Is abortion right or wrong?

[Paige]

I'm interested in peoples opinions on abortion and the arguments for and against.

I am against abortion however i do understand why people opt for them. If abortion is made illegal, women will be turning to the back street doctors who make a bodge job of the abortion and endanger the womans life.

I do think though that there is no reason for 'accidents' as there are plenty of forms of contraception to prevent such 'accidents' occuring.

But, i understand and respect that the mother is the only one who is able to make such a decision when she is in that situation. I feel that if a womans life is in danger because of the pregnancy or the baby is most likely to die, then, and only then should abortion should be considered. However, i think that the law should be changed and the months of allowed abortion reduced as a baby can survive outside the womb at 6 months.

[green lantern]

abortion, except for when the mother's life is in danger or in a case of rape or incest, should be illegal.

[mataj]

Everybody is against the abortion. It's a lesser evil.

The question about legality of abortion is esentially a question of power and prestige. It's about who can make life or death decision. Political and religious leaders, who can send millions of people to their death, are very very jelaous of this privilege of theirs. They are denying the right about making life and death decision even to pregnant women despite of the fact, that they created the life in question.

Legality of abortion is actually a question about ownership of life. Illegal abortion means, that your life is no longer yours, that it's actually a property of a state, which is sometimes personified as God.


"The fetus is the property of the entire society" (Nicolae Ceausescu)

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm

[towski]

I do think though that there is no reason for 'accidents' as there are plenty of forms of contraception to prevent such 'accidents' occuring.




Off topic, Paige, but this is simply untrue. There is no form of contraception that is 100% effective at preventing accidents. None.

I'm hardly a tea-totaling prude, but there is only 1 form of birth control that is 100% accurate. Abstinence.

[::Major_Baker::]

no body like it, but to make it illegal is impractical and dangerous.
We already have enough unwanted kids, just look at the prison inmates.

[serenity]

The question about legality of abortion is esentially a question of power and prestige. It's about who can make life or death decision. Political and religious leaders, who can send millions of people to their death, are very very jelaous of this privilege of theirs. They are denying the right about making life and death decision even to pregnant women despite of the fact, that they created the life in question.

Legality of abortion is actually a question about ownership of life. Illegal abortion means, that your life is no longer yours, that it's actually a property of a state, which is sometimes personified as God.



Excellent points, Mataj, and I agree.


It is ultimately a matter of power; whether one thinks abortion is right or wrong is not the entire issue.

It's who has that power--as Mataj says, is it God (or some vaguer "moral" authority) as personified through state and religious authorities?

Too much power to the state is a bad thing; and the state has too much power as it is. I'm frequently surprised that so many self-styled "conservatives" are so supportive of the two HIGHEST forms of power the state can have, through the illegality of abortion and through the use of the death penalty (any true conservative would be opposed to the death penalty, for example).

[bowerbird]

Abortion is sort of illegal here in the state I live in. It isn't in the next state. Lots of people cross the boarder. Lots of people using loopholes in the existing law to perform abortions anyway.

Bottom line is that ANY legislation you put in place, unless it is truly draconian, will have some loophole somewhere that the smart operators will exploit.

[Loki]

no body like it, but to make it illegal is impractical and dangerous.
We already have enough unwanted kids, just look at the prison inmates.

We, as a people, are killing ourselves off, and replacing ourselves with,

foreigners. Silly.

[serenity]

We, as a people, are killing ourselves off, and replacing ourselves with,

foreigners. Silly.

We're already a nation of foreigners, aside from our Native population (and even they are if you go back far enough).

In the year 1830, my descendents were foreigners, and according to your logic, they somehow didn't belong here. It's an odd perspective, I think.

[mataj]

We, as a people, are killing ourselves off, and replacing ourselves with,

foreigners. Silly.Blut & Boden. Not just silly, but lethally stupid.

DNA-s of any pair of people in this world differs less than DNA-s of pair chimpanzees from the same herd. Genetically, there is no difference between "you as people", and anyone else. It's the knowledge & culture in your heads that matters, not genes. Genes are important at animals, not people.

Another lethally stupid idea is forcing people to have unwanted kids.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I'm aganist it, but it should remain legal.

What you do with your body and your life is your choice. I can only give suggestions. The decision is ultimately yours and you should be free to make it.

But then again, I'm one of the few conservative libeterians left on this planet....

[eugene40]

I am for a womans right to choose,, whatever choice she wants to make to keep it or abort it. It is her right, her body and no one elses. And it should not be taken away.

[leapCCAD]

Blut & Boden. Not just silly, but lethally stupid.

DNA-s of any pair of people in this world differs less than DNA-s of pair chimpanzees from the same herd. Genetically, there is no difference between "you as people", and anyone else. It's the knowledge & culture in your heads that matters, not genes. Genes are important at animals, not people.

Another lethally stupid idea is forcing people to have unwanted kids.


(With the exception of rape and incest) How "lethally stupid" does someone have to be, to not know what causes "unwanted kids" ? There are many who just need to take responsibility for their actions. Their "unwanted" pregnancies are more of an inconvieniance than anything else and they treat abortion as just another form of birth control. I don't care what side of the debate someone is on.........that's just wrong.

[mataj]

(With the exception of rape and incest) How "lethally stupid" does someone have to be, to not know what causes "unwanted kids"? Multitudes of unwanted kids, combined with sexual frustration induced mass hysteria cause wars, and wars cause far more casualties & damage than abortion. To make the matters worse, casualties of war are born, grown up, fully made, unquestionalby human.
There are many who just need to take responsibility for their actions. Taking responsibility for right & wrong is a question of morality. Enforcing responsibility through laws, police & judicature is a question of power.
Their "unwanted" pregnancies are more of an inconvieniance than anything else and they treat abortion as just another form of birth control. I don't care what side of the debate someone is on.........that's just wrong.It's not about right & wrong, it's about lesser evil.

[leapCCAD]

"Lesser" in your reply is still describing evil? Or is that just a figure of speech? If so you may have wanted to choose a different phase.

[mataj]

"Lesser" in your reply is still describing evil? Or is that just a figure of speech? If so you may have wanted to choose a different phase."Lesser evil" is usual phrase. I've never went it's deeper meanings, and I've never intended to.

Concept of "evil" comes from the area of religion, so I'll try to discuss it in religious terms, as much as I can. From the religious point of view, abortion surely is an evil, there's no doubt about it. I've already partially argumentated it in my 1st post in this thread. It's an evil that's been with us ever since the times of Cain & Abel. It's part of us, and we'll never get rid of it. Any and all attempts to completely eliminate it will only bring more woe upon us. All we can do is to do our best to minimize it by choosing lesser evil whenever possible.

[HAVOC451]

I support a woman's right to choose. The question of "right or wrong" is is a private matter for the pregnant woman to decide.

[leapCCAD]

I support a woman's right to choose. The question of "right or wrong" is is a private matter for the pregnant woman to decide.


Tell that to the aborted fetuses who have actually survived the proceedure, and are now considered "people." (There are many out there)

[JoeR]

Incredible that we can't do abortions at a 100% success rate.

[eugene40]

Tell that to the aborted fetuses who have actually survived the proceedure, and are now considered "people." (There are many out there)


Do you have a percentage of the survived.

[Michele]

Tell that to the aborted fetuses who have actually survived the proceedure, and are now considered "people." (There are many out there)


you are talking about late term abortions. correct? I have no problem with a ban on late term abortions that is cruelty. (but for when a child threatens the life of the mother and the mother chooses to abort or her OB suggested that would be the best course).

I also would like your source as to what are done with those aborted alive. are they incubated? what do you mean they are out there?

I pulled one source from Newsmax on the issue. I would like something from a scientific journal please. Aborting already formed and live babies and then killing them that would be murder. The issue takes on a whole other reality after the third trimester, and I am all for addressing that reality with a ban if need be. Anyone who is that conflicted to come into their third term should not necessarily be allowed to terminate that pregnancy.

You can't just come on the forum and start dumping contravertial one and two liners and expect not to be asked for your sources?

[Michele]

Do you have a percentage of the survived.


he is talking about abortions in or after the third trimester. which is very deceptive of him.

[Michele]

and you know the women I knew that had late term abortions (and I know two). they had them when they were minors and both were forced to have them by their fathers.

[leapCCAD]

Do you have a percentage of the survived.

I don't think abortion clinics like to keep statistics on such occurances. But there are numerous documented cases. Why? Is there an acceptable percentage?

-Amazing how when you inject them with saline they are just a fetus, but when they pop out,crying a few minutes later, they become people that need treated for saline burns.

[eugene40]

I don't think abortion clinics like to keep statistics on such occurances. But there are numerous documented cases. Why? Is there an acceptable percentage?

-Amazing how when you inject them with saline they are just a fetus, but when they pop out,crying a few minutes later, they become people that need treated for saline burns.


Well I was just wondering about the percentage of survivors. Why don't have any evidence to back up your claim?

And it isn't that amazing when it is inside the woman it is a fetus and when they come out and live they are a baby... relatively simple,, not that amazing.

But still I am all for women to choose to do what they wish, within the confines of their body.

[Michele]

I don't think abortion clinics like to keep statistics on such occurances. But there are numerous documented cases. Why? Is there an acceptable percentage?

-Amazing how when you inject them with saline they are just a fetus, but when they pop out,crying a few minutes later, they become people that need treated for saline burns.

you are talking about late term abortions and yet you don't have any statistics. how convenient. Abortion clinics are regulated ... you aren't going to just fly in here and tell us they aren't keeping track. at this point I am almost convinced you are a troll. this is the second thread where you have deposited a claim with no substantiation.

[eugene40]

he is talking about abortions in or after the third trimester. which is very deceptive of him.


Oh I know,,, I still want the percentage though.

[eugene40]

you are talking about late term abortions and yet you don't have any statistics. how convenient. Abortion clinics are regulated ... you aren't going to just fly in here and tell us they aren't keeping track.


