Summer CE Week #6: “Roe v. Wade in the balance”
I had a conversation with a seemingly smart woman recently who thought that Roe v. Wade would never be overturned regardless of who wins the presidency. Though deeply pro-choice, she said she has voted for a Republican as president in the past because she likes the concept of local control and thinks Republicans represent that ideal better.
Now had she said that she’s willing to forgo abortion rights for other Republican political values, that would be one thing. (Although President Bush’s imperial presidency stands starkly inapposite to her stated interest in decentralized power.) But she couldn’t even contemplate a world without Roe’s protections. She was horrified by the prospect and yet, through determined denial, she was willing to be an instrument of the ruling’s demise.
We are almost certainly one U.S. Supreme Court justice away from Roe’s being consigned to the dustbin of history. With two of the court’s liberals being the two oldest members on the court – Justice John Paul Stevens is 88 years old and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 – the next president is going to be the decider.
And if he wins, Sen. John McCain promises to be the one to overturn Roe by picking justices who will do the deed. On this, McCain couldn’t be clearer.
In case you missed his recent appearance before the evangelical audience of pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, McCain was asked: When is a baby entitled to human rights? His emphatic response: “At the moment of conception.” (Add wild applause here.)
Think about this.
Were this view to come to pass and a single-cell zygote were imbued with 14th Amendment rights to life, liberty and property, not only would abortion rights go away, but infertile couples would lose the option of in vitro fertilization. It would also mean the end of all embryonic stem cell research.
This last bit is at odds with McCain’s expressed stance. He has said he would allow federal funds for embryonic cell research in narrow circumstances, on embryos slated for destruction in fertility clinics.
But to state the obvious, embryos with rights equivalent to a bar mitzvah boy may not be destroyed for scientific experimentation, even if that science holds immense medical promise for, you know, the born.
And those fertility clinics McCain speaks of would have to close because it would not be OK – not in the least – to freeze all those petri-dish-souls who are not lucky enough to be implanted in a womb.
A 5-day-old embryo of about 150 cells used in stem cell research is smaller than a grain of sand. (Note that the brain of a fruit fly has 250,000 cells.) The idea of human rights flowing to such an entity is just plain silliness. But the consequences of this view are not silly at all.
Right now a controversy is swirling around Mike Leavitt, secretary of Health and Human Services, who proposed new regulations on Thursday that potentially embrace the human-rights-at-conception paradigm.
The regulations would deny federal funds to hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and health plans that don’t allow their employees to opt out of providing care that offends their personal convictions.
In other words, if a doctor holds the belief that human rights attach at conception, he must be allowed to refuse to provide emergency contraception to patients who need it – even a rape victim.
Catholic hospitals and pharmacies too would be able to deny women access to so-called morning-after pills.
Extremists claim it’s a chemical abortion by occasionally preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Pro-choice Republican voters are deluding themselves if they think Roe is eternal no matter who wins the White House. If McCain is president he promises to grant human rights to microscopic cells, and he very well may succeed.
Whoever wrote this article is a complete moron. “If John McCain is elected he will destroy all chances for stem cell research…blah blah blah.” All McCain is trying to do is eliminate abortion, and maybe tweak a few things; honestly I don’t understand his complete plan for all the saved lives there will be if he is elected and Roe vs. Wade is turned around, but I do know that he has good intentions, unlike the murderers who enacted such a heinous law in the first place. I know r ape is bad, but please, put the poor child up for adoption, yes its hard and the poor baby will probably have a sucky life, but is that worse than no life at all? Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? We are mere mortals, not gods.
Robyn Blumner has the audacity to call unborn babies “microscopic cells”. These cells are what we all started out as when we were first conceived. As far as I can tell, Robbie has the wickedness to force doctors into performing a procedure that is conflicting with the doctor’s personal, moral and ethical and even religious ideals. That’s why we have a 1st Amendment, to make sure nobody is forced into something against their religion. And don’t any of you classmates of mine use the 1st Amendment as a weapon, saying “it’s the mother’s choice to execute her child or not”. She may be mom, but she sure ain’t God. I see Robyn saying this “well, it will be a child in 9 months, but it isn’t a human yet so what the heck, lets just get rid of the thing.” Some abortions take place after the BABY is born. The doctor calmly pulls out a vacuum cleaner and rams it into the BABY’S skull, and sucks out HIS/HER brains. Good thing that “entity” wasn’t a human, or it would be murder.
