Abortion

[Kagom]

Alright, I have to say that I am pro-life. I think abortion is disgusting and very unfair to life.

But I have to ask all you other pro-lifers a question that's been bugging me: Why do you want to get rid of institutionalized abortion?

I've examined it this way: It's safter for people than going into back alleys and having rusty coat hangers and vasoline being used, only in turn to have those young women go to the hospital bleeding profusely (as one nurse reported) and on death's door. Do we really want to go back to that?

I think we should teach more in sexual education and offer up an easier access to contraception. Also, teach that it would be better to go to term and put the child up for adoption, that way the child wins out and the mother won't regret the decision as much as she would with an abortion. It kinda boils down to getting slightly more promiscuous people or having more dying/hurt people. I'm not saying that either one is moral/ethical, but one is the less of two evils.

 

[liberalogic]

Alright, I have to say that I am pro-life. I think abortion is disgusting and very unfair to life.

But I have to ask all you other pro-lifers a question that's been bugging me: Why do you want to get rid of institutionalized abortion?

I've examined it this way: It's safter for people than going into back alleys and having rusty coat hangers and vasoline being used, only in turn to have those young women go to the hospital bleeding profusely (as one nurse reported) and on death's door. Do we really want to go back to that?

I think we should teach more in sexual education and offer up an easier access to contraception. Also, teach that it would be better to go to term and put the child up for adoption, that way the child wins out and the mother won't regret the decision as much as she would with an abortion. It kinda boils down to getting slightly more promiscuous people or having more dying/hurt people. I'm not saying that either one is moral/ethical, but one is the less of two evils.

I see it as those who want to eliminate institutionalized abortion do not want to deal in reality. I've heard so many arguments about "sluts" and "whores" who are degrading society and that abortion is evil...whether or not you believe this or not shouldn't render your decision on this issue. If you eliminate institutionalized abortion there will be more deaths due to "dirty" practices...that's the reality. You can't preach that sexual promiscuity is evil and expect everyone to follow along.

I will say this, though: education should promote abstinence and effective birth control. And for those who are so strongly against abortion, they should promote the widespread use of contraceptives because thinking that you can get everyone to conform to abstinence until marriage is not realistic.

 

[Kagom]

That's exactly the point my ex brought up.

 

[Stephanie]

So libby,your saying the ADULT female who should by now have enough education about what creates a baby, that HER life IS MORE important than this innocent child she just went out and created? NICE!: Typical liberal, only think about themselves. You have no heart or a soul

 

[Hobbit]

I am against abortion. I am very against government supported abortion. First off, I'm against the federal government continuing to grow by mandating that everyone who wants an abortion gets one. There are many other, more vital medical procedures that people don't get. Get over it. Abortion needs to go back to pre-Roe v. Wade, in that states decide.

Second, I have a problem with the fact that many loving, but infertile, couples are forced to sit on waiting lists for 5+ years trying to adopt a kid while down the street, 100 potential adoptees die every day. I also have a problem with the father being given NO say in the abortion. Now, I think he needs to back that up with, at the very least, child support, but a mother shouldn't be able to get an abortion as a way of hurting the father.

All of the extreme arguments for abortion (except life-threatening, which I have no problem with) can be solved with adoption. People keep mentioning rape. Well, lots of people have to suffer for crimes, and that's why they're crimes. Should your baby really suffer death because you don't want to carry around a reminder for nine months until adoption can be finalized?

 

[5stringJeff]

Alright, I have to say that I am pro-life. I think abortion is disgusting and very unfair to life.

But I have to ask all you other pro-lifers a question that's been bugging me: Why do you want to get rid of institutionalized abortion?

I've examined it this way: It's safter for people than going into back alleys and having rusty coat hangers and vasoline being used, only in turn to have those young women go to the hospital bleeding profusely (as one nurse reported) and on death's door. Do we really want to go back to that?

I am pro-life. But I am not pro-life because 'people are going to do it anyway, so let's make it safer for them.' I'm pro-life because I believe that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person - in this case, an unborn baby.

I think we should teach more in sexual education and offer up an easier access to contraception. Also, teach that it would be better to go to term and put the child up for adoption, that way the child wins out and the mother won't regret the decision as much as she would with an abortion. It kinda boils down to getting slightly more promiscuous people or having more dying/hurt people. I'm not saying that either one is moral/ethical, but one is the less of two evils.

While there is certainly room in the cirriculum for birth control techniques, I believe the focus of sex ed ought to be on abstinence. It is a crock to say that 'kids are gonna have sex anyway, let's just give them condoms.' Teenagers need to learn the consequences of sex, which include STDs, pregnancies, broken relationships, etc., and they need to be challenged to abstain (ideally until marriage, but at least until they are adults and able to make more rational decisions).