Yes michele is right,,, the only ones that have an excuse is those burned and bombed by the crazies... :)

[Michele]

Oh I know,,, I still want the percentage though.


ah but he says abortion clinics aren't keeping track. Do you believe that? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a child at the end of a third term is formed. it is amazing just how science can incubate premature births successfully.

I wasn't suggesting that I didn't want the percentages but surprise surprise he doesn't happen to have any.

[eugene40]

ah but he says abortion clinics aren't keeping track. Do you believe that? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a child at the end of a third term is formed. it is amazing just how science can incubate premature births successfully.

I wasn't suggesting that I didn't want the percentages but surprise surprise he doesn't happen to have any.


Well Abortion clinics are covered under the AMA (american medical association) And thus would have to keep records (private records) of their clients. The only ones that are excused are the ones that the crazies blow up or burn down.

[Michele]

Well Abortion clinics are covered under the AMA (american medical association) And thus would have to keep records (private records) of their clients. The only ones that are excused are the ones that the crazies blow up or burn down.

Isn't there already a ban on partial birth abortions? House Judiciary Committee voted 20-8 in 2002 to ban them. they indeed require killing the child. quite frankly considering the standard procedure for partial birth abortions there is no way the child comes fully out alive. It is a horrible procedure really and the child is rendered dead before it is fully extracted. It does amount to killing a formed child. but they are dead before they are extracted. Partial birth abortions are grisly. I really don't have a problem with the ban of the procedure lest the child poses risks to the mother under the care and advisement of an OB/GYN.

he makes it sound like there are extracted babies that have been kept alive to see their next birthday and that these counstitute the majority of the abortions. You can't compare a partial birth abortion with one performed within the first trimester.

[mataj]

Why? Is there an acceptable percentage?Why is the world supposed to be an ideal place exactly in this particular case?
Tell that to the aborted fetuses who have actually survived the proceedure, and are now considered "people." (There are many out there)You better thell that to the "Ceaucescu's children". You'll have far more audience.

[Michele]

Why? Is there an acceptable percentage?

no. because you are making a claim for which statistics do exist. it is false that abortion clinics aren't keeping record. So a request for percentages or statistics is merely just a request for statistics or percentages?



-Amazing how when you inject them with saline they are just a fetus, but when they pop out,crying a few minutes later, they become people that need treated for saline burns.

you might like to substantiate exactly what the procedure is for partial term abortion for it involves something more than saline. Do you know what that is? or when exactly it is performed during the procedure?

Without specifics and with no statistics, so far it seems you are depositing fairytales on the topic. would you like to clarify the exact operating procedure for a partial birth abortion and any alternate procedures that are practiced and provide us your source on the information?

[Michele]

Abortion Bans: Myths and Facts (http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148)

[JustinH]

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Unfortunately, about 7 federal justices have already ruled it unconstitutional, since they failed to provide provisions for the health of the mother. In the last decade it has gone to the President 3 times. Clinton vetoed it twice because Republicans refused to put in a medical provision for the health of mothers. It went to Bush once, it was signed, and quickly ruled unconstitutional by about 8 Justices acrossed the United States. That contained a provision to "save the mothers life", but still lacks any provisions for the general well-being of the mother. In other words, the mother has to be at risk of losing her life for a PBA to be allowed.

All Congress would have to do, is put one provision that allows PBAs when it can protect the health of the mother, and this would be law, and would have been law for a decade. But unfortunately, they are a bunch of idiots so we've had perfectly legal partial-birth abortions since 1996.

But keep in mind fewer than 2% of abortions are done after the 5th month of pregnancy, so we aren't talking about an extrodinary amount here. Unfortunately, as is typical with these issues, the conservatives use it as a talking point to preach to the party base. And why don't democrats come out and explain why they support a womans right to choose? Because Democrats suck at developing a clearly defined message.

Woman should have every right to an abortion, regardless of income. When we start telling poor women on medicaid they HAVE to have the baby, who's really being responsible? Not them... medicaid, food stamps and other such programs are being paid by taxpayers. We are paying for someone elses child that she never even wanted. Pretty screwed up.

Illegalizing abortion will not make anyone more responsible. What we'll see is an increase in alley-way doctors, babies in the dumpster and an increase in our already overcrowded adoption system. Pro-life is a religious issue, but it sure as hell isn't a fiscal conservative issue. Anyone that supports increasing taxpayer cost, to pay for someone elses child that they don't even want, is a fiscal liberal, plain and simple.

[Michele]

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Unfortunately, about 7 federal justices have already ruled it unconstitutional, since they failed to provide provisions for the health of the mother. In the last decade it has gone to the President 3 times. Clinton vetoed it twice because Republicans refused to put in a medical provision for the health of mothers.


Thanks I just came across that information. I also came across information to suggest that in a good majority of the cases partial birth abortions are performed because of medical complications that require the termination of the pregnancy. which is why the health provisions are imperative.

3rd Trimester: They [D & X] are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

[mataj]

3rd Trimester: They [D & X] are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.Pictures & a couple of botched operations are very useful pro life mobilization tool nonetheless

[Michele]

Pictures & a couple of botched operations are very useful pro life mobilization tool nonetheless


only if out of context of the all the information, and if one enjoys living in faith and fantasy land with no concept of what is meant when one says the health of the mother. Now do you suppose they really think they will find homes for retarded infants or those infants whose prognosis for sustaining life after birth is virtually nil? doesn't seem realistic to me. Sounds more like partial birth is the back door through which they hope to find their way to overturning roe v wade.

the hesitation from our politicians to include the health clause tells me either politicians on the right attempt to give pro life false hope in an attempt to maintain the support of the constitutency OR some of the politicians that refuse to include the clause are nut cases themselves.

[Duo_Maxwell]

(With the exception of rape and incest) How "lethally stupid" does someone have to be, to not know what causes "unwanted kids"?

Condoms break. Some are faulty right from the start, something like 5 in 1,000. Birth Control pills don't always work, nor does the morning after pill. Considering the odds, sooner or later it is going to happen to even the most responsible of folk.

There are many who just need to take responsibility for their actions.

How about those who use birth control, condoms, spermicide and readily have the morning after pill on hand yet still get pregnant?

And you're clearly ignoring that such measures are not exactly avaliable to everyone. Birth control pills are expensive for the average 15 year old who's paying for it out of her own pocket. Condoms aren't exactly cheap if you don't buy in bulk.

Making contraception readily avaliable and cheap without stigamizism will cut down on abortions dramastically.

[mataj]

only if out of context of the all the information, and if one enjoys living in faith and fantasy land with no concept of what is meant . . .In most cases, then. That's why it's so useful.

[HAVOC451]

Thanks I just came across that information. I also came across information to suggest that in a good majority of the cases partial birth abortions are performed because of medical complications that require the termination of the pregnancy. which is why the health provisions are imperative.

3rd Trimester: They [D & X] are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

Thanks for posting this information Michele.

The people that see themselves as so morally superior that they feel that they need to get between a pregnant woman and her doctor should hang their heads in shame. In the overwelming majority of such procedures, there is a family in desperate crisis. These are usually women (and their husbands) who have wanted and prepaired for the birth of a child. Suddenly their world is crashing to pieces around them. The last thing they need is some moralizing, agenda driven stranger getting into their business. The notion that late term abortions are done on a lark is monsterous and foolish.

[gopman]

I'm opposed to killing innocent people at any stage in their development, and my opinion didn't change when I was put in a position where many people would consider abortion an option.

[mataj]

I'm opposed to killing innocent people at any stage in their development, and my opinion didn't change when I was put in a position where many people would consider abortion an option.I'm opposed to killing any people under any circumstances. Innocence doesn't matter here. Nobody is innocent.

[Michele]

I'm opposed to killing innocent people at any stage in their development, and my opinion didn't change when I was put in a position where many people would consider abortion an option.

yes but if a dead child or a child whose prognosis of living is diagnosed to kill the mother you are all for threatening the mother's life?

did you read the reasons for a partial birth abortion in the third trimester?

[faithfulservant]

no body like it, but to make it illegal is impractical and dangerous.
We already have enough unwanted kids, just look at the prison inmates.
Ah, the old PPA logo - "Every child a wanted child" and it's required corollary - "Every unwanted child a dead child."

[faithfulservant]

Excellent points, Mataj, and I agree.


It is ultimately a matter of power; whether one thinks abortion is right or wrong is not the entire issue.

It's who has that power--as Mataj says, is it God (or some vaguer "moral" authority) as personified through state and religious authorities?

Too much power to the state is a bad thing; and the state has too much power as it is. I'm frequently surprised that so many self-styled "conservatives" are so supportive of the two HIGHEST forms of power the state can have, through the illegality of abortion and through the use of the death penalty (any true conservative would be opposed to the death penalty, for example).
Intentional self-deception doesn't seem to be your thing, serenity. The difference is so blatently obvious that a person has to choose to ignore it - tsk, tsk ,tsk. In an abortion a completely innocent life is taken, in the death penalty, only the most heinous of criminals are killed. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life, the death penalty is the removal of a dire threat to society.

[faithfulservant]

I'm aganist it, but it should remain legal.

What you do with your body and your life is your choice. I can only give suggestions. The decision is ultimately yours and you should be free to make it.

But then again, I'm one of the few conservative libeterians left on this planet....
But your doing something (killing) to someone else's body, not yours.

[faithfulservant]

Taking responsibility for right & wrong is a question of morality. Enforcing responsibility through laws, police & judicature is a question of power.
At their core, all laws are nothing more than enforced morality. To simply think that people will do what's right just because we think that they should is naivete' of the highest caliber.

[faithfulservant]

It's not about right & wrong, it's about lesser evil.
Lesser evil? Please tell me what is a greater evil than to kill a child that is utterly innocent?