I am slightly confused about this article. Is McCain Prolife or Prochoice? I will just make my response assuming he is Prolife. Its really stupid that stem cell research is being hampered by so many regulations, it can save many many lives, cure cancer, give people new eyes, the possibilities are endless! I am very Prochoice. I know its a controversial issue and people will have a tendency to agree with me, but women should have the right to choose. If a couple is involved in a serious relationship in their early twenties, they are typically not ready for kids; they need to focus on college and such. If a couple is in a serious relationship at this age, they are going to be having sex. Fact: few people restrain from premarital sex these days in serious relationships. People don’t need to be married to love each other with everything they have. All marriage is is a legal document that states that the pair of you are a permanent couple (hopefully). You can go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license.
I think it would be total crap to deny women and teens morning after pills, I think you even have to be 18 to obtain them at drugstores, I think anyone can get them at planned parenthood. It isn’t fair to women if they don’t want to have a child, there are so many responsibilities involved with taking care of one. Obama is Pro Choice. My vote goes to him.
I am pro-choice, in situations, so McCain’s proposal to attach ALL human rights to an embryonic cell doesn’t go along with what I believe, nor do many of McCain’s proposals for our nation, Canada here I come!!!! I don’t think that just anyone should be allowed to have an abortion though, victims of tragedies such as sexual assault should be given the option to have an abortion because the child would be a constant reminder of the horror they went through. I do not believe that just any one should be given the option because there are so many who can’t conceive. I think that those who are not able to conceive should have the ability to access the services of in vitro clinics and fertility drugs, which McCain also opposes. I think that stem cell research is vital to the advancement of medical sciences in America and if it is stopped by McCain or anyone else we will be losing a large step that we can’t afford to take. The embryos used in stem cell research have an equal shot of making it or not, being implanted or discarded. All in all, it should be a case by case decision and doctors should not be allowed to refuse the service to anyone, especially someone who has been through a tragedy.
In my opinion, I think that any obortion issue should be determined on a case by case basis. But, I do not think that the law will be that way, at least anytime soon. Right now, abortion is legal to anyone who seeks it, and I am fine with that, for the most part.
I think if you are capable of having a child and could support the child and even give it a mildly comfotable life, then I think you should have the child. But, it is not up to me to choose. I think it is important for any woman to have a say with what is going to happen to the child, but I think that they do need to make the best choice for the child as well as themselves.
Adoption is a viable option, although not a perfered option, but sometimes a chance is all a child needs to make something of themselves, and also get the child out of some… unfavorable situations.
But as I stand today, I think that abortion is a last-resort measure that should not be taken lightly, and for circumstances that could put the child in an impossable situation (i.e. excessively unhealthy birth, incest, r ape, and the like) I think that abortion could be entirely appropriate on the pending circumstances.
But, as I have stated before, I am not pro-abortion, and I would like to take a quote from the song “Young Thugs” in saying “The best thing in life is life” (Ice Cube), and maybe a chance is all that we need.
Through this article, many complex issues arise. I do not by any means agree with McCain’s suggestion to give human rights to an embryonic cell at the moment of conception. Although McCain may….and I repeat MAY have good intentions it doesn’t necessarily mean that his decisions would be beneficial to the American people. Stem cell research is fundamental for the advancement of medical purposes. Mr. McCain is trying to bring an end to this advancement. Some pressing arguments come into play about whether or not abortion should be legalized or not. This in turn along with ending embryonic research effects those “Petri-dish-souls” who would have might been lucky enough to be planted into a womb of a woman who was not fortunate enough to be able to produce children on her own. Abortion, an operation or other intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb, is a HUGE decision that should not be taken lightly by any means. I don’t think that abortion should not be an option at all. I think it should become a tool to help women get out of tragic situations such as intercourse against their will with a sick perverted man that they will never want their child to claim as their father. All in all, much controversy can only bring a better understanding in the end and eventually a solution to the issue.
