culprit. It can be done but it’s very difficult for a women to abort by herself without injuring herself sometimes seriously.

On the legal side, when the abortion question was a states issue (which is really is) the states independently dealt with it based on the desires of their constituents.  I think that is where the abortion question belongs and the Federal government should butt out.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Very true Greg .. I also believe that there would be a lot less desire for abortions if the mother could count on the father taking his share of responsibility.
You see Greg, our society does mothers such an injustice by raising their boys to believe sex is a game and go out and have your fun .. sew your wild oat before you get tied down etc.
Society neglects to teach boys what is expected of them. Until we teach them what is expected and morally correct of them ... they will continue to avoid responsibility for their actions.
Perhaps an excellent start could be showing the boys the very wise statement I once heard someone say:

If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.  It is simple.

On the legal side, when the abortion question was a states issue (which is really is) the states independently dealt with it based on the desires of their constituents.  I think that is where the abortion question belongs and the Federal government should butt out.

Ditto.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Abortion is a Sin.
Abortion is and should stay legal.

It is not the governments place to say what a woman does with her body.

Abortion is a burden that the bearer will carry for life.  We are not her judge, that job is filled.

I’m actually not at all certain that abortion is a state’s rights thing.  We pro-lifers believe that an unborn child is a life, no?  Well the 5th amendment states that no person may be denied life without due process of law.

Thus, I think abortion is pretty explicitly unconstitutional.  Though I’d support the overturn of Roe to return the issue to the states as a step in the right direction anyway.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It is not the governments place to say what a woman does with her body.

Abortion is murder.  An unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, and it is very much the government’s place to protect the innocent.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Abortion is a Sin.

So is murder.

Abortion is and should stay legal.

So all sins should be legal?  See above.

It is not the governments place to say what a woman does with her body.

But it may be the governments job on what she may do with her offspring which may be in her womb at the time.

Abortion is a burden that the bearer will carry for life.  We are not her judge, that job is filled.

Perhaps we’ll be judged for standing by and doing nothing when we could prevent a sin.

Rob said:

I’m actually not at all certain that abortion is a state’s rights thing.  We pro-lifers believe that an unborn child is a life, no?  Well the 5th amendment states that no person may be denied life without due process of law.

Well that’s a fair point.  However it’s logical that the mothers life is wound up inseparable from the life of the babies.  It seems to me the decision on how their two interests should interact must be left to the state legislatures according to the constitution.  Besides most murder prosecutions are held in state courts unless the murderer crossed state lines to commit their evil deeds.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Furthermore I would read the 5th amendment being a prohibition from the government killing me, not a fellow citizen or family members.

That doesn’t mean state laws keeping family and friends from murdering me aren’t a good idea.  Otherwise I wouldn’t be here writing this.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Furthermore I would read the 5th amendment being a prohibition from the government killing me, not a fellow citizen or family members.

I’m not so sure.  It reads “no person shall be denied life, liberty or property...without due process of law.” It doesn’t, like other amendments, prohibit Congress or the President or whatever.

Fair point about states separating out the life of the mother from the life of the child.  Clearly that’s the sort of sticky social issue the founders felt wise to leave up to the states per the 10th amendment.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It seems to me that if you read the 5th amendment as applying to all parties that I might not be able to defend myself against a homicidal-liberal-maniac without getting court approval.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Well in a situation like that we’ve got rights overlapping.  Your right to live, and the guy who is trying to kill you’s right to live.

To me, your right trumps his.  Because he’s a criminal trying to kill you.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

A hypothetical.  If the person isn’t trying to kill a person but “only” to rape that person.

In my opinion shoot him without due process.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

I. can’t. make. myself. disagree. Rob.

And I’ve tried.  But killing your own baby?  Killing a man’s own son?  That’s cold—not chattel, just cold!

I’ve even offered my liberal friends a chance to trade my support of capital punishment for their support of a woman’s right to kill her baby.  No takers.