[faithfulservant]

you are talking about late term abortions. correct? I have no problem with a ban on late term abortions that is cruelty. (but for when a child threatens the life of the mother and the mother chooses to abort or her OB suggested that would be the best course).

I also would like your source as to what are done with those aborted alive. are they incubated? what do you mean they are out there?

I pulled one source from Newsmax on the issue. I would like something from a scientific journal please. Aborting already formed and live babies and then killing them that would be murder. The issue takes on a whole other reality after the third trimester, and I am all for addressing that reality with a ban if need be. Anyone who is that conflicted to come into their third term should not necessarily be allowed to terminate that pregnancy.

You can't just come on the forum and start dumping contravertial one and two liners and expect not to be asked for your sources?

I personally know two people who survived attempted abortions. One is guy I worked with several years ago, he still has the scar on his forehead from the Dr.s foreceps. The other was a home abortion attempt with a coat hanger. Both are great people with solid families.

Differentiating between killing a 6 week old child and a 6 month old child is hypocracy. Killing an innocent child at any age is reprehensible and immoral. Now start talking about vialbility... A lot of people use the vialbility measurement. Do you have kids? Could any of them survive w/o help before the age of 5? Does that make them not viable.

[faithfulservant]

yes but if a dead child or a child whose prognosis of living is diagnosed to kill the mother you are all for threatening the mother's life?

did you read the reasons for a partial birth abortion in the third trimester?
Simple question:
If you had a choice between your life and the life of your daughter (assuming you have one), which would you choose?

[::Major_Baker::]

I personally know two people who survived attempted abortions. One is guy I worked with several years ago, he still has the scar on his forehead from the Dr.s foreceps. The other was a home abortion attempt with a coat hanger. Both are great people with solid families.
.
If it is outlawed, prepare to see lots of these attempts.
I look at it in a practical sense. people will have abortions. make it safe.

[towski]

If it is outlawed, prepare to see lots of these attempts.
I look at it in a practical sense. people will have abortions. make it safe.

No Sir.

It must be legislated out of existence. And then these closet coat hanger attempts must be legislated away. And then, just to make sure, we must legislate both coat hangers and pregnancy away. And, as we all know, sex can only happen for procreation, so we must make sex illegal. Clearly, then, if you have sex, you are against America.

See? Simple as that.

[eugene40]

Simple question:
If you had a choice between your life and the life of your daughter (assuming you have one), which would you choose?


You are making the mistake a thinking it is a life, it is an embryo a potential of life, but potential doesn't make it an actual life. The embryo is inside of a woman it is her body, she can choose to do with it what she wants to if she wishes to do away with something inside of her body. Then it is her right to do so.

[tattletale]

You are making the mistake a thinking it is a life, it is an embryo a potential of life, but potential doesn't make it an actual life. The embryo is inside of a woman it is her body, she can choose to do with it what she wants to if she wishes to do away with something inside of her body. Then it is her right to do so.

I agree, it is an embryo and think that it is the choice of the mother because it is inside her and she has the right to do what she wants to do

[mataj]

At their core, all laws are nothing more than enforced morality. To simply think that people will do what's right just because we think that they should is naivete' of the highest caliber.Laws are written by politics. Politics is about interests. Politics has nothing to do, and may not have anything to do with morality. At their core, laws are nothing more than enforced interest of majority. In democracy, they may not be anything more than this. If they are against someone's concept of morality- tough.
Lesser evil? Please tell me what is a greater evil than to kill a child that is utterly innocent?People killed are always innocent. Guilty are killed by way of exception only.

Who is to judge who's innocent anyway?

[ZXL]

Let me put abortion into another perspective:

Main Reasons for Abortion:

- Too young to care for a child
- Rape
- Too poor to give a child a decent life
- Ignorance about conception and anti-conception

Of course there are other reasons, but the gist of it all is that in all these cases a child is unwanted due to circumstances. Unwanted children, who have parents unprepared to take care of them have a higher chance of ending up in criminal enviroments. There are already enough children in orphanages, with no one to care for them. Enough poor people all over the globe who cannot give their children any chances at all.

Given these facts, is it really right to abolish abortions? Embryos who aren't yet a conscious life, who have a high chance of ending unhappily? Who have a high chance of making other people unhappy, such as young single mothers who are taken away the chance of studying and if they had waited the possibility of providing a good life for their children?

I know these are generalisations, there are of course ppl who were attempted to be aborted, and yet have a happy life. However that isn't the rule is it? Allow the people to have their choice, if an abortion isn't necessary due to sufficient support from family such as grandparents then things might end up all right. If it isn't possible, it isn't necessary to bring another probably unhappy person into this world.

[Duo_Maxwell]

In an abortion a completely innocent life is taken, in the death penalty, only the most heinous of criminals are killed. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life, the death penalty is the removal of a dire threat to society.

Unless, you're that 30% which is estimated to be innocent when executed....

Someone else's body? please show me where in the consitution does a fetus has rights

[Michele]

Ah, the old PPA logo - "Every child a wanted child" and it's required corollary - "Every unwanted child a dead child."

there are countless unwanted and illy cared for children in america, along with wanted pregnancies where children are born to both fit and illy fit parents.

[heel31ok]

If it is outlawed, prepare to see lots of these attempts.
I look at it in a practical sense. people will have abortions. make it safe.
peoplewill drink and drive ,make it safe.

[heel31ok]

What we need is safer guns and safer bullets.

[heel31ok]

No Sir.

It must be legislated out of existence. And then these closet coat hanger attempts must be legislated away. And then, just to make sure, we must legislate both coat hangers and pregnancy away. And, as we all know, sex can only happen for procreation, so we must make sex illegal. Clearly, then, if you have sex, you are against America.

See? Simple as that.
who said sex is only for procreation?

[towski]

who said sex is only for procreation?


Those who support the anti-gay marriage amendments. That's a tenet of their argument.

[::Major_Baker::]

peoplewill drink and drive ,make it safe.
That doesn't even make sense.

[JustinH]

peoplewill drink and drive ,make it safe.

Clearly a terrible analogy to begin with, but to make it better, it would be "People will drink, make it safe." And we do so by throughly regulating drinking. The same exists for abortion, as it is a regulated market.

However, as I stated, it's a crappy analogy, because drinking and driving can cause the physical harm of innocent lives that are protected by the constitution. Fetuses, do not have the protection of the constitution.

Laws SHOULD be designed to legislate, and make criminal, activities which cause harm. Unfortunately, the holier-than-thou attitude has become so extreme, the right has began digging in to legislate everything, even those crimes without a victim (abortion, sodomy laws, gay marriage etc).

The problem with abortion, versus the others, is the illegalization creates a victim in the mother... she's being forced to do with her body what the minority wants. That is not a fundamental principle of a Republic, Democracy, or the real Republican Party for that matter.

However, I do hope that the right continues to push their agenda through, as this will only lead to their own demise. In doing so, they alienate the moderates, while accusing the liberals of being too extreme. Now if the Democrats could manage to sell themselves as the party of individual rights and fiscal responsibility (which they certainly respect more than their Republican counter-parts) we'll see a move to the left in this country. Be interesting to see how it all pans out...

[mugawump]

Unlike Humans, most males in the mamalian family are not sexually interested in the female except when she is "In Season", Further, the females of many of the lower forms are, for all practical purposes unpenetrable, exceot when in season. Thus, they don't get the "Kicks which Humans do. And, contrary to the beliefs of many religions, procreation is not the only reason sexual urges were provided to us. For that reason, Many children are started which are not really wanted.
I do not take the problem lightly, It seems to me that under certain circumstances abortion is a compelling solution to the problem. Let me explain by citing several scenerios: ---But do me a favor and don't make a judgement in the matter UNTIL you have read the whole thing.

1. A couple, out for sex, simply for the enjoyment of it-----take all reasonable precautions Except Absinence --- All the protection Fails, and the girl becomes Pregnant. Neither want to become parents so an abortion is appropriate (any Religious considerations aside) Possibility--- The girl for whatever reason desides to have the baby. and as it is the girls body, and no "Contract" has been made, it is her right to have the baby, or abort the fetus----- But in this case, the sire shuld not be held liable.

2. A couple in love, ( married or not) want to have children, or at least are not opposed to the idea, and do not use protection and take their chances on whether or not they (note) "THEY" get pregnant. No problem, they are both happy. However, should they separate and go their separate ways, Morally, they should NOT abort. 'cause after all the expected baby was conceived out of love.

Those are easy, because in most cases the couple agree. However Let us suppose there is skulldugery afoot.

3. Here we have a couple who for their own twisted reasons fit the following: Both profess to using protection, but one of them sabotages the effort by fudging, because secretly they want the pregnancy. The man because he wants the girl pregnant, and wants a child, or the woman who wants the child regardless, or perhaps wants the man to commit to her.
To put this in cold terms, there is no contract. If it is the woman who wants the Child, and cheated to get it, then she should be responsible, even after birth. She has committed a fraud. If it is the man who wants the child, he has no recourse UNLESS he can talk her into it. It is still her body, and it is she who has been defrauded.
Incest and rape would be covered under this senerio in that they were the product of "Illegal" force.

To me, these cover all the reasonable legal issues---- then comes the moral, financial, and religious reasons.

Morally, it is my opinion that if an abortion is to take place, it must be done while the fetus is still simply a fetus without feeling, or mental cqpacity. When that changes, and the fetus becomes an unborn baby, it is too late. and except for absolute necessity, no abortion should be allowed. There are two exceptions, and I am not certain the first should qualify as an exception ( that would be where the expectant mother is truely ignorant of the fact she is pregnant) The second and most realistic would be a seriously deformed or functionally incapacitated baby. These are the ones up on which Partial birth abortions are performed. HOWEVER: Should the unborn Baby be viable, then the Only, Only, ONLY recourse available should be a cesarian secrtion wherein the baby has a chance "REGARDLESS" of the threat to the mother's life. To me, unnecessary partial birth abortions are indeed MURDER

I have covered woman's rights (to her own body), BUT, if a contract has been formed where it is expected that a child maybe forthcoming, the woman should be held to that contract (verbal of otherwise) --- In short, If the child is expected and the mother changes her mind, but the father wants the child. She should be forced to continue the pregnancy .but should not be penalized by being required to care for the child after birth. conversely, should the father change his mind, and the woman wants the child, and it was "consentual". he would still be required to contribute financially to the child.
Any other concerns would be covered by the persons involved.


