How Roe v. Wade changed the lives of American women

Anti-abortion advocates demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court on June 25, 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The recent announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has ignited widespread speculation about the future of Roe v. Wade. Some analysts believe that a new appointment to the Supreme Court would mean a conservative justice, particularly one who is against abortion rights, will threaten the status of the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted women an essential degree of reproductive freedom on on Jan. 22, 1973, by supporting the right to terminate a pregnancy under specific conditions.

As a sociologist who studies women, work and families, I’ve closely examined how the landmark ruling affected women’s educational and occupational opportunities over the past 45 years.

Then and now

Let’s go back to 1970, three years before the Roe decision.

In that year, the average age at first marriage for women in the U.S. was just under 21. Twenty percent of women aged 18 to 24 were enrolled in college and about 8 percent of adult women had completed four years of college.

Childbearing was still closely tied to marriage. Those who conceived before marriage were likely to marry before the birth occurred. It wasn’t yet common for married women with young children under age 6 to be employed; about 37 percent were in the labor force. Then, as now, finding satisfactory child care was a challenge for employed mothers.

By 1980, the average age at marriage had increased to 22. One-quarter of American women age 18 to 24 were enrolled in college, up 5 percent, and 13.6 percent had completed a four-year college degree. Forty-five percent of married mothers with young children were in the labor force.

While these changes may not be directly attributable to Roe v. Wade, they occurred shortly after its passage – and they’ve continued unabated since then.

Today, roughly two generations after Roe v. Wade, women are postponing marriage, marrying for the first time at about age 27 on average. Seventeen percent over age 25 have never been married. Some estimates suggest that 25 percent of today’s young adults may never marry.

Moreover, the majority of college students are now women, and participation in the paid labor force has become an expected part of many women’s lives.

Control over choices

If the Roe v. Wade decision were overturned – reducing or completely eradicating women’s control over their reproductive lives – would the average age at marriage, the educational attainment level and the labor force participation of women decrease again?

These questions are also difficult to answer. But we can see the effect that teen pregnancy, for example, has on a woman’s education. Thirty percent of all teenage girls who drop out of school cite pregnancy and parenthood as key reasons. Only 40 percent of teen mothers finish high school. Fewer than 2 percent finish college by age 30.

Educational achievement, in turn, affects the lifetime income of teen mothers. Two-thirds of families started by teens are poor, and nearly 1 in 4 will depend on welfare within three years of a child’s birth. Many children will not escape this cycle of poverty. Only about two-thirds of children born to teen mothers earn a high school diploma, compared to 81 percent of their peers with older parents.

The future depends in large part on efforts at the state and federal level to protect or restrict access to contraception and abortion. Ongoing opposition to the legalization of abortion has succeeded in incrementally restricting women’s access to it. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that studies reproductive policies, between 2011 and mid-2016, state legislatures enacted 334 restrictions on abortion rights, roughly 30 percent of all abortion restrictions enacted since Roe v. Wade.

In 2017, Kentucky enacted a new law banning abortion at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization. Arkansas banned the use of a safe method of abortion, referred to as dilation and evacuation, which is often used in second-trimester procedures.

New battles

Of course, medical abortion isn’t the only way in which women can exert control over reproduction.

Even before 1973, American women had access to a wide range of contraceptives, including the birth control pill, which came on the market in 1960. Five years later, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that married couples could not be denied access to contraceptives. In 1972, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court extended this right to unmarried persons.

In 2017, a record number of states acted to advance reproductive health rights in response to actions by the federal government. In 2017, 645 proactive bills were introduced in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Eighty-six of those were enacted and an additional 121 passed at least one committee in a state legislature.

An ultrasound exam room at a Planned Parenthood in Boston. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

How would the lives of American women in the last decades of the 20th century and early 21st century have unfolded if the court had made a different decision in Roe v. Wade? Would women be forced into compulsory pregnancies and denied the opportunity to make life plans that prioritized educational and employment pursuits? Would motherhood and marriage be the primary or exclusive roles of women in typical childbearing ages?

The ConversationWith the availability of a greater range of contraception and abortion drugs other than medical procedures available today, along with a strong demand for women’s labor in the U.S. economy, it seems unlikely that women’s status will ever go back to where it was before 1973. But Americans shouldn’t forget the role that Roe v. Wade played in advancing the lives of women.

(Constance Shehan is a professor of sociology at the University of Florida.)

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

About the author

Constance Shehan

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

  • The principal change is that more American women are now legal murderers, and worse, murderers of their very own offspring.

  • Chemical remedies for unwanted conception can make the surgical abortion debate largely irrelevant as “morning-after pills” and the like become more readily available. Of course, abortions will always occur.. the only question is how much risk and cost and inconvenience the poorest women will have to endure in order to get them.

  • The principle change is that folks like you have lost their power to keep women “in their place”! You have become irrelevant and obsolete.

  • The only problem with all those statistics ( I think they are powerfully positive) is that they reinforce the determination by the far right to overturn Roe v. Wade to put an end to women’s emancipation and put women back “in their place”!

  • You do realize, don’t you, that your namesake disagreed with your absolutist position that life begins at the moment of conception?

    Thomas Aquinas reiterated Aristotle’s views of successive souls: vegetative, animal, and rational. This would be the Catholic Church’s position until 1869, when the limitation of automatic excommunication to abortion of a formed fetus was removed, a change that has been interpreted as an implicit declaration that conception was the moment of ensoulment.


  • Note how you didn’t actually provide any words from St Thomas himself!!

    Why because you’ve never studied his work!!

    St Thomas never actually said anything about abortion.

    He only speculated on when ensoulment likely occurred, which the Catholic Chruch still day doesn’t have an official position.

    It’s like a henhouse of cluckers.

  • Well R v Wade put millions of women in their place, that is, in bloody garbage bags.

  • My wife and I would never consider abortion. We had three children. Two were born and one miscarried. So God murdered one of our children. In fact, I would suspected that God has murdered a lot more children that Planned Parenthood.

  • None of these charts even hint that Roe v. Wade was the cause of any of these outcomes. This is extraordinarily lazy journalism.

  • God didn’t murder anyone. He is the author of life, not you or your husband or a doctor.

    Big difference.

    We get unhappy when we think we’re on par with God.

  • There’s a negative correlation between abortion restrictions and total number of abortions (legal or illegal). To say that “abortions will always occur” is no more helpful than saying that theft, murder, or any number of other social ills will occur despite legislation aimed at reducing it.

  • A fetus has personhood at conception. God is the creator of all nature. A miscarriage, which is part of God’s created nature, kills a fetus that has personhood. Therefore, God is the killer of a miscarried fetus that has personhood. All I am doing is using the Church own dogma and applying it rigorously. You can dance around the head of that pin all you want, but by the Catholic Church’s own logic, God is a murderer.

  • Indeed, but it sure never stops them from saying “abortions will always occur”.

    If they didn’t have nonsense, they;d have nothing at all.

  • The notion that Roe v. Wade will be “overturned” with anything short of a constitutional amendment is the scary story that Pelosi, Schumer, et al tell to the faithful to keep them agitated and not thinking.

  • Explain “God murdered one of our children”.

    Are you sure it wasn’t you and she, drinking, smoking Mary Jane, or participating in the sex Olympics?

    Logic really is not your strong suite is it?

  • Define “personhood”. You and Spuddie and some others seem to use the same words for completely different things.

    Your logic basically is that since every single thing dies, God murders everything and everyone.

    And, with your complete vacancy in the logic department, your writing “by the Catholic Church’s own logic” is hilarious.

  • Actually if the Christen God exists he is guilty of everlasting genocide. He is given credit for designing this reality with live conscious beings. He designed these beings to reproduce at a faster rate than he provided the resources to keep them alive. For this reason he made certain that they would suffer, fight for the remaining resources and eventually become extinct. This will definitely be true unless we go against His commands and reduce the rate of reproduction and consumption of resources. He and genocide are evil.

  • At conception it is not capable of consciousness or any knowledge of the world. It would not fit Spuddies definition. The only thing that alwayspuzzled could mean is that his religion says so, it is a living cell so its alive and human or/and God has already assigned it a soul.

  • The Catholic Church teaches.

    Some things which Thomas Aquinas considered were things the Catholic Church taught.

    Some things which Thomas Aquinas considered became things which the Catholic Church taught.

    Some things which Thomas Aquinas considered were rejected by the Catholic Church.

    The trick is to know which is which. You don’t know the trick.

    While Thomas Aquinas reiterated Aristotle’s views of successive souls – vegetative, animal, and rational – the Catholic Church never taught it.

    The citation in the Wikipedia article is to a book by the late Richard Peter McBrien, a long-time dissident in the Catholic Church, opponent of Humanae Vitae, one of the few Catholic authors to have the Nihil Obtstat and Imprimatur removed from a book he authored purporting to be on Catholicism due to numerous doctrinal errors.

    Nor was “this … the Catholic Church’s position until 1869″ or ever.

    There is still an automatic excommunication for procuring or assisting in an abortion, so nothing could be interpreted as “a change …. that conception was the moment of ensoulment” since “ensoulment” is not an issue in Catholic theology.

  • Alwayspuzzled apparently means something else since he rejects religion.

    What in the world does a soul have to do with anything?

  • Just get beyond your obsession with God and you might understand. Nature is the author of life. Mating humans just cause reproduction.

  • I knew you’d walk away from that one.

    Sorry you ever used the term, eh?

    Why you could start an argument in an empty house.

  • So, can’t explain it. That was pretty obvious.

    Your comments are always about as useless as a trapdoor on a canoe.

  • A no-brainer here for you, sister “Constance Shehan … a sociologist who studies women, work and families”: If “[you] can see the effect that teen pregnancy … has on a woman’s education”, why don’t you see to it, then, that these teens stop getting themselves pregnant in the first place, so they can continue in their valuable education in the first place? Or is premarital sex just way too much for “a sociologist who studies women, work and families”, to handle these days? Now whose fault is that?!

  • “The principal change is that more American women are now” of the godless conviction that, yes, sex gets them pregnant – BUT, NO, THEY DON’T CARE.

  • Why do you say God murdered?
    Is this not a sinful world? Isnt everything evil in the world the consequences of original sin?

  • The real problem is that they don’t necessarily have anything to do with Roe v. Wade. It’s real easy to pretend that something caused a trend when you start your analysis of the trend at roughly the same time as the thing you want to say caused it.

  • If love of one’s spouse is a high good.

    The love of God must be the hightest good.

    Two converging unities becoming more perfect day by day.

    The devil doesn’t want us seeking higher goods…he wants us dabbling in temporal matters and attached to mere temporal goods.

  • Good point….they care less and less about more and more!

    Indifference is a vice.

  • You conveniently “forgot” to mention original sin. What God creates it perfect – the sinfulness of man destroys.
    You know better…

  • Bringing a soul closer to oneself (in this case Oneself) for reasons unbeknownst to us isn’t killing.

  • “an empty house.”

    BobBob, you and your therapist should probably explore your belief that you are an empty house.

  • God created a perfect universe. The sinfulness of man tainted its perfection.
    You fail to understand original sin or choose to ignore it to support your arguments.

  • You really don’t have anything to say, do you?

    Why don’t you quit goin’ around your ass to get to your elbow?

  • If God is the Creator, then He is the Creator. As Creator, He created the conditions that make original sin possible. Therefore, He is responsible for original sin and for the consequences of original sin.

  • Ok. I let you use my car and you drive it into a pole; intentionally or unintentionally?
    I created those conditions?
    Again, you know better…

  • The “conditions” which made Original Sin possible consisted of free will.

