-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/waiting_period_for_abortions_legalized_in_georgia -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Like it or not Roe v Wade found that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. That being said, why should the state have a right to dictate she has to wait 24 hours? You wouldn't be in favor of a 24 hour waiting period before you could exercise your right to free speak would you?
It's like Hillary (and others) who spout they want abortions to be "legal, safe, and rare." That always strikes me as disingenuous. If it's a constitutional right then why should it be rare? Why would you want it to be?
My point being, you can't have it both ways.
Regards...
Even the picture thing every time I think about messing around on my wife I look at a picture of the fat cow and it stops me dead in my tracks.
Just kidding honey.
And yet, purchasing a firearm (which is a right enumerated in the constitution, not interpreted as existing by judges) is a right that can be delayed by a waiting period installed by the states.
And municipalities can require permits for the exercise of free speech in the form of protests or marches.
Frankly, I'm a little underwhelmed by your argument, though to me its a moot point. I don't see abortion as a right at all.
What right does a woman have to kill her unborn child?
This is just another attempt by the pro-life folks to place a limitation of the exercising of a constitutional right.
When you don't believe that abortion is a constitutional right this argument doesn't apply.
You have a perfect right to not see abortion as a right. What you don't have is the right to hold anyone else to that standard nor to unreasonably restrict their exercising the right.
Baloney. If we can agree that a waiting period for a background check is a reasonable request to make before a citizen exercises their 2nd amendment right how is asking a mother to wait 24 hours before killing her unborn child an unreasonable request?
I didn't say it isn't being done. I asked what right the state has to require a 24-hour waiting period?
With a firearm at least it makes some marginal sense if you accept the need for a criminal background check, etc.
And there's a difference between a municipality requiring a permit for a rally and their requiring a waiting period before you can open your mouth.
I loathe abortion (except in the case of incest a/o rape), but that isn't the point. This is just another attempt by the pro-life folks to place a limitation of the exercising of a constitutional right. A limitation which, by the way, serves no useful purpose relative to the abortion itself.
You have a perfect right to not see abortion as a right. What you don't have is the right to hold anyone else to that standard nor to unreasonably restrict their exercising the right.
Regards...
Mothers, reflecting upon the the decision they are making, may choose to not have an abortion. This law may very well reduce the number of abortions in this country.
That's a pretty good recognizable purpose.
The right granted under Roe v Wade, of course.
When you don't believe that abortion is a constitutional right this argument doesn't apply.
Of course it applies, Rob, to everyone else but you. Since you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't a 'right' your opinion is simply that...an opinion...and carries no legal weight.
If we can agree that a waiting period for a background check is a reasonable request to make before a citizen exercises their 2nd amendment right how is asking a mother to wait 24 hours before killing her unborn child an unreasonable request?
The waiting period for the background check serves a recognizable purpose; we don't want felons, etc. buying weapons. What is the recognizable purpose for the waiting period before a mother can kill her unborn child?
Regards...
I don't mean to trivialize this, Rob, and I agree with your end desire; that the number of abortions be reduced.
My concern is that we oughtn't get to pick and choose which 'rights' we accept/reject, especially for others. And we need to be damned careful how/when we go about placing restrictions on them. What goes around, comes around.
If you have heartburn with Roe v Wade (and I certainly do), work to overturn it. Don't limit (no matter how morally 'correct' you think you are) others' right to exercise it.
Regards...
Ah, pardon my confusion. I thought it was just a 24-hour waiting period. I didn't realize it also included a requirement that the mother reflect upon her postponed decision.
Now it makes sense. Thanks.
Regards...
The mother needs to wait 24 hours for her labs to be processed in order to make sure she is healthy enough to go through the medical procedure or for the father to come forward if he so desires.
Sigh...maybe nothing, now that you put it that way.
Actually nothing it was just another way to look at it
This is one point that has long bothered me. The child to be aborted, while it resides in the mother's body, is at least half the father's. Right? It takes sperm and an egg to make a baby, where are the father's rights?
And, granted, far too many father's shirk those rights...but I don't think that's a good enough reason to eschew them either.
Yes, it's a thorny subject. Does/Should the biological father have any rights? What reasonable limits (if any) can/should be placed on a constitutional right? How do we discourage abortion without violating said rights?
What the supreme court should have done is leave it up to the states. If they'd done that, we wouldn't be wrestling with all this crap that comes as baggage with Roe v Wade. But they didn't, so we are.
Regards...
If the above is true, what's the need for legislating a waiting period?
Well...no. But that's not why I was making the comparison. I was pointing out that we can, for the most part, agree that certain rights can be (and should be, in some instances) regulated. Delaying a gun purchase for the sake of a background check is one instance where I feel its justified. Requiring permits for protests/marches (so that they don't create traffic problems or conflict with other events) is another. And staying with that trend, I also think that requiring a mother to wait twenty four hours before having an abortion has a meaningful purpose in allowing for a period of reflection upon the decision, even if the mother doesn't neccessarily use it for that.
I see what you're driving at and your points are well taken, but I have to disagree. This has a purpose: Reducing the number of abortions we have. If one mother makes the decision to put her chid up for adoption instead of killing it...that justifies the existence of the law.
Do not get me wrong I would like to think in a perfect world the father would have to consent or that at least in the event that the father was not available for that consent that at that point the waiting period comes in handily. But our society has decided that it is the woman's choice.
Even today in some states the mother can put any name she desires on a birth certificate and voila your a daddy with child support payments to boot, I have even read of some cases where even after the guy proves that the child is not his the judge still makes him pay.
So in a very long winded way NO.
Wat the Supreme Court should have done is recognize that, after conception, an unborn child is a life deserving of the typical rights we bestow upon people living in this country. Like the right not to be killed because your existence is inconvenient.