Hopefully, I have not screwed anything up, and have not left out anything, If I have, I will try to rectify the situation.

[eugene40]

peoplewill drink and drive ,make it safe.


People drink and drive and endanger other people. Abortions only endanger the person having it. There is a big huge different and if you can't see it,,, boy have you got problems. The comparisson is crap.

[heel31ok]

Those who support the anti-gay marriage amendments. That's a tenet of their argument. they must be missing out on alot. I do not promote sex outside of marriage but my Bible says the "marriage bed is undefiled" which means it is more than just to have children. It is just in the confines of marriage. But there is alot within those confines that can be done, with God's blessing.

[heel31ok]

That doesn't even make sense.
exactly!

[heel31ok]

People drink and drive and endanger other people. Abortions only endanger the person having it. There is a big huge different and if you can't see it,,, boy have you got problems. The comparisson is crap.


No the point was that they will do it anyway so let them do it safely. so we can apply it to drinking and driving also. It also endangers the one being aborted. I did not make the point I just applied the same way. You know if they would put forth the money to research safe drinking and driving we could save alot of lives. Should not be too hard.

[chukster8614]

Terminating a potential life is not something anyone can do without feeling terrible remorse, guilt, shame — or whatever other self-flagellating emotions a good and proper Christian upbringing would cause a woman to feel, but there are circumstances where it's the only viable alternative. Children born into poverty who are neglected, abandoned and/or abused aren't experiencing something that I would call "pro-life."

Besides, speaking as a man, the only other thing I can say that it's not my place to tell a woman what she should do with her body.

[Missouri Mule]

I care almost nothing about abortion per se. However, I have a big stake and interest in courts that "invent" law. The Roe v Wade decision was just such a law made of whole cloth. It is wholly unconstitutional and should be thrown into the garbage can of history. Whoever Bush nominates and if he or she is a bonifide conservative, I hope the Republican majority crams it down the throats of the Liberals for denying us the common sense and wisdom of Robert Bork. I'm still furious at Kennedy for his outrageous lying about Bork especially since his own history as a moral person is so in question with his complicity in the Mary Jo Kopechne death.

What goes around, comes around. Go for it Bush. Stick it to them. Be a man. Tha't what we are waiting for.

[eugene40]

I care almost nothing about abortion per se. However, I have a big stake and interest in courts that "invent" law. The Roe v Wade decision was just such a law made of whole cloth. It is wholly unconstitutional and should be thrown into the garbage can of history.
How is giving women the right to do something within her OWN body unconstitutional, there constitutional scholar?

What goes around, comes around. Go for it Bush. Stick it to them. Be a man. Tha't what we are waiting for.
This statement contradicts your first sentence, you do care about abortion. As political capital. "And what goes around comes around" are you serious, what does a woman that doesn't think she can handle a baby right now have anything to do with politics, and sticking it to liberals. And Bush has not and will never be a "man" he is a coward that hides behind others. If he pushes this through there will be nothing "man like" about it. It will be a punk, cowardly move... IF that is what you want, it doesn't say much for ya mule, at least good anyway.

[Missouri Mule]

How is giving women the right to do something within her OWN body unconstitutional, there constitutional scholar?

This statement contradicts your first sentence, you do care about abortion. As political capital. "And what goes around comes around" are you serious, what does a woman that doesn't think she can handle a baby right now have anything to do with politics, and sticking it to liberals. And Bush has not and will never be a "man" he is a coward that hides behind others. If he pushes this through there will be nothing "man like" about it. It will be a punk, cowardly move... IF that is what you want, it doesn't say much for ya mule, at least good anyway.

I care about the Constitution. That's the argument here. That's why I have also said we ought to have a Constitutional Convention and straighten things out. If one side want's common sense and morality, that's fine. If the other side want's public sex on the street and abortion clinics on every street corner, that's fine. And if we can't agree, then we ought to divorce as a nation and then the side that wants to "let everything hang out" hang out, without the side that I belong to subsidizing their actions.

As to abortion, it should never have been an issue. The court should have left it up to the states to determine the parameters. If one state wanted abortion clinics everywhere and no questions asked, that's fine. If they want gay marriage and public sex. That's fine. Just don't tell me that the constitution and some political hack in a robe can concoct a "right" that doesn't exist there. Read the Constitution sometime. It's right there. You can look it up.

Look, if the unelected potentates in robes are going to invent law, then let's dispense with our president and congress people. We can save their salaries, medical care and pensions and just have these nine "wise men and women" just make it up as they see fit. We, the peons in the boondocks, will just have to bow down to their superior intellect and do what they tell us to do. Oh, wait, that's what they do in Iran, isn't it?

Let's just do the new Constitutional Convention and get it done up right. Those who want in can be in and the others can go their seperate ways. Then there won't be any more of this business about a "living, breathing constitution." Next time you buy a car, see if you mind the dealer telling you the warranty is a "living, breathing, document." You'll get the idea.

[Ophelia]

I am just glad that I am beyond childbearing age and no one can use my body as a football for their agenda.

Want to stop abortions? Provide sensible, realistic sex education in the schools. Make sure that contraceptives are readily available. Make sure that plenty of public assistance is available to women who want to keep their babies. Make sure that child support laws have teeth and are enforced. Make sure that there are places for desperate women who find themselves pregnant and alone to go besides the nearest abortion clinic.

These measures would be far more effective than harrassing women at clinics and passing laws that intrude on their privacy.

[Missouri Mule]

I am just glad that I am beyond childbearing age and no one can use my body as a football for their agenda.

Want to stop abortions? Provide sensible, realistic sex education in the schools. Make sure that contraceptives are readily available. Make sure that plenty of public assistance is available to women who want to keep their babies. Make sure that chiuld support laws have teeth and are enforced. Make sure that there are places for desperate women who find themselves pregnant and alone to go besides the nearest abortion clinic.

These measures would be far more effective than harrassing women at clinics and passing laws that intrude on their privacy.

I have no problem with anything that you say. However, I am arguing soley that the Supreme court INTERPRET the Constitution; not invent the law.

How did you like my auto warranty analogy? Do you believe it is a "living, breathing document?"

As an aside, I AM an child support expert but that is for another discussion.

[Ophelia]

I don't think your "car warranty" analogy works too well. A car warranty simply certifies that the car is guaranteed to operate as it is supposed to for a stated period of time, and provides for remedies if there are problems within that time. It doesn't have to be designed to deal with a diverse, secular society and a constantly changing world. I believe that the Constitution does. I believe that the framers of the Constitution did their best to make the Constitution flexible enough for future generations to deal with the problems they would encounter, because they could not predict what those problems would be.

[JD3]

Laws simply can't be written so clear as to not require interpretation. Neither can warranties or insurence policies, ask the folks in NO. What laws mean to the circumstance, to the society today, to individuals cannot help but be different than they were over 200 years ago. I hardly think the Foundering fathers would be happy if they came and we had not adapted at all. They made change to be slow and hard to bring about, but not to be stagnet in any branch of the government.

I will also add this: That which cannot change or grow is dead.

[dittohead not!]

One picture is worth a thousand words. Here is one picture of a 22 week old baby killed by abortion:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/pages/abortedbaby05.htm

Any questions?

[Ophelia]

Yes. Do you know why the woman involved made such a sad choice, especially at such a late date? If not, then don't judge. Abortion is a far more complex issue than the question at the beginning of this thread implies.

[Missouri Mule]

I don't think your "car warranty" analogy works too well. A car warranty simply certifies that the car is guaranteed to operate as it is supposed to for a stated period of time, and provides for remedies if there are problems within that time. It doesn't have to be designed to deal with a diverse, secular society and a constantly changing world. I believe that the Constitution does. I believe that the framers of the Constitution did their best to make the Constitution flexible enough for future generations to deal with the problems they would encounter, because they could not predict what those problems would be.

I'll tell you what the Constitution actually says. It says specifically that what authority is not vested in the federal government shall be vested in the states. That's right there in black and white.

Your operative words are "I believe." Constitutions are not intended to have people "believe" anything. Words are placed there for a reason. They have specific meanings.

If you don't like my car analogy, then read your homeowner's or car's insurance policies. You can certainly be assured that every word in those policies have very specific meanings. Every word is gone over with a fine tooth comb for meanings, interpretations, to insure that the insurer only insures what the company intends to insure. Nothing more.

I believe as a conservative that a constitution that means whatever a person chooses to "believe" it means isn't a constitution at all. It is a piece of worthless paper. We may as well light a match to it.

If the framers wanted a lot of "wiggle room" in the constitution they would have put it there. One can go back to the Federalist Papers and other historical documents to glean exactly what they intended the Constitution to mean. They did offer a way out. It is through Constitutional Amendments. But they intended that it be difficult to amend it. That was purposeful.

I wouldn't have a problem in the world with abortion if it were properly handled through the amendment process. That would be constitutional. You see it cuts both ways. Those who would ban gay marriage and flag burning will not be successful with amendments either.

As I said I don't care about abortion. I don't care about gay marriage. Heck, if it were up to me, people could be naked in the streets. What I don't want is for some robed potentate to come up with some "right" that isn't in the constitution. Why have elections? Let's just have an Iranian type government where the robed potentates determine right and wrong.

[dittohead not!]