Jennifer is silly:

But it is so easy to force another person to do what you want them to do.  Especially women. As I said before:  women are chattel:  property:  and nothing they desire has any right entering the discussion.

Yep.  If i get you pregnant, then I’ll be responsible for child support for my son or daughter for the next 18 years.  That is, unless you decide to kill him/her.  You hold my Fatherhood and the life of my son in your hands, and yet you still whine about being powerless.

You’ve got the same power to keep your legs closed as I do.  When do I get to decide who lives and who dies huh?

Life in prison, out in 20 years.  And I’ll agree to abandon the death penalty. Deal?

[Feet make good soup!]

A hypothetical.  If the person isn’t trying to kill a person but “only” to rape that person.

In my opinion shoot him without due process.

Touche.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

While I am sympathetic to you Constitutional argument with regard to abortion, I have to say that it is flawed. The Constitution has a clear history of defining Americans as only having rights after birth. For instance, the 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

In American history, abortion laws didn’t start coming into effect really until the 1820s. Even years after the 14th was ratified, many states still permitted abortion. Since this is the case, it seems pretty clear to me that Equal Protections and Due Process were never intended to cover unborn children. This may be the result of a lack of scientific understanding or other factors, but it was and is the case.

For it to become a Federal issue, the Constitution must first change.

Good point, Frasco.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Perhaps an excellent start could be showing the boys the very wise statement I once heard someone say:

If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.  It is simple.

I agree 100%.  I had my first child three years after I was married, you see, my wife would not let me have sex with her until we were married.  I respected her decision.  That is what I am going to teach my one year old son when he gets old enough to understand what I am telling him.

I’m sure most of the protesters weren’t there to punish women, but instead wanted to reduce the number of abortions through not encouraging women to have them “because it’s legal”.  I think having the baby instead of killing it would lead to some life lessons much more valuable than just being able to avoid the consequences of uncaring sex.  If abortion were not legal, the women might have to care about the consequences of their actions; it’s not about punishing them, it’s about making them think before they act.  Seems like we all might benefit from that.
It might also be a good thing to remove the incentive of taxpayer subsidization of abortion, as well.  Just a thought.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Hows all my old acquaintances?

I do feel somewhat sorry for these young girls who are trying to grow up so quickly by having sex, Yea but I have no pity for an adult female who had consensual sex.

I think capital punishment is suitable for both the abortion doctor as well as the female who aborted her child. I do believe it is a constitutional issue as well.

Abortion has to be illegal across the board. Rape victims as horrible as the situation is, must suffer the same consequence. Abortion can not be right sometimes.

The rapist being found guilty should without a doubt receive the death penalty immediately after His conviction. with all that said, it is my opinion that Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned.

Mr WETBACK…

Yea but I have no pity for an adult female who had consensual sex.

and now please allow us the pleasure of knowing what it is you feel for the adult male who is having consensual sex with the consenting adult female.

I also believe that there would be a lot less desire for abortions if the mother could count on the father taking his share of responsibility

Hi, wetback, what you’ve been doing?  Swimming across the Rio Grande and dodging the INS? /joke As you can read, we are still at it raising cane on the difficult issues.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Speaking of murdered fetuses.
Four fetuses found at woman’s home—

OCEAN CITY, Md. (AP) - July 30, 2007
Searchers have stopped work for the night at the Ocean City home where four dead fetuses have been discovered.
Investigators at the home of 37-year-old taxi-driver Christy Freeman say no further evidence of human remains has been found in the home, or in a vacant lot next door. The search will resume Tuesday morning.
Freeman is charged with murder in the death of her 26-week-old fetus, which was found wrapped in a towel under a bathroom sink after Freeman went to a hospital, where doctors found she had recently given birth.
Investigators later found three more sets of fetal remains, two in Freeman’s home and one in a Winnebago in the back yard.
Investigators have not charged Freeman with killing those fetuses, although the investigation is continuing. Freeman is being held without bond while the search is conducted

You see Greg, our society does mothers such an injustice by raising their boys to believe sex is a game and go out and have your fun .. sew your wild oat before you get tied down etc.