Presume that gets ironed out. With respect, I think the charge "try to overturn it, not limit the right" is bogus. The point LTM made earlier is that it's a right; you can't overturn rights if it's truly a right. If it's a phony right sustained only by a illegitimate judicial power grab, then you can overturn it--but then you shouldn't be talking about "respecting" that right. If it is a true right, then it's perfectly legitimate to try to limit it; rights as such are generally defined in our founding documents, but we have to figure out how to define their scope somehow.
None of this has to do with whether the reasons for having a waiting period are good...but I'm stepping away from this computer soon and don't know when I'll be back. Have fun.
You've said this a couple of times richard and since then we've had a couple of good conversations. I had only had problems with trolls and partisan nuisances. I would appreciate it if you kept that in mind.
I will give you this it has gotten much better lately. But you have done it.
Yes richard. Can you do me a favor and look at the preceding comments though? And I still take issue with your statement. I've only personally insulted a couple of people on this site. I have no problem telling someone that their comment may be dumb or whatever (and one will always get an explanation), but I stop short of calling them a name unless they've crossed that line first. Admittedly that is a weakness on my part, but it is not as you make it out to be.
By the way - have you noticed how much nicer the comments section on this site is since the trolls have been shown the door? Granted, you haven't been here long (or if you have been, you were a lurker before), but do you notice the difference in tone and attitude by everybody here? It is a much nicer place now.
If it's a phony right sustained only by a illegitimate judicial power grab, then you can overturn itâ€"but then you shouldn't be talking about ""respecting" that right.
First, there was nothing illegitimate in what the Supremes did vis a vis Roe v Wade. They did exactly what we pay them to do, determine the constitutionality of legislation. I think they were unconscionably wrongheaded in the decision, but that's beside the point. Just because you (whoever 'you' are) don't agree with the decision doesn't give you the right to deligitimize the right it granted to women. What you do have the right to do is work to have a subsequent court reverse the decision. What you don't have a right to do is place undue restrictions on the right just because you don't hapopen to think it ought to be a right at all.
Second, my whole point in comparing the 24-hour background check for weapons purchases to this legislation is that any restriction on a right must serve an identifiable and useful purpose. In the case of weapons purchases the waiting period isn't designed to hamper law-abiding citizens from exercising their right. It to stop the purchase of weapons by certain individuals (felons, etc) who have (by law) forfeited their right.
In the case of this legislation, there is no corollary to the above. What is the purpose of the waiting period relative to the exercising of the abortion right? It isn't designed to ensure that only people to whom the right applies get to exercise it. It is designed in hopes that "something" in the intervening 24-hours will convince a woman not to exercise the right at all. That makes about as much sense as saying, "We're afraid you're going to say something really hateful and disgusting so we're gonna pass a law that makes you wait 24-hours in hopes that "something" will convince you not to say it."
Regards...
First, you're a bit off in the waiting period to buy a weapon. Background checks are instant (or close to it). The waiting period has nothing to do with background checks. The waiting period is in place so that I don't get mad at my wife, go to a gun shop to buy a gun, then go home and shoot my wife. A better term for it is a "cooling off" period. They figure, given a couple of days to think about it you'll chose to do the right thing.
Same thing with this waiting period. You realize you're pregnant, you go to the doctor to perform an abotion out of fear (or pressure from others), the doctor sets up an appointment for the next day. This gives you at least 24 hours to make sure you're really want to go through with a procedure that may well effect you for the rest of your life...
Both "waiting periods" are appropriate in my view.
I accept your point of view, I just don't agree with it.
Regards...
Fetus...child...its all the same life.
I can't tell you. The fact that women carry the children and not men (or both) is just one of the mysteries of our species.
I just don't see why the baby should have to die because the mother is inconvenienced by it.
Say that to the father of a baby killed by a mother who didn't want it.
Well that's a handy bit of hyperbole.
Its not that I think a woman should have no rights over her body, its that I don't consider a baby part of a woman's body nor do I feel that a woman's rights extend to the right to kill children that are inconvenient for them.
I wouldn't.
Murder isn't a choice.
You also completley disregard the CHILD in this situation. Call it a "fetus" if you must, but it still a life. There is no denying that a child that has been in gestatino for 8 months and is completely viable apart fom his mother is A LIFE. And anyone that takes that life is a murderer...
Have you ever been pregnant? I hope not, cause if you have I'd be tempted to say there's no hope with you...
Now that is interesting...
COUPLE should have the right? I thought the man had no choice in the matter? What if a father doesn't want to bring the child "into the world" but the mother does? He has no say in the matter...but reverse the roles, and the mother can kill the kid and again the father has no choice...
And to your latter point, this is absolutely correct:
The problem with your reasoning is that you fail to see that when you get pregnant, you have ALREADY brought a child into the world... The choice has ALREADY BEEN MADE! If you don't want to bring a child into this world, DON'T HAVE SEX! And if that is too much to ask, then be responsible when you have sex to ensure you don't get pregnant. Just because you can't be responsible up front and make sure it doens't happen does not give you licence to kill your child to cover up your mistakes....
That's a cop out. You can't defend your position so you're using the "you can't possibly understand" defense.
We do understand, we just don't see killing the baby as a viable solutoin to an unwanted pregnancy.
What about the child's right to live?
No, we're trying to progress to the age where unborn children have a right to live.
They do. They have all the time in the world to make that decision before they have sex.
I don't see where the possibility that a child might have a crappy life is a good defense for ending that child's life before it even has a chance to live it.
And don't forget that there are all sorts of people in this country and around the world who are dying to adopt children but can't because there are none available.