I suppose in her eyes the blood represents what would be shed if coathangers are used again.

But didn't you see the hanger dangling from the top of her sheet?

When Alito does make abortions illegal, that's what desperate women will have to resort to: Back alley doctors with unsafe procedures.....

Palmateer,

I don't doubt for minute that what she THOUGHT she was saying.

But walking down the street in a white dress with blood over the LOWER half of the body while trying to sell the abortion message wasn't exactly the smartest thing to do now was it?

No one forced anyone to stick a coat hanger into any orifice.

And no, abortion would NOT be illegal if the Court overturned Roe. It just would mean that the states could do what they wanted again. New York and Massachusetts would be legal "havens" for certain.

Ever looked at European abortion laws? Usually the European approach is the gold standard for our leftists, but almost all of the EU nations have lots more restrictions than we do.

> When Alito does make abortions illegal

Hah! Not that canard again!

Even if he and 4 other justices were to overturn Roe, all it would do is return the legislative process to elected officials.

I was about to mention coathangers...

I'm not only bothered by how the GOP wishes to shove their stance against abortion down the throats of the whole nation, but also by how the GOP seems to believe that, if abortion is outlawed, that the practice will somehow just stop. Like we won't see unsafe abortions coming into practice again. Maybe when the GOP comes up with a plan to reduce the number of abortions, as opposed to their current stance of just ignoring the problem, then protesters wouldn't have to wear blood to make their point.

Look at the expression on her face. She's got that whole righteous-angry-activist thing going......

but also by how the GOP seems to believe that, if abortion is outlawed, that the practice will somehow just stop

Um, no one believes that. Making various crimes illegal (murder, theft, rape) hasn't stopped them either. By your logic, we should wipe the books clean of such laws.

Warning John- Applying logic in the comments section of a popular blog won't get you far.

Tas: that's a great insight, and I think applicable to more situations.

We should just admit that any attempt to deny people their choice to kill others, rape others, or steal property by outlawing those activities is foolish because those activities still occur.

[/sarcasm off]

Or rather than strawmanning the argument Tas, you could argue that the benefit in terms of the number of reduced abortions (which surely would occur) wouldn't be worth the accompanying costs. I wouldn't buy it, but at least it would be an honest argument.

Um, no one believes that. Making various crimes illegal (murder, theft, rape) hasn't stopped them either. By your logic, we should wipe the books clean of such laws.

You're illogical. By my logic, we do have a a system which addresses crimes like murder and rape: it's called prisons. You commit a crime, you get thrown in the slammer. And once you're in there, then there's one less person on the streets who's willing to commit crime.

Obviously the system isn't perfect, and there's other factors which play in a role in creating criminals. However, at least there's recognition of the problem and an attempt to control it.

On the otherhand, with the Republican's view of abortion, there is no such recognition. There is no plan to deal with the outbreak of unsafe abortions that would occur if abortion is made illegal. So, as I pointed out in my previous comment, that's why the protester chooses to outfit herself in blood.

Or rather than strawmanning the argument Tas, you could argue that the benefit in terms of the number of reduced abortions (which surely would occur) wouldn't be worth the accompanying costs. I wouldn't buy it, but at least it would be an honest argument.

Why yes, Jody, I could argue that the number of reduced abortions wouldn't be worth the accompanying costs, but that argument was already used, if you recall. Remember the picture of the protester? The blood on her dress representing the number of dead women that would increase if abortion were outlawed?

Needless slaughter of innocent adult women. There's your "acccompanying costs" that you, apparently, don't care about.

"I told her those minipads sucked."
I'm sorry for this, I apologize.

I feel pretty stupid. I thought she got caught ill-prepared for her period.

You can be sure that same woman has protested with a "No Blood For Oil" sign within the last the last 12 months, and probably more than once. It's amazing how they can justify drawing blood when the mood suits them. No blood for fighting terrorists, that would be just awful, let's say it's for oil! But to prevent an inconvenience like using birth control? No problem!

It's amazing how people leap to the conclusion that if Roe is overturned, abortion is automatically illegal. That would require a state legislature to pass a bill for their state banning abortion and the governor signing it into law. I seriously doubt that would happen anywhere in this country. Anyway, Ann Coulter's latest article seems germane...

According to Dianne Feinstein, Roe vs. Wade is critically important because "women all over America have come to depend on it." At its most majestic, this precious right that women "have come to depend on" is the right to have sex with men they don't want to have children with.

