Abortion rights

[Wolfmann]

Hello

I realize there is already a thread on this issue but I wanted to propose something and not have to search through the 10,000 comments in the other thread.

If the Right to Life people are so hell bent against abortion I have a modest suggestion.

Make abortions illegal in the country except for rape and incest but on the conditions that the mother of the child indicates on a form that if she had the choice she would have gotten an abortion and that the right to lifers to any of the following:

1. Adoption those unwanted children who otherwise would have been aborted NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION IS.

2. Provide full funding to adopt those children by others.

Please don't tell me that the RTL people already do this I live in the south and the most effort they do is "adoption counseling" which is nothing more than convincing mostly scared teens not to have an abortion.

This was not my idea but the idea of a conservative woman who was willing to put her money and beliefs where her mouth was.

If the RTL people believe that it is their moral and religious obligation to prevent as many abortions as possible it then stands that they have a moral and religious obligation to do everything in their power to make sure these unwanted babies have a home where they will be brought up right.

For the record I do not support all types of abortion. I do not support what I call "recreational abortion" where a woman gets pregnant after screwing around over and over again. I have very radical views on how to deal with that. I have other reservations also but I won't go into them.

I support abortion in cases of rape and incest and when the quality of life of the future child is threatened or at risk either physically or mentally.

Edited.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[sealadaigh]

human life begins at conception.
human life ends at death.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem is quality of life, how to define it and who is doing the judging.

 

[sealadaigh]

The problem is quality of life, how to define it and who is doing the judging.

i think you have to start with the basic science first.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem is quality of life, how to define it and who is doing the judging.

i think you have to start with the basic science first.

Unnecessary. Quality of life is not quantifiable with science. Ask Stephen Hawking if he would simply prefer to have been put down when he was diagnosed, like a dog that had gotten a deadly disease.

 

[sealadaigh]

The problem is quality of life, how to define it and who is doing the judging.

i think you have to start with the basic science first.

Unnecessary. Quality of life is not quantifiable with science. Ask Stephen Hawking if he would simply prefer to have been put down when he was diagnosed, like a dog that had gotten a deadly disease.

i never said quality of life could or should be determined scientifically.

what i am saying is that people need to recognise that human life begins with conception and that that is a scientific fact.

i think who does or does not want to be put down "like a dog" for whatever reason at some point in their life has nothing to do with anything other than some people decide that they do not want to live and some people decide that they do want to live.

 

[Intense]

My personal opinion on the issue is that I am Pro Life, through persuasion, not mandate. Just like driving a car, if Abortion is to remain legal, there are obvious guide lines. Both obvious and not so obvious Do's and Dont's. We are a Nation of Laws, Governed, for the most part by the consent of the Governed.

 

[Katzndogz]

i think you have to start with the basic science first.

Unnecessary. Quality of life is not quantifiable with science. Ask Stephen Hawking if he would simply prefer to have been put down when he was diagnosed, like a dog that had gotten a deadly disease.

i never said quality of life could or should be determined scientifically.

what i am saying is that people need to recognise that human life begins with conception and that that is a scientific fact.

i think who does or does not want to be put down "like a dog" for whatever reason at some point in their life has nothing to do with anything other than some people decide that they do not want to live and some people decide that they do want to live.

I misunderstood the intent of your post.

Intense has it correctly. We have had decades of "persuading" people of the benefits of killing their children.

I started out as an abortion advocate. To this day I accept that a woman can be so desperate and hopeless that suicide is a considered option. Abortion escaped those confines years ago. It has become grotesque and absurd. It has become the preferable way of ending pregnancy. Women who choose to have live babies instead of dead ones have become the enemy of other women. To the point where the dead baby is so important that the cost should be shifted onto the general public as a matter of right.

I know a family that has a daughter born without a brain stem. She has never been more than a vegetable and will never be more than a vegetable. She has no idea that she is even alive. Yet her mother and father continue to care for her. They feed her, dress her, change her diapers and she's 30 years old. The father is a respected doctor and they knew before she was born that she was not developing a brain stem. They chose to have this baby and chose to care for her but not because they are against abortion. They made this choice because they love her.

We don't make those decisions anymore. We no longer love our children, they are either convenient or not convenient with no intrinsic value of their own. That's what abortion has become and it is utterly, utterly evil with no redeeming value whatsoever.