    Since free will gave mankind a real, not imaginary, choice, the deity cannot be held responsible for Original Sin.

  • Since we have nothing to compare this universe to, we don’t know if its perfect. At least on this planet humans are destroying it. Humans are not born in sin, but many do contribute to evil.

    Although we don’t know anything for certain, it is most likely that this universe was created by nature.

    You fail to understand the creation by nature. If you believe God did it, you must support that argument.

  • “I created those conditions?”
    False analogy, unless you think you are God. Those conditions – you, me, your car, the telephone pole – are all part of God’s creation, and He is responsible for the consequences of conditions that are part of his creation.

  • Higher than either of those is love of humanity.

    If the devil means to disregard religion and improve the fate of humanity, I agree.

  • We disagree on the fact that the universe was perfect until the fall of man.
    The fact that man is not perfect means that he is with sin.
    We know that the universe was created by something in some manner. It is impossible to create something from nothing; therefore a creator exists.

  • Let me guess, BobBob. You know a trap door on a canoe is useless because you opened one sometime back. You try so hard, BobBob. Jesus will reward you for trying.

  • Free will?
    You sound like my kid… not my fault.
    You shouldn’t have let me use your car…

  • Nope. God should always be the highest and first of our loves. He created humanity.

    We should actually love our wife, out of love for God. But that’s another lesson…too steep for most here.

    And since love really means “sacrifice” (agape)..we love our [concrete, here and now] spouse more than we love [distant, abstract, diffused] humanity.

    Love means deeds.

    We can’t really love humanity….that’s just a comforting distraction/abstraction…we can only love individual souls, and we should love most those souls that God placed most near to us.

  • “If the Roe v. Wade decision were overturned – reducing or completely eradicating women’s control over their reproductive lives…” Reducing or completely eradicating women’s control? As a teacher, you ought to be embarrassed by your generalization of all women regarding their reproductive lives. Women still have a choice, with or without Roe. It actually first starts by being responsible. Avoid the behavior and you avoid the consequences, or are you saying that women have no control because they choose not to?

  • Most unplanned pregnancies are due to birth control failure! And why should children ever be a punishment!! That is a sick stance to take. I also note that you do not mention the MAN involved. Cripes, I’m sick of women judging other women.

  • Abstinence only doesnt work. See: Bristol Palin. And conservatives don’t support medically accurate sex education. How long were you a virgin?

  • (Curious, dying to know, bored otherwise, etc. Your name. You a Thomist? Direct descendant of the guy? Or just a wannabe? Maybe I should change from HpO to Jesus 2018, coz I am a Jesus-Wannabe. Still don’t get why godless friends of mine call the Son of God Jeebus. Inhouse joke, maybe.)

  • Near my extinction age, why so curious, E?

    That’s not E for Excuses, Excuses, I hope.

    Who says anything about “abstinence”?

    I’m talking dead to sin by Jesus’ bloodiness, ‘yo. Ever heard dat?

  • I’m not a godless atheist, I’m a godfearing theist, sex matters to God & Jesus, sex reflects God & Jesus. That’s why.

  • Late term abortions (abortion after 18-25 weeks, depending on the state) is illegal in at least 20 states. In many of those states it’s legal at all only because in 1973 the Supreme Court took it upon itself to act as a super legislature by imposing its own policy preferences on the states.

  • Yes. A woman has the right to decide whether to keep a pregnancy or not. More importantly, you do not.

  • For all its worth to you, it might as well be. You play no part in carrying out a pregnancy.

  • S1utshaming is your motivation here. Good to know you are not pretending this is about concern for life. Its just about imposing your will on others. Children are not a punishment. Your attitude towards unwanted pregnancy is toxic malicious garbage.

    It is not your responsibility or anyone else’s except the pregnant woman’s here. If there is a medically safe procedure to remove an unwanted pregnancy, so be it. If you don’t like it, don’t have one.

  • They get to decide. You don’t. Any idea about “teens stopping getting pregnant” is none of your business.

  • Let me guess, BoobBoob.

    You think being an obvious thoughtless pinhead is amusing because in grade school all the girls and boys laughed when you were just being yourself.

  • Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term may be viewed as a punishment by some women.

  • Here is the author:


    She’s a professor of sociology – a real hard science as we all know.

    “My research focuses on women’s experiences in “work” (both paid labor and unpaid labor in the home) and “family” life (written broadly to include a full range of intimate relationships and household living arrangements). Generally, I have pursued two basic themes: (1) the causes and consequences of the gendered division of household and family labor and (2) the relationship between women’s work and health. Over the past several years, I’ve been examining the impact of the structural characteristics of jobs on personal and family well-being, focusing on women and men in the ministry. Within the next few months I will begin a study of retired couples, focusing on the impact of job loss on men’s and women’s identities and psychological well-being.”

    Fuzzball, in other words.

  • “If you don’t like it, don’t have one.” is the biggest non-argument known to man.

  • Yes, the woman does because she has all the human rights, and no else has any rights.

  • In particular it was Harry Andrew Blackmun who decided to cut the Gordion Knot of abortion using his super brain and clever phrases (viable, trimester, etc.).

    He invented some new rights to justify it, backed into the argument for his preconceived conclusion, and spent the rest of his life trying to defend it.

    Perhaps the Court should consider amending its procedures slightly by editing its opening:


    “The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court from Justices trying to be the smartest one in the room!”

  • Psalm 139:13-16
    13 For you formed my inward parts;
    you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
    14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.[a]
    Wonderful are your works;
    my soul knows it very well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from you,
    when I was being made in secret,
    intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
    in your book were written, every one of them,
    the days that were formed for me,
    when as yet there was none of them.

    Luke 1:39-44
    39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

  • History and statistics show that wealthy women have always had easy access to abortions, and always will. Anti-abortion restrictions affect only the poorest women.

  • 1973 was the first U.S. acknowledgment of universal abortion rights. The evangelical revelation that “abortion is murder” was invented a few years later. It was not a longstanding doctrine of the Christian church, but rather a manufactured issue to acquire political power.

    Widespread Christian opposition to abortion–even among evangelicals–was invented less than 40 years ago.

  • God ALSO says that life begins with the first breath (Genesis 2:7) and that causing a miscarriage (an involuntary abortion) is punished as a property loss, not a murder (Exodus 21:22-25). Likewise, there is no value assigned to fetuses or infants less than a month old (Leviticus 27:6), and they are not counted in the census (Numbers 3:15-16). And of course, God specifically instructs a priest to mix and administer an abortion-inducing formula to a pregnant woman suspected of infidelity (Numbers 5:11-31).

    The Bible has been used to justify every position and its opposite for many, many years. Do you have anything better?

  • Parents are not owners; they’re guardians, and they’re accountable to others for what happens to their kids. A lot of wingnuts and religious fanatics can never understand that.

  • It’s been pointed out that sane anti-abortion activists, the ones that make exceptions for rape and incest, inadvertently reveal their true motivation. They’re solidly PRO-abortion, as long as the woman didn’t enjoy it.

  • It’s no surprise that you think Klassen makes any sense to anyone other than you and Spuddie.

    The value of a human being depends on what it is, not where it is.

    Unless what it is has changed in the passage through the birth canal, the only thing Klassen demonstrates is that the legal definition he, you, and Spuddie prefers is completely arbitrary.

    It is EXACTLY the same thing as saying an infant is worthless because its parents are Jewish or black.

  • History and statistics show that wealthy women have always had easy
    access to everything and always will.

    The fact that restrictions affect
    only the poorest women is only significant if abortions are – like life itself – a basic right, which it is not.

  • The Supreme Court disagrees.

    Stand by for Bob’s automatic “The Supreme Court’s decisions are just temporary” line, which he always uses when the law isn’t on his side…..

  • Actually, it’s a very powerful invocation of one of America’s most cherished principles: individual freedom, aka Leave Others the Frack Alone. Moral policing is the hobby of inferior minds, and the obsession of inferior men.

    The rules of YOUR religion apply only to YOU. They have no claim on the rest of us.

  • Actually it is a pointless comment by people without the intelligence to present an actual argument.

    Like yourself, for instance.

  • My comments parsed the matter accurately.

    Either we value the being itself, or we value something else.

    The video pokes a large hole right through the fallacious glib legal nonsense which Spuddie never tires of presenting in lieu of an actual argument, and which you apparently also think is swell.

  • The Supreme Court has never ruled that anyone’s abortion should be funded by the State, poor or otherwise.

  • Got to be born for that too. Even the Bible considered an attack on a pregnant woman which causes miscarriage to be worthy of a fine, not an act of homicide. Our own modern laws are more just.

  • Carping at others’ beliefs is a popular pastime of the indolent and weak-minded.

  • The longstanding doctrine of the Christian church was that abortion was immoral.

    It was also longstanding doctrine of Judaism up to the time when the two religions separated.

    The notion that widespread Christian opposition to abortion was invented less than 40 years ago is easily proven false by the fact that the largest single group of Christians – Catholics – punished abortion by excommunication hundreds of years ago.

  • And accepted it 100 years ago. Try to keep up with your faith’s ever-shifting “eternal truths,” it could become a full-time job.

  • In the first century of the Christian church abortion was considered immoral.

    You simply lack the horsepower to do more than copy and paste.

  • You said, “It is impossible to create something from nothing; therefore a creator exists.” And then you said, “I don’t know how our creator was created.”

    But, to follow the “logic” of your first statement, your Creator must have been created by a Super-Creator, and the Super-Creator must have been created by a Super-Duper-Creator . . . and round and round it goes, and where it stops nobody knows.

  • Not so…there are people serving time for the unjust killing of a child in the womb, from assaults of the mother, from car accidents, etc.

  • Wrong, they are in prison for assault against the mother and the miscarriage being an aggravating circumstance. As usual.a Christian can’t tell the difference between an act of consent and violence against others.

  • Doctrinal consistency: you do not haz. That was the point about the Limbo reference. There are no ‘eternal truths’ coming from the Christian church… just fads that come and go.

  • Yeah. I don’t know. Maybe someone brighter than I am does know.
    The human mind cannot comprehend some things; and does not always have the knowledge or ability to understand.
    Just because I cannot explain it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  • WRONG, it saved the lives of millions of women.

    When you have to lie to support your position you know your “truth” is nothing but a lie.

  • Isn’t it funny …. in another context another poster on your side of the issues cites 1869 as when the Catholic Church *relaxed* the penalties for abortion. Since neither you nor he actually know anything about the topic, it all hilarious cut-and-paste monkey motion.

    I am sure it goes over well at JoeMyGod,

    Progressive Secular Humanist, and Friendly Atheist where the participants are at least as benighted as yourself.

    Your CNN article, written by a Jewish woman who knows less about Catholicism than you do if that’s possible, cites a book written by a radical feminist “When Abortion Was a Crime” for information on – get this – Catholic teaching and scribblings from the pro-abortion group Our Bodies Ourselves. No need to point they are inaccurate, eh?

    The unattributed article at your BBC url does not appear to support you. Go figure, huh? You didn’t read it, did you?

    The facts are that the Catholic Church has condemned procured abortion as immoral since the 1st century.

    Early Christian writings rejecting abortion include the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the works of early writers such as Tertullian, Athenagoras of Athens, Clement of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea. The earliest Church legislation did NOT make a distinction between “formed” and “unformed” fetuses, as was done in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-23.

    In short, you have no idea what you’re writing about.


  • It’s killed approximately 30 million girls.