I think that is just plain wrong.  I think it is our society that is doing mothers an injustice by putting forward the idea that liberated women should be free to have sex at the time of their choosing as part of the Liberation Movement.  We have the promiscous habits of men, but the reality is that these are only useful if women are encouraged to also be promiscuous by our society.

There was an entire movement pushing women towards rejecting the cultural norms that said premarital sex is wrong for women and their justification was that society doesn’t view it as wrong for men to cheat or fornicate, but it is bad for women--therefore we need to destigmatize premarital sex for women too.  Kinda backwards way to get equality.  Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

Women in society did this damage to other women by fighting to change societal norms.  This is not society’s males fighting for the rights of women to f* anyone they want.

Rob,

Don’t federalize abortion.  Certainly don’t federalize the forbidding of abortion either.

Once we agree that it is a Federal Government responsibility to dictate how and when an abortion is murder, your hypothesis relies on the legislature in DC to define that (which is a tar baby they will never touch) then on the Courts to determine how the Constitution handles things (and that changes as the dynamics of the court change as hopefully we will soon see thanks to Alito and Roberts).

We need to simultaneously fight for the states to have the right to decriminalize marijuana and allow it for medicinal purposes (which the SCOTUS defeated because of the LIBERALS).  We need to fight for states to be able to regulate the conditions or matters that occur solely within their jurisdiction.  Unless a crime transcends state lines or is only illegal under Federal Law, it should rightly belong to the state to prosecute. 

I like the 10th Amendment more than the 1st and it is tied with the 2nd in my mind.  The first is meaningless without the 2nd and 10th.

Well Anna

If the appropriate test determines the father, and marriage is out of the question, than obviously the father should be obligated to pay child support.

The amount obviously has to be determined by His income, with limitations of course. I mean there can’t be a set minimal amount. but there’s no reason it can’t have a set maximum amount.

And if this man is a bum, well then I guess being that it was consensual, there would be no case. When the bum gets a job He will have to pay appropriately to His Child’s mother, or the state if the mother is also a bum.

I think that is where you were going with that question, if not please be more specific

docdave, I am not disagreeing with that at all but what is kind of bothering me is how you all comment.

With marriage comes the responsibility that most men have

What does that mean ... guys are permitted and socially accepted to be irresponsible, juvenile, twits until marriage?

premaritial sex does not have the same binding especially if the women gives it freely to a number of different men.

and this means what pray tell.. are you suggesting that society expects virgin brides and grooms who, prior to the marriage are expected to screw anything that has the necessary anatomy?

and this means what pray tell.. are you suggesting that society expects virgin brides and grooms who, prior to the marriage are expected to screw anything that has the necessary anatomy?

yes, for practical reasons.  The process to satisfy a woman involved experience and creativity.  Satisfying a man requires… well, 5 minutes.

We are doing this for you.  And if you know nothing of intercourse, we can hide our inadequacies.  Win-Win.

Kudos to Justin for nailing the answer the protestors should have offered in the 1st post to this topic!  Well done! 

Anna,

While I certainly agree that males should provide support for the children they take part in bringing into this world, it is the female that has the most control of whether or not she conceives.  We must not skip past opportunities for responsibility in debate as in this instance where we debate who is responsible for taking care of a child after they already exist.

society doesn’t view it as wrong for men to cheat or fornicate

You are wrong Justin. The only people that view it as acceptable are guys .. oh and also the girls that were used for practical reasons, deemed unworthy of matrimony and then discarded.

Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

That is an out right lie. Women have demanded this since the dawn of cheatin’ ass men. I do believe it has been the men that are responsible for convincing the women that “it’s what the guys really want, don’t be so old fashion”. You can bet there are a lot more men out there saying those lines then there are feminists.

This is not society’s males fighting for the rights of women to f* anyone they want.