 

[liberalogic]

So libby,your saying the ADULT female who should by now have enough education about what creates a baby, that HER life IS MORE important than this innocent child she just went out and created? NICE!: Typical liberal, only think about themselves. You have no heart or a soul

You didn't pay attention to one word I wrote...In my comment, I wasn't attacking it as a "moral" issue. I was looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint (something you and many conservatives fail to do with so many issues). We cannot stop women from getting abortions-- whether we reverse Roe v. Wade or not, it will still happen. The least we can do is provide a sanitary institution for the practice to continue: For the woman's protection and for that "innocent child" that you cry about. If the practice is being done illegitimately, isn't it more likely for the "child" to suffer through inadequate and underground medical practices?

Also, health classes do promote abstinence, but they are not stupid and they realize that those things called hormones in the bodies of teenagers are going to react. The school system won't stop kids from having sex (even with the warnings of STDs-- (lol, I'm sorry the new politically correct term is "STI")) and other ramifications. Kids will have sex and that's the bottom line. If we promote both abstinence and contraceptives (and the effective use of them) with a rigorous curriculum, we will then limit the number of abortions.

 

[dmp]

You didn't pay attention to one word I wrote...In my comment, I wasn't attacking it as a "moral" issue. I was looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint (something you and many conservatives fail to do with so many issues). We cannot stop women from getting abortions-- whether we reverse Roe v. Wade or not, it will still happen. The least we can do is provide a sanitary institution for the practice to continue: For the woman's protection and for that "innocent child" that you cry about. If the practice is being done illegitimately, isn't it more likely for the "child" to suffer through inadequate and underground medical practices?

Also, health classes do promote abstinence, but they are not stupid and they realize that those things called hormones in the bodies of teenagers are going to react. The school system won't stop kids from having sex (even with the warnings of STDs-- (lol, I'm sorry the new politically correct term is "STI")) and other ramifications. Kids will have sex and that's the bottom line. If we promote both abstinence and contraceptives (and the effective use of them) with a rigorous curriculum, we will then limit the number of abortions.

If you had the power to stop 10,000 murders this year, would you 'not' use that power because there's NO way you could stop "all murders"?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Abortion:

One dead; one wounded.

 

[5stringJeff]

You didn't pay attention to one word I wrote...In my comment, I wasn't attacking it as a "moral" issue. I was looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint (something you and many conservatives fail to do with so many issues). We cannot stop women from getting abortions-- whether we reverse Roe v. Wade or not, it will still happen. The least we can do is provide a sanitary institution for the practice to continue: For the woman's protection and for that "innocent child" that you cry about. If the practice is being done illegitimately, isn't it more likely for the "child" to suffer through inadequate and underground medical practices?

To look at the pragmatic side of abortion and ignore the moral ramifications is foolish. Pragmatically speaking, it could be agrued, it's best for us to systematically kill all people who are drains on tax money: the mentally and physically disabled, the elderly, welfare moms, etc. By your logic (i.e. ignoring the morality of the action), we should start lining them up, Adolf Hitler style.

Also, health classes do promote abstinence, but they are not stupid and they realize that those things called hormones in the bodies of teenagers are going to react. The school system won't stop kids from having sex (even with the warnings of STDs-- (lol, I'm sorry the new politically correct term is "STI")) and other ramifications. Kids will have sex and that's the bottom line. If we promote both abstinence and contraceptives (and the effective use of them) with a rigorous curriculum, we will then limit the number of abortions.

The school system may not stop kids from having sex, but 1) they shouldn't encourage sex, and 2) parents can stop their kids, if they have the willpower. And to throw your hands up in the air and say "Oh, they'll just do it anyway" is both saddening and ridiculous.

 

[liberalogic]

If you want to ignore and distort the practical side of this and talk morals, then let's talk morals.

It's not your body, it's not you're right to choose.

I'll say this: until the baby can function on its own (meaning it has a heartbeat and has developed its physical attributes), it is still a part of the woman's body. It is completely dependent on her and if she doesn't want to push it out, it's not your right to tell her she must. Take issue with that as I'm sure you will, but theres more to morality than the fetus.

 

[Annie]

I think abortion wrong, with the accepted caveats noted. I'm against Roe v. Wade, but that doesn NOT mean that suddenly abortion would cease to be available, it would just return to the states to regulate.