I am pro-choice and I think that if John McCain is elected president, he will overturn Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is crucial for women who want to have an abortion, and McCain wants to make it so abortion is illegal. If he makes abortion illegal, women will go to back alley abortion clinics or take matters into their own hands. This puts the woman’s life at risk. I believe that women should have the choice on whether they want an abortion or not. It is hard enough for a woman to make this decision, and the government shouldn’t have the right to make this decision for her. I think that if the woman is sexually assaulted then she has every right to have an abortion. If the pregnancy was the result of an attack or it puts the mother’s life in danger, then an abortion is the best choice.
I also think if McCain is president he will want to make stem cell research illegal. Stem cell research can help save the lives for thousands of people! This is something the government should be invested in.
Another concern is that McCain might want to make invetro-fertilization illegal. This procedure doesn’t kill the baby, and there is a 50-50 chance the procedure will work.
McCain will make it harder for woman to make this decision. A woman should have the right to choose! Sometimes abortion is for the best! There is always the option of adoption, but most children never get a loving home. McCain needs to keep his ideas out of woman’s rights! We should be able to make this decision for ourselves!
In response to Roy Wilkes, I think that abortion is still a woman’s choice, and McCain shouldn’t be able to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion. Firstly, since you and McCain are both men you don’t know how hard it is for a woman to make this decision. Choosing an abortion should be the woman’s choice, not a man’s! If abortion is illegal, women will risk their lives to have back alley abortions performed! Also, religion should never play into this decision, because most religious people don’t think abortion is okay.
I think that your comments are close minded and they make it harder for women who are facing this tough decision. If a woman wants to have an abortion, then let her have one. Other people can’t make this decision for her! Leave this decision up to woman!
I personally believe that life begins at conception. Clumps of cells, even only 150 cells, are a living entity. But that IS what the clump is – an entity. This dividing group of cells doesn’t think, doesn’t breath, and doesn’t feel – yet. I know that an embryo will someday become a living, breathing human, and that is why I am pro-life when abortion is used as a means of birth control. I REALLY disagree with that. Conversely, I think that there are plenty of reasons for a woman to choose abortion when she risks death, or the fetus has no chance at life. But that is not what I want to debate. Should an embryo be granted rights if it is not yet aware, if it is still an “entity”? This is such a difficult subject to form an opinion about. Like I stated before, I think life begins at conception, and I know that this entity has the potential to become a thinking person – in this case I say yes, grant them rights. But then I am torn, because why should we grant rights to a clump of cells that isn’t even aware of its presence? My heart tells me that it is only correct to grant rights. But my mind is torn on the subject.
Abortion is a touchy subject no matter who you talk to. I’m personally pro-choice. But there are certain restrictions on that. Woman using it as birth-control is stupid and therefore shouldn’t be used but if it’ll harm the mother or the child is doomed to die at a very young age and be in constant pain for those few years or if it was a sexual assault then an abortion should be an option. The woman in the end should have a choice. And if that choice is taken away then more women will start dying because they’ll go to alley abortion clinics, and uncertified people or take it into their own hands. And stem-cell research is key in medical advancement and will be able to save thousands. So if granting little concepted embryos the rights that everyone else has gets rid of a woman’s choice and other options like in vitro and stem cell research then we shouldn’t. I mean it seems like it would be the right thing to do and who knows an abortion might kill the next Einstein but women should have a say in the matter under certain circumstances and stem-cell research is too important for everyone that I don’t believe we should.
I am personally completely pro-choice and McCain trying to eliminate abortion all together with minor tweaks is ridiculous.
Ok, the fetus is a living, breathing organism, but come on now, that fetus, not even larger than a grain of sand, has no idea what’s going on. Denying a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy is completely that woman’s choice and should be no one elses.
