I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

Abuskedti

we haven't talked much about abortion. This is the toughest issue I have ever pondered. In the end, I find myself being pro-choice even though by all counts abortion is bad and should be stopped. Yet, circumstances today in America seem to be such that the people need not to have this type of thing legislated.

Debate on such a tough issue is rendered impossible because of politics. Because of the misrepresentation of both sides. I'd like to start with one of the conservative sides.

Can we just talk about one thing for now?

The Conservatives use Pro-Life as their platform and the single greatest vote producer. They vow basically to appoint supreme court justices that will overturn Roe v Wade.

These are the same people that preach that they don't want these judges to "legislate from the bench". Yet that are going to pervert the Supreme Court by proudly proclaiming on the comapaign trail that they will select judges based on their desire to overturn one particular law.

Don't they owe respect to the constitution and our legal process? This is currently the law of the land. There are many reasons this is the law of the land. There is a process to challange laws.

This is one simple contradiction in a long list rendering our country incapable of even addressing something.

catefrances

there should never be any legislation that dictates what a woman should be allowed to do with her body that trepasses against her own free will. ALL persons should have the right of sovereignty over their own body.

kenny olav

Without the abortion issue, the Republicans would never elect any Presidents or have any chance of being the majority party in the Congress.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

there should never be any legislation that dictates what a woman should be allowed to do with her body that trepasses against her own free will. ALL persons should have the right of sovereignty over their own body.

Hi again cate. Nice to talk to you again.
Just wanted to point out that a baby is not part of the mothers body. It has its own body, its own spirit and should have its own human rights, at the very least the right to life. I agree that ALL persons should have sovreignty over there own body, but why do you not allow the unborn child this right?

Peace

Abuskedti

timsinclair wrote:

Hi again cate. Nice to talk to you again.
Just wanted to point out that a baby is not part of the mothers body. It has its own body, its own spirit and should have its own human rights, at the very least the right to life. I agree that ALL persons should have sovreignty over there own body, but why do you not allow the unborn child this right?

Peace

I am not sure what you mean by "it's own spirit". and this is not the point of this discussion...

Medicated-Genius

timsinclair wrote:

Hi again cate. Nice to talk to you again.
Just wanted to point out that a baby is not part of the mothers body. It has its own body, its own spirit and should have its own human rights, at the very least the right to life. I agree that ALL persons should have sovreignty over there own body, but why do you not allow the unborn child this right?

Peace

This is, of itself, the root of the debate. Depending on which side of the debate you sit, the unborn cannot survive outside the womans body until several months after conception. Until that time, it is part of the mothers body and is produced from her very own cells.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

Hi again cate. Nice to talk to you again.
Just wanted to point out that a baby is not part of the mothers body. It has its own body, its own spirit and should have its own human rights, at the very least the right to life. I agree that ALL persons should have sovreignty over there own body, but why do you not allow the unborn child this right?

Peace

hi tim. having given birth to 4 children i am well aware what is and isnt a part of the mothers body. the fact is an embryo has a parasitic relationship to its mother. without her it would not survive. an embryo has no rights cause it cant demand them. it has no legal standing. and in my opinion it should not.

Smellyman2

The GOP is a farce. Their platform is small gov and letting people has as much freedoms as possible.

Reality is the opposite.

They sure do dupe a lot a lot people though.

catch22

Kenny Olav wrote:

Without the abortion issue, the Republicans would never elect any Presidents or have any chance of being the majority party in the Congress.

they might. they'd just have to actually take a look at their platform and start addressing issues that matter to real americans.

i know too many people who are one-issue abortion voters though. that is something i will never understand.

jeffbr

Abuskedti wrote:

These are the same people that preach that they don't want these judges to "legislate from the bench". Yet that are going to pervert the Supreme Court by proudly proclaiming on the comapaign trail that they will select judges based on their desire to overturn one particular law.

Don't they owe respect to the constitution and our legal process? This is currently the law of the land. There are many reasons this is the law of the land. There is a process to challange laws.

In general I agree with what you're saying, and would like to see choice of all kind respected and protected from government interference. In response to your point above, conservatives will claim that the legislation from the bench occurred with Roe v Wade, and that they simply want to unwind that legislation from the bench.

I'm not sure that either a McCain or an Obama administration will make this a huge issue. McCain is certainly luke-warm with the evangelicals. It looks like Romney may be his pick. Romney was pro-choice until he needed to pander. So neither are crusaders on this issue.

Obama seems to try to avoid the issue, and Biden will be more concerned with foreign policy than reproduction, so neither of them appear to be crusaders either.

I'm hoping that no matter which administration is elected this becomes a non-issues for many years.

slightofjeff

In a way, this issue seems more simple than complicated.

At what point does one consider a human being and human being?