Men are not out there fighting to convince women to have sex?

we can hide our inadequacies.

au contraire, ... Men believe they can hide their inadequacies but in reality it is the womans ability to hide disappointment that keeps others from knowing the failure you really are.
vous échec dans le lit, oui? lol

vous échec dans le lit, oui? lol

She’s speaking French....which...makes here...A COMMUNIST!

She’s speaking French....which...makes here...A COMMUNIST!

Here, her....it’s all the same

What does that mean ... guys are permitted and socially accepted to be irresponsible, juvenile, twits until marriage?

Anna, such an off the wall statement coming from you.  It seems that you have deliberately misunderstood my posting.  What I was saying is that there is not the level of responsibility in premarital sex as there is for those that are married.  This is true for BOTH PARTIES, man and women.  It’s ridiculous of a woman to expect a man to be more responsible than her after she have exposed herself to the possibility of pregnancy in premarital sex.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

for the ske of poetic justice, nine months.fullterm.

Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

That is an out right lie. Women have demanded this since the dawn of cheatin’ ass men. I do believe it has been the men that are responsible for convincing the women that “it’s what the guys really want, don’t be so old fashion”. You can bet there are a lot more men out there saying those lines then there are feminists.

Perhaps I didn’t clarify.  I lumped cheating and pre-marital sex into the same category.  Cheating has a stigma all its own, but in the context of abortion, these are usually not the result of cheating, but rather of premarital sex between unwed couples.

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9971

New Jersey announced last week that it will not accept $800,000 in federal funds to teach abstinence-only sex education. Sex education programs in states that receive the federal funds are not allowed to teach students about contraception, must describe sex before marriage as “potentially mentally and physically damaging,” and must teach that “sex within marriage is ‘the expected standard of sexual activity’,” the Associated Press and Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy report. According to the Associated Press, New Jersey officials wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt that the requirements tied to the federal money violate the state’s sex education and AIDS education programs.

State Health Commissioner Fred Jacobs said of the state’s decision to refuse the funds, “Monogamy is not a bad idea, but having the government of New Jersey dictate these things for families is not something we wish to do… It isn’t the function of the state government to create standards [for sexual activity],” Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy reports.

New Jersey joins three other states – California, Maine, and Pennsylvania – that have rejected federal money for abstinence-only sex education. According to William Smith, a vice president of SIECUS writing for RHRealityCheck.org, almost $200 million is spent on abstinence-only education annually.

The feminist movement is against the abstinance movement because it seeks to further stignatize women who engage in promiscuous sexual activities as unworthy whores, yet men who engage in similar activities do not suffer from the same stigma.

Now you can argue that there has always been a stigma against men doing it, but come on, outside of cheating on your spouse, men have always been allowed a far different standard than women when it comes to premarital sex.  Whole industries have sprung up to service these needs.

Womens libers are against the abstinance movement because most of the targetted demographic are young women since they are undoubtedly in the most control over their bodies prior to the point where they choose to have intercourse.  Short of being raped, they have the ability to say no, thereby preventing abortions from ever being necessary.  The Women’s Lib movement is not about preventing or even trying to reduce the level of premarital intercourse as a natural way to decrease abortion numbers, but instead are for freely available and unrestricted abortions.  Why is that?  You do the math.

Justin, Setting aside my lack of respect for your amoral standards for men, you can not deny the fact that there would be less need for abortions if perhaps men had any aptitude of keeping their pecker in their pants!
Given the biological proof that both woman & man, (using the term “man” loosely) create babies and both have the ability to prevent babies, why do you continue to present the issue as if it’s solely the womens fault for unwanted pregnancies?

From a male’s perspective it seems that when an unwanted pregnancy occurs that the female is treated as a victim where they might both be at fault.

I think that this phrase you used is an illustration:

if perhaps men had any aptitude of keeping their pecker in their pants!

I would add to it that the female should keep the ‘pecker’ out of her pants.

It also seems that in the case of casual sex the guy doesn’t know if the woman is using birth control but the woman would obviously know that the man is using birth control.

Add to that that the father has no rights IF the woman decides to abort or he has limited rights if she decides to live separately.  On the other hand he has full obligation to support the child generally at a monetary level far above her obligation.

