Why is abortion a political question??

[JBeukema]

She never did define murder. She just said 'unlawful killing' but won';t state what makes it unlawful

The fact is that abortion violates any reasonable definition of murder

 

[jillian]

-and it would again fall to the definition of murder. What is the definition of murder? Anyone?

murder is an unlawful premeditated killing

by definition, abortion is not murder because it is not illegal.

please stop talking about law until you learn something about it.

thanks.

Smartt: Abortion may not be illegal, but by God's standards unless there is some medical reason for it, it is immoral.

yeah, well, you might not like it, but you live in a secular country.

and luckily, your religious beliefs don't dictate my moral beliefs in this country. if that's problematic, i'm sure there are any number of countries that will accommodate you.

 

[jillian]

She never did define murder. She just said 'unlawful killing' but won';t state what makes it unlawful

The fact is that abortion violates any reasonable definition of murder

I'm sorry. What part of: "you know and understand nothing about law", don't you understand?

I'm afaid it isn't worth my time. you have a particular ideologic view and aren't interested in reality.

cheers.

 

[biglin]

I hope people won't mind me joining in this discussion but it's a subject that I feel strongly about.

Some people would call me pro-life, others pro-choice.

That's because I oppose abortion EXCEPT when the mother's life is in danger or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest.

On the other hand, in those cases I would ALLOW her to have a termination.

I have two children, a son and daughter, and when I fell pregnant with my first child the doctor told me my son would be born with certain genetic defects and advised me to have an abortion. I refused and carried him to term.

I had an incredibly difficult birth and nearly died but I still had the baby.

Politically I don't fit comfortably into ANY left/right, liberal/conservative box.

I'm conservative on law and order, radical on the economy, liberal on about half of what you might call social issues and conservative on the other half.

Abortion is basically a moral issue.

In Britain, abortion is funded by taxpayers' money and there are LOADS of girls who are using it INSTEAD of contraception. Some women have had as many as SEVEN abortions on the National Health service.

To me, that IS murder.

I can't see ANY difference between an unjustified abortion and infanticide except the timing of the act.

(Oh dear, I've upset both sides now!)

 

[code1211]

Is the potential of life actually life? If a tissue mass cannot survive outside thw womb, is it really a separate life?

-Code

you're begging the question and using loaded language. What the hell is 'potential life'?! Something is life or non-life (dead things still fall under life, they're just... dead) -JB

The rest of the post from me was pretty much just the political and legalistic mumbo jumbo that accompanies this.

The moment before birth, there is movement and a heart beating and independant life functions going on for that little body in the womb. No breathing yet. Nothing to breath. Is this little guy or girl alive? It cannot survive outside the womb. Right after birth, it still can't survive outside the womb.

That, then, is not a fair test.

Is it alive or is it dead? Are there only two choices? Couldn't it be alive but entirely dependant on someone else for survival? Like a newborn? Like a critically wounded soldier in a hospital? If one machine is breathing for a soldier and another machine is pumping his blood while a doctor is reconstructing his abdomen, is he in a state of "life or non-life"? Should he be pronounced "non-life" and thrown to the side or should the doctor continue working?

The only way to justify abortion is to remove any acceptance that the developing whatever in the womb is alive and is alive separate from the mother while dependant on the mother. The moment the status of life is granted to the unborn, the argument ends and the issue of choice is as pertinant to this topic as my choosing to shoot my neighbor because I have the "right to choose" to do this and to undefine the life right out of him.

The very base of this argument is whether or not an unborn whatever is alive or just a "tissue mass". Avoiding the topic does not lessen the importance of this considertion. How a society treats the weakest of its number is pretty good measure of that society.

The best laws protect the weak from the caprice strong. This particular law eliminates completely any protection for the weakest among us.

I suppose we can take heart from the fact that we can't cut the aborted up and use them for food or research. Well, for food anyway.

 

[Smartt33]

No one is killing babies.

That judgment was never the province of the court... or poltiicians. The decision came down to When does the governmental interest in protecting potential life override the right of a woman to exercise dominion over her own body.

People who try to impose their religious judgment on this subject are the reason politicians use it as a wedge issue....

And if you don't want to have an abortion, no one will ever force you to.

Thanks.

Smartt: Abortion is not necessarily a religious issue. No one is necessarily making it one. It is a science word, and even a social word as well. Either way, if one believe life begins at conception, abortion does kill a life. That is called killing babies in religion, or in the secular world.

Wanting an abortion when it is legal doesn't make it any less the taking of a life. No one is trying to impose religion opn anyone, just protect lives.

 

[Smartt33]

murder is an unlawful premeditated killing

by definition, abortion is not murder because it is not illegal.

please stop talking about law until you learn something about it.

thanks.