If you consider a human being to be a human being at conception, then abortion is murder and murder is always wrong.

If you consider a human being to be a human being sometime after conception, then abortion is murder after whatever time that is.

If you believe that a human being isn't a human being until after it is actually born, then God have mercy on your soul.

searchlightsoul

Basically its about imposing christan values on other people under the guise of them being "conservative" party policies.

Its a slippery slope argument like all the others and we know that right wingers/christian fundametalists (same thing) can't deal with probelms unless its black or white. The idea that an embryo is not a "child" -as they love to repeatedly use in this debate- just doesn't register with them.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

searchlightsoul wrote:

The idea that an embryo is not a "child" -as they love to repeatedly use in this debate- just doesn't register with them.

how do you know? how does anyone know this shit. why doesnt it register to you that it could be? its an impossible debate.

Jeff is right. whats the cutoff date? any one know? i think its after 3 months, and thats a completely arbitrary number i just pulled out of my ass.

stop getting knocked up or stop knocking up chicks and we wont have to worry about it!


Just Pull Out!

writersu

hey..........how's it going?

well, just because I have been part of these talks here, it peaked my interest a bit.....well, a lot a bit......whatever....

Anyway, I have come to think that anyone in the political realm is spinning a web that is intended for their audience of the day. I use to consider myself a republican, then I got involved in talking about the war, abortion, death penalty, etc here on some different threads and now I think I am not either party....I kind of like that because it means I THINK. I capped that because it means to me that some people do not. The people I mean, are those who are usually running.........

I am a Christian, not part of any religion, just a follower of Jesus who is trying always to be humble as He was, forgiving as He was, non judgemental as He was, and to know in my heart I will never be perfect, nor will I ever be better than anyone else for any belief I may hold. What I am, in that respect, to me means, that I am one step always from falling off of the face of the earth where all of my firm convictions can be tested for truth.

So, I cannot speak of abortion unless faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I cannot speak of war unless I have sons there. I cannot speak of death penalty unless I have my father on death row for something he did not do. And, if I am to become so bold as to speak out on these then my actions must be as follows.........

If I am pro life then I need to get off of my ass and get to a teenage pregnancy home and assist these young girls who are having their babies and not aborting them. And if I am pro war, then I had better get myself to a VA hospital and see these men and spend time with those who fill endless hours at these places , while they fought for our country. And if I am for the death penalty then I had better find out some appointed judges and see what they do in regard to true guilty or innocent pleas and decide whether or not they put the time in they should to tally someone's life.

sorry to be longwinded, here. And my answer was a bit much but I am not angry at you by any means. I am more angry at the ones who speak as you said, judging and harsh. A good friend of mine, just recently told me we cannot be friends anymore because she thinks we are too different. She is a catholic who makes her kids go to confession constantly, she uses Jesus' name to beat everyone up verbally, and her kids have to wear these scapula things everywhere they go. I use to think she was just her, and I respected that but since she has slapped her intolerance across my face, I see a hypocritical voice I did not hear before. I cannot speak for Jesus or the Father, but I sincerely think that in my heart, my arrogance, judgement, or insensitivity I have shown in my life,will be the harshest judgements I will be judged for in my last hour.

peacegirl

The abortion issue comes down to a sex education issue in my opinion. By the way, I am pro-choice

If the focus was on educating everyone about safe sex then perhaps there would be less unwanted pregancies and in turn, fewer abortions.

Although, I am realistic and realize that b/c of religious views this is somewhat wishful thinking

in_hiding79

I'm for it!!

in_hiding79

timsinclair wrote:

Hi again cate. Nice to talk to you again.
Just wanted to point out that a baby is not part of the mothers body. It has its own body, its own spirit and should have its own human rights, at the very least the right to life. I agree that ALL persons should have sovreignty over there own body, but why do you not allow the unborn child this right?

Peace

Spirit?


Weird...

in_hiding79

slightofjeff wrote:

In a way, this issue seems more simple than complicated.

At what point does one consider a human being and human being?

If you consider a human being to be a human being at conception, then abortion is murder and murder is always wrong.

If you consider a human being to be a human being sometime after conception, then abortion is murder after whatever time that is.

If you believe that a human being isn't a human being until after it is actually born, then God have mercy on your soul.

I come on moving train for a good laugh......you guys do it all the time!! thanks..


LMAO!!

_

Abuskedti wrote:

we haven't talked much about abortion. This is the toughest issue I have ever pondered. In the end, I find myself being pro-choice even though by all counts abortion is bad and should be stopped. Yet, circumstances today in America seem to be such that the people need not to have this type of thing legislated.

Debate on such a tough issue is rendered impossible because of politics. Because of the misrepresentation of both sides. I'd like to start with one of the conservative sides.