Anyway I don’t have an ax to grind and I’m not trying to have a nasty debate.  I’m just saying that we have a long ways to go in this area to be fair to all parties.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

The Whistler, I am sure everyone is aware that I have never EVER said that females are not responsible for getting pregnant (unwanted or not). Fact, I find it extremely difficult to understand how accidental/unwanted pregnancies still occur at such high rates. Granted, there are the rare occasions the birth control fails but I repeat that is rare.
About your “the case of casual sex the guy doesn’t know if the woman is using birth control but the woman would obviously know that the man is using birth control.” That is so very true ... so all the more reason to protect yourself from any deception on her part.

long ways to go in this area to be fair to all parties.

The main issue of concern (the thread anyway) is abortion so for that matter I believe the best and only fair way is:
If you are having sex for pleasure only you, yourself must use birth control. If you do not use birth control then you are responsible of the consequences.
Men do not need to worry about whether the woman is using birth control because he knows for a fact that he is.
Having “casual” sex means trusting no one but yourself.

That is so very true ... so all the more reason to protect yourself from any deception on her part.

That’s very true.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Historically speaking, Justin nails it.  It was the doctor who was punished for abortion, not the mother, because the doctor wielded the knife, and the mother was believed to generally be acting at the request of her rake/boyfriend.  Hence, the doctor, not the mother, is guilty.

There is evidence that this isn’t a bad assumption today--I’ve been involved in crisis pregnancy centers for over 15 years now, and this is commonly reported by young ladies coming for help.  Not the only theme, to be sure, but it’s certainly a very common one.

Also, if boyfriends weren’t pressuring girlfriends to hide the evidence, why would we be arguing at times whether Planned Parenthood is legally and morally bound to reveal known cases of statutory rape? 

Finally, historically speaking, older feminists often DID campaign against acceptance of male promiscuity.  However, a new generation today, exemplified by Planned Parenthood’s “Teenwire” site, seems to accept and even glorify both male and female promiscuity.

Setting aside my lack of respect for your amoral standards for men, you can not deny the fact that there would be less need for abortions if perhaps men had any aptitude of keeping their pecker in their pants!

I never argued that historical context is correct.  That is like saying slavery happened or white supremecy was a historical view of the world.  They are fact.  Stating facts is not saying I agree with those viewpoints, just that they were commonly held views.

I will say that I believe that premarital sex is just as wrong for the male as the female.  These are moral issues of right and wrong in the context of my moral beliefs that are grounded in Christianity.  I am not making an argument that adultery in any form is morally ok, but our society sets cultural norms and in that context, our society and actually most societies since the beginning of mankind have viewed male promiscuity differently from female.

Finally, historically speaking, older feminists often DID campaign against acceptance of male promiscuity.  However, a new generation today, exemplified by Planned Parenthood’s “Teenwire” site, seems to accept and even glorify both male and female promiscuity.

And yeah, look at planned parenthood’s teenwire.  13 year old girls should feel OK about sucking their bf off.  or even having oral sex in a friends with benefits situation.  It is just harmless fun.

society doesn’t view it as wrong for men to cheat or fornicate

You are wrong Justin. The only people that view it as acceptable are guys .. oh and also the girls that were used for practical reasons, deemed unworthy of matrimony and then discarded.

Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

That is an out right lie. Women have demanded this since the dawn of cheatin’ ass men. I do believe it has been the men that are responsible for convincing the women that “it’s what the guys really want, don’t be so old fashion”.

Here is a teenwire article on abstinance pledges:

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2004/if-20040511p288-virginity.php

Virginity is a personal choice, and there’s nothing wrong with waiting to have vaginal intercourse — or to abstain from sex play completely — until you’re married. But if you’re thinking about pledging, here are some questions you may want to consider:

What are you pledging? Many teens agree that some level of physical involvement is important in an intimate relationship. So find out what the limitations are before you pledge. Is all sex play prohibited? Or only vaginal intercourse?