Yes. Do you know why the woman involved made such a sad choice, especially at such a late date? If not, then don't judge. Abortion is a far more complex issue than the question at the beginning of this thread implies.

No, I have no idea why she made such a sad choice, so I won't judge her. I just posted the picture to make a point of what a sad choice abortion really is. :(

My third grandson is due December 31, making him just a little older than the baby who was killed. Luckily for him, he has two parents who already want him very much even if he wasn't "planned." :)

[Ophelia]

So now you're a Constitutional lawyer? Tell me how the Constitution could still be of any use if it wasn't designed to be adaptable to the changing needs of society through the years. I don't see that as "wiggle room." There has been division in this country among Constitutional scholars about strict construction and a more liberal approach ever since the Constitution was written. There is no document that is going to escape needing interpretation, no matter what it is. What we need is common sense and balance. I am no Constitutional scholar either, but I don't see that as unreasonable, and I doubt that most Constitutional scholars would either.

[Missouri Mule]

So now you're a Constitutional lawyer? Tell me how the Constitution could still be of any use if it wasn't designed to be adaptable to the changing needs of society through the years. I don't see that as "wiggle room." There has been division in this country among Constitutional scholars about strict construction and a more liberal approach ever since the Constitution was written. There is no document that is going to escape needing interpretation, no matter what it is. What we need is common sense and balance. I am no Constitutional scholar either, but I don't see that as unreasonable, and I doubt that most Constitutional scholars would either.

So why not use the amendment process as the constitution provides? It's the best of both worlds. It retains the integrity of the constitution while allowing for needed changes. It the electorate decide that abortion ought to be freely available everywhere it will be settled and that will be the end of it. As I said I DON'T CARE about abortion or gay marriage. I care about the constitution.

To continue to defend abortion by electing people who will appoint liberal judges is a round about way to circumvent the constitution. It was never intended to be done this way. Our judicial branch was intended to be the "least dangerous" of the three branches of government. Instead, the reverse is true. It has become the "most dangerous" of the three branches. The founders of our nation must surely be spinning in their graves.

[eugene40]

I care about the Constitution. That's the argument here. That's why I have also said we ought to have a Constitutional Convention and straighten things out. If one side want's common sense and morality, that's fine. If the other side want's public sex on the street and abortion clinics on every street corner, that's fine. And if we can't agree, then we ought to divorce as a nation and then the side that wants to "let everything hang out" hang out, without the side that I belong to subsidizing their actions.

Subsidizing their actions,, they aren't a business it is a woman,,, and what she wants to do within her own body. And I don't think they are wanting or trying to legislate public sex (and hey don't knock it till ya try it) And hardly public sex on every corner,, but the opportunity for a woman to take care of what resides in her body as she sees fit becuase it is HER body.

As to abortion, it should never have been an issue. The court should have left it up to the states to determine the parameters. If one state wanted abortion clinics everywhere and no questions asked, that's fine. If they want gay marriage and public sex. That's fine. Just don't tell me that the constitution and some political hack in a robe can concoct a "right" that doesn't exist there. Read the Constitution sometime. It's right there. You can look it up.
They are not and did not concoct a right, they decriminalized it and said it wasn't a crime for a woman to do what she wants within her own body. It also doesn't say in the constitution a embryo is a living breathing human being and women can't have an abortion. And it should be done by the courts because they are the ones that can speak for the whole of the nation and their words are held by every nation.. It shouldn't be that these women in this state can do within their body what they want but these women in this state can not. It is a national issue and should be addressed to the nation and the SC is the final word,, just like Miranda rights, or anything legislation or laws or rules people adhere to that they passed down. It is national not a state issue.

Look, if the unelected potentates in robes are going to invent law, then let's dispense with our president and congress people. We can save their salaries, medical care and pensions and just have these nine "wise men and women" just make it up as they see fit. We, the peons in the boondocks, will just have to bow down to their superior intellect and do what they tell us to do. Oh, wait, that's what they do in Iran, isn't it?
They do it all the time it just seems this one bothers you.... You don't seem to have any problems with any of the other major rules and laws they have handed down. Just because you don't believe in abortion doesn't make what they did or are doing wrong.

Let's just do the new Constitutional Convention and get it done up right. Those who want in can be in and the others can go their seperate ways. Then there won't be any more of this business about a "living, breathing constitution." Next time you buy a car, see if you mind the dealer telling you the warranty is a "living, breathing, document." You'll get the idea.

Because the constitution was meant to evolve as we as a nation evolve. The founders new the future was a coming and everything might not be the same as it was in 1776, it lives it breaths and it evolves along with us. Or we would never had abolished slavery, women never would have been given property rights or voting, and on and on and on and on and on. And the SC determines that and determines what is right and wrong. I don't agree with them everytime but I don't sit there and whine about it like an impotent boy that isn't getting his own way. A car warranty,,, please.... Are you really trying to make that comparisson.

[mataj]

One picture is worth a thousand words. Here is one picture of a 22 week old baby killed by abortion:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/pages/abortedbaby05.htm

Any questions?Yea. How do you know it really was an abortion and not miscarriage or something? It comes from http://www.priestsforlife.org/, after all. One can't be sure about anything here.

[dittohead not!]

Yea. How do you know it really was an abortion and not miscarriage or something? It comes from http://www.priestsforlife.org/, after all. One can't be sure about anything here.

Why should they use a picture of a miscarriage when there are plenty of real pictures of dead babies? What could the motive possibly be to fake a picture, when the real thing is so readily available?

Even if it was a miscarriage, it still shows what a 5 month old unborn baby looks like after he or she dies.

[mataj]

Why should they use a picture of a miscarriage when there are plenty of real pictures of dead babies?Most regretfully, babies die all the time, for one reason or another http://www.uscrusade.com/img/dead03.jpg. When pictures of dead babies are taken from medical textbooks, reason of death is not always that obvious, though.

Miscarried babies are pretty really dead also. Except, of course, if you count only aborted fetuses as genuine dead babies.
What could the motive possibly be to fake a picture, when the real thing is so readily available?Is it really a real thing?

I've already explained the motives of religious pro life movement somewhere around the beginning of this thread http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=621982#post621982: Lust for power. Besides a barrel of a gun, power comes primarily from lying, cheating, faking, and so on.
Even if it was a miscarriage, it still shows what a 5 month old unborn baby looks like after he or she dies.One of a great many disturbing things of this world.

When contemplating political issues, we must leave such baby stuff out of account at all cost, no matter how hard it could be. It's dangerous to make decisions based on sentimental feelings

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html

[Michele]

I've already explained the motives of religious pro life movement somewhere around the beginning of this thread http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=621982#post621982: Lust for power.



you forgot one of the underlying agendas. One needs to bare in mind that a percentage of white americans are under the impression that they are nearing extinction, particularly some on the looney christian right. So there are those on the far right within the pro life camp that do not wish to see anymore white babies aborted. Seems they will even settle for the birth of a child that is malformed, in an effort to distort all reality.

of course you aren't going to get many of the moderate pro-life advocates to admit this. Statistically, incidents of abortion is higher amongs educated caucasian women that it is amongst african american women across the economic spectrum.

[mataj]

you forgot one of the underlying agendas. . . . I'm not that familiar with US domestic political situation.

Racism, you say... Yea, that makes sense.

Transforming women (especially the educated ones) into childbearing machines is the usual ingredient of any authoritarian regime. The ones in power want as much human material at their disposal as possible.

[LibertaRiaN]

I'm aganist it, but it should remain legal.

What you do with your body and your life is your choice. I can only give suggestions. The decision is ultimately yours and you should be free to make it.

But then again, I'm one of the few conservative libeterians left on this planet....

Couldn't have said it better myself......but then, I'm another one of those few libertarians you mention (although I must share my belief that conservatism, in its truest sense, is the founding father of libertarianism---we've just been BS'd for so long by both neo-cons and liberals that we tend to associate conservatives with the activist "religious right"). The "State" does not belong in our bedrooms, our doctors' offices, our computers, our gun cabinets, or our medical records. 'Nuff said.

[dittohead not!]

Most regretfully, babies die all the time, for one reason or another http://www.uscrusade.com/img/dead03.jpg. When pictures of dead babies are taken from medical textbooks, reason of death is not always that obvious, though.

Miscarried babies are pretty really dead also. Except, of course, if you count only aborted fetuses as genuine dead babies.
Is it really a real thing?

I've already explained the motives of religious pro life movement somewhere around the beginning of this thread http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=621982#post621982: Lust for power. Besides a barrel of a gun, power comes primarily from lying, cheating, faking, and so on.
One of a great many disturbing things of this world.

When contemplating political issues, we must leave such baby stuff out of account at all cost, no matter how hard it could be. It's dangerous to make decisions based on sentimental feelings
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html


Again, why fake pictures of unborn babies who have been killed when the real thing is so readily available? Faking isn't necessary.

Oh, yes, by all means, let's leave "baby stuff" out of account when contemplating political realities. Just because babies are killed in war shouldn't affect our plans to engage in war. Just because unborn babies look like babies shouldn't change our opinion that they are just a bundle of tissue that can be discarded at will. While we're at it, let's just legalize killing babies after they are born as well. Since miscarried babies are also dead, and since babies sometimes die of natural causes after birth, we should be able to kill them, too. After all, raising a baby is a huge undertaking, and the parents should be able to make a "choice" after birth as well as before. Of course, there may be some "sentimental feelings" about such an action, but let's not let that change our ability to choose.

[mataj]

Again, why fake pictures of unborn babies who have been killed when the real thing is so readily available? Faking isn't necessary.
Again, is the real thing really real? Fakes are much more persuasive, if they are abundant.

Oh, yes, by all means, let's leave "baby stuff" out of account when contemplating political realities. Just because babies are killed in war shouldn't affect our plans to engage in war. Just because unborn babies look like babies shouldn't change our opinion that they are just a bundle of tissue that can be discarded at will.That's the political reality, yes, and political reality is not always nice :shrug: Enemy babies are of no concern when making plans to engage in war. They are not members of your society, and as such, they are fair game. They can be killed at will, and they are.