    I can’t believe we’ve repeated the same mistake when we did when our nation was founded.

    We let a group of landholding white men decide what constituted personhood, who had rights and who didn’t.

    And we’ve repeated that mistake letting women decide who has rights of personhood, and who doesn’t (60 million premature, human-caused deaths!!!!).

  • How do you think Roe/Wade affected the lives of the babies that are over 40 million who have been killed? Its called murder which makes the mothers murderers. So we have a holocaust and murderers walking the streets free.

  • Wham! Blam! Typical Christian BobbyJo Arnzen takes another insulting personal swipe at a sincere poster, but as usual, can present no evidence or reason to counter what the poster said.

    Arnzen, you are despicable.

  • Wham! Blam! Typical nasty Christian BobbyJo Arnzen takes yet another insulting personal swipe at a sincere poster, but as usual, can present no evidence or reason to counter what the poster said.

    Arnzen, you are despicable.

  • Nasty and typically bigoted BobbyJo Arnzen as usual can’t resist inserting a swipe at a group that he hates.

    BobbyJo, you suck.

  • Wham! Nasty Christian BobbyJo Arnzen insults another poster with his last line.

    Arnzen, you are simply despicable. Die soon please.

  • No BobbyJo, free will does not exist in circumstances in which the overlord threatens its creations with burning torture (hell) as your bible jerk/god does.

    Get over your horrid religion already.

  • Wham! Blam! Typical nasty Christian BobbyJo Arnzen takes another insulting personal swipe at a poster, but as usual, can present no evidence or reason.

    Arnzen, you are despicable.

  • Why not? It’s the intentional killing of a human organism. That seems like a bad thing to me.

  • The husband certainly has a big part in carrying out his wife’s pregnancy. The boyfriend or guy she just wanted to have sex with don’t. They are not obligated to help her.
    This is the wonderful thing about abortion. Especially for the boyfriends. It takes away their responsibilities to care for a baby they helped create.

  • Men love abortion. Its the best way known to mankind for men not to have to be responsible for sex they have with women.

  • The Nazis made it legal to persecute and murder Jews. No different with what the court ruled with Roe/Wade. Not only has there been over 40 million murders but that there are millions of murderers walking the streets freely.

  • Thank you. The first time I saw that it was a really great line, and it is still a really great line.

  • Then by all means, don’t do it. But not everyone agrees with you, so calling it a ‘social ill’ is incorrect.

  • If it adversely impacts society, calling it a social ill is on point, whether you or anyone else agrees.

  • What an absurd assertion…the church did not “invent” any such thing. Flavius Josephus, to use the example that first comes to mind, described abortion as murder two-thousand years ago, and a Christian he was not.

  • Your dismissive comment only sanctifies me more, making more for my family.

    With God, your ugliness can be converted like water into wine, making my family life more generous, more cheerful, warmer, giving it the bonus odor Christi.

    Keep it up.

  • Then you’ll need to demonstrate an adverse impact on society that garners widespread agreement.

  • If only Adam and Steve emerged from the slime. Then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  • Find it strange that the Holodomor is estimated to have killed 40-60 million; but yet all we hear about is the 6?

  • It worked as well for slavery as for abortion, being that dehumanization (a fetus is not a person/a slave is not a person) is the underlying premise for both.

  • “If you don’t like abortion then don’t do it” is the laziest, least convincing pro abortion argument out there. It’s about as convincing as “if you don’t like child abuse then don’t do it” and for the exact same reasons.

    I wonder if you even see the irony in your statement. If you don’t like calling abortion a social I’ll, then don’t do it.

    Consensus is not the determining factor in whether something is a social ill. By that standard, racism isn’t a social ill.

  • When the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in 3 years or so, will you still lean on that argument? Do you accept that argument when people lean on Heller, Citizens United, or some other decision that I suspect you disagree with?

  • Unfortunately for you, and lucky for me, I have my facts in order, and you have …. crap like


    unattributed, essentially unsupported, reiterating the same errors the other propaganda you copied and pasted made.

    In short, more crap.

    The Catholic Church, and in fact all the Christian world, has considered abortion from the beginning a serious sin.

    What sin?

    The sin of abortion.

    From whence did they get that concept?

    It was the Jewish moral view of abortion when Christianity began.

    Does it make a moral difference if it is the sin of abortion or the sin of murder?


    Get some facts.

  • True. Avoidable harm to others is the determining factor… which leads, as all such arguments do, to whether the fetus should be considered on the same level as an independent person.

  • Of course I will respect the Court’s decision, and work to change the ones I disagree with. I’m not a hypocrite who cites the Supremes out of convenience, as Bob does.

  • No, if there is an adverse impact on society, it is a social ill, WITHOUT REGARD TO WIDESPREAD OR ANY AGREEMENT.

    It is A, or it is not A.


    bear on another topic: public opinion on abortion.

    Everyone agrees that racial discrimination was and remains a social ill.

    Had we done a PEW-like opinion query on the topic in 1890 we would find most folks didn’t see it as much of a problem.

    Stick to the question at hand, and the question at hand does in no way hinge on public opinion.

  • You’ll note I referred specifically to evangelicals in the U.S.–who did indeed manufacture “abortion” as a new wedge issue to serve their political purposes, even though they had no particular problem with it up until then.

  • So, you can demonstrate an adverse impact on society in objective terms that everyone will agree is ‘adverse’? By all means do so. This should be entertaining.

  • It’s funny that you babble on about ‘sin’ and church doctrines and then say “get some facts” in the same breath, as if they were not polar opposites.

  • By adding “that everyone will agree is ‘adverse'”, you’ve tried to change my argument – the logical one – into your argument – the “let’s all vote on it” illogical one.

    No dice.

  • What churches teach and what they consider sins are as researchable as any other facts.

    You really aren’t very good at this, are you?

  • Ahh, so you recognize that “societal ill” and “adverse impact” cannot be objective standards. Well done! So how will you proceed, since you cannot make a logical argument?

  • Mistaking church doctrines for facts is an example irrational thinking. And as I’ve demonstrated, the Catholic Church hasn’t even been internally consistent in addressing abortion, so you don’t even have a reliable fairy tale to work with.

  • This is a thoughtful and thought provoking article. Huge changes have occurred in the role and place of women in society and the economy. The culture has shifted from seeing women as property of a father or husband, as limited in roles of wife/mother, nun, old maid aunt to being important and vital contributors to the world outside the old defined and limited roles once allowed them. Women have power now, to choose and to change.

    Managing fertility is important in women being able to participate so fully in society and the economy. Managing fertility lets women complete education and pursue advanced education, begin and manage professional work lives all while also raising a family. Abortion, contraceptives, and sterilization are part of that. I would like to see abortion rare and contraceptives much more widely used. I would like to see an attitude that pregnancy is something planned, not an accidental outcome of sexual activity.

    I think we need to get away from the divide of no legal abortions/all legal abortions and really work on what could be a middle ground. That “middle ground” could be limits on abortions after 12 or 16 or 20 weeks. Limitations on abortion procedures once the fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. I also think that we have to be willing to pay for enforcing these laws – and that means 1) effective contraceptives made widely available at little to no cost; 2) health care coverage of abortions; 3) health care coverage of births; 4) support for mothers/families with children born with fetal defects especially when/if an abortion is forbidden once discovered in uteri.

    Just food for thought. Given the new position of women with education, voting rights, work opportunities undreamed of 100 years ago – how do we construct a set of laws that let women be free but also recognize the importance of children and families? It won’t look like what it was before. We have to create it.

  • Repealing Roe would have a greater negative impact on society. More unwanted babies, more welfare, more classroom overcrowding, more garbage, etc. the poor would suffer more because of economic hardship.

  • Everyone agrees that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination was and remains a social ill, except for you, for some reason.

  • It doesn’t even lead to that. It leads to whether the life of a fetus is worthy of protection. Period. Full personhood, isn’t necessary to conclude that abortion restrictions are appropriate. After all, we protect endangered non-human species, including organisms of that species at the same stage of development as a human fetus.

    The real question is whether a woman’s right to bodily autonomy should be protected more than the fetus’s right to survive or other persons’ (the father, other family, society at large) interest in the fetus’s life. Ultimately, the relative weight of each of these factors is the point at which it is extraordinarily difficult to convince another person to change their views.

    All of which is to say that, at bottom, the Supreme Court has no business making that decision for the country, and abortion policy should return fully to the states.

  • Actually you’ve just made an argument for the mandatory sterilization of everyone.

    Your next project is to figure out what babies might be wanted, how we would know in advance, whether any welfare should be paid to anyone, and if so to whom, whether we will need any classrooms, what will happen when we die out and there is no garbage, etc. and where we’ll spend all the money since we won’t any poor or economic hardship.

  • A man bears 0% of the physical burdens of a pregnancy. It doesn’t involve his bodily systems in any way.

    Did you skip biology classes or did they just not teach them in home schooling?

    Its her body, it is always her choice. You have nothing to do with the process in any fashion.

  • Your opinion of such things is noted and can be ignored at will. The fact is you are pretending to have a say in something you have none in.

    Just because you call it a fact doesn’t ever make it so. No these women are not committing murder.

  • Oh, no.

    If you purport that Church A teaches B, or does not teach B, that is as factual as whether the sun comes up.

    I can apply the same investigative tools to answer the question as I can to any other fact.

    No, you have NOT demonstrated the Catholic Church hasn’t even been internally consistent in addressing abortion.

    What you HAVE demonstrated is that you have zero idea of what the Catholic teaches or has ever taught because you rely on crap for source material and can’t interpret what you find.

    The fairy tale, btw, is:

    “I’ve demonstrated the Catholic Church hasn’t even been internally consistent in addressing abortion”.

  • Obviously you’re completely unfamiliar with how human reproduction works: you think that a virgin gave birth.

  • Oh, I believe societal ill not only can be an objective standard, it is.

    What I do believe is that you wouldn’t know an objective standard if you sat on it.

    My argument would arise from natural law theory, which begins with the purpose of mankind and the reason we have societies.

    Try Googling those.

  • Still not right.

    If any purposely endeavor to destroy the Fruit of their Womb (whether they actually do it or not) they’re guilty of Murder in God’s account. — Benjamin Wadsworth, president of Harvard, 1712.

  • Nobody is murdered in an abortion. One must be born to be murdered.

    So you want to protect the unborn so you can lock children in cages and hold them for ransom.

  • If the Supreme Court has no business making such a judgment, what makes you think the states are better qualified to do it?

  • Again, a lot of verbiage as the result of a very large number of irresponsible humans practicing unsafe sex. For example, if men used condoms instead of leaving them in their pockets etc., the number of unplanned pregnancies due to this failure would be reduced from 1.2 million/year in the USA to 138,000 per year based on Guttmacher statistics. And if women would remember to take the Pill daily, the number of unplanned pregnancies due to this failure would be reduced from 1 million a year to 38,000. For some strange reason, Guttmacher failed to give statistics for the combined use of the Pill and a condom. One, however, assumes it would be substantially lower than 38,000 unplanned pregnancies/year as one would be using a double “whammy” to prevent pregnancies.

    In the meantime, women have got to stop playing “abortion roulette” by using something more reliable than the daily Pill and/or depending on her partner to use a condom for pregnancy and STD protection. See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html . Note some dimensional analysis required to properly understand the statistics.