Why are you pledging? Will signing a pledge help you stick to your personal goals and values? Or, are you just doing it to please someone else? If you don’t take the pledge seriously, why bother?

How can I best protect myself? Be real. If you think you may be in a situation where you end up having sex, by all means, protect yourself! Latex and female condoms are the only methods of birth control that also reduce the risk of infection. And luckily, they fit easily in a pocket or purse.

Choosing to have sex is a very personal decision, and so is choosing to take a virginity pledge. Either way, make sure you go into it with your eyes wide open!

Boy, this sure promotes abstinance don’t it.  Figure out what the loopholes are in your pledge so you can give your bf a bj after school if it is allowed.  And lots of girls are having unprotected anal sex now because pp promotes that this is an acceptable alternative to vaginal intercourse while avoiding the whole religious angle of morality.  And since you are only doing it to please someone else anyway and “many teens think sex is ok (not quite their words, but close)” just figure out the loopholes or don’t sign the damned thing.

Explain how this is them promoting a value and morality structure that says anything other than promiscuity is a fact and girls should feel just as fine about it as guys do.

If you are having sex for pleasure only you, yourself must use birth control. If you do not use birth control then you are responsible of the consequences.

Let me expand that--if you are having sex for any reason other than to make babies intentionally, then you yourself need to be responsible.

I see a lot of situations (and forgive the slightly misogynistic tone) or women who fully intend to create a baby for their own pleasure, just ‘cause they want one, because they are lonely, because they think it will strengthen the relationship, because they want attention, because they want a larger welfare check or child support, to trap the dude, or because the guy is successful and one of the above.

Guys should NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER make the assumption that their partner has the same intentions as they do.  One persons sex just for recreation may be their female partner’s sex for procreation.  NEVER EVER leave the door open for a conflict of expectations or results.

I see a lot of situations (and forgive the slightly misogynistic tone) or women who fully intend to create a baby for their own pleasure, just ‘cause they want one, because they are lonely, because they think it will strengthen the relationship, because they want attention, because they want a larger welfare check or child support, to trap the dude, or because the guy is successful and one of the above

I am a woman and I will confirm that this is fact.  A friend of mine did it to another friend and now he’s trapped paying over $600/month child support.  I feel bad for him, but he should have known better than to fall for that old trick.  “Don’t worry about it, I’m on the pill” should be the scariest sentence a guy will ever hear.  What that means is “I’m craving your seed for my own evil intentions.” The only time you EVER go without a condom is if you’ve been a couple long enough where you see her take the pills every morning and can trust each other and have been tested.  People who don’t know that rule are retards and probably shouldn’t be parents anyway.

Justin, I am not sure if you are addressing your question to me but I will say that pp is definitely promoting immoral and unsafe ideas ... but then I never said they did’t. 
The only thing I have stated is if everyone ( yes, .. men too) if every individual was expected to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, perhaps our society would not have such a desire for abortion clinics. (or many other controversial programs)

Promiscuous behaviors and heteropaternal superfecundation Abortions. No, the simplest remedy to this problem is to criminalize abortion. Debating the cause for the womens decision on this matter serves no purpose.

Debating who is guilty (the pressuring boyfriend,etc) serves no purpose, infact it just proves even more why abortion should be illegal. In my opinion it is the only solution.

Anna,

Above you insinuated that my ideas about society’s values were somehow equivalent to my own feelings on the matter.

Again, my real point was the the feminist movement is an even bigger problem than men who want to get in girl’s pants.  The feminist movement seeks to completely destigmatize any acts of a sexual nature and it is very clear that they are completely against the abstinance movement.  In their attempt to liberate women in this patriarchy that is our society, their solution was to liberate the female libido and allow women to be as sexually empowered as men and take away the social stigma attached to women that engage in sexual relations with multiple partners for pleasure.  Their view was that in this regard society did not treat women as men’s equals when it came to women having sex just purely for recreation.