Similar logic can be applied for the unborn babies, fetuses, bundles of tissue, or whatever they are. Human or not, alive or not- they are not a members of society yet, and as such, they do not enjoy any legal protection. They are at the mercy of their Creator, their mother that is, and she has every right to kill them. The Lordette giveth and the Lordette taketh away.

While we're at it, let's . . . Slippery slope.

[Ophelia]

The thing that concerns me most about so many pro-lifers is that they are part of a neocon movement that would like nothing better than to become an American version of the Taliban, forcing their narrow worldview on the rest of us through legislation. I just don't trust anyone else making decisions about my body. In an ideal world, the only abortions performed would be those necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, and those, as I understand it, are rare. But in a society in which women are pretty much on their own if they find themselves alone and pregnant, no one has the right to judge or legislate the decisions they make.

[Missouri Mule]

Subsidizing their actions,, they aren't a business it is a woman,,, and what she wants to do within her own body. And I don't think they are wanting or trying to legislate public sex (and hey don't knock it till ya try it) And hardly public sex on every corner,, but the opportunity for a woman to take care of what resides in her body as she sees fit becuase it is HER body.

They are not and did not concoct a right, they decriminalized it and said it wasn't a crime for a woman to do what she wants within her own body. It also doesn't say in the constitution a embryo is a living breathing human being and women can't have an abortion. And it should be done by the courts because they are the ones that can speak for the whole of the nation and their words are held by every nation.. It shouldn't be that these women in this state can do within their body what they want but these women in this state can not. It is a national issue and should be addressed to the nation and the SC is the final word,, just like Miranda rights, or anything legislation or laws or rules people adhere to that they passed down. It is national not a state issue.

They do it all the time it just seems this one bothers you.... You don't seem to have any problems with any of the other major rules and laws they have handed down. Just because you don't believe in abortion doesn't make what they did or are doing wrong.

Because the constitution was meant to evolve as we as a nation evolve. The founders new the future was a coming and everything might not be the same as it was in 1776, it lives it breaths and it evolves along with us. Or we would never had abolished slavery, women never would have been given property rights or voting, and on and on and on and on and on. And the SC determines that and determines what is right and wrong. I don't agree with them everytime but I don't sit there and whine about it like an impotent boy that isn't getting his own way. A car warranty,,, please.... Are you really trying to make that comparisson.

Let's cut through the crapola, shall we? The fact is that the left is and has been trying to cram down our throats (the right) what they believe. The left CAN'T win at the ballot box so they do this end around and get these unelected robed potentates to invent the law. It is as simple as that.

And I'm serious about what I said. If the left wants to do away with civilized conduct in all fashion such as strangling babies as they emerge from the birth canal (partial birth abortion), then they can do it. Just do it as a separate nation and leave us, the people who believe in decency to live as a society that isn't ruled by unelected robed thugs who force their idelogy on everyone else. This is what they do in Iran. Why on earth would we want to do it here in America?

It's interesting you bring up slavery. I remind you it is the robed gangsters who in 1857 came up with the Dred Scott Decision. That was some more inventing of non-existent law.

DRED SCOTT SUBJECT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1857 WHICH DENIED CITIZENSHIP TO THE NEGRO, VOIDED THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE ACT, BECAME ONE OF THE EVENTS THAT RESULTED IN THE CIVIL WAR"

http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/chronology.html

The fact is that American society is on the verge of a second civil war. The nation has never been so divided since the Civil War. It began in 1974 when Justice Blackmun crammed through this outrageous decision that has led to many of the problems we have today. It even affects the current controversey over Iraq in that many on the right believe that the left cannot be left in control of our country's future.

[Missouri Mule]

The thing that concerns me most about so many pro-lifers is that they are part of a neocon movement that would like nothing better than to become an American version of the Taliban, forcing their narrow worldview on the rest of us through legislation. I just don't trust anyone else making decisions about my body. In an ideal world, the only abortions performed would be those necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, and those, as I understand it, are rare. But in a society in which women are pretty much on their own if they find themselves alone and pregnant, no one has the right to judge or legislate the decisions they make.

Thank you very much for making my argument. Legislation (that is to say democracy) ought to be subjugated to unelected judges? As I said, if this is the goal of the left, then let's just abolish the Congress and Presidency and appoint nine robed justices who make all the decisions and invent laws. Let's be up front about it.

[Ophelia]

Let me ask you this: Do you see anyone on the left telling any woman that she MUST have an abortion if she doesn't want one? Of course not. But do you see those on the right trying to force their narrow worldview on the rest of us? Well, they try. The ridiculous gay marriage amendment attempt and the desperate attempts to control what women do with their own bodies are just two examples. Just ask Michele about the Dominionists.

BTW, don't put words in my mouth. When I said legislation, I meant laws passed by federal, state, or local lawmaking bodies, not courts. I really don't see how I made your argument for you.

Don't want to be a partner in a gay marriage? Then don't be. Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have one. Want to go to church or synagogue or mosque or whatever? Then go. Don't want to go? Then don't. Want to read the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran or whatever? Then read them. Just don't try to force the rest of us to subscribe to your agenda.

[julierep]

Let me just say this: There are very, and I mean very, few medical reasons to abort a child because of the health of the mother. Science has almost erradicated most health problems in women due to pregnancy...although there are still a few (rarely) that do affect the health of the mother (very rare). Late term abortions because of fetal death does not happen. If a fetus is dead inside the mother, induction of labor is performed with an end resultant of fetal demise. The word abortion does not mean procedure, it means death of a fetus either thru artificial means or natural means.

[Sauniere]

Let me just say this: There are very, and I mean very, few medical reasons to abort a child because of the health of the mother. Science has almost erradicated most health problems in women due to pregnancy...although there are still a few (rarely) that do affect the health of the mother (very rare). Late term abortions because of fetal death does not happen. If a fetus is dead inside the mother, induction of labor is performed with an end resultant of fetal demise. The word abortion does not mean procedure, it means death of a fetus either thru artificial means or natural means.

Julie, I am an anthropologist, and I know the following:
http://www.cbctrust.com/history_law_religion.php#1
-snip-
In 1955, the anthropologist George Devereux demonstrated that abortion has been practised in almost all human communities from the earliest times. The patterns of abortion use, in hundreds of societies around the world since before recorded history, have been strikingly similar. Women faced with unwanted pregnancies have turned to abortion, regardless of religious or legal sanction and often at considerable risk. Used to deal with upheavals in personal, family, and community life, abortion has been called “a fundamental aspect of human behaviour”.

In primitive tribal societies, abortions were induced by using poisonous herbs, sharp sticks, or by sheer pressure on the abdomen until vaginal bleeding occurred. Abortion techniques are described in the oldest known medical texts. The ancient Chinese and Egyptians had their methods and recipes to cause abortion, and Greek and Roman civilizations considered abortion an integral part of maintaining a stable population. Ancient instruments, such as the ones found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, were much like modern surgical instruments. The Greeks and Romans also had various poisons administered in various ways, including through tampons.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all known to suggest abortion. Even Hippocrates, who spoke against abortion because he feared injury to the woman, recommended it on occasion by prescribing violent exercises. Roman morality placed no social stigma on abortion.

Early Christians condemned abortion, but did not view the termination of a pregnancy to be an abortion before "ensoulment", the definition of when life began in the womb. Up to 400 AD., as the relatively few Christians were widely scattered geographically, the actual practice of abortion among Christians probably varied considerably and was influenced by regional customs and practices.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````
We have attached religious significance to a subject that predates Christianity by millennium. Native American tribes, every civilization of this planet has practiced abortion. So just because Christianity might now be a dominant religion on the planet, does that make the practices of all previous civilizations over thousands of years invalid? As an anthropologist I accept all religions, and all beliefs, and all practices as valid for that society at that time. Religion has only entered into the debate in the last 1000 years.

[Craig]

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all known to suggest abortion.

Question Sauniere- where does Plato advocate abortion? I am reading the Republic right now, and while Plato does advocate eugenics, I don't recall any specific discussion on abortion.

[Michele]

Let me just say this: There are very, and I mean very, few medical reasons to abort a child because of the health of the mother. Science has almost erradicated most health problems in women due to pregnancy...although there are still a few (rarely) that do affect the health of the mother (very rare).

please provide us statistics.



Late term abortions because of fetal death does not happen. If a fetus is dead inside the mother, induction of labor is performed with an end resultant of fetal demise. The word abortion does not mean procedure, it means death of a fetus either thru artificial means or natural means.

but it does happen and partial birth abortions are required for health purposes, in the case of a malformed child, or in those instances when the child is alive but prognosis is not good that the child will live outside of the womb. Now if you want to argue that this NEVER HAPPEN please provide us actual medical data. Not from a pro life site but from the NIH. or the AMA.

[Sauniere]

Question Sauniere- where does Plato advocate abortion? I am reading the Republic right now, and while Plato does advocate eugenics, I don't recall any specific discussion on abortion.

Dude, that reference comes from the article, not my mouth (or fingers).

[Craig]

Dude, that reference comes from the article, not my mouth (or fingers).