  • This Harpers Bazaar piece is tripe. Ireland, which until recently had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, also had one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world. [10 Even the Guttmacher Institute’s own charts demonstrate that legalized abortion had virtually no effect on maternal mortality. [2] Guttmacher even comically tries to play these facts off as supporting its position. [3] Charts from pro-life groups make even clearer that there is no relationship between maternal mortality rates and legalized abortion. [4]

    [1] http://www.thejournal.ie/maternal-deaths-mortality-rate-ireland-pro-life-campaign-statistics-2921139-Aug2016/

    [2] https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/graphics/gr0601/gr060108c2.gif

    [3] https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

    [4] http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2008/11/abortion-in-1950s.html

  • The segregation question had the benefit of being supported by the actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  • Do you mean besides actually having the authority to do so in the Constitution and being closer to the electorate and being elected?

  • The states make their decisions by a democratic vote of the people or the people’s representatives. The Court is intentionally insulated from democratic influences in order to allow it to make decisions based on the law. The Court has never been granted any general duty or right to enact policy on behalf of the people. Their sole job is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by Congress and the Constitution as ratified by the People.

  • One does not need to be born to be murdered. If you murder a pregnant woman that is considered a double homicide by the state. That means the baby in the womb is considered a human being.

  • Just pointing out the blessings of abortion for men. It allows them to not take responsibility for having sex with their girlfriends. They don’t have support her. Abortion puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the woman to kill her baby and carry the guilt for doing so. That is why do many men love abortion.

  • Abortion is murder because what is growing in the pregnant woman is a human being. Even medical science knows this:
    “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition.

    “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, Cell Tissue Research.

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte” (emphasis added; Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition.

  • I use an IUD. I still support abortion being safe and legal, and I oppose all restrictions on its availability, because such restrictions have a chilling effect on the free speech of pregnant people.

  • So you have no problem with a baby at 9 months being dismembered in the womb? You have no problem with the baby’s limbs being ripped off and the skull crushed?

  • Starting out with an ad hominem is really building your credibility.

    Re Savita Halappanavar, it’s easy to point to one-off instances and to pretend they are representative of the situation. The Irish law allowed for abortions in Ms. Halappanavar’s circumstance; the problem was that doctors misdiagnosed her. That case is no more representative of the system than is the Kermit Gosnell travesty (which I avoid citing in favor of abortion restrictions for that very reason).

    “Stop killing pregnant people by denying them basic medical care.” Stop killing unborn persons.

  • This article is about the lives of women, how they have been saved. You obviously don’t think a woman’s life has any value.

    AND you think you are can decide or have the right to decide “who has personhood”? OR whose life has value? OR whether a woman makes a choice you approve of?

    The Bible tells you “let he who has not sinned cast the first stones”. So you think you aren’t a sinner and have the right to cast stones at women?

  • I like getting into discussions with pro-aborts like her to show the absurdities of their views. Its appalling but it must be exposed for the nonsense that it is.

  • Obviously anyone who aborts a female fetus believes a woman’s life has no value.

    What is “personhood”?

    There seems to several positions, Spuddie is in favor of the Magical Birth Canal:


    Alwayspuzzled was heading in another direction, and then stopped short when he realized he was speaking of a person in utero.

    What is your definition?

  • It does appear that the fact that it is always her choice is the result of some arbitrary legal decisions based on no science and no precedents.


  • There’s nothing in my writing that could have led an intellectually sharp person to the conclusion you make.

    I care more about 60 million babies murdered, and the 40 or so million murdering mothers than you do, clearly.

    Killing one’s offspring NEVER leads to happiness, growth, true fulfillment. It only leads to regret, emptiness, self-denial, repression, isolation, anger, and even suicide.

    Parenting children causes great interior growth in a hundred different virtues: self denial, attentive charity, industriousness, planning, generosity, discipline, delay, patience, daring, teamwork, unity, responsible etc.

    It’s the emptiness caused by abortion in the murdering mothers which is the second crime.


    We now have 40 million women, and at least 50 million men who are less responsible, less generous, more focused on self-comfort, less capable of delay, denial, self-sacrifice, patience, steadfastness, etc.

    Hollow, self-focused people. And the signs of this absence are all around us to see.

  • Pregnant people have rights under the law, including the right to abort fetuses, which can endanger their lives by growing inside of them.


  • Unborn persons do not have rights under the law. Only born persons do. Savita’s case most certainly is representative of the system that restricts abortion for religious reasons.

  • You obviously have no idea what an abortion consists of. Pregnant people have choices over what happens inside of their own bodies.

    Just shut up about it.

  • “Unborn persons do not have rights under the law. Only born persons do.” Not true. “In the United States, as of 2014, thirty-eight states provide certain level of criminal protection for the unborn, and twenty-three of these states have laws that protect the fetus from conception until birth. All US states–by statute, court rule or case law–permit a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the unborn.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

    “Savita’s case most certainly is representative of the system that restricts abortion…” The evidence I’ve already cited says otherwise.

    “for religious reasons.” It’s amazing how pro-abortion advocates are always the ones bringing up religion.

  • No, that’s your job. Only religious psychos think that fetuses have more rights than the people carrying them in their wombs.

    Stop imposing your psycho religious beliefs on others.

  • “Pregnant people have rights under the law, including the right to abort fetuses…” Which is only true because the Supreme Court in 1973 took it upon themselves to try to resolve a difficult policy choice. Within three years (my prediction), that will no longer be the case.

    “which can endanger their lives by growing inside of them.” When pregnancy truly endangers the life of the mother, the vast majority pro-life groups that would argue that such an abortion is immoral or should be illegal.

    “Duh.” I clearly have a much better command of both the facts and the arguments on this matter. You’re in no position to “duh” anybody.

  • You are still going about it from a perspective that you have a say in the matter and a privilege to interfere with decisions which you have no actual part of. Its a very immoral place to start from and it only makes your position seem whiny in perspective.

    Boiling down to,

    “Why aren’t women doing as I command!!!”
    “They should do what I say!!!!”

    The only time I see people with actual guilt over the issue is when they have it drummed into them by nosy Bible Thumper types who equate their desire to control others with morals and values.

  • You are perfectly ok with killing pregnant people, because you have no command of facts whatsoever.

    I predict that all restrictions on abortion will be lifted within 3 years.

  • Of course they do. Your example misses that it is a crime against the mother first and foremost. It is an aggravating circumstance, not a separate charge. Many states don’t consider it an act against a fetus at all.

    There is no single homicide charge if a mother is alive but the fetus is not. It is considered assault/battery in that case against the mother.

    So no, you still need to be a born person to be murdered. A fetus has no separate existence. This is basic biology you are trying to deny. If you can take custody of a fetus from the mother, then you would have a point. But you can’t. So you don’t.

  • Charlotte, my dear, could you do me a favor and make your antecedent’s clearer? I have no idea what “that” refers to in your first sentence.

    I don’t think that fetus’s have more rights than women. I think that the fetus’s right to live is paramount to the mother’s right to keep things out of her body. I don’t, for example, think that the fetus’s right to live is more important than the mother’s right to live.

    I’m not imposing my religious beliefs on anyone. I have not invoked God or any particular religious belief in this entire discussion. I support environmental regulations and immigrant rights in part because of my religion. Am I imposing my religious beliefs on those issues as well?

  • Nope, I am not ok with killing pregnant people. As I have pointed out and you have not rebutted, abortion restrictions do not result in higher maternal mortality rates. If you have facts that say otherwise, please cite them.

    You’re living in a dream world if you think Roe isn’t getting overturned.

  • I posted an article, which you didn’t read. Abortion saves lives, and restricting it endangers them.

    You are living in a dream world if you think that women are going to let people like you trample our rights.

  • Only your religious beliefs can explain your sick obsession with restricting access to basic medical care.

  • You posted an article, that I read, and then I provided facts that demonstrate that the premise of the article is wrong and easily disproved.

    “You are living in a dream world if you think that women are going to let people like you trample our rights.” Ever been to a pro-life rally? About 75% of attendees are women. Just saying…

  • Here’s an entire website full of perspectives of non-religious, pro-life people. I invite you to read through it so you can see that most pro-life arguments do not rely on religion in any way, shape, or form.


  • Yes, they do. Only religious psychos have a problem with abortion, because they work for the child sex trafficking industry: “Give us your babies to f*ck!”

  • Whoa!!!! You are truly unconcerned with reality. Might want to check with the psychiatrist to see if they need to up your medication.

  • Do you not like facts, or do you just not know any? Ms. Enlow’s screed that you linked to doesn’t provide any–just her poorly reasoned opinion.

  • “If these women truly supported women, they wouldn’t be so hellbent on destroying reproductive rights and access to health care, pushing continued attacks against trans people, or any of the other issues disproportionately affecting marginalized women.”

  • Your pathetic religion is dying, because millennials want nothing to do with you, so the only way that you can keep your numbers is to outlaw abortion.

  • Evidence, please. Otherwise you’re just speaking out of the wrong end of your body.

  • With:

    “I think we need to get away from the divide of no legal abortions/all legal abortions and really work on what could be a middle ground. That “middle ground” could be limits on abortions after 12 or 16 or 20 weeks. Limitations on abortion procedures once the fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. I also think that we have to be willing to pay for enforcing these laws – and that means 1) effective contraceptives made widely available at little to no cost; 2) health care coverage of abortions; 3) health care coverage of births; 4) support for mothers/families with children born with fetal defects especially when/if an abortion is forbidden once discovered in uteri.”

    I think you can kiss what you call a “middle ground” good-bye.

    Items (1) and (2) are non-starters.

    Roe v. Wade, according to Harry Andrew Blackmun, was supposed to be a national “middle ground”, and you see how that worked out.

  • Yes, a fetus has no separate experience until it travels ALL the way through the birth canal and magically obtain human rights.

  • Of course we have a say in the matter.

    We the people always have the ultimate say in the matter.

  • You said that abortion should be legal at any stage. Thus you are for:
    a baby at 9 months being dismembered in the womb and have no problem with the baby’s limbs being ripped off and the skull crushed.
    That is murder as it would be at 8 months, at 7 months etc.

  • Ever hear a pregnant woman refer to her baby as a fetus? I have heard of millions of women murder their babies in their wombs. So have you.

  • A one year old has no separate existence for her mother either. You should have no problem with killing a one, two or 5 year old either. They can’t live on their own either.

    It is an established medical fact that a human being begins at conception. That is basic biology you are denying.

  • I meant to back up “so the only way that you can keep your numbers is to outlaw abortion.”

  • Pay no attention to lizard-boy. In his world, no one has to be responsible for anything. Except trump… trump is responsible for everything bad.

  • If you can’t see that abortion is every woman’s right, I can’t help you, straw man.

  • That is not what abortion consists of. You are in favor of women dying due to complications during pregnancy.

  • Desperate people do crazy things, like try to outlaw abortion, again, because their religion tells them so. You people never learn.

  • If the goal is to create a population with more religious people, outlawing abortion actually works against the goal, since the religiously unaffiliated are overrepresented among abortion “patients”.

    “The abortion index for Catholic women showed that their relative abortion rate was nearly the same as that for all women (1.1). Mainline Protestants were slightly underrepresented among abortion patients (0.8), while evangelical Protestants had an abortion rate that was half of the national average. Patients with no affiliation were overrepresented among abortion patients, having a relative abortion rate of 1.8. The abortion index had declined slightly for mainline Protestants, and had increased slightly for those with no affiliation.”


    You have to resort to half-cocked and hare-brained conspiracy theories to make your point. I’ve relied on data, including data from organizations that oppose my viewpoint. Someone here is desperate and doing crazy things, but it’s not me.