 

[5stringJeff]

If you want to ignore and distort the practical side of this and talk morals, then let's talk morals.

It's not your body, it's not you're right to choose.

I'll say this: until the baby can function on its own (meaning it has a heartbeat and has developed its physical attributes), it is still a part of the woman's body. It is completely dependent on her and if she doesn't want to push it out, it's not your right to tell her she must. Take issue with that as I'm sure you will, but theres more to morality than the fetus.

First, it's the baby's body, and the baby's life, and once that baby's life has been created, the mother does not have the right to choose whether the baby lives or dies.

As a brand new dad, I can tell you this with absolute certainty: a baby cannot function on its own, even after birth. Sure, its body works, its heart beats, its brain waves ( ), but it cannot feed itself, it can barely see, all it knows how to do is suckle and poop. So the whole argument about viability is, in my eyes, invalid. At conception, a new life begins - a life with unique DNA, which is just as dependent on its mother 9 months before birth as it is the day it is born.

 

[5stringJeff]

I think abortion wrong, with the accepted caveats noted. I'm against Roe v. Wade, but that doesn NOT mean that suddenly abortion would cease to be available, it would just return to the states to regulate.

As well it should. Abortion should be a state decision, not a federal decision.

 

[liberalogic]

Giving it to the states is not the solution-- how does that make sense at all? We are the UNITED states of America...saying you can abort in NY and you can't in Texas is a contradiction-- either it's legal or it's not...making it legal in one place isn't fair and contradicts the unity of our country.

 

[5stringJeff]

Giving it to the states is not the solution-- how does that make sense at all? We are the UNITED states of America...saying you can abort in NY and you can't in Texas is a contradiction-- either it's legal or it's not...making it legal in one place isn't fair and contradicts the unity of our country.

It's called federalism, and it's at the root of the American political system.

 

[liberalogic]

It's called federalism, and it's at the root of the American political system.

Well I call it bullsh*t and a method used to sidestep a problem instead of facing it head on. And if that's how we're going to sort out issues, then we might as well eliminate the constitution and bring back the articles of confederation.

 

[Mariner]

find abortion a morally distasteful way to deal with an unexpected pregnancy. It's not easy to draw the line between fetus and "unborn baby." I like Hillary Clinton's line--abortion should be safe, legal... and rare.

Can anyone here explain the enormous decline in the popularity of giving a child up for adoption?

Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

Giving it to the states is not the solution-- how does that make sense at all? We are the UNITED states of America...saying you can abort in NY and you can't in Texas is a contradiction-- either it's legal or it's not...making it legal in one place isn't fair and contradicts the unity of our country.

In Georgia, you can't buy or use fireworks (until a recent loophole was discovered) or buy alcohol on Sunday. In Nevada, casino gambling is legal, as is prostitution in certain situations. In Arkansas, all forms of public gambling are illegal except for the dog track and the horse track, and no person may come anywhere near a voting facility on the day of the election unless they intend to vote. In Florida, it is always illegal to stop anywhere in an intersection, without the usual exception for those planning to turn left. Not all states use the death penalty. The age of consent and the minimum marrying age with parental consent vary, usually between 16 and 18, from state to state. The drinking age used to vary between states, though most have now switched over to 21.

Many laws vary from state to state. In fact, the states have the most law enforcement power, which is why murder cases are named things like "Miranda vs. Arizona," or "Simpson vs. California." In fact, before the Civil War, people considered the United States to be plural (i.e. "The United States are" as opposed to "The United States is"), and at one time, most states had their own state religions and currency.

In the Constitution, there's even a section that specifically states that all powers not explicitely given to the federal government by the Constitution rightfully belong to the states. However, the feds have continually attempted to stretch those powers, which is why so many people think of the fed as the end all be all, when the power really lies with the states.

 

[5stringJeff]

Well I call it bullsh*t and a method used to sidestep a problem instead of facing it head on. And if that's how we're going to sort out issues, then we might as well eliminate the constitution and bring back the articles of confederation.

OK, Civics 101:

In the Constitution, the federal government is given certain powers. It is only allowed to act in those areas which have been enumerated. The states and the people, thanks to the 9th and 10th Amendments, are granted the right to legislate on anything they want, except for those areas where they are specifically barred from acting in the Constitution (e.g. the states cannot coin their own money). (There is an argument that the federal gov't has grossly overstepped its bounds, through various SCOTUS decisions, but we'll put that aside for now.)

Since the Constitution doesn't talk about abortion, states should be able to make their own laws regarding it. It's not inconsistent with the Constitution, nor is it a way to sidestep. It's dealing with an issue at the proper level of government.