Nevermind, I found it anyways:

"However, I think that when women and men have passed the age of having children, we'll leave them free to have sex with whomever they wish, with these exceptions: For a man- his daughter, his mother, his daughter's children, and his mother's ancestors; for a women- her son and his descendants, her father and his ancestors. Having received these instructions, they should be very careful not to let a single fetus see the light of day..." Republic V

I think Plato made an error here, since if you read carefully you'll note that he implies it is appropriate for a father to have sex with his son's children, and a mother to have sex with her daughter's children. Knowing the importance Plato places upon morality, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[Sauniere]

Nevermind, I found it anyways:

"However, I think that when women and men have passed the age of having children, we'll leave them free to have sex with whomever they wish, with these exceptions: For a man- his daughter, his mother, his daughter's children, and his mother's ancestors; for a women- her son and his descendants, her father and his ancestors. Having received these instructions, they should be very careful not to let a single fetus see the light of day..." Republic V

I think Plato made an error here, since if you read carefully you'll note that he implies it is appropriate for a father to have sex with his son's children, and a mother to have sex with her daughter's children. Knowing the importance Plato places upon morality, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But don't forget that this ALL predates Christianity, which did not take any true meaningful form until the 5th century A.D. What was common place prior is looked upon today with mouths agape.

[Craig]

But don't forget that this ALL predates Christianity, which did not take any true meaningful form until the 5th century A.D. What was common place prior is looked upon today with mouths agape.

Edit: My first response was based on a misunderstanding of your post. Plato's comment seems to indicate that he does not think incest is appropriate. So, unless there's some reason to think that he would have considered men sleeping with their son's daughters appropriate, and women sleeping with their daughter's sons appropriate, I think we can safely rule it out as something Plato did not fully think through at the time.

[Sauniere]

Edit: My first response was based on a misunderstanding of your post. Plato's comment seems to indicate that he does not think incest is appropriate. So, unless there's some reason to think that he would have considered men sleeping with their son's daughters appropriate, and women sleeping with their daughter's sons appropriate, I think we can safely rule it out as something Plato did not fully think through at the time.

I'm not sure the Greeks considered anything or anyone out of bounds.

[eugene40]

[QUOTE]Let's cut through the crapola, shall we? The fact is that the left is and has been trying to cram down our throats (the right) what they believe. The left CAN'T win at the ballot box so they do this end around and get these unelected robed potentates to invent the law. It is as simple as that.
How is letting women that want an abortion craming it down your throat. Now you may choke on the your wanna be self righteousness but that is of your own cause not any of the supposed left. And have we polled all of the judges in the US I have no Idea but I would go as far as to say conservatives outweigh liber judges.

And I'm serious about what I said. If the left wants to do away with civilized conduct in all fashion such as strangling babies as they emerge from the birth canal (partial birth abortion), then they can do it. Just do it as a separate nation and leave us, the people who believe in decency to live as a society that isn't ruled by unelected robed thugs who force their idelogy on everyone else. This is what they do in Iran. Why on earth would we want to do it here in America?
No one is forcing you to do ****. If you don't want to have an abortion,, don't have it. Get off your high horse,, stop living in the decade you were born in and join the evolution of society,,,, And to what you say is civilized I view as contemptable and bull****,,, see hwo perspective works. And again making it available for those who would take part in it isn't shoving it down your throat.

It's interesting you bring up slavery. I remind you it is the robed gangsters who in 1857 came up with the Dred Scott Decision. That was some more inventing of non-existent law.
Wow,,, thanks for that i must have missed it when I got my MASTERS DEGREE.... Also what about what those horrible robed figures did in the 50's with Brown V. Board of education,,, damn them... It takes all kind.. some for the better and some the result of narrow minded, biased, ignorants that want to keep things the way they were. :)

The fact is that American society is on the verge of a second civil war. The nation has never been so divided since the Civil War. It began in 1974 when Justice Blackmun crammed through this outrageous decision that has led to many of the problems we have today. It even affects the current controversey over Iraq in that many on the right believe that the left cannot be left in control of our country's future.

Frankly I can't wait, I hope it occurs when I am still of the ability to fight. because boy that is a battle I would love to be a part of. I do agree it is coming, it already has started with bombings of innocent people in abortion clinics and such. And the left sits there and takes it because the refuse to stoop down to such a level. They appeal to the intellectual and reasoned way to deal with such things the justice system and the courts. And it is so very much bigger then Blackmun giving women the right to do what they want within their OWN BODY. It more has to do with the right and the psycho christian nuts wanting to push their beliefs on the rest of society, who do not adhere to the ignorant ramblings of a book. Yet it is ok when they decide what is best for the rest of the country right,,,, it is ok when they do it because they are in the same mind set as you, right? So please spare the rest of us your sanctimonious crap and self-indignations. You want to know the detriment to our countries future. I would suggest starting by looking into those nice shiny objects going throughout your house. I believe they are called mirrors.

And the only the Iraq comment, please don't blame the left for this administrations and their followers (you) mistakes, and ignorant beliefs in the lead up to and the administration of this war. Because really it is getting rather old, that and the WW2 references and yada yada blah blah blah... We get it mule you lean way to the right and your were alive during the War... We understand. But understand this, Not everyone believes as you do, not everyone thinks we should stay with the same beliefs as they were during that time. Hell it wasn't even the beliefs in that time.. it just wasn't talked about as much as it is now. Thank tv for that. If you want to stay the same and adhere to an unlivable (by most) moral code I suggest you sell all of your things and join a cult. Because this is america,, land of the free and all of that. And a woman has a right to do what she wants within her own body. And if it is taken away, they can go to people like me for protection from the crazies.

[Sgt Schultz]

The fact is that American society is on the verge of a second civil war. The nation has never been so divided since the Civil War. It began in 1974 when Justice Blackmun crammed through this outrageous decision that has led to many of the problems we have today. It even affects the current controversey over Iraq in that many on the right believe that the left cannot be left in control of our country's future.

If it's on the verge of a civil war it's because those on the far Christian right can't stand the fact that the courts have upheld the principles of the Constitution. They don't have a monopoly on forcing everyone to follow their doctrine anymore. Yet they believe that by allowing others to live their own lives they themselves are being forced to abandon their ways because others won't or don't follow them.

[Craig]

I'm not sure the Greeks considered anything or anyone out of bounds.

Read the Republic. Plato certainly considers many things to be "out of bounds". He wants to censor many of the Greek poets for giving false accounts of heroes and the gods. Only good music is to be played in Plato's Republic; all other sorts of music are to be forbidden. Older men are not to have sexual relationships with younger men. There are many other things out of bounds in the Republic, but these are some of the more important things Plato mentions. While your comment is relevent to Greek society in general, it certainly does not apply to the Republic.

[Missouri Mule]

Let me ask you this: Do you see anyone on the left telling any woman that she MUST have an abortion if she doesn't want one? Of course not. But do you see those on the right trying to force their narrow worldview on the rest of us? Well, they try. The ridiculous gay marriage amendment attempt and the desperate attempts to control what women do with their own bodies are just two examples. Just ask Michele about the Dominionists.

BTW, don't put words in my mouth. When I said legislation, I meant laws passed by federal, state, or local lawmaking bodies, not courts. I really don't see how I made your argument for you.

Don't want to be a partner in a gay marriage? Then don't be. Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have one. Want to go to church or synagogue or mosque or whatever? Then go. Don't want to go? Then don't. Want to read the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran or whatever? Then read them. Just don't try to force the rest of us to subscribe to your agenda.

I reread your response and you clearly said that we shouldn't be subject to the legislation unless my eyes are playing a trick on me. This obviously means that the courts should invent laws. What did you mean exactly when you said we shouldn't be subject to legislated laws?

BTW, I never said anything about forcing a woman to have an abortion by the left. I've already said that a woman or gay person can do whatever they wish. What I have said is that the courts should not be making up laws that make a mockery of our form of government called democracy. I don't know how clear I can make that. Interpret the laws; don't make them up.

[Missouri Mule]

[QUOTE=Missouri Mule]
How is letting women that want an abortion craming it down your throat. Now you may choke on the your wanna be self righteousness but that is of your own cause not any of the supposed left. And have we polled all of the judges in the US I have no Idea but I would go as far as to say conservatives outweigh liber judges.

No one is forcing you to do ****. If you don't want to have an abortion,, don't have it. Get off your high horse,, stop living in the decade you were born in and join the evolution of society,,,, And to what you say is civilized I view as contemptable and bull****,,, see hwo perspective works. And again making it available for those who would take part in it isn't shoving it down your throat.


Wow,,, thanks for that i must have missed it when I got my MASTERS DEGREE.... Also what about what those horrible robed figures did in the 50's with Brown V. Board of education,,, damn them... It takes all kind.. some for the better and some the result of narrow minded, biased, ignorants that want to keep things the way they were. :)



Frankly I can't wait, I hope it occurs when I am still of the ability to fight. because boy that is a battle I would love to be a part of. I do agree it is coming, it already has started with bombings of innocent people in abortion clinics and such. And the left sits there and takes it because the refuse to stoop down to such a level. They appeal to the intellectual and reasoned way to deal with such things the justice system and the courts. And it is so very much bigger then Blackmun giving women the right to do what they want within their OWN BODY. It more has to do with the right and the psycho christian nuts wanting to push their beliefs on the rest of society, who do not adhere to the ignorant ramblings of a book. Yet it is ok when they decide what is best for the rest of the country right,,,, it is ok when they do it because they are in the same mind set as you, right? So please spare the rest of us your sanctimonious crap and self-indignations. You want to know the detriment to our countries future. I would suggest starting by looking into those nice shiny objects going throughout your house. I believe they are called mirrors.

And the only the Iraq comment, please don't blame the left for this administrations and their followers (you) mistakes, and ignorant beliefs in the lead up to and the administration of this war. Because really it is getting rather old, that and the WW2 references and yada yada blah blah blah... We get it mule you lean way to the right and your were alive during the War... We understand. But understand this, Not everyone believes as you do, not everyone thinks we should stay with the same beliefs as they were during that time. Hell it wasn't even the beliefs in that time.. it just wasn't talked about as much as it is now. Thank tv for that. If you want to stay the same and adhere to an unlivable (by most) moral code I suggest you sell all of your things and join a cult. Because this is america,, land of the free and all of that. And a woman has a right to do what she wants within her own body. And if it is taken away, they can go to people like me for protection from the crazies.