Can we just talk about one thing for now?

The Conservatives use Pro-Life as their platform and the single greatest vote producer. They vow basically to appoint supreme court justices that will overturn Roe v Wade.

These are the same people that preach that they don't want these judges to "legislate from the bench". Yet that are going to pervert the Supreme Court by proudly proclaiming on the comapaign trail that they will select judges based on their desire to overturn one particular law.

Don't they owe respect to the constitution and our legal process? This is currently the law of the land. There are many reasons this is the law of the land. There is a process to challange laws.

This is one simple contradiction in a long list rendering our country incapable of even addressing something.

I see your point about the hypocrisy of saying you don't want people to legislate from the bench and then appointing them based in large part on their desire to overturn a specific ruling.

I'm not sure I understand how strictly you're using the word "law" but I think one reason this is still an issue is that Roe v. Wade is just a court ruling - not a law. Perhaps if we had an actual law we wouldn't keep coming back to this. I think it might also help if we passed the Equal Rights Amendment.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

After all else is done...like food...shelter...etc....comes sex.

Same deal here....

lot's to consider...it's a great distraction though....it's keeps people spinning away on it for many moons.

in the end....who cares... do what you want for your life.... stop trying to live and control other people's lives.. It's an illness some (many) people have....

Abuskedti

scb wrote:

I see your point about the hypocrisy of saying you don't want people to legislate from the bench and then appointing them based in large part on their desire to overturn a specific ruling.

I'm not sure I understand how strictly you're using the word "law" but I think one reason this is still an issue is that Roe v. Wade is just a court ruling - not a law. Perhaps if we had an actual law we wouldn't keep coming back to this. I think it might also help if we passed the Equal Rights Amendment.

It is called Case Law or Precedent and is binding on all lower courts. Roe v Wade was apealed to the Supreme Court and upheld. It is therefore binding in every US court/

chopitdown

peacegirl wrote:

The abortion issue comes down to a sex education issue in my opinion. By the way, I am pro-choice

If the focus was on educating everyone about safe sex then perhaps there would be less unwanted pregancies and in turn, fewer abortions.

Although, I am realistic and realize that b/c of religious views this is somewhat wishful thinking

the avg age for an abortion is somewhere around 20 depending on which study you look at. (and the group with the highest rate is around 20-24) You're going to try and say that a woman or man by that age isn't aware of sex education and safe sex practices? Education doesn't mean that people follow the education. I agree that if people use safe sex the number will go down; however, people don't. It comes down to responsibility to make the right choice, imo.

in_hiding79

There is something out there called "the morning after pill"....just use it before anything happens in case you had a one night stand or the condom breaks or whatever....

_

chopitdown wrote:

the avg age for an abortion is somewhere around 20 depending on which study you look at. (and the group with the highest rate is around 20-24) You're going to try and say that a woman or man by that age isn't aware of sex education and safe sex practices? Education doesn't mean that people follow the education. I agree that if people use safe sex the number will go down; however, people don't. It comes down to responsibility to make the right choice, imo.

People can't use the education they have if they don't have access.

Jeanie

http://news.smh.com.au/national/abortion-bill-tabled-in-vic-parliament-20080819-3xv9.html

angelica

Medicated-Genius wrote:

This is, of itself, the root of the debate. Depending on which side of the debate you sit, the unborn cannot survive outside the womans body until several months after conception. Until that time, it is part of the mothers body and is produced from her very own cells.

And yet it has it's own individual DNA, completely independent of it's mother.

Abuskedti

angelica wrote:

And yet it has it's own individual DNA, completely independent of it's mother.

DNA has independance?

know1

searchlightsoul wrote:

Basically its about imposing christan values on other people under the guise of them being "conservative" party policies.

So abortion is only opposed by Christians? Get real.

know1

peacegirl wrote:

The abortion issue comes down to a sex education issue in my opinion. By the way, I am pro-choice

If the focus was on educating everyone about safe sex then perhaps there would be less unwanted pregancies and in turn, fewer abortions.

Although, I am realistic and realize that b/c of religious views this is somewhat wishful thinking

I disagree. In my opinion, having real consequences to pregnancy (i.e. you have to have the child) would do a lot to slow down the unwanted pregnancies..

know1

scb wrote:

People can't use the education they have if they don't have access.

Sure - they don't have access to a condom, the pill, withdrawal, etc., etc., etc., but they apparently have access to an abortion...

_

know1 wrote:

In my opinion, having real consequences to pregnancy (i.e. you have to have the child) would do a lot to slow down the unwanted pregnancies..

I'm interested in seeing some data to support this idea.

You can't really make everyone carry their pregnancies to term anyway. Abortions are common whether they are legal or not.

Also, if people truly value children, they shouldn't want them to be brought into the world for punitive purposes.