Smartt: Abortion may not be illegal, but by God's standards unless there is some medical reason for it, it is immoral.

yeah, well, you might not like it, but you live in a secular country.

and luckily, your religious beliefs don't dictate my moral beliefs in this country. if that's problematic, i'm sure there are any number of countries that will accommodate you.

Smartt: Yes, now this is a secular nation, however, morals do still exist, and they are not "relative". The will not go away just because some people don' abide by them in any way. However, I am of a greater kingdom. Jesus said of believers, we are in the world but not of the world. We do hold to a higher standard, and there is no law above truth.

We really have no intentions of forcing anything on anyone, however we do want the best for all. The best is not :what they want" but what is truly best. Your opinion is different, and when you heap immoral laws upon the nation, that is a bed you will have to sleep in. I won't.

 

[Smartt33]

I hope people won't mind me joining in this discussion but it's a subject that I feel strongly about.

Some people would call me pro-life, others pro-choice.

That's because I oppose abortion EXCEPT when the mother's life is in danger or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest.

On the other hand, in those cases I would ALLOW her to have a termination.

I have two children, a son and daughter, and when I fell pregnant with my first child the doctor told me my son would be born with certain genetic defects and advised me to have an abortion. I refused and carried him to term.

I had an incredibly difficult birth and nearly died but I still had the baby.

Politically I don't fit comfortably into ANY left/right, liberal/conservative box.

I'm conservative on law and order, radical on the economy, liberal on about half of what you might call social issues and conservative on the other half.

Abortion is basically a moral issue.

In Britain, abortion is funded by taxpayers' money and there are LOADS of girls who are using it INSTEAD of contraception. Some women have had as many as SEVEN abortions on the National Health service.

To me, that IS murder.

I can't see ANY difference between an unjustified abortion and infanticide except the timing of the act.

(Oh dear, I've upset both sides now!)

Smartt: You haven't upset me. I have 8 grand children, and three of them were going to be aborted. Yes, I was harsh, but I convinved the mothers not to abort. Now those three children are 6 years old (twins boy and girl), and 5 years old a little boy. They are awesome kids that their mothers love. You cannot convince me that their abortions would in any way be justified.

Thanks for all you said. I am with you all the way.

 

[jillian]

Yes, now this is a secular nation, however, morals do still exist, and they are not "relative". The will not go away just because some people don' abide by them in any way. However, I am of a greater kingdom. Jesus said of believers, we are in the world but not of the world. We do hold to a higher standard, and there is no law above truth.

We really have no intentions of forcing anything on anyone, however we do want the best for all. The best is not :what they want" but what is truly best. Your opinion is different, and when you heap immoral laws upon the nation, that is a bed you will have to sleep in. I won't.

Morals exist. But mine are not teh same as yours. My religious beliefs would dictate that such a choice be made by me. Someone who is a fundamentalist muslim might believe that it is moral to throw acid in a woman's face in order to protect their religious "morals" that a woman not be educated.

That is WHY, in a secular country... which we are, notwithstanding the best efforts of the religious right, we get to apply our own religious beliefs and morality to such problems.

In this country, I don't live under YOUR religious mandates or theirs. Your desire that everyone should have "the best", while admirable, substitutes YOUR religion's determination as to what is "the best" over my own.

I think I'll make my own choices. Nothing I've ever seen from anyone else makes me think they are more capable of making my moral choices than I am... no matter how well-meaning they think they are.

Now... do feel free to keep your religious determination as to appropriate morality as far away from me as humanly possible...

and most certainly as far from my government and laws as possible.

And if you need help learning how to use default fonts and the quote function, feel free to ask one of us. We'll be happy to help.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, now this is a secular nation, however, morals do still exist, and they are not "relative". The will not go away just because some people don' abide by them in any way. However, I am of a greater kingdom. Jesus said of believers, we are in the world but not of the world. We do hold to a higher standard, and there is no law above truth.

We really have no intentions of forcing anything on anyone, however we do want the best for all. The best is not :what they want" but what is truly best. Your opinion is different, and when you heap immoral laws upon the nation, that is a bed you will have to sleep in. I won't.

Morals exist. But mine are not teh same as yours. My religious beliefs would dictate that such a choice be made by me. Someone who is a fundamentalist muslim might believe that it is moral to throw acid in a woman's face in order to protect their religious "morals" that a woman not be educated.

That is WHY, in a secular country... which we are, notwithstanding the best efforts of the religious right, we get to apply our own religious beliefs and morality to such problems.

In this country, I don't live under YOUR religious mandates or theirs. Your desire that everyone should have "the best", while admirable, substitutes YOUR religion's determination as to what is "the best" over my own.