 

[sealadaigh]

My personal opinion on the issue is that I am Pro Life, through persuasion, not mandate. Just like driving a car, if Abortion is to remain legal, there are obvious guide lines. Both obvious and not so obvious Do's and Dont's. We are a Nation of Laws, Governed, for the most part by the consent of the Governed.

back in a time when abortion was illegal, slavery was legal.

currently, in some states, the death penalty is legal. in others it is illegal.

united states citizens under the age of 18 are governed.

certain rights of our citizens are protected from legal abuses initiated by the consent of the governed..

i am not clear as to what pro-life, pro-choice, and whatever various permutations that are available actually mean. i think many of these labels/descriptions are emotionally evocative. it sounds like "Pro Life, through persuasion, not mandate" means that you think women should have a right to have an abortion?

i think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are pretty clear and the guidelines can easily be applied to those terms.

i keep coming back to my fact though, and that is that human life begins at conception. and i also think that a lot of people ignore that fact deliberately, but that is where the discussion needs to start.

 

[sealadaigh]

Unnecessary. Quality of life is not quantifiable with science. Ask Stephen Hawking if he would simply prefer to have been put down when he was diagnosed, like a dog that had gotten a deadly disease.

i never said quality of life could or should be determined scientifically.

what i am saying is that people need to recognise that human life begins with conception and that that is a scientific fact.

i think who does or does not want to be put down "like a dog" for whatever reason at some point in their life has nothing to do with anything other than some people decide that they do not want to live and some people decide that they do want to live.

I misunderstood the intent of your post.

Intense has it correctly. We have had decades of "persuading" people of the benefits of killing their children.

I started out as an abortion advocate. To this day I accept that a woman can be so desperate and hopeless that suicide is a considered option. Abortion escaped those confines years ago. It has become grotesque and absurd. It has become the preferable way of ending pregnancy. Women who choose to have live babies instead of dead ones have become the enemy of other women. To the point where the dead baby is so important that the cost should be shifted onto the general public as a matter of right.

I know a family that has a daughter born without a brain stem. She has never been more than a vegetable and will never be more than a vegetable. She has no idea that she is even alive. Yet her mother and father continue to care for her. They feed her, dress her, change her diapers and she's 30 years old. The father is a respected doctor and they knew before she was born that she was not developing a brain stem. They chose to have this baby and chose to care for her but not because they are against abortion. They made this choice because they love her.

We don't make those decisions anymore. We no longer love our children, they are either convenient or not convenient with no intrinsic value of their own. That's what abortion has become and it is utterly, utterly evil with no redeeming value whatsoever.

i think, really, people have to deal with the science before they deal with the morality. people are not killing their children. people are killing human life that is in the form of a foetus. a human foetus is not a child but it is a human, just as you and i are humans.

 

[Rozman]

Maybe all the women needing abortion should have hung out with Sandra Fluke.
That lady has plenty of birth control now I bet.

 

[Twofox]

You know, the more I think about this the more I feel like I should chime in.

1. What separates humans from the animals? It's rational thought, a concious mind, etc.

2. 21 grams anyone? The weight of the soul (concious mind for the athiests) has been measured. snopes.com: Weight of the Soul

3. Life begins (Scientifically) when the sperm enters the egg, locks out it's competition and starts gestation. The only argument there is when does the soul/concious mind actually become active?

Now, I too believe that in cases of rape and incest abortion should be an option, but not used as birth control.

However, who can say when the concious mind actually becomes active? IF you abort after that takes places, is that not murder?

A concious mind is such a special thing, being separate and something more than an animal... think about that... why waste any of them? Infanticide is still killing.

 

[FJO]

The problem is quality of life, how to define it and who is doing the judging.

i think you have to start with the basic science first.

Unnecessary. Quality of life is not quantifiable with science. Ask Stephen Hawking if he would simply prefer to have been put down when he was diagnosed, like a dog that had gotten a deadly disease.

At least Stephen Hawking can answer that question.

An unborn baby can not.

 

[martybegan]

My personal opinion on the issue is that I am Pro Life, through persuasion, not mandate. Just like driving a car, if Abortion is to remain legal, there are obvious guide lines. Both obvious and not so obvious Do's and Dont's. We are a Nation of Laws, Governed, for the most part by the consent of the Governed.