I want women’s equality.  I want women to have opportunities in the workplace.  I want them treated as equals.  But that does not equate to wanting every single societal norm broken down so that women can have sex without consequences and are free to head to pp to dispose of the unwanted child just like men who duck child support do.  Equality means that women have responsibility for their actions AND SO DO MEN, not that neither do.

Just want to make it clear that I am not in favor of men being able to eff anything that moves, but rather that this has been far more acceptable historically.

Debating who is guilty (the pressuring boyfriend,etc) serves no purpose, infact it just proves even more why abortion should be illegal. In my opinion it is the only solution.

I still come back to criminalizing the person performing the abortion. 

We get to the point where we are no longer concerned with punishing the woman for having the procedure than with upholding the law enforcing the ban.  Stronger consequences for the women have little effect on the availability and frequency of the procedure.  Punishing the providers does.  Women will always have a vested interest in taking the risks to dispose of an unwanted pregnancy, but we want to take the monetary reward away from organizations like pp that derive significant revenue from performing them.  If we do that, it makes the availability of an abortion considerably rarer and pushes the price up.  Those two things will significantly cut down on the rates.

Reality is that in Rob’s model, he would inundate the court with cases of bringing charges against poor unwed mothers and selective murder prosecutions on an overburdened court system.  Most would choose jury trials and lawyers would have a field day.  Taking away medical licenses is an executive decision by the state boards and there is no jury trial or lawyer circus or parading around poor mothers who had no choice in front of sympathetic citizens.  How long do you think the ban will last when society sees poor women, especially black women since they are three times as likely as whites to have an abortion, being tried for murder?  I mean seriously Rob, take this to its logical conclusion.  How long does your model last before the outrage over poor women in prison outweighs the societal outrage over poor women killing their babies that about half of our society does not agree even constitute a human being.

Let’s get over the guys versus girls and values discussion that we have been in and take Rob’s suggestion to its logical conclusion here.  I hope Rob will answer my hypothetical scenario.

I simply responded to some of the comments that were made. My original comment had to do with how little most people think things through before attempting to solve a problem.
I don’t have an answer to Rob’s question.

Rob writes:

1) We pro-lifers believe that an unborn child is a life, no? 

2) Well the 5th amendment states that no person may be denied life without due process of law.

Statement one states that a fetus is a “life.”

In statement two you point out that the Constitution protects “persons.” Thus, the Constitution does not protect unborn children, as you’ve defined them.

Justin B: Do you really believe the abortion doctor is the root of the problem? Are we actually going to make a ladder of guilt here? I mean surely that mixed up and scared to death teenaged girl is hardly to blame.

But if we are going to end this crises, abortion must be in all cases illegal. There is no ifs ands or buts, there is no other solution.

And capital punishment should be the penalty for all who willfully participated in the abortion. Abortion SHOULD be considered murder, why not just throw out all the murder cases in the court system right? After all it’s overburdened as it is right, are you kidding?

It is in Americas best interest that Abortion should be illegal, Let them cry. America is a Republic and not a democracy. Mob does not rule.

It is in Americas best interest that Abortion should be illegal, Let them cry. America is a Republic and not a democracy. Mob does not rule.

Which part is the mob? 

First, let’s define the problem.  We have conflicting spheres of responsibility here.  First, the right to an abortion is clearly not a “defined” right in the eyes of the Constitution anymore than the right to healthcare or the right to social security, so we figure there is no Constitutional “right to privacy” as interpreted by Roe.  So the start of things is that Roe is undone.

So then where do we stand?  There is no Federal Statute banning abortion, nor a statute expressly allowing it.  So clearly the Federal Government would be required to pass a law defining what is legal or illegal in regards to abortion because Roe would be gone.  Therefore, at the Federal level in order to prohibit abortion we would need one of the following:

--a SCOTUS action to reinterpret the Constitution to find a reason to ban abortion and define the Constitution as making an implicitly INTRASTATE process that is handed in the state by a citizen of the state a Federal issue, not a state issue.
--A Congressional action to regulate what a state can and cannot do, again by people living in that state that occurs solely within that state itself.