  • Are you trying to be clever? Do you know what a straw man is? Do you have anything other than bare assertions? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but you’ve proved you’re either unwilling or incapable of having a rational discussion.

  • What exactly does abortion consist of (in your world)? If it’s not what JP described?

  • Of course it does, dummy. Never heard of fathers, older siblings, baby sitters, adoption, legal guardians, or maternity wards?

    Do you know what they all have in common and why they are not the equivalent of a pregnant woman? None of them are physically biologically attached to the child. You can hand off a baby to any responsible person. Can’t do it for a fetus. How dishonest and silly can you be for pretending otherwise?

    Jeez, this is the dumbest canned argument you fetus worshipers have. You should hang your head in shame for even trying it.

  • So what? Doesn’t change the fact that a fetus doesn’t exist without the mother. But a baby can. You are getting more and more irrational here. When you can babysit a fetus, then I can take you seriously. Until then you are just lying about your desire to control women.

  • Read a book about it, if you care so much, which you obviously don’t. While you’re at it, read about ectopic pregnancies and septic miscarriages, as well.

  • There is no reasoning with someone who wishes to rob me and everyone with similar sex organs of control of what goes in or out of our bodies.

  • You are desperate to outlaw abortion, even though it is a life-saving medical procedure. You’re crazy if you think that you will get away with this.

  • I agree. Even if trump gets a true originalist on the court, I doubt they would rehear the case due to the controversy it would create; thus furthering the division of America.
    As someone who is against abortion, (and after listening to the pro-murder zealots on this page); I actually think it is better for the law to stand.
    Overturning the law would cause such an imbalance in the brains of Charlotte, spuddie, Curtis, etc.; I fear that they would only entrench themselves more on the side of evil.
    I think it better for them to have some life event that makes them reconsider their position, realize their error, feel the remorse and then willingly reconcile themselves to God. We may not be able to bring them all home, but maybe a few.

  • No baby can exist with help from its mother or someone else.
    It is evil and irrational to abort because its murder of a human being.

  • A baby is physically attached to it mother outside the womb be through her feeding her or someone else doing it. Stop giving the baby what it needs and cannot get for herself and she will die.
    It is murder to have an abortion. Lots of murderers are free.

  • “…it is a life-saving medical procedure.” It can be. And when it is, it should be legal. But in the vast majority of abortions, no life is saved and one life is lost. That loss of life is the thing that compels pro-life advocates.

  • Quick question for you: is the criminalization of certain forms of corporal punishment for children denying parents control of what goes on in their own homes?

  • You don’t care about the rights of pregnant people to plan their own reproduction process, and you would prefer that they die than live to breed another day. So much for free speech.

  • Safe to say there have been hundreds of thousands more abortions then risky pregnancies. As I have stated numerous times before, risk of death of the mother is less than 2% of all abortions. Most abortions are for convenience.

  • Nonsense numbers, no source. You have clearly never been pregnant in your life. Carrying a child to term is more than just an inconvenience.

  • How is a body different than a home with respect to rights to control our own lives and destiny?

  • Cool, we’re going to play “assume the motives of others”. I’m game. Here goes: You don’t care about women’s rights, you just care about reducing the human population, and you get a perverse high out of human death.

  • “Parents are … accountable … for what happens to their kids”, claims one atheist, Brian Curtis. But “about ‘teens stopping getting pregnant’ [it] is none of [their] business”, claims another atheist, Kangaroo52. Apparently, all atheists “can never [NOT] understand that” about each other’s contradictory claims – so long as there’s “a lot of wingnuts and religious fanatics” around to be contradicted.

  • Awesome. I don’t want pregnant women to die. I just don’t want human life to be killed unnecessarily.

  • No, I want you to tell me in what ways that are significant to this conversation that they are different. I’ll tell you how they are the same. They both deal with intimate aspects of our lives, are traditionally protected by the common law right to privacy, and are traditionally considered to be under the domain of the person possessing it.

  • You are crazy. Terminating a pregnancy is nothing at all like abusing children in the home. Go get therapy.

  • Then stop forcing teenage rape victims to breed their attackers’ children against their will. Then fewer of them will commit suicide.

  • You keep using extreme examples, when the vast majority of abortions are for people who were not victims of rape and whose pregnancies do not endanger their lives. For what it’s worth, I would favor a rape exception to any policy generally prohibiting abortion, since these represent a vanishingly small number of abortions (less than 1%, according to the Guttmacher Institute) and the pregnancy is not the result of a consensual act of the mother. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

  • You’re right. Children often survive abuse. Children rarely survive abortion attempts.

  • Pregnant women rarely survive self-induced abortion attempts, and neither do their fetuses.

  • Prohibition was repealed. Like the federal ban on abortion. Suck it up, and stop trying to impose your religious beliefs on others.

  • Again, you’re wrong on the facts.

    “According to the Guttmacher Institute, for instance, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women in 1930 — a relatively small number in a time before antibiotics, when estimates are that at least 1 million abortions were performed per year. By 1940, the number of deaths had fallen under 1,700, and by 1965, below 200.”


  • There never was a federal ban on abortion.

    [Edit:] You’re going to go ahead with that argument even though I preemptively deflated it? You are as gutsy as you are uninformed.

  • It wasn’t even a de facto ban. It was a state by state law, like the vast majority of criminal laws on the books. You never quite made your point with the prohibition thing.

    You’re also really stretching to make some kind of point with the article you posted. I oppose the killing of any child. No child should be subject to any form of abuse for any reason. But that does bring up an interesting question. Suppose geneticists discovered a gene that is correlated with homosexuality and that a prenatal test for the gene were made possible. Would you defend the right of a parent to abort their child after testing positive for the gene?

  • Whose deaths? Because, again, and this bears repeating ad infinitum, an abortion is always lethal to one party.

  • The “living Constitution” set cannot envision that the originalists cannot even envision that the Trump appointees would not overturn Roe v. Wade. The reason why is because if the shoe were on the other foot, they would do so in a blind second.

    To them “stare decisis” is an impediment,


    because it permits “erroneous” decisions to continue influencing the law and encumbers the legal system’s ability to quickly “adapt” to change (fabricate new law out of thin air).

    From the standpoint of an originalist it is a winnowing process, in which the law becomes clearer and more reliable, but all the time surer so that person knows where she or he stands, and leaves change to the democratic process.

    There is no honor among thieves, and no honesty among the Chuck Schumers in the Senate.

  • No, the baby is forcing its will on the mother by being there, as are you by being all up in her business.

  • Your last paragraph suggests an endless series of creators.

    The entire point of the First Cause argument is to end that conundrum with an uncaused cause.

    Sorry you were not paying attention when they went through Aristotle in your philosophy class.

    Of course you may just be confusing this with:


  • The Romans had a legal maxim:

    “Hard cases make bad law”.

    According to the Guttmacher institute, a Planned Parenthood-affiliated think-tank, only 1% of abortions are due to rape and less than 0.5% are due to incest.

  • Yes, you are correct. Yours is the dumbest canned argument, unscientific, illogical, and basically drivel.

  • Your link is a total non-sequitur. And why is viability the cutoff? Why not self-sufficiency? Or the ability to reason? Or any other arbitrary point in the development of a human being? And do you realize that by implying viability as the relevant point, you have broken with a number of pro-choice groups?

  • Part of Hillary’s campaign platform WAS to secure the reversal of Citizens United.

    Tells you all you need to know about how concerned Democrats are for stare decisis.

  • Well he’s obviously unfamiliar with parenthood. I knew that the first time he made his ridiculous remark about a fetus impinging on its mother’s “bodily autonomy” while a newborn does not.

    I’ve had two children and can certainly testify that they restricted my “autonomy” far more after they were born than before.

  • This article attributes the rise in the age of marriage and the increase in women’s participation in higher education to the Roe Vs Wade decision. In fact, the rise in the age of marriage began before Roe Vs Wade and continued at an accelerated pace for 20 years after 1975.

    This suggests to me that the rise in the age of marriage may be partly attributed to some other factor, and that may be the development of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s. This gave women the ability to control their fertility and pursue higher education and employment. While I would not discount the provision of abortion, the available of safe and reliable birth control would have a far greater effect on women’s lives than the availability of abortion.

  • Indeed.

    The principle is that doing what is right is a judge or justice’s job. Laws are sort of squishy, so you conclude and then bend them to fit. And who better to do then the special people on the Supreme Court with special insights and special sensitivities?

    There is probably not a better summary then Kennedy’s jurisprudence in this infamous passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

    “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    It’s a mildly interesting statement of college sophomore philosophy.

    As the expression of a constitutional ideal, it’s wildly incoherent.

  • A corpse is also 100% biologically human, and yet it doesn’t have the same rights as a person either. Imagine that!

  • So when the court makes a ruling you don’t like, they’re “enacting policy.” I’ve heard this argument before, many times, and it hasn’t gotten any more effective.

  • No, when the Courts make a ruling that has nothing to do with the Constitutional text, then they’re making policy. The Right does this too. The entire concept of the “Dormant Commerce Clause” is outside the Constitution, although states engaging in economic protectionism is objectively bad policy. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is terrible, and unfair, yet the 15th Amendment gives the power to congress to make laws intended to ensure that states don’t deny the right to vote based on race, even if the way they do that is ridiculous (which Section 4 was). There are other examples of court decisions that resulted in policies I favor but that the Court had no business overturning the decisions of duly elected legislatures.

  • By growing inside of her body, and by threatening her life in the process, much like you.

  • You didn’t read that article about a woman dying of a septic miscarriage, because her fetus still had a heartbeat, and therefore, according to you, her life is less important.

  • I did read it actually, and I explained that it is no more representative of the norm than is Kermit Gosnell and that the real problem was a bad diagnosis. And as I have repeated multiple times, I think abortion is necessary and justified in cases where the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother.

    Charlotte, I know reading is hard for you, but all you have to do is read this conversation again to know that. Don’t worry, you’ll learn to comprehend some day.

  • You’ll learn to comprehend that women have the right to choose what goes in and out of their bodies someday. No one cares about your opinions.

  • Obviously you are wrong Bob. Most abortions occur without the woman knowing the gender of the fetus.

    For me life starts at first breath.

  • Just so we all are aware, the posts by the disqus poster of many
    names currently using the name “Bob Arnzen”, and more appropriately
    referred to with a concatenation of some of his many names, BobbyJoJack
    Arnzen Carioca, are never accurate, and are always tainted by his
    severe religious delusions and his egomaniacal mental disorder.

  • Just so you are aware, the posts by the disqus poster of many
    names currently using the name “Bob Arnzen”, and more appropriately
    referred to with a concatenation of some of his many names, BobbyJoJack
    Arnzen Carioca, are never accurate, and are always tainted by his
    severe religious delusions and his egomaniacal mental disorder.

  • Obviously you are wrong, Susan.

    Once the abortion is completed everyone knows the gender of the fetus.

    I do understand that you are an aficionado of the Magical Birth Canal theory of life


    but as a matter of science that is as sound as a flat earth or spontaneous generation.

  • 57% of people in the U.S. want abortion to remain legal, though they do want some restrictions. It is time to talk about how to draw lines around abortion without making it entirely illegal. That is what the people of this country want.

    Several European countries have a stepped system where abortion is legal in the first 12-20 weeks and then limited thereafter. We need to look at how those rules were set up.

    This is a basic freedom issue for women and Roe v Wade recognizes that. At the basic level of a recognized right, it can no more be left up to the states than could the issue of slavery. BUT, we can draw lines around it as countries like France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and some other European countries have done.