The issue has become that any form of guidelines are currently unaccptable to those who are 100% in favor of full abortion rights.

Again, my libertarian leanings would prevent me from voting to ban abortion, but I do not see a consitutional right to an abortion anywhere in the document itself.

I draw the line between medically needed abortion and elective abortion. I have no moral qualms about a medically needed abortion, and for elective abortions in the case of rape I withhold any moral judgement on a woman no matter what her choice.

I morally judge those women, however (and men if they press for it) who use abortion as a form of post facto birth control. I find that type of action repugnant, considering how easy it is to prevent if one exercises a little bit of self control.

 

[FJO]

My personal opinion on the issue is that I am Pro Life, through persuasion, not mandate. Just like driving a car, if Abortion is to remain legal, there are obvious guide lines. Both obvious and not so obvious Do's and Dont's. We are a Nation of Laws, Governed, for the most part by the consent of the Governed.

The pro-abortion people (I can't in clear conscience call them pro-choice, because any and all of them dismiss and deride the CHOICE of keeping and putting up for adoption or raising the baby on your own ridiculous and pathetic and religious nonsense) will tell you that you have RIGHTS, you have the legal claim for tax-payer-funded abortion, they NEVER tell you about your RESPONSIBILITIES and your legal obligations.

If you are RESPONSIBLE enough not to get pregnant, abortion is not an issue.

If you were raped or victim of incest or if your life is in danger, follow the advice of your doctor or the dictates of your conscience.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hello

I realize there is already a thread on this issue but I wanted to propose something and not have to search through the 10,000 comments in the other thread.

If the Right to Life people are so hell bent against abortion I have a modest suggestion.

Make abortions illegal in the country except for rape and incest but on the conditions that the mother of the child indicates on a form that if she had the choice she would have gotten an abortion and that the right to lifers to any of the following:

1. Adoption those unwanted children who otherwise would have been aborted NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION IS.

2. Provide full funding to adopt those children by others.

Please don't tell me that the RTL people already do this I live in the south and the most effort they do is "adoption counseling" which is nothing more than convincing mostly scared teens not to have an abortion.

This was not my idea but the idea of a conservative woman who was willing to put her money and beliefs where her mouth was.

If the RTL people believe that it is their moral and religious obligation to prevent as many abortions as possible it then stands that they have a moral and religious obligation to do everything in their power to make sure these unwanted babies have a home where they will be brought up right.

For the record I do not support all types of abortion. I do not support what I call "recreational abortion" where a woman gets pregnant after screwing around over and over again. I have very radical views on how to deal with that. I have other reservations also but I won't go into them.

I support abortion in cases of rape and incest and when the quality of life of the future child is threatened or at risk either physically or mentally.

Edited.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

In fact, all states already take responsibility for all orphaned or abandoned children as well as some who have unfit parents, however since the Supreme Court has removed the issue of abortion from the democratic process, it doesn't matter what you or I think unless we can muster enough support for a Constitutional amendment or unless there is a radical realignment of the Supreme Court.

 

[Ravi]

Hello

I realize there is already a thread on this issue but I wanted to propose something and not have to search through the 10,000 comments in the other thread.

If the Right to Life people are so hell bent against abortion I have a modest suggestion.

Make abortions illegal in the country except for rape and incest but on the conditions that the mother of the child indicates on a form that if she had the choice she would have gotten an abortion and that the right to lifers to any of the following:

1. Adoption those unwanted children who otherwise would have been aborted NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION IS.

2. Provide full funding to adopt those children by others.

Please don't tell me that the RTL people already do this I live in the south and the most effort they do is "adoption counseling" which is nothing more than convincing mostly scared teens not to have an abortion.

This was not my idea but the idea of a conservative woman who was willing to put her money and beliefs where her mouth was.

If the RTL people believe that it is their moral and religious obligation to prevent as many abortions as possible it then stands that they have a moral and religious obligation to do everything in their power to make sure these unwanted babies have a home where they will be brought up right.

For the record I do not support all types of abortion. I do not support what I call "recreational abortion" where a woman gets pregnant after screwing around over and over again. I have very radical views on how to deal with that. I have other reservations also but I won't go into them.