Ultimately, you come back to the role of the Federal government as outlined by the Founding Fathers.  If you see each state as an incubator where they make their own laws and band together as loosely federated states for the purposes of Interstate Commerce, Foreign Relations, and National Defense, this idea of federalizing abortion is the core of all that is wrong with our bloated Federal Government.  And it also leaves open the Feds having a change of leadership or opinion and once we establish that a simple Federal Majority in Congress (short a veto) is all that is required to reverse course, or even better yet, a simple change of a 5-4 majority is all that is needed, we end up constantly allowing Abortion to be a hotbutton issue and ultimately make it more important than national defense, the budget, or any other topic.  When we start throwing teens into prison for years and years, there will be outrage and as long as the outrage is great enough, these laws will be change on a whim.

So that leaves two options.  Constitutional Amendment and State’s Rights.  I am OK with either of these and would support both.  The overturning of Roe back to the States or a Constitutional Amendment clarifying this tricky legal issue and taking it out of the hands of the courts and out of the political realm of fear campaigning by both sides.  Certainly out of the hands of lawyers that use it as a wedge to raise money for the Democratic Party and bring back the role of Feminism as a prominent political force.

Make the argument that this is a Federal Issue, despite being Intrastate Commerce and not defined in the Constitution as right to either have one or outlaw it.  Get your magic decoder ring and come up with some logic that prohibits it based on a combination of depriving the unborn of due process.  Let the judges decide that.  Then let them way the due process of fetuses versus the right to privacy every time a justice changes so that the ultimate decision on it is made every 5-6 years and every time there is a new appointment.

And when you break out your “depriving of due process” and the pro-murderers say “right to privacy”, I will actually read something that actually defines this completely and is unambiguous:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Either amend the damned thing to define the Abortion debate, or if you cannot do it (and no one has been able to in the last 30+ years), then come back and read why this does not belong to the SCOTUS, but rather to the people or to the State Legislatures.

If you want to disregard the Constitution because abortion is so abhorrent to you that you ignore the Federalism debate, you are no protector of the document.  It is a “living document” to you too and you support the tyranny of 9 men and women to dictate what this very clear and unambiguous document says.  And we are at the whim for everything and the Federal Government always trumps the State’s.

Statement one states that a fetus is a “life.”

In statement two you point out that the Constitution protects “persons.” Thus, the Constitution does not protect unborn children, as you’ve defined them.

Life = person.

Why do liberals always try to win this debate by definition?  They think that if they can just find a way to twist the definition of who is and is not a person it will make abortions not murder.

It’s...sad.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, come on now.  Answer my questions--

Is this a Federal Issue or a State issue?

Reality is that in Rob’s model, he would inundate the court with cases of bringing charges against poor unwed mothers and selective murder prosecutions on an overburdened court system.  Most would choose jury trials and lawyers would have a field day.  Taking away medical licenses is an executive decision by the state boards and there is no jury trial or lawyer circus or parading around poor mothers who had no choice in front of sympathetic citizens.  How long do you think the ban will last when society sees poor women, especially black women since they are three times as likely as whites to have an abortion, being tried for murder?  I mean seriously Rob, take this to its logical conclusion.  How long does your model last before the outrage over poor women in prison outweighs the societal outrage over poor women killing their babies that about half of our society does not agree even constitute a human being.

Short of Constitutional Amendment, how do you constantly fight a Federal battle to write and then maintain a law charging mothers with murder?  As long as you are in a dream world where we can fantasize about writing laws to fix all of society’s problems--why don’t you solve social security, homelessness, and gay marriage with the stroke of a pen.

Get out of the “If Rob could snap his fingers and abortion were illegal” mode and let’s talk reality.  Every time a pro-lifer says charge them with murder, it makes our pro-life cause seem downright nutty.  Be a realist here, not an idealist.  How do you effectively end abortion for the long term and not have it constantly overturned or have the majority simply vote it out?