Now that you have gotten on your high horse and told me what you think I said and not what I said, let me ask you simply. What is the function of the courts? Is it to interpret the laws or is it to make/invent/fabricate the laws?

You don't like my Dred Scott decision comparison do you? I didn't think you would. But that is the concoction of the United States Supreme Court, isn't it? So, if the left wants to say that the courts should hold sway over our society, they ought to swallow all of the Kool-aid served up; just not what they want to obey.

How many times do I have to say I DON'T CARE about abortion or gay rights? This is not about that argument. This is about whether or not we believe in a constitutional form of government or whether or not we want to have an Iranian form of government where robed potentates determine the future of our lives. Admit it. The left can't win at the ballot box (ironically because a lot of liberal votes have been aborted in the womb) so they turn to the courts to get their way. That's the bottom line.

Am I wrong? And please don't concoct some long winded straw man argument. I've never bombed an abortion clinic in my life and please don't associate me with those lunatics. Hang them from the highest oat tree is my motto. Just address my points, please.

[JD3]

[QUOTE=eugene40]

Now that you have gotten on your high horse and told me what you think I said and not what I said, let me ask you simply. What is the function of the courts? Is it to interpret the laws or is it to make/invent/fabricate the laws?

You don't like my Dred Scott decision comparison do you? I didn't think you would. But that is the concoction of the United States Supreme Court, isn't it? So, if the left wants to say that the courts should hold sway over our society, they ought to swallow all of the Kool-aid served up; just not what they want to obey.

How many times do I have to say I DON'T CARE about abortion or gay rights? This is not about that argument. This is about whether or not we believe in a constitutional form of government or whether or not we want to have an Iranian form of government where robed potentates determine the future of our lives. Admit it. The left can't win at the ballot box (ironically because a lot of liberal votes have been aborted in the womb) so they turn to the courts to get their way. That's the bottom line.

Am I wrong? And please don't concoct some long winded straw man argument. I've never bombed an abortion clinic in my life and please don't associate me with those lunatics. Hang them from the highest oat tree is my motto. Just address my points, please.

I think you misunderstand the process. Just because pundits and religeous folks say they are legislating from the bench doesn't mean they are. The law is not always clear and cases are made before the bench concerning the law. They rule based on their understanding of the law and the intent of the law. It is difficult and not as simple like to pretend it is.

However, if we elect judges for the expressed purpose of overturning, well, then you will have activist judges. Roe v Wade is the law of the land and it will take activism to overturn it. It isn't a big issue on my screen, but I think we should be honest about this.

[Missouri Mule]

Let me just say this: There are very, and I mean very, few medical reasons to abort a child because of the health of the mother. Science has almost erradicated most health problems in women due to pregnancy...although there are still a few (rarely) that do affect the health of the mother (very rare). Late term abortions because of fetal death does not happen. If a fetus is dead inside the mother, induction of labor is performed with an end resultant of fetal demise. The word abortion does not mean procedure, it means death of a fetus either thru artificial means or natural means.

Not only that but here we have in 1974 a Supreme Court that decided when a fetus is a viable growing potential human being. I'm not an expert here but I believe they said something to the fact that it can be done legally within the first trimester (or is it the second?) or something to that effect. How a robed justice can come up with a doctrine like that from the Constitution is a remarkable achievement; one that Harry Blackmun (appointed by Richard Nixon no less) concocted. Now it is known that further medical advances have made it possible for such fetuses to be viable at an earlier stage.

The question here is what constitutes life. If a mother gives birth to a child and throws it into a garbage pale and it dies, it is clearly an act of murder. But, on the other hand, if she aborts it at the properly designated period of time according to the Supreme Court logic, it is perfectly her right to do so and no penalty ensues. The Supreme Court came up with a specific time period. On the one hand, she is legal if she aborts one day up to the specified time and a murderess if she aborts it one day later. This is part of this "privacy" doctrine that was concocted out of whole cloth.

If the United States wants to have an amendment that says a woman has a right to do whatever she wants to do with her body, and the proper number of states ratify this amendment it becomes law. Fine and good. This is constitutional and I have no problem with it. But because the left do not believe they can get this amendment they don't propose to do that. Instead, they want to impose a litmus test on every potential Supreme Court nominee. This can only mean one thing to me. They do not believe in constitutional government. And this is why I offer up a final alternative. Since we are so closely split and so significantly diametrically opposed on this issue, let's just call the whole thing off. Let's get a divorce. The left can go one way and the right the other way. I think it is long overdue. No bloodshed. Everybody is happy. What's wrong with this plan?

[dittohead not!]

The question here is what constitutes life. If a mother gives birth to a child and throws it into a garbage pale and it dies, it is clearly an act of murder. But, on the other hand, if she aborts it at the properly designated period of time according to the Supreme Court logic, it is perfectly her right to do so and no penalty ensues. The Supreme Court came up with a specific time period. On the one hand, she is legal if she aborts one day up to the specified time and a murderess if she aborts it one day later. This is part of this "privacy" doctrine that was concocted out of whole cloth.



Yes, if a woman kills her baby before it is born, it's O.K., just a choice, just getting rid of some unwanted tissue. If she kills it after it is born, then it is murder. The Supreme Court may call that logic, but it seems pretty illogical to me.

Just when do two cells become a child? When does the human spirit come to inhabit the newly formed body? I can't answer that question, neither can you nor can the Supreme Court. I say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it's a duck. If it looks like a baby, then it's a baby. Killing a baby before it is born is no different from killing it after. Saying that abortion sometimes happens spontaneously, therefore it's O.K. to induce it, is like saying that babies sometimes die, so it's O.K to kill them.

The court might say that a woman has the right to do what she will with her own body, but the baby growing inside her is not part of her body. It is still a separate human being.

As for a "constitutional right," just exactly where does the Constitution address abortion?

[JD3]

Yes, if a woman kills her baby before it is born, it's O.K., just a choice, just getting rid of some unwanted tissue. If she kills it after it is born, then it is murder. The Supreme Court may call that logic, but it seems pretty illogical to me.

Just when do two cells become a child? When does the human spirit come to inhabit the newly formed body? I can't answer that question, neither can you nor can the Supreme Court. I say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it's a duck. If it looks like a baby, then it's a baby. Killing a baby before it is born is no different from killing it after. Saying that abortion sometimes happens spontaneously, therefore it's O.K. to induce it, is like saying that babies sometimes die, so it's O.K to kill them.

The court might say that a woman has the right to do what she will with her own body, but the baby growing inside her is not part of her body. It is still a separate human being.

As for a "constitutional right," just exactly where does the Constitution address abortion?


Just a question. If no one can know, wouldn't that make it proper to be an individual choice?

[Missouri Mule]

Just a question. If no one can know, wouldn't that make it proper to be an individual choice?

My goodness gracious. If I have sufficient reason, do I have the right to make an "individual choice" to go next door and blow away my next door neighbor? Of course not. There are limits on all our actions. One of those actions prior to the Supreme Court was that no one had he right to kill children, born or unborn. The argument has been that an unborn child has no rights; not being a citizen yet. That takes place upon the day of birth. At that time the newborn child has the same rights as any other American, regardless of age. The Supreme Court in 1974 concocted a law that essentially said that if the abortion occurred prior to a certain period of the pregnancy that the child was not actually a citizen and therefore was eligible to be legally murdered by the mother who for whatever reason didn't want to bear the child. It would have been a much cleaner ruling and I would argue "constitutional" to have said no unborn baby has ANY rights to anything, including life unless it was actually born and outside the woman's body. It didn't say that. Why didn't it say that? The answer is obvious. It would have been a firestorm of criticism that would have brought down the Supreme Court. They would have no legitimacy after such a ruling. So they tried to thread the needle with this whole cloth ruling and 31 years after the fact the country is split down the middle as never before. Not since the time of our Civil War have the American people been so divided by such an issue. All because of one ruling. Blackmun was clever, but he was also stupid. His solution to his problem that even Solomon in all his wisdom couldn't resolve was attempted to be resolved by the Supreme Court. That was exceedingly foolish.

The bottom line is that we didn't have a problem until the ruling. If a woman felt she had to abort the child should could have gone to a state that provided for abortions. It would have been inconvenient but since when have killing other human beings been supposed to be easy to do? Had the constitution been followed which provided that such powers not vested in the federal government were to be vested in the states, the problem would have resolved itself over time. When will we ever learn?

[dittohead not!]

Just a question. If no one can know, wouldn't that make it proper to be an individual choice?

You just might have a point there, but why does the choice end after birth?

[JD3]

You just might have a point there, but why does the choice end after birth?

I think there are very clear reasons for that. Once born, we know. We do not know when a soul enters a fetus. Once born, the fetus is separated from the body and is clearly a different person, most likely with a soul.

[eugene40]

[QUOTE=eugene40]
[QUOTE]Now that you have gotten on your high horse and told me what you think I said and not what I said, let me ask you simply. What is the function of the courts? Is it to interpret the laws or is it to make/invent/fabricate the laws?

So because I knock you off of your high horse (though I begin to doubt that is possible). I am automatically on one right. The function of the courts is two fold, to interpret the laws and sometimes when laws or situations or cases warrant it. Hand down rulings which become laws, but see it is far easier to get those repealed then it is to get an ammendment repealed or to even enact an ammendment,, The courts are the final protection of rights for the citizens of this nation. Would you like me to go over my entire two semmesters of Constitutional Law or is that layman explanation good enough for ya. And it is hardly fabricating... just because you don't happen to agree with it doesn't mean it is lowered to a mere fabrication.

You don't like my Dred Scott decision comparison do you? I didn't think you would. But that is the concoction of the United States Supreme Court, isn't it? So, if the left wants to say that the courts should hold sway over our society, they ought to swallow all of the Kool-aid served up; just not what they want to obey.

Now I know you like to make **** up as you go along,,, but did you bother even reading my post.. allow me to point ou