    One more thing to look at in European countries. Most of them do not have the rate of unplanned pregnancies that we have here. If we really want to reduce abortions, then we need to assure that effective contraceptives are available – through health insurance and/or through clinics, like Planned Parenthood. If we want to encourage women to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term, then we need to be sure she has a place to live, access to health care while pregnant and at birth, then a safety net to actually raise a child. A large number of abortions are from women who already have a child and know they cannot afford to raise another one.

    There is a real world out there where education takes longer than it used to, getting established in a career takes longer, and where raising a child to be a contributor to society takes longer and is more expensive. And, in that world women are making choices about education and career that means they need to be able to manage their fertility. That is the world now.

  • If you want to reduce the number of abortions then support widespread availability of contraceptives and sterilizations for women who either don’t want children or have already had all the children they want to have. To reduce abortions, you have to reduce unplanned pregnancies.

  • ALL restrictions on abortion are an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech of pregnant people, by imposing a particular set of religious beliefs on them. In Missouri, those who seek abortions are required to sign a document indicating that they received religiously-motivated pamphlets that discourage abortion, which is yet another instance of the government compelling it’s citizens to endorse speech that they don’t agree with.

  • Christians want more rights than everyone else, including the right to free speech.

  • People already abort fetuses because of their gender. Prohibiting a practice doesn’t make it stop. Hence, the war on drugs. ALL restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional.

  • But then, how would religious psychos get their rocks off, if they’re not shaming women for being slutty?

  • Charlotte, I think this conversation has demonstrated that my opinion is informed by facts and reasoning, while yours are informed by anger and dogma. If I shared your position at the beginning of this conversation, I would consider switching sides to avoid any association with you. What I’m saying is that your opinion is less valuable than worthless.

  • I support widespread availability of contraceptives. We’re on the same side of that issue.

  • What I’m saying is, your religious dogma has no place inside of other people’s uteruses. Butt out.

  • Walking down the street carries some risk. We’re talking about pregnancies with high risks of severe bodily harm.

  • People still murder although it’s illegal. Prohibiting murder doesn’t make it stop. Is that really a good argument to make it legal?

  • All pregnancies carry risk of severe bodily harm. Ever been through childbirth?

  • I’m not a big fan of Citizen’s United, and I don’t think the Constitution mandates its result. Having said that, most people don’t actually understand the holding in Citizen’s United, and despite the result, it has the advantage of being based on the actual text of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The Constitution says nothing about abortion, or even a general right to privacy.

  • Abortion is one expression of free speech: I control what goes in or out of my own body, not you.

  • I agree that contraception is an important component of the abortion conversation. I also understand that a national majority favors abortion restrictions that are not as restrictive as what I would favor. But it should be up to the people and their representatives to figure that out.

  • You don’t have the right to dictate what goes on inside of another person’s body. Mind your own business.

  • And what makes you think you have the right to force anyone else to go through that experience, do tell? Did you require an episiotomy?

  • The people of Massachusetts are certainly free to come to their own conclusions on this issue.

  • The fact that terminating a pregnancy means killing a human being. I know you like to pretend that pregnancy is a thing that just happens to women, but it is almost entirely the result of informed choices by men and women. Men should not be able to avoid the consequences of those decisions, and so they should be made to pay child support. Women should not be permitted to kill another human because of her own choices. Pain and inconvenience are not sufficient to justify killing a human.

  • I read it. It just has nothing to do with this conversation, no matter how many times you post it.

  • And when Roe is overturned when Trump’s SC pick is confirmed, will that resolve the issue for you?

  • Trump will make no pick while under investigation for corruption, nor will Roe ever be overturned.

  • Deal with the homophobic and transphobic parents killing their ALIVE children, and then worry about how many abortions get performed.

  • A fetus is not a human, it is a part of someone else’s body, who has the right to make informed decisions about their own medical care. Butt out.

  • He will make a pick. The Democrats have zero recourse. And Roe very likely will be overturned within a few years when that happens. You’re either woefully uninformed or delusional if you think otherwise.

  • No one has the right to oppress women from determining the course of their own lives and reproductive processes, anywhere.

  • No, women across this country will fight you, to our last breath or yours, if it comes to that.

  • Your scientific ignorance is showing. There is no serious biologist that considers a fetus a part of the mother’s body.

  • One way that Roe v. Wade changed things for women, ~30 million of them have been murdered before they had the chance to be born. That is around ten times the numbers of Jewish women murdered by the Nazis, from twice to six times the number killed by Mao, and about the same to three times the number murdered by Stalin. It is possible that it is equal to or higher than all three put together.

  • Nope. You are being stupid.

    “or someone else doing it.”

    A situation unlike a pregnancy in any way. There is no “someone else to” who could do it before birth. Just the mother. So she is the only one with a choice here. You are not.

    You conceded my point entirely. You have no argument. Thanks for playing.

  • Stupid statement. You already conceded that “someone else” can care for a baby, whereas only a mother keeps a fetus alive. Any baby can exist with the help of another person.

    Abortion is not murder. It is irrational and immoral to think you have a say in such decisions.

  • Being human is not the same as “personhood”. Civil rights attach at BIRTH. Women do not lose their civil rights when pregnant. You want to use children as a punishment and that is unconscionable.

  • Obviously, you’ve never had children either. A first trimester abortion is 14x safer than a full term pregnancy.

  • Since NO babies are involved, it’s not a problem. So, you want to lock up 40 million women and their partners?

  • Why do you hate other women? Most unplanned pregnancies are due to birth control failure. Why should a woman lose her civil rights because of a stray sperm? Why do you think children should be a punishment! Why don’t you tell the man to be responsible and use condoms or get vasectomies?

  • And if you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies, do you support easy access to free/low cost birth control? Medically accurate sex education? Paid family leave? Higher minimum wages? Or are you just interested in punishing women for having sex without your approval?

  • I’m asking to show that you are a hypocrite. You demand abstinence only from others but conveniently refuse to say that you practice what you preach. And sin is an “imaginary concept”. Mind your own sins. You don’t get to tell anyone else what to do with their genitals.

  • Women are NOT incubators. A child can be taken care of by someone else. Only a woman can carry a fetus to term. What you want is to turn women into gestational slaves.

  • NO ONE has the right to use another’s body for survival. YOu most certainly are trying to force your beliefs on other people by making it a law for other women.

  • Certainly. It’s not a zero-sum game. In the vast majority of circumstances, you can protect both. And when you can’t, the mother should be protected.

  • I read the report and is says 5% in any given year. Women are fertile for generally 30 YEARS. Also, here is a nifty statistic:”

    “For a range of social and economic reasons, most individuals and couples want to plan the timing and spacing of their childbearing and to avoid unintended pregnancies. Unintended pregnancy also has a public health impact: Births resulting from unintended or closely spaced pregnancies are associated with adverse maternal and child health outcomes, such as delayed prenatal care, premature birth, and negative physical and mental health effects for children.[2,3,4,5,6]”

  • McFall v. Shrimp is the case that says no one has the right to use another’s body for survival. And since you are demanding that other women being forced to give birth because of YOUR beliefs, yes, you are forcing your religion on other people.

  • “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

    “Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
    [O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]

    “During prenatal development, the umbilical cord is physiologically and genetically part of the fetus” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord

  • Then why are you demanding that women be forced to breed? That is not protecting the woman. 88% of abortions take place in the first trimester, when the fetus is about the size of a kidney bean. The fetus has no consciousness so why do you think it is more worthy of protection than the already living breathing woman? Why does she have to change the course of her life at the drop of a sperm?

  • And what will that do? It’s already been tried and didn’t work then. Why do you enjoy the thought of other women being forced to breed?

  • FAlse. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-has-highest-maternal-mortality-rate-developed-world-why-n791671 Also, more restrictions don’t lower the abortion rate.https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restriction-laws/index.html. In countries with the fewest restrictions, only 1% of abortions were the “least safe” kind from 2010 to 2014. That number jumps to 31% in the most restrictive countries, according to the report, released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank.
    During the same period, abortions happened roughly as frequently in the most restrictive countries as they did in the least restrictive: 37 versus 34 abortions each year for every 1,000 women aged 15 to 44.

  • Here are some facts: https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/worldwide-estimated-25-million-unsafe-abortions-occur-each-year. Worldwide, 25 million unsafe abortions (45% of all abortions) occurred every year between 2010 and 2014, according to a new study by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Guttmacher Institute published today in The Lancet. The majority of unsafe abortions, or 97%, occurred in developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

  • You’re not a lawyer, are you? That case is not even binding precedent in Pennsylvania, where it was decided. Besides which, the facts there are distinct from the case of abortion. In that case, it was the mother and father’s actions that caused the unborn child’s situation. The law recognizes special duties when one party caused the other’s dependence (e.g. partial rescue, duty to save due to own negligence) and imposes duties on parents that other third parties would not normally face.

  • That doesn’t affect the statistic cited…

    So if there’s a potentially negative outcome, death is the solution? Children born with disabilities are associated with adverse maternal and child outcomes. Is the solution to kill children with disabilities?

  • And those numbers will go UP if abortion is illegal..

    Restrictive laws associated with high rates of unsafe abortions

    The study also looks at the contexts that commonly result in women seeking unsafe abortions, including countries’ laws and policies on abortion, the financial cost of accessing safe abortion services, the availability of safe abortion services and trained health providers, and societal attitudes toward abortion and gender equality.

    In countries where abortion is completely banned or permitted only to save the woman’s life or preserve her physical health, only 1 in 4 abortions were safe; whereas, in countries where abortion is legal on broader grounds, nearly 9 in 10 abortions were done safely. Restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions.

    Most abortions that take place in Western and Northern Europe and North America are safe. These regions also have some of the lowest abortion rates. Most countries in these regions also have relatively permissive laws on abortion; high levels of contraceptive use, economic development, and gender equality; as well as high-quality health services – all factors that contribute to making abortion safer.

    “Like many other common medical procedures, abortion is very safe when done in accordance with recommended medical guidelines and that is important to bear in mind,” says Dr Gilda Sedgh, co-author of the study and principal research scientist, Guttmacher Institute.https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/worldwide-estimated-25-million-unsafe-abortions-occur-each-year

  • From the NBC article: “After abortion rights advocates pointed to the closure of dozens of women’s health clinics throughout the state as a result of a 2013 law requiring them to meet the same medical standards as standalone surgery centers, the task force looked for a correlation. But the biggest spike in maternal mortality rates in Texas happened between 2010 and 2012 — before the clinics were shuttered.”

    As far as the Guttmacher data goes, a better correlation is between maternal deaths and poverty. https://www.pop.org/permissive-abortion-laws-do-not-reduce-maternal-deaths/

  • There is no reason to breed children, if they’re just going to get tortured to death for being gay or trans.

  • Again, this really has nothing to do with abortion. This is as bad (or worse) as the pro-life argument that an abortion may be aborting the person who would have otherwise cured cancer. It’s so dependent on what if’s and might haves as to be worthless.

  • You are not a doctor. Stop telling other people what to do with the contents of their own bodies.

  • I know it has no foundation in the Constitution. That’s why it must be overturned and those that supported it by having abortions must be brought to justice because crimes against humanity have been committed.

  • You’re not a doctor either. Stop spreading scientifically and medically bogus information.

  • Ever heard dis – root of evil is $

    Then think on dis – root of abortion is olo

    Your g-word there in plural

    In toe with fellow atheists “you …. get to tell anyone else what to do with their g*n*t*ls” – but I “don’t”

    Behold behold progressive secular humanism in theory & praxis

  • “NO ONE has the right to use another’s body for survival” if you were a man during the Vietnam War you would know better than to talk such nonsense.