There's a stirring principle! Leave aside the part of this precious constitutional right that involves (1) not allowing Americans to vote on the matter, and (2) suctioning brains out of half-born babies. The right to have sex with men you don't want to have children with is not exactly "Give me liberty, or give me death."

"but almost all of the EU nations have lots more restrictions than we do."

Yeah! Look how hard it is to get RU-486!!

Knowledge still appears to be optional here..

It's amazing how people leap to the conclusion that if Roe is overturned, abortion is automatically illegal. That would require a state legislature to pass a bill for their state banning abortion and the governor signing it into law. I seriously doubt that would happen anywhere in this country.

I seriously don't doubt it. Have a look at this map to see what states abortion is likely to be made illegal in if Roe is overturned.

The right to have sex with men you don't want to have children with is not exactly "Give me liberty, or give me death."

But I suppose that the right of men to slut themselves out is perfectly OK.

Or, when we're not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights, what happens when a woman sleeps with a man she does want to have a child with, except they're looking to start a family in a couple of years instead of immediately?

Those prostesters are way dumb.

[quote]Or, when we're not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights, what happens when a woman sleeps with a man she does want to have a child with,[/quote]

But sex (protected or unprotected) generally carries with it the possibility of pregnancy. Regardless if a woman wants to have a child with a guy or not the inherent risk is always there.

As to the coathangers - I agree with whoever said that no one forced them to have coathangers stuck in themselves. Other choices were available.

Have a look at this map to see what states abortion is likely to be made illegal in if Roe is overturned.

You should be more careful with your quotes. The map shows states that would implement restrictions if Roe were to be overturned. This would include counselling, cool-off periods, and notification of family members. No where does it say "illegal".

But I suppose that the right of men to slut themselves out is perfectly OK.

You wrote that, not me.

Or, when we're not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights

Ditto

Here's idea. The supreme court should declare that the medical definition used to know if a born person is alive is the same one that will be used to know if an unborn person is alive. When there's brain activity and a heartbeat, the person is alive and entitled to the protection of the law.

That gives women a fair chance to abort an unwanted pregnancy using morning after pills and other drugs such as RU-486.

No further legislation would be needed as any state law that makes it a crime to kill a person would apply to every person who has brain activity and a heartbeat. Late term abortions would be allowed under current self-defense laws, which allow the taking of another person’s life to save your own.

Implementation of the law could be delayed for 9 months to make sure no woman was caught off guard by the change.

Using the best medical definition for human life brings consistency to the issue and minimize the need for law changes. I believe a significant majority of voters would be happy with such an outcome and then we could move on to other issues.

In reply to dwight:

But sex (protected or unprotected) generally carries with it the possibility of pregnancy. Regardless if a woman wants to have a child with a guy or not the inherent risk is always there.

I'm not quite sure what to say to this. I mean... People have sex. People like sex. It's been going on for a while, and not much will change. And there instances that, even when the man uses a condom and the woman is using birth control, something happens and there's a pregnancy. So, I mean, unless you wish to outlaw sex before marriage... And good luck trying to enforce that one, BTW... I can't tell you much else besides, hey, people have sex. It's been going on for a while. Better get used to it.

Now the question is, for couples who have sex and want to start a family but wish to wait a few years before doing so, if a mistake happens then do you want that baby to be born when the couple isn't ready to have a child? Or would you rather the couple had a child when they are prepared to raise one?

As to the coathangers - I agree with whoever said that no one forced them to have coathangers stuck in themselves. Other choices were available.

Those choices will decrease dramatically if Roe is overturned.

In reply to fizzix:

You should be more careful with your quotes. The map shows states that would implement restrictions if Roe were to be overturned. This would include counselling, cool-off periods, and notification of family members. No where does it say "illegal".

Honestly, I'm not going to argue over the semantics of this because it really doesn't make a difference. If you'll feel better if I use "practically illegal' instead of "illegal," fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that, if Roe is overturned and states take actions to restrict abortions, those actions are going to have the results of limiting a women's choice. And arguing over whether or not abortion is technially legal when other laws would force a woman to employ a coathanger seems rather silly to me.

But I suppose that the right of men to slut themselves out is perfectly OK.

You wrote that, not me.

Just showing the other side of the equation.

Or, when we're not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights

Ditto

That, in effect, is Coulter's argument.

I'm in favor of giving each woman a "right of challenge" to declare a man to be the father of her child. It would be a simple document you'd get from a city clerk or something, without a court order. He would then have two choices:

1. Be declared the parent, and have all the legal and financial responsibilities associated with that.
2. Take a blood test to prove he's not. He would be compensated a certain nominal amount if he's not the father ($500 or something, to be reimbursed to the government by the woman).