McCain should not try to eliminate abortion all together, if he does, that means that woman will still do it but in an unsafe manner. I don’t think that “murdering” babies is right, but that is not my pregnancy to make the decision whether or not i want to keep it or get an abortion. If abortion rights were to be taken away, that would mean more and more women would get abortions unsafely. Just like the Prohibition, nobody stopped consuming, purchasing, or selling alcohol, they did it in secret and in dangerous ways, and that’s how i kind of see this issue. If prohibition of abortion were to come about, then just those actions would occur. Women would still find ways to get it done just so long as they get it done. I would much rather have a woman get it done safely and end up alive than doing it unsafely and possibly wind up dead.
I think that abortion should be left just for the sake of choice. I mean, not all women make the abortion choice, but those who do can do it the right way. I am not encouraging abortion either, but if that’s the choice you are willing to make, then so be it.
It’s not like women who choose abortion do it at a whim, they understand and accept that it comes with emotional trauma as well as other consequences, and that is their choice.
I know most might not agree with me in what i have posted, but just so you know, i am a Christian too, a Catholic to be more specific, but a Christian nonetheless, so though my religion tells me one thing, my heart does another. And as a follower of my heart, it is simply the woman’s right to choose, and to take that away would mean constant rebellion.
Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be a bad idea. Eliminating abortions eliminate unnecessary suffering for a woman. If a woman is raped, why shouldn’t she have the option of an abortion? Not only would it be extremely unfair to women, but it would also violate the 1st Amendment, twice. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of choice, and that right is what Roe vs. Wade backs up by giving women the right to choose. Also, under the 1st Amendment freedom of religion clause, it is unconstitutional to outlaw abortions today, because most of the opposition for abortions comes from religious backing. It is against the Constitution to use religious dogma as the main support for a law. Besides, a group of politicians, predominantly men, should not be able to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. It would be like a group of women telling men they can’t get vasectomies. However, I think limits should be placed on the terms of when abortions can be administered. I am pro-choice only if the fetus has no self-awareness. If it’s only an amorphous clump of cells, which does not have self-awareness, then I am for abortion. Besides, we kill more cells than that just rubbing our arms, or getting a cut, than we do when a 5 day embryo is destroyed.
In response to Ashley Rowe:
First, you said that religion should not play a role in what we think. Talk about close-minded, that goes both ways. What if I said don’t base your thoughts off Atheism or whatever; ones religion IS what one thinks so basically you are saying “your personal thoughts should never play into this decision.” Then you said “because most religious people don’t think abortion is okay.” So correct me if I am wrong but you are saying: What we think doesn’t matter BECAUSE we think abortion is wrong. So if we thought it was okay then what we think matters? Explain that to me.
You don’t have to agree with me to agree that that is faulty logic.
Please someone tell me if I am wrong
Here are my thoughts on abortion right out front:
1. Abortion is okay if the baby’s birth will kill the mother, in that case you have to decide the better course.
2. In räpe immediate help should be gotten and any precautions and help should be taken care of right away. There should be no reason for further development of a baby.
3. The decision to have sex is the decision to have the possibility of a baby. If you don’t want a baby then don’t have sex, it is that simple.
If you made the mistake of premarital and unprotected sex give the baby up for adoption, don’t kill it. There are plenty of people who cannot have a baby that need a child. “There is always the option of adoption, but most children never get a loving home.” how can you say that when you know it is not true, I know plenty of adopted kids and they have great families.
It takes two to conceive, you can’t tell me that men don’t care for their children or love them just as much as the woman just because he did not give birth.
p.s. “If they make a mistake I don’t want them punished with a baby” – Barack Obabma
Besides the fact that that’s weird to say and calling babies a punishment… it states his stance on abortion. When I heard a liberal talk show saying it wasn’t about abortion I couldn’t figure that. If someone else can, how?
In regards to Cyle Christianson’s comment I would like to say that handling all abortion issues on case by case basis would not help this situation. Sure, we would like to think that we could do this so that women who have been raped can get an abortion while those who made the choice consciously can’t. But really where would this get us? This would probably only cause more women to lie saying that they were raped and that they didn’t consent. Also, who is the government to say ‘this person is capable of taking care of the needs of a child, but this person is not.’ However, I do agree that abortion should be a last-resort measure and shouldn’t be taken lightly.