  • We need St. Sanger now. “​Margaret Sanger started what she called “The Negro Project” to reduce the African American population by pushing birth control.”

  • “Margaret Sanger started what she called “The Negro Project” to reduce the African American population by pushing birth control.
    Like many eugenicists of her day, Sanger believed that some races (namely the intelligent, white classes) were more fit to produce children than other races. Using Darwinian reasoning, Sanger believed there was a clear connection between race and levels of intelligence. In 1912, she wrote:
    The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.”

    We need St. Sanger now more than ever.

  • In order for “the people and their representatives to figure that out” both sides need to step away from the dichotomous thinking of all/nothing, either/or. And I don’t see elected officials willing to do that.
    That is why I think it is important for the Dems to provide space within the party platform for different viewpoints. Equally important to note is that most Republicans I know want abortion legal but limited.

    I do not think the current political climate is conducive to the idea that compromise is important in a democracy. However, those of us who do want some action taken other than the rock throwing we currently experience in the political arena, need to speak up to candidates and say we will accept a compromise.

    One more thought. I think the broad outlines of what is to be allowable need to be a national law – this cannot be left up to states to figure out on their own. States have made a mess of their attempts to legislate around abortion, mostly because they are trying to find a way to end it completely rather than to create a framework within which it can be available.

  • Nope. Just a right not to be killed. I actually think that a fetus has less rights than the mother.

  • I think the first and most important constitutional issue regarding abortion is that it is an issue of life and liberty, particularly women’s liberty. Restrictions on abortion are restrictions on liberty.

    But we all have restrictions on liberty – i.e., you are not free to rob someone. While I think abortion should be available early in pregnancy, I do think we need to look at the issue of when a fetus becomes a person who gets legal protection in his/her own right, although never at the expense of the woman losing the right to protect her own life if a pregnancy goes bad. More, I am of the mind that if the state demands a woman carry through with a pregnancy she wants to end, then the state should pay for her upkeep and care while she is pregnant, pay for the birth, and pay for the care of the woman until she is recovered from the pregnancy. More, if the state makes rules that disallow aborting a fetus with a serious debilitating birth defect, that the state again pays for the birth and for the life long upkeep of that child.

    What do you think of those ideas? In your mind is there any room for compromise on the always/never abortion divide?

  • Women have a right not to go through childbirth, risking permanent injury or death. Get used to it.

  • Charlotte, here is a surprise for you! There are people who hold strong religious beliefs but who don’t want to impose those idea on others. We are looking for ways in which we can respect people of religious belief and respect people who hold no or different religious beliefs. Not all religious people are psychos.

  • It had everything to do with you ignoring reality, in favor of fantasies about fetal personhood. Worry about ALIVE children, instead.

  • Not really. The government will NEVER pay for child care. ALL restrictions on abortion are the result of religious people legislating their beliefs onto others, because they want to control women’s bodies, and because the child sex trafficking industry needs a constant supply of fresh babies to f*ck.

  • SO, you admit you did NOT read it. Where did you get your law degree? Trump University?

  • Nope. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and does not meet the definition of murder. Get a dictionary and a vasectomy. Also, how can you murder something that is not viable in the first place?

  • When the woman cease to be a “Human Being”? There is a difference between being human and “personhood”. Personhood and civil rights attach at BIRTH. A woman does not lose her civil rights when pregnant.

  • Obviously you don’t understand anything Bob. I don’t believe in any sort of magic! You however!

  • I absolutely agree that both parties have taken unyielding positions on a number of issues that hinder actual problem solving.

    For what it’s worth, my view is that abortion should be generally illegal, with exceptions for circumstances where the pregnancy would cause death or serious injury to the mother, when the fetus is known to have defects that make survival after birth highly unlikely, or in cases of rape or incest (although in the last case, we should have laws that encourage such victims to give birth and provide the victim with special help and counseling). I also favor laws that provide contraceptives and comprehensive sex education (one that doesn’t assume abstinence is impossible, as I have seen in liberal quarters). Laws against abortion should punish those that provide the abortion, not the mother.

    I don’t think this should be a federal issue. We have inconsistent laws across states with respect to a lot of important issues: drugs, rent, insurance, even child abuse and murder. States have not regulated abortion well in part because Roe and Casey prevent them from implementing comprehensive regulations, and so they have to work around it. Federalism allows us to try different policies based on community standards. New York values and Idaho values are different. There’s no need to force one on the other, even if one is doing things the way the rest of the country judges as wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures that basic rights are protected, and if we want to add to that list of rights, we should pass a constitutional amendment.

  • You’re going to be disappointed. PP v Casey had already upheld the validity of waiting periods and informed consent laws. As for the RFRA issue, the law requires clinics to provide information necessary for informed consent; it doesn’t require the recipient to do anything in particular with it. Therefore, the court will likely find that the law uses the least retricitive means to further a legitimate state interest (PP v Casey also explocitly stated that the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging child birth).

  • Repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Roe will be overturned. You better get used to it now.

  • There is no state interest in restricting abortion, only religious interest.

    “the law requires clinics to provide information necessary for informed consent,” but not Crises Pregnancy Centers?

  • Supreme Court says otherwise.

    Crisis pregnancy centers aren’t putting poison in a woman’s body, digging into a woman’s uterus with forceps and a scalpel, or doing anything else to actively kill a human organism. The Missouri law also doesn’t cover all advertisements, just information to be given before undertaking a specific procedure.

  • Keep dreaming. Even if Trump is impeached (which would actually be great) Mike Pence would nominate the same type of justices.

  • Your hangups about abortion have nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with your desperate need for attention.

  • Mike Pence wants to hang all homosexuals. Hitler wanted to gas them. Where do you fit in?

  • Crisis Pregnancy Centers seek to cajole women into giving birth, which may or may not kill them.

  • I don’t think Mike Pence wants to hang homosexuals. I want to treat them like any other human being, which in most cases, means me not caring about what they do in private.

  • Actually, it’s all about protecting children. I don’t give a damn about attention.

  • Yes, you do. You get a sick high from shaming women who seek abortions, for being selfish and slutty. That’s all this is.

  • They use lies, and withhold vital information that could mean the difference between life and death. Free markets demand truth in advertising.

  • NIFLA v Becerra involved much more than “truth in advertising”. It involved a state mandated message in support of abortion. If the law simply required “no lying” it would have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

  • If you don’t believe in magic, provide your alternate explanation.

    All you’ve stated to this point is a matter of taste, like toe may toe versus toe mah toe.

    Is there some particular qualitative difference at different ends of the birth canal?

  • As usual, all BobbyJoJack Arnzen Carioca can present as an “argument” is yet another insulting ad hominem attack on a judge.

    Arnzen, you are despicable.

  • How would a person who believes that life is sacred and commences at conception (the last being the scientific definition) compromise with “abortion should be available early in pregnancy”?

    Hold their hands over their eyes?

    Live in a dark cellar and never come out?

  • The states were doing fine legislating on abortion.

    Then Harry Andrew Blackmun wrote Roe v. Wade and the battles have never ceased since and will never cease.

    That’s what happens when edicts are issued by the unelected.

  • You are exhibiting a common psychological phenomenon called demonization. You can’t accept that another person would disagree on the issue, and you aren’t smart enough and you don’t know enough to rebut it, so instead of an argument, you have to convince yourself that those that disagree with you have nefarious motives. Since you can’t beat them with reasoning, which can be rebutted with facts (like facts that show most abortions are out of convenience and that abortion restrictions do not in fact lead to higher mortality rates among women [see sources cited at the beginning of this conversation]) you resort to demonization as the last, unfalsifiable argument you have left. No matter what I say, I can’t prove my motivations. I can tell you that my support for contraceptives and comprehensive sex education are incompatible with the motives you ascribe to me, but I can’t prove it, so you can assure yourself that you’re not wrong; I’m a demon. If that helps you sleep better at night, go for it. But it doesn’t make you right.

  • I grew up genderqueer in Alabama. I know a thing or two about demonization. Most abortions are NOT out of convenience. (Source: everyone who has ever had one.)
    Get your questionable motives off of other people’s bodies, period.

  • More than none. We get raped at disproportionately high rates, compared to straight people. And we don’t have time to prove to the likes of you that the sex act was not consensual.

  • The State cannot legally mandate in support of or against abortion. That is the individual’s decision, not the State’s, and certainly not yours.

  • Christianity and other religions work to ensure women have multiple pregnancies. That’s how they create home-grown Christians. Much easier than converting adults. But Christianity is dying and Trump and Pence, DeVos and Sessions can’t stop it. The GOP has worked with the Catholic Hierarchy and its minions of fruitcakes and the Fundagelicals and their over the top screeching and preaching turns off millions, esp. the young. They are NEVER going to be religious and they are NOT going to put up with the anti-abortion and anti-birth control garbage my generation has.

  • Every poll shows their numbers and their clout declining. They are desperate and the result has been overkill so extreme that we see them as the radical misogynists that they are. They don’t want women to have abortions but yet the Trump-care bill would make pregnancy a pre-existing condition such that maternity care, delivery costs, hospitalization for the delivery would NOT be covered. Stingy, brutal, brutish, selfish, craven.

  • do you exist? or are you the brain fart from a rogue computer? I’m beginning the think it’s the latter.

  • The nazis are all on your side. The NAZIs in Germany before and during WWII made abortion illegal.

  • The difference isn’t in one end of the birth canal over the other. It is in the function of the lungs.

  • Really?

    Somehow between entrance to the birth canal and exit the lungs change?

    Or are you just restating your original contention: “For me life starts at first breath.” in new packaging?

    It would appear that the science is:

    “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… it is plain experimental evidence.” – Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, the “Father of Modern Genetics,” University of Descartes, Paris.

    or other words to that effect.

    Let’s try, then, logically deconstructing your statement.

    It appears to say “Without regard to the science or the lack of difference between the same thing at the entrance to the birth canal and the exit from the birth canal, I value that same thing on its exit from the birth canal and place zero value on it at the entrance to the birth canal.”

    If there’s something you’re trying to communicate beyond that simple value statement, please communicate it.

  • “I know a thing or two about demonization.” I have also been on the short end of discrimination; that doesn’t give me a license to do the same to others.

    In fact, most abortions are out of convenience (Source: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html). Being too young, not having enough money, not wanting to be a parent ultimately boils down to inconvenience (albeit very serious inconveniences), the core concerns of which are solved by adoption.

    Quit demonizing those that disagree. If you don’t like it when you’re the subject of it, learn from that and don’t do it.

  • You are demonizing and discriminating against those who refuse to go through the life-threatening ordeal of childbirth, because you get off on shaming other people for being selfish and slutty. Get a new hobby.

  • Don’t listen to reason, don’t listen to history.
    One concludes that you are a zealot and delusional.

  • “We get raped at disproportionately high rates, compared to straight people.” I looked into this claim, and as per usual, it looks like you’re making up facts to suit your argument. The Human Rights Campaign notes that bisexual women (46%) experience (much) higher rates of rape than heterosexual women (17%), but lesbians actually experience lower rates (13%) [1]. The bisexual statistic is obviously very concerning, but it’s also important to note that bisexual women, for whatever reason, also have higher rates of substance addiction and abuse, and drug abuse is also an indicator of high risk of rape [2]. Studies making these findings also look at correlation, not causation. Since there are many complex contributing factors to sexual identity, and much of the sexual abuse reported by bisexuals occurred while that person was still developing, it may be that some portion of the higher rates of abuse among bisexuals can be attributed to pre-sexual identity abuse [3].