No other options would be allowed.

Now the question is, for couples who have sex and want to start a family but wish to wait a few years before doing so, if a mistake happens then do you want that baby to be born when the couple isn't ready to have a child? Or would you rather the couple had a child when they are prepared to raise one?

This discussion prompted me to review this topic at several sites. One possible side-effect of abortions is damage to the cervix and the resulting inability to support the weight of the fetus. So, if a couple use this as birth control, they may find themselves unable to successfully procreate later on.

I liked Dennis Miller's take on abortion a few years back. "I'm personally anti-abortion, but then again, I have a penis. One dick, no vote. That's my motto."

'Cuz ya know, when a group of men stand around talking about what happens to a woman's body, I just lose interest because no matter what the law says, women are done having anyone tell them what to do with their bodies.

At least the women in my life. YMMV.

If the Left is so concerned now about getting Supreme Court justices appointed who share their ideological viewpoint, why did they nominate a candidate for president in 2004 with the personality, electability, and the integrity of a weathered old baseball glove with a wig on it?

Imagine if President Leiberman were sending up these nominations.

Now the question is, for couples who have sex and want to start a family but wish to wait a few years before doing so, if a mistake happens then do you want that baby to be born when the couple isn't ready to have a child? Or would you rather the couple had a child when they are prepared to raise one?

tas, that is the single most ridiculous argument I've ever heard in favor of abortion. Give me a break.

And for some insight into this bullsh*t coat hanger myth and that of dangerous illegal abortions that rarely happened, check this paper from Vanderbilt.

And tas, I challenge to find me where in the Constitution the right to an abortion is granted. Unbelievable that those who defend Roe have no idea how poor a decision this was based on our most sacred document.

In reply to fizzix:

This discussion prompted me to review this topic at several sites. One possible side-effect of abortions is damage to the cervix and the resulting inability to support the weight of the fetus. So, if a couple use this as birth control, they may find themselves unable to successfully procreate later on.

There are, of course, complications that could occur with any surgical procedure. (Emphasis on any and not just abortion.) It also should be remembered that, for many women, abortion is a last resort, not an option they want to use, and not a decision which they take lightly. If a woman decides to have an abortion, it's usually because no other feasible options exist; and that's pretty much the same with any surgical procedure. Nobody wants to undergo surgery, and the risks it entails, unless it's the only option left.

In reply to Mike:

tas, that is the single most ridiculous argument I've ever heard in favor of abortion. Give me a break.

Yeah, well, I just aim to please, I guess. Should I put my tip cup out in plain view and dance like a monkey?

Of course, the "ridiculous" argument I described isn't so ridiculous to the couples of live through the situation. But hey, I guess that everyone has their personal preferences, don't they?

And tas, I challenge to find me where in the Constitution the right to an abortion is granted. Unbelievable that those who defend Roe have no idea how poor a decision this was based on our most sacred document.

Show me in the Constitution where it says that Americans should be able to drive automobiles. I don't see anything about the topic being in the Constitution, so does this mean that I can take away your car?

Maybe if abortion were actually illegal many women would be more apt to keep their pants on and more men held responsible for actions as well.

The right to drive automobiles is not protected by the constitution as driving is not a right, it is a privelage, which can be suspended or revoked under any number of circumstances. So, yes, you can take someone's car away.

Show me in the Constitution where it says that Americans should be able to drive automobiles. I don't see anything about the topic being in the Constitution, so does this mean that I can take away your car?

The use of automobiles is governed by state law, penned by elected officials, as opposed to appointed federal judges. If Roe were to be overturned, the same would apply to abortion.

If you'll feel better if I use "practically illegal' instead of "illegal," fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that, if Roe is overturned and states take actions to restrict abortions, those actions are going to have the results of limiting a women's choice.

So, making a woman wait 3 days or requiring she be counselled prior to an abortion is "practically illegal"? Your definition of legal abortions is immediately available on-demand?

How long do you have to wait to get a gun?

On the otherhand, with the Republican's view of abortion, there is no such recognition. There is no plan to deal with the outbreak of unsafe abortions that would occur if abortion is made illegal.

Hey, Tas. We DO have just such a plan: it's called prisons. You commit a crime, you get thrown in the slammer. And once you're in there, then there's one less person on the streets who's willing to commit crime.

(Where did I hear that before?)

That's what we do with people who kill people, including women who kill their children.

My conservative friends tell me their complete support of Bush and now Alito is based on overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet during the last week of testimony Alito dodged the issue and refused to take a stand on