I support abortion in cases of rape and incest and when the quality of life of the future child is threatened or at risk either physically or mentally.

Edited.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

Interesting idea. I think to avoid putting children in foster care though, if abortion were to be made illegal all those that wanted it to be illegal should register to adopt any children born under your guidelines and be emotionally and financially responsible for them.

Aside from that I can't really see how you are going to force anyone to give birth.

 

[Wiseacre]

This issue is really in two parts: the moral issue of ending a potential human life and who pays for it. Many people make it into a religious issue which it is for some but not for others; specifically, when does the inalienable rights that we have kick in? do we allow a late term abortion, 10 minutes before birth? No? When then? Up until the first trimester is over?

We are talking about the inalienable right to life here, right? Seems kind of odd, do we say a fetus has a right to life after 3 months but not before? Somebody want to explain how we can arbitrarily confer the right to life in the middle of a pregnancy? And then there's the question of the circumstances, certainly the fetus is not resonsible for how he/she was conceived. Serious question: do we want to have conditions for when the right to life is valid and when it isn't? We oughta be consistent, no? Sometimes it's okay to terminate life and sometimes it isn't?

Which leads to the inevitable problem of rape and incest, by anyone's standards a horrific situation for a woman who suffers through that and gets pregnant as a result. We have the unfortunate dilemna of choosing between the rights of the fetus and the rights of a woman to decide what she wants to do. A very tough call, one I don't feel real good about making.

Then we arrive at the second issue regarding abortion: should the taxpayers be on the hook to provide abortions? For some, this is a deeply moral issue, if not a religious one; should we require federal tax dollars paid by everyone to go for services that are counter to one's moral or religious beliefs? Getting close to the separation of church and state here, as we've recently seen in the debate over health insurance req'ts under the ACA.

I don't have all the answers, these are very serious questions here. Frankly, I'd feel more comfortable allow each state to make their own decisions based on referendums passed by the voters. Ain't perfect, but I'd rather avoid having a bunch of politicans making these kinds of decisions.

 

[sealadaigh]

Hello

I realize there is already a thread on this issue but I wanted to propose something and not have to search through the 10,000 comments in the other thread.

If the Right to Life people are so hell bent against abortion I have a modest suggestion.

Make abortions illegal in the country except for rape and incest but on the conditions that the mother of the child indicates on a form that if she had the choice she would have gotten an abortion and that the right to lifers to any of the following:

1. Adoption those unwanted children who otherwise would have been aborted NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION IS.

2. Provide full funding to adopt those children by others.

Please don't tell me that the RTL people already do this I live in the south and the most effort they do is "adoption counseling" which is nothing more than convincing mostly scared teens not to have an abortion.

This was not my idea but the idea of a conservative woman who was willing to put her money and beliefs where her mouth was.

If the RTL people believe that it is their moral and religious obligation to prevent as many abortions as possible it then stands that they have a moral and religious obligation to do everything in their power to make sure these unwanted babies have a home where they will be brought up right.

For the record I do not support all types of abortion. I do not support what I call "recreational abortion" where a woman gets pregnant after screwing around over and over again. I have very radical views on how to deal with that. I have other reservations also but I won't go into them.

I support abortion in cases of rape and incest and when the quality of life of the future child is threatened or at risk either physically or mentally.

Edited.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

Interesting idea. I think to avoid putting children in foster care though, if abortion were to be made illegal all those that wanted it to be illegal should register to adopt any children born under your guidelines and be emotionally and financially responsible for them.
Aside from that I can't really see how you are going to force anyone to give birth.

i'm just curious. i raised my child on my own...as a single father at a time when there were absolutely zero safety nets for single fathers.

i was glad to raise my son and would not trade that joy for anything but it was difficult. i practically gave up all i had to do so, and became ill as well from the strain. it is a long story. his mother was emotionally incapable of helping raise him.

anyway, i think one of the issues of abortion is the father's part in the decision. i keep hearing "our bodies" and yet we are obligating men to financially provide, often with their bodies in the form of hard physical labor, for that child for 18+ years. shouldn't he have some say?

i just think it is an extraordinarily complex issue and i very honestly do not see a whole lot of thought going into these complexities.

my son is a fine young man today.