    None of which, of course, is to excuse rape in any way shape or form. And all of this is irrelevant for two reasons. First, when we talk about abortions due to rape, we’re talking about 1% of abortions. Second, and more importantly, many pro-life advocates, myself included, would include an exception for rape in legislation on the matter. The issue of what standard of proof should be used in those circumstances is a genuine concern, but difficulty in the standard of evidence does not justify scrapping an entire policy (rape, after all, is very difficult to prove in order to punish perpetrators, but that doesn’t mean we should prosecute rape cases).

    [1] https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community
    [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bisexual-lgbt-pride-sexual-assault-violence-invisible-minority-survivors-a8435226.hmtl
    [3] https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/

  • See, even when I identify the issue, you continue to do it. You’re mind-reading and demonizing even in your response.

  • Stop trying to read the minds of people who seek abortions. Childbirth is more than just an inconvenience, not that you would know, as a man.

  • I’m actually three people (husband, wife, and an additional occasional contributor). Husband contributes about 80% of material, wife contributes the rest minus occasional comments from a relative too lazy to get his own account).

    As someone who operates multiple accounts, you might understand multiple people sharing one account.

  • You obviously do. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here, making up lies to suit your opinions, including lies about your own gender.

  • So, you’re arguing that some people experience God and closeness to God with abortions?

  • You are the one who is insane that leads you the murder of babies. The abortion holecaust makes the nazi holecaust look like a picnic. Over 40 million babies murdered compared to the 6 million Jews murdered.

  • The battles won’t cease until we agree on a way to disagree – until we find a compromise. For many women, the issue is very important, as it means their ability to manage their lives, to direct their lives in ways they choose. That doesn’t mean women should not behave responsibly – but it does mean that women must be able to make their own decisions about the uses to which their bodies are put.

    If you really want to make a difference in abortions, support access to contraceptives so there are fewer unplanned pregnancies. If you just want to play control games, then keep pretending that sexual abstinence is gonna work. Of course, it hasn’t worked since the first eukaryotes bumped into each other several billions years ago and figured out that sharing genes was a whole lot more fun than cloning oneself.

    You might also support research into artificial wombs. I have heard progress has been made.

  • Did you perhaps mean to do something with your life besides demonize everyone who seeks an abortion?

  • How do you square “No one cares what homophobic virgin-birthers think.” with this comment? Either being here indicates caring or it doesn’t? Which is it?

  • Yeah, you didn’t understand the demonization concept. It’s cool. Thinking can be hard. You’ll get there some day.

  • I’m just here to dominate and humiliate you in public. That’s all you people are good for.

  • OK, honey, keep telling yourself that you’ve “dominated and humuliated” in this conversation.

  • You are absolutely correct – the battles won’t cease.

    Your “… it does mean that women must be able to make their own decisions about the uses to which their bodies are put.” begs the question. Many people point out that unless women have two DNAs, two heads, four arms, and four legs, they’re making decisions that extend beyond their own bodies.

    If I really want to make a difference in abortions, heroin use, murders, or speeding the solution is to make it illegal and enforce the law.

    And now you know why the battles won’t cease.

    Blackmun spiked the ball and wrecked the mechanism for resolution.

  • So, women don’t have the right to control the uses of their own bodies without a constitutional amendment. Wow! Why not require them to donate kidneys, corneas, bone marrow when it would save/help the life of another? Abortion is not going away. Why not work to keep it legal but rare?

  • Homophobes like him get people like me killed with their hateful rhetoric. This is a problem to me.

  • Only stupid Christians hate abortion, because they are pedophiles who require a constant supply of fresh babies to f*ck.

  • Stop imposing your religious beliefs on others. The founders specifically warned against tyranny by the majority. I guess somebody forgot to tell the Christians.

  • Women can control their own bodies as long as doing so doesn’t kill another human whose situation was caused by the mother and the father.

    “Why not work to keep it legal but rare?” Would you say the same thing about child abuse? Surely, what goes on in the privacy of one’s home is an important right. I wouldn’t be expected to feed and clothe anybody off the street. Child abuse will happen whether it’s legal or not. We can better attack the problem by teaching parents coping skills, helping economically disadvantaged families, etc. Is that enough to say hitting your child shouldn’t be illegal?

  • No, Bob. I am saying people experience God with different prayers, with meditation, with community dinners, family dinners, with and through all kinds of struggles of life. I wasn’t thinking of abortion at all, but more of your insistence on religious cult like behavior.

    But, do you think there isn’t a great deal of praying going on when a woman faces such a decision? Or when a couple decide to use contraceptives? Or when a soldier shoots at a human he has branded as enemy? Or when a family faces financial devastation because of a lost job? Or when …

  • As it works out, people who think your views are immoral are not about to bend to suit you.

    I can’t imagine why with an article entitled “How Roe v. Wade changed the lives of American women” in the midst of a heated debate on abortion I would assume your comments involved abortion.

    The phrase “your insistence on religious cult like behavior” does point the way towards understanding why you gain no adherents.

    Believing “Thou shalt not” is, to you, “cult like behavior”.

    If Bud hates his next door neighbor because that neighbor piles trash near the property line, and prays on it before going over and breaking his ribs, does that take the curse off it?

    Too many years opposing Humanae Vitae, rationalizing this that and the other, and reading National Catholic Reporter appear to have left you unable to accept that sometimes things are just plain morally repugnant, things you think are acceptable.

  • Yes Bob as long as the baby is attached to the umbilical cord, oxygen is received through the blood supply of the mother. At birth, out of the amniotic fluid in the womb, the lungs expand with air, the umbilical cord is severed and the baby takes his/her first breath.

    You really don’t know much about the basic science of reproduction do you?

  • Your objections to it certainly are. Get your opinions out of other people’s uteruses.

  • No. A child born is an independent life. A child in the womb, incapable of surviving outside of the womb, is utterly dependent on one other human being. If the so-called conservatives really were “pro-life” they would care about the health care of all born, of their having adequate housing, of their parents having time after the birth to be with the child, with good child care when a mother has to work, with good support for families with children with disabilities. If you want women to choose to give birth, then be willing to make it something that more women see as something good, possible, enhancing to their own lives, rather than something not just burdensome to their own plans but a real danger to their own welfare and the welfare of the children they already have or their ability to make a life for the future children they hope to have.

  • Tell me when I have cited God, scripture, spirituality, or any other religious concept in this argument.

  • “A child in the womb, incapable of surviving outside of the womb, is utterly dependent on one other human being.” An an infant isn’t?

    All those other policies sound great. I’m on board (and have said so several times on this thread).

  • What we’re talking about is your statement that “For me life starts at first breath.”

    Yes, that is very clear: without regard to when life actually begins, which scientifically appears to be at conception, to you personally no human life has value until its first breath.

    Yes, it cannot take its first breath – even though it could if it were outside the womb – until it exits the birth canal and its lungs expand with air.

    Thank for you explaining “first breath”. I don’t believe that actually deals with “the basic science of reproduction”, but no matter.

    Where you seem to be having a bit of trouble is explaining WHY this particular human life has zero value on one end of the birth canal, and human rights on the other.

    My impression is you really don’t know why, you just believe it.

    That’ll be my working hypothesis until you can come with something that doesn’t restate “For me life starts at first breath” in new words, or what “first breath” means, or otherwise beats around the bush and avoids explaining why the exact thing has no value and then value based on something other than what you wish.

  • The phrase “independent life” is meaningless.

    Elderly people in nursing homes don’t have “independent life”, nor do children born with some disabilities.

    This is simply another way of packaging “until born a unique human life has no value”.

    And the rest is simply another repackaging of situation ethics.

  • Unless you’re talking about women with two complete sets of DNA, two heads, four arms, and four legs, you’re not talking about the right to control uses of their own bodies.

  • You don’t understand that accusing people who have abortions of doing so “out of convenience” is demonization. Get a new hobby.

  • I’ve already pointed out that it’s not, with sources. You have done nothing to prove otherwise.

  • Your sources are biased. No one will ever care about your opinions. You openly brag about Trump rigging the Supreme Court against abortion rights, because you are nothing but a religious psycho who seeks to impose your beliefs onto the entire country.

  • You have literally only posted scream pieces by abortion advocates barely attempting to allude to facts. If you really think my sources are biased, why have you not attempted to rebut with supposedly unbiased information? Also, the source I have cited most is Guttmacher, an avowed pro-choice organization.

  • You only post scream pieces by abortion-hating homophobes that skew rape statistics. You are aware that no one is obligated to prove to you that their pregnancy was the result of rape before seeking an abortion, are you not?

  • No, I posted information from people and groups whose views diverge from mine (Guttmacher, Human Rights Campaign, The Independent, etc.). Unless you think the Human Rights Campaign is homophobic…

  • I think you misinterpreted rape statistics to promote your agenda of shaming women for having abortions “out of convenience” AKA demonization.

  • Funny, you haven’t actually challenged those statistics or said how they might be misleading.

  • Your conclusion that “most abortions are for convenience” is both misleading and dehumanizing. Your hatred of women knows no bounds.

  • Failing to recognize your own tactics in the mirror. Hypocrisy.

    Stop demonizing abortion. Find something else to do with your time.

  • You have no place to sit in judgement over other people’s decisions about their own bodies. Butt out.

  • Actually, Bob, my attitude is far more open than yours. You are tied down by “must believe” attitude that keeps the Church and faith and God confined in a box that you think the Catholic Church built. God cannot be so confined.

  • Bob, the people in the nursing home have all kinds of people who can give them help and support. A child in the womb has one – the mother in who’s body that child exists. It isn’t “repackaging situation ethics.” It is recognizing a real difference.

  • Zampona, an infant, a child which has been born, can exist with the help of others. The child in the womb cannot. That child in the womb is utterly dependent on the life of the woman, the environment of her womb. There is a difference.

  • I guess what I don’t understand is why that’s a significant difference. If a child in the womb is in fact more vulnerable than an infant, why do we offer less protection? What’s more, an infant is entirely dependent on whomever is taking care of him or her, and the law requires that the infant’s caretaker protect the child until the child can be safely handed off to another responsible party. So if a mother gives birth in a cabin in the woods, she can’t simply walk away from the infant; she has to safely deliver the infant to another responsible party. I don’t see why it should be significantly different for prenatal children. The mother and father should both be responsible to care for the prenatal child until the child can be safely delivered (pun intended) to another responsible party.

  • If the child in the womb has one, then it is incumbent upon that one to provide all the help and support it needs.

    What you’re doing is backing into a logically untenable position with argle-bargle.

    If the child is valuable on its exit from the birth canal, it was valuable on its entrance to the birth canal.

  • Your attitude is a lot mushier than mine.

    I’m somewhat tied to the notion that 1=1=2.

    You seem to think it might equal 1.5 or 3 or some other number depending on experience and how you feel about it.

    To say that “God cannot be so confined.” is to say that you are not so confined, which is to say you don’t believe there is a moral law, or if there is one we know what it is.

    As to the Catholic Church, to this point you have not presented any evidence at all that you know a great deal about it other than it ought to be listening to you and you know what teachings it presents you have disagreements with.

  • The child at the entrance to the birth canal can.

    All we need to do is either let it out or remove it.

    There is no difference in the child itself at either end – it is the same child.

  • Dude – RNS said my post about kavanaugh is spam. Has someone reported me or something?