In response to Shelby Buckner:
I think that you made a very compelling argument. You stated, “Although McCain may… have good intentions it doesn’t necessarily mean that his decisions would be beneficial to the American people.” I agree that stem-cell research is very important for the advancement of medicine. But like I said before, this is a very difficult topic for me because I know that the cells do have a potential to become thinking, self-aware humans instead of entities. I know that a person may be saved from paralysis if they receive stem-cells, but I am also aware of the cost – another human life.
I response to Ryan Phillipy, what I was trying to say was that religion shouldn’t play into a political decison. I am not trying to say that people who are religious shouldn’t be able to express their opinions, but I believe that religion doesn’t belong in politics. People should base their decison on facts and the consequences, not on what you personally choose to believe in.
I am also not trying to say that your ideas don’t matter just because you are religious! Religious people are entitled to their own opinions, but we need to think about the important facts rather than what your religion tells you to think.
I don’t think you understood what I was saying.
In response to Clarin McDonald:
I was not proposing that the government decides if the person should have the child or not. What I was proposing was that the woman who is thinking about the abortion makes sure that she takes the best interest of her child into account. If a child is not going to be cared for though, meaning that the woman knows that she is incapable or unwilling of caring for a child, then I think that it is her right to consider having an abortion. Also, if a woman who was not raped and would lie about it just to get an abortion, I do not know if I would feel comfortable with that woman having a child, as she may neglect the child and not look out for the child’s best interests. I hope I have made myself clear this time.
“The best thing in life is life” (Ice Cube).
To Wilkes:
A straight quote from your post, “I know r ape is bad, but please, put the poor child up for adoption, yes its hard and the poor baby will probably have a sucky life, but is that worse than no life at all?” That statement alone shows how ignorant you are on the whole subject. Last time I checked, adopted children didn’t all have “sucky” lives, unless you would like to explain to me exactly how they suck. I would love to be enlightened on that. Also, if a woman is forcibly made to have sex, and is impregnated totally against her will, don’t you think it should be 100% her choice about what she decides to do with it? She didn’t have any other choice in what has happened to her. I support a woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body because her choice isn’t just “hard” it’s much more complex than “hard” can entail.
First of all, I do believe there should be limitations on abortions, and there are. Doctors are not forced to perform abortions if their religious views or personal morals go against the operation, at least in our state. I’m sure that we’re not the only state that has that law either. In the Washington State law, it states that. “No person or private medical facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the performance of an abortion if such person or private medical facility objects to so doing.” (Source: http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/120.htm). I do think that we should be stricter on what trimester we allow abortions on, because honestly, third trimester seems a little bit late to be changing your mind.
As for getting rid of all methods of termination of pregnancy, I think it’s ridiculous. I don’t believe for one minute that taking the “morning after pill” constitutes as murdering a life or denying implantation as chemical abortion. The pill is supposed to prevent ovulation, fertilization, or implantation meaning that taking the morning after pill when it is most effective, would mean that you should be preventing the egg from ever being fertilized or from even being able to embed itself within the lining of the uterus. I don’t see how cells, not even attached to the woman’s uterus, can be murder.
If McCain wins, I hope he has a great plan to improve our foster care system and our orphanages, because without at least emergency contraception, there’s going to be a lot more children in this world that won’t have the home they deserve from the start.
To Megan:
I agree with you completely on all your points. No one is forced to conduct an abortion and most especially no woman should be forced to receive one.
As for stricter times to get an abortion, the third trimester is a little too late to be getting an abortion and truthfully, i do see that as murder because the fetus has actually formed into a baby.
But, using the morning after pill would and should not be even close to being considered murder since in fact, it is used to disrupt that process of conception. Sure, if the pill had not been used the egg would have implanted itself causing conception to begin, but seeing as after taking the pill the egg never takes that course, murder should nowhere be in thought.
