Abortion Debate Thread

[Ballguy]

what are your beliefs on it?

[BenRoethig]

I support the right, but not the act. Government has no right to regulate morality.

[THL]

I think that it should definitely be an option. I do not think that it should be used as an alternative to birth control though. I think that we should follow the laws of baseball - on the third abortion, the woman has proven that she is not capable of even taking a simple pill so her tubes get tied.

[bonehead]

I think that it should definitely be an option. I do not think that it should be used as an alternative to birth control though. I think that we should follow the laws of baseball - on the third abortion, the woman has proven that she is not capable of even taking a simple pill so her tubes get tied.

Sounds good to me.

[Confed999]

Pro-choice for early term abortions. Anti-abortion personally. ;)

[THL]

Pro-choice for early term abortions. Anti-abortion personally. ;)

My question to this pro-choice is this:

Do you think that this should include unlimited abortions or should there be some sort of restrictions or limitations?

[Confed999]

My question to this pro-choice is this:

Do you think that this should include unlimited abortions or should there be some sort of restrictions or limitations?

Personally I don't think there should be abortions for any reason other than medical. i.e. Mom has a good chance of death. My tiny pro-choice side is based simply on my inability to figure out how the Federal government should have any say in this procedure at all. For that, and that alone I am willing to concede that until the child has a reasonable chance of surviving on it's own, at around 500 grams, I should have no say in it. I do think all of the materials should be required to be used for research though. Something good has to come from all the bad.

[dalem]

My opinion has changed over the years. The biggest factor is that no one I know who has kids or is going to have one (I have no interest in this area myself) likes the idea of abortion. I guess that seeing the ultrasound does something, and I have nothing to counter that. That has become an important datum to me.

Then again, I remember the scare me & my girlfriend went through back in college. I wasn't about to stop putting my peepee in her birth-controlled po-po, but I also was in no way interested in or ready for fatherhood.

-dale

[Somaton]

I think it should be optional, but not totally free. Abortion as contraceptive is ruthless, and if there are no boundaries the method will most certainly be abused.

A ban calls for desperate actions by desperate women, like the pregnant Irish sailing in to international waters in small boats getting the surgery done.

[Bluesman]

That a living thing is being killed is beyond dispute. That the living thing in question is human is likewise beyond dispute.

The meaning of "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." is plain, and it is equally plain that an abortion clinic conducts no legal proceeding that sanctions said life.

This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that SOME human being's rights are getting violated during an abortion, and that human ends up dead, having committed no offense whatsoever.

So, really, what we're talking about is not sanctity of life, nor due process of law. It comes down to to personal convenience, and living one's life regardless of the impact of one's decisions on anybody else. If a pregnancy inconveniences you due to your own bad choices or a refusal to take responsibility for those choices, a human being can be killed, so that you may continue to live as you have. 'Pro-choice', my ass. 'Anti-consequence' should be the new term we use for groups and individuals that favor abortion-on-demand.

That whole paradigm doesn't work for me.

And don't even bring up the rape/incest/mother's life foils; the instances of those among the 1.5 MILLION American abortions every single year is to the vanishing point, so we'll not make WAB case law based on those rare occurrences.

In a country where hopeful adoptive parents-to-be wait sometimes for years for a healthy baby to bring into their lives, it is absolutely a scandal and a national blot every bit as bad as slavery to countenance legal abortion-on-demand.

Oh, and all of you that want SOME restrictions on abortion: HOW can you legally justify it? The way the law works is, you either make it legal, or you outlaw it. Three strikes and you're out? WHY? Were those first three kids less deserving of their lives than subsequent children?

The ironically-named 'pro-choice' [snort] argument says that the government should have no right to regulate any woman's body. True; but what of that unborn child's body? If it survives the attempt to kill it (and there is no dispute that this is what happens in an abortion procedure), it will develop into a being that enjoys those same rights as its mother. So when does this occur, this gaining of legal status that will protect it? Presumably, then, the question turns on when life begins, because as we already know, the thing being aborted is undeniably human.

A high school sophomore biology student can tell you when life begins, and the nonsense that we've endured since 1973 about that question is too stupid for debate, but debate has raged over that question for precisely this reason: the truth of the answer is inconvenient for the pro-abortion side. And anytime one side shrinks from acknowledging a self-evident fact, it means that their cause is intellectually bankrupt. Life begins at conception, and the life that was begun by an act of choice is without a single doubt HUMAN, and therefore deserving of protection.

