If Roe v. Wade went away ...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:51 pm

... then abortion laws would revert to the individual states. What would each state do? USA Today has an article that speculates:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ates_x.htm

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:53 pm

If Roe v. Wade went away ...

Women - mostly poor- would die a terrible death.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:58 pm

The interesting thing that I noticed in this article is that MT is one of the states that they assert would retain the status quo and would not significantly limit access to abortions.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:59 am

as a libertarian what is your feelings about row v. wade bac?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:00 am

Hell's Bells wrote:as a libertarian what is your feelings about row v. wade bac?

Consistent with a Libertarian bent, I'm generally in favor of abortion rights being left to the women, although I wouldn't be all that upset if Roe v. Wade was overturned and the decision was left to the individual states.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:02 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:as a libertarian what is your feelings about row v. wade bac?
Consistent with a Libertarian bent, I'm generally in favor of abortion rights being left to the women, although I wouldn't be all that upset if Roe v. Wade was overturned and the decision was left to the individual states.

soo you wouldnt mind if a subject like this be left up to the individual states, right?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:06 am

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:as a libertarian what is your feelings about row v. wade bac?
Consistent with a Libertarian bent, I'm generally in favor of abortion rights being left to the women, although I wouldn't be all that upset if Roe v. Wade was overturned and the decision was left to the individual states.
soo you wouldnt mind if a subject like this be left up to the individual states, right?

I would rather it remain legal in all 50 states, but as I said above, I wouldn't be upset if it was left as a decision at the state level. The basis upon which Roe v. Wade was decided wasn't great law on a philosophical level, although if Roe v. Wade was overturned, I have a feeling something would come along to replace it that was based on more firm legal ground (and the commerce clause is being used with reckless abandon by the court these days, which always makes any kind of issue like this interesting) ... so who knows what would happen.

anacondagriz · Post by **anacondagriz** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:04 pm

I was watching a show on the crime rate in NYC the other day. They had a researcher who was speculating on why crime has dropped so dramatically in the last 10-15. He figured 50% of the reason was Roe vs. Wade. From his point of view, if the women who had abortions had been forced to followed through w/their pregnancies than the babies would have been unwanted. In turn unwanted children have a much greater chance of committing crimes.

It was a very interesting theory. I wish I could remember the guys name or even what the show was called.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:14 pm

anacondagriz wrote:I was watching a show on the crime rate in NYC the other day. They had a researcher who was speculating on why crime has dropped so dramatically in the last 10-15. He figured 50% of the reason was Roe vs. Wade. From his point of view, if the women who had abortions had been forced to followed through w/their pregnancies than the babies would have been unwanted. In turn unwanted children have a much greater chance of committing crimes.

It was a very interesting theory. I wish I could remember the guys name or even what the show was called.

Interesting theory, but I the decline in crime in NYC was only since the mid-ninties and had more to do with a change in Policing IMHO. It may have had some effect but 50% a bit of a stretch.

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:20 pm

Ponycat wrote:
anacondagriz wrote:I was watching a show on the crime rate in NYC the other day. They had a researcher who was speculating on why crime has dropped so dramatically in the last 10-15. He figured 50% of the reason was Roe vs. Wade. From his point of view, if the women who had abortions had been forced to followed through w/their pregnancies than the babies would have been unwanted. In turn unwanted children have a much greater chance of committing crimes.

It was a very interesting theory. I wish I could remember the guys name or even what the show was called.
Interesting theory, but I the decline in crime in NYC was only since the mid-ninties and had more to do with a change in Policing IMHO. It may have had some effect but 50% a bit of a stretch.

I read the guys book (his name slips me), but the name of the book is "Freakonomics". He has a bunch of interesting theories, and it is an easy read.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:22 pm

anacondagriz wrote:I was watching a show on the crime rate in NYC the other day. They had a researcher who was speculating on why crime has dropped so dramatically in the last 10-15. He figured 50% of the reason was Roe vs. Wade. From his point of view, if the women who had abortions had been forced to followed through w/their pregnancies than the babies would have been unwanted. In turn unwanted children have a much greater chance of committing crimes.

It was a very interesting theory. I wish I could remember the guys name or even what the show was called.

That's one of the theories that is tested in "Freakonmics." I haven't read the book yet, but it apparently has a lot of similar interesting economic/social theories in it as well, tested against historical data.

One argument that I hear often against abortion is that X million babies are not in this country that otherwise would be were it not for abortions. Those numbers scare me ... not because I wish those babies were with us, but rather the opposite. Can you imagine X million babies raised by parent(s) that didn't intend to have them? That would be a lot of babies raised in poverty and/or in unwanted situations, and that would certainly lead to a lot more crime and other social problems.

Is abortion a "good" answer? Certainly not. Birth control (by any effective method desired) is the perfect answer. But when weighing the social and economic costs of people having babies they don't want or can't afford, abortion is the lesser of two evils in my mind.

And no (contrary to the standard argument), those babies wouldn't all be adopted by loving families. Sure, some of the healthy white kids would find good homes, but a lot (most/nearly all?) of kids would not. And in this country where we actively discourage potentially loving families from adopting (laws/policies against gay adoption), it appears that we need to figure out how to find homes for the kids in the current foster care systems before we argue that we need millions of more unwanted kids in the system.

anacondagriz · Post by **anacondagriz** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:32 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Is abortion a "good" answer? Certainly not. Birth control (by any effective method desired) is the perfect answer. But when weighing the social and economic costs of people having babies they don't want or can't afford, abortion is the lesser of two evils in my mind.

My ex-girlfriend had a button on her purse that said "Birth control prevents abortion". I just find it odd that the same people who are so against abortion are often the same people who so opposed to birth control.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:44 pm

anacondagriz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:

Is abortion a "good" answer? Certainly not. Birth control (by any effective method desired) is the perfect answer. But when weighing the social and economic costs of people having babies they don't want or can't afford, abortion is the lesser of two evils in my mind.

My ex-girlfriend had a button on her purse that said "Birth control prevents abortion". I just find it odd that the same people who are so against abortion are often the same people who so opposed to birth control.

I agree completely. The best way to reduce the incidence of abortion is to make sure that contraception is available and education is out there that stresses to people how to use it. Instead, we are pushing abstinence only programs that are proven to only increase the incidence of disease and pregnancies because they are geared towards preaching against the use of condoms as opposed to preaching "Abstain, but if you choose not to abstain, then use a condom." They are trying to instill fear in people about condoms, and that's not a good idea (unless you can convince everybody to abstain from sex until they are trying to have a baby, which simply isn't a practical goal).

In my view, it is an example of people being more interesting in pushing their morality on others as oppsed to being pragmatic about affecting change that will solve a problem.