And in response to your statement of hoping McCain has a good plan to improve orphanages and foster care, that never even came to mind, but i strongly agree with that as well. If he is going to try and eliminate abortion, and more and more children are going to be born into this world without their actual parents, then foster care better be one of the best things that happens during his time in office, and that’s just my personal opinion. =)
It’s my belief that a McCain is wrong in saying that a fertilized zygote has human rights at conception. I thing the fertilized zygote does not have human rights until it comes out of the womb, otherwise its apart of the woman who is carrying the child. The fertilized zygote grows into a baby but that baby is attached to the woman who is carrying the child, the child is part of the woman. The woman is caring for the both of them, eating for two. It the woman’s right to decide if she would like to carry that child for the 9 months. The 9 months that the child is attached to her, the 9 months were her body, not the mans, is changed in shape and appearance. Its up to the woman to make the choice. If doctors and medical personal are allowed to pick and chose the patients that they going treat because of their beliefs is just wrong. A Jewish doctor who holds a grudge against all of Germany for the Holocaust can refuse to treat a dying German because of their grudge, even though it hadn’t affect them directly. People go into the medical field to help others no matter what their beliefs are.
In Response to Maddy Copus:
If McCain is elected would you like share a ride to Canada? I agree with you, everyone should be able to have a choice in their future, whether its about what they are going to eat or what kind of car they are going to buy.
Again I agree with you. Anyone who has been sexually assaulted should be able to choose whether or not to keep the child. If I was in those shoes it would be a constant horror. But not just everyone should be able to terminate a pregnancy because they don’t want the child. Give the child up to an adoption agency for someone who wants them. Or donate the egg to someone who can’t conceive.
In response to Ashley Rowe i agree with you. I think that if McCain becomes president he will make abortions illegal. I don’t think abortions are correct. I don’t agree with them. I think it is horrible what women go through if they make that decision. But, i think it is crucial that women have the choice to having the baby or not. It’s like alcohol. Although the legal drinking age is 21, minors drink all the time. If abortions are made illegal, they will find underground ways to do it. I think as a women that decision is up to them. In response to Ryan Philipy calm down. I agree with Ashley when she says that religion just needs to stay out of this. There is more than one religion in America and i don’t think it needs to be tied in everywhere. It is totally fine to base your opinion on your religion. Of course religious people have opinions too. But don’t expect people to agree with you because it is stated as wrong in your Bible. It may be interpreted totally different in my Bible.
I can’t believe this guy. McCain simply says that a baby has human rights at the moment of conception. LET ME MAKE A CLARIFICATION! Human rights does not mean that he/she is entitled to everything our Constitution says. As minors, are we allowed to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, etc? No! But wait wait wait!!!! Doesn’t the Constitution say that we are entitled to such things? Yes, but only under certain regulations (age is one). My point is that just because Republicans want to protect fetuses does not mean that we say they are full human beings. Do they deserve to live? Yes! Do they deserve “14th Amendment rights to life, liberty and property…”? No, at least not yet. This author has no clue what he’s talking about. No one would say that a fetus is entitled to the right of owning property. Get a clue.
For those of you that are pro-choice, I believe it’s simply because our society and culture admires those that aren’t accountable. It’s a sad thing really. Ask any of our great-grandparents and such, they thought the Depression was THEIR fault. Was it? No, but they still took accountability. Don’t want kids? Don’t do the thing in which kids are made: sex. That simple. No ifs, ands, buts, or anything else you guys make excuses for to help you sleep at night.
I think its horrible that we have come to this as a society. Just more proof that our society is at a downturn morally. My only fear is what will come of us when we finally hit rock bottom.
Abortion wouldnt be such a problem if people used abortions in emergency cases. It would be okay to have an abortion if having the baby would compromise the mother’s life. That would be okay. But, it is sad that people use it just because of “that wild night”. That is just plain murder… i dont care what anyone says. You should not have sex if you do not want a baby. Its just that plain and simple.
I dont understand what the author of this article is talking about when she says that doing this will get rid of in vitro fertilization. It is an artificial way to have kids. In the case of sterile couples, it can give them what they cant do themselves. A woman’s egg is fertilized outside of her body, then the zygote is transferred to the woman’s uterus. This is a life giving process… not an abortion.
Stem cells can be retrieved from a stillborn fetus, so stem cell research would also continue.