This doesn't affect morality in any way. Notice I didn't bring God into this issue; I'm an atheist, and I argue this position from a secular angle. I believe law (in the form of the US Constitution) and science are both on my side.

I'm an absolutist: NO ABORTION. It's wrong.

[Julie]

I support the right, but not the act. Government has no right to regulate morality.

I second that. :)

[Bluesman]

Explain how prevention of murder is legislating morality.

For if innocent life is being taken, define it as anything other than murder. I dare you.

And if you're uncomfortable with the ACT, ask yourself WHY you do not support the act. And supporting the RIGHT is morally no different than supporting the ACT. You are intellectually and morally certain that the former will lead to the latter, which it does, 1.5 MILLION times every year in this country. NO DIFFERENCE.

So, what is it about the act that you don't like? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know why this isn't just another medical procedure, with the same moral signifigance as having a wart removed. I await your answer: WHY are you of the same opinion as Hillary, that abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare'? Why should it be 'rare'? Is it an acknowledgement that there IS a moral dimension to abortion, and that the moral component has to do with innocent life being deliberately targeted and terminated?

You don't get to take that stand, I'm afraid. Either abortion is wrong and the state has an interest in preventing it, or it is no big deal, and there can be no meaningful restrictions on its practice.

You're pro-choice? Then CHOOSE: which is it?

[astralis]

bluesman,

problem with your absolutist position is simply that people are going to be irresponsible, whether abortion is on the table or not. do you really think, that if abortion was banned today, that people would all of a sudden just...stop? that illegal abortions would not exist, child dumping would not exist, that a million other evils that would lead to a slower, more painful death for the baby or the mother would not exist?

and we're not even talking about rape, where the mother must bear the consequences of having been attacked.

in fact, it has been conclusively linked- not just correlation but causation- that since abortion was legalized, the US crime rate has fallen. what about the morality and ethics of that?

to think about it in another way, we allow cars to be driven (in most places) at 55-65 mph. this results in thousands of fatalities every year, as innocent drivers/passengers/pedestrians get killed. in your terms, then, how can the state sanction something that will inevitably lead to the killing of innocents?

by the way, not every high school sophomore biology student can tell you when life begins. plenty of definitions for it. which definition would one use in this case? that's a question that has been debated for years among bio-ethicists.

[bonehead]

First of all, lets not forget that abortions are legal. The highest court in the land has said so. The law has held up against tirades such as yours for decades. As such, abortion clinics , and the people who use them, are acting within the law. That the fetus is living and is a human is not the dispute. The dispute is exactly what rights the unborn have (if they have any at all.) Rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, are valid reasons and they happen enough to be a consideration. Additionally, we now can do testing to see if the fetus has some dibilitationg disease that would mean when born, the child will be in constant pain and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care befor dying a few months later. Many parents do not have that kind of money and an abortion would save them the agony of seeing their own child suffer. Religions also give people a choice. They can follow the teachings of their religion or not. If you tell a lie are you automatically struck down by a bolt of lightning? The key is the choice. When that person dies and meets his maker is when he has to reconcile all that he has done.

When I say I'd rather we have less abortions it is not the act itself, but the actions, inactions and attitudes that lead up to the abortion that I would rather see changed so the parents would not have to use the abortion choice as often. The bottom line is that abortion is a personal choice and it really is not our business if our neighbors, or someone across the country has one. We all have enough of our oun problems to work through with out sticking our noses in someone elses problems. I'd rather that we have less wars, but I do not think that the world will change, and become peacefull because of what I believe in.

Adoption is laughable. There are many healthy children in the U.S. who are waiting to be adopted but aren't. Until these kids are adopted, we don't need any more unwanted children. We already have millions of abandoned, neglected and abused children, which is a huge strain on the goverment's and local community's resources, and another 1.5 million unwanted children a year more won't make things any better.
So in conclusion, the law says people have a right to choose and religions give the right to choose. Bluesman, you have no legal or moral right to stand on when you rail against choice.

[THL]

My opinion has changed over the years. The biggest factor is that no one I know who has kids or is going to have one (I have no interest in this area myself) likes the idea of abortion. I guess that seeing the ultrasound does something, and I have nothing to counter that. That has become an important datum to me.

I have a daughter and I still think abortion should be an option. Not for me, of course, since she is nearing 4 that would be waaaaayyy past that late-term abortion. ;) KIDDING!!

Then again, I remember the scare me & my girlfriend went through back in college. I wasn't about to stop putting my peepee in her birth-controlled po-po, but I also was in no way interested in or ready for fatherhood.-dale

LOL