I think I'll make my own choices. Nothing I've ever seen from anyone else makes me think they are more capable of making my moral choices than I am... no matter how well-meaning they think they are.

Now... do feel free to keep your religious determination as to appropriate morality as far away from me as humanly possible...

and most certainly as far from my government and laws as possible.

And if you need help learning how to use default fonts and the quote function, feel free to ask one of us. We'll be happy to help.

Do you consider murder to be immoral or just illegal ? If you believe murder to be immoral than the government does make moral decisions for you.

 

[Care4all]

I don't think the issue is whether abortion is justified or not justified...

the issue is it somehow being justified or not justified by parties not involved, like our government or all of YOU for that matter.

This is none of your business imo....and as it was none of your business when our founders wrote our Constitution, when Common law ruled abortions after the point of quickening and prior to such, it was a personal decision between the mother, the father to be, and even her minister if she willed, and her pharmacist.

These were not a bunch of women or girls running around having sex with whomever, wherever....these were married women that were choosing their own destiny...or choosing whether to live or die.

Many women died in delivery or shortly thereafter back then and this was for most of women's history...

There was no birth control, there was no stopping the pregnancies, 10 children? Expect your 11th, if you and your husband had any kind of sex life....even until recently....my grandmother had 10 brothers and sisters and her mother lost 5 of them right prior or during deliver....she would have had 5 more brothers and sisters than she did....i guess my greatgrandparent's sex life was GOOD?

But back to the time of our "founding fathers", women were permitted to take drugs to abort their children. YES, women could have abortions in their earliest part of pregnancy because it was considered a personal choice of hers, due to the fact that SHE COULD DIE from having another child, which could leave her other 8 children without a mother.

Although women desire to have children, there is an INBORN fear as well...of dying...it isn't even conscious, but I think it is subconsciously there....especially after thousands and thousands of years of dying from such....

In addition to this we have a society that still frowns on single motherhood, though near 45% of all children born in the usa today are born to single mothers...where are the dads?

I have been a bigger flip flopper than the best of flip floppers on this issue... Swaying like a palm tree in a hurricane...sheesh!

I am usually steadfast on my opinions but the abortion issue has got me....

I'm the one that truly doesn't fit with one side or the other....and the more I read up on it, the more confused I am on the topic.

Personally, I know it is termination of a future human being's life, the baby is not the mother but a separate human being...not just a glob of meaningless cells...but the future offspring of the mother and the father.

On the other hand with my classical liberal or slight libertarian tendancies, I still think that this is a very personal decision, one that government should not be involved in...at least not for the first 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.

I would NEVER agree to tax payer's money paying for an actual abortion...this also is not the government's business...

I also agree with parental notification, if any girl seeking an abortion is under the age of consent.

I think that parents need to teach their own children about sex outside of marriage and what it can lead to...unwanted pregnancies, and that parents should teach their children that no matter what, you want them to come to YOU if they are ever in this position, even if they are 18, or 19, or 20....I think the parents that vehemently believe this is killing, to teach their children not to have one or better yet to abstain.

But I am not certain that this should be the government's business.

Care

 

[jillian]

Do you consider murder to be immoral or just illegal ? If you believe murder to be immoral than the government does make moral decisions for you.

read care's answer... she has far more patience for that type of question than I do.

Thanks.

 

[Red Dawn]

Why are people's decision on who to vote for decided by matters such as abortion??

Roe v. Wade (A woman's right to choose) was decided in 1973 by the Supreme Court!!! Presidents have absolutely no bearing on the decision for the reversal of Roe v. Wade!! So why is it considered such an important issue when voting for President??

because the GOP could never win national elections on their core platform of deregulation, privitizing social security, and pro-NAFTA trade economic policy, so God, Gays, and abortion are used to make their coalition viable and competitive on at the national scale.

 

[homo#1]

Because the USA isn't the land of the free, so please stop calling yourselves that.
How about: the land of the sexually repressed?

 

[JBeukema]

I'm sorry. What part of: "you know and understand nothing about law", don't you understand?QUOTE]

In other words, you can cite no legal definition because you know you'll be painting yourself into a corner

That is WHY, in a secular country... which we are, notwithstanding the best efforts of the religious right, we get to apply our own religious beliefs and morality to such problems.

In this country, I don't live under YOUR religious mandates or theirs. Your desire that everyone should have "the best", while admirable, substitutes YOUR religion's determination as to what is "the best" over my own.

The protection of human life is not a religious issue

 

[Smartt33]

Yes, now this is a secular nation, however, morals do still exist, and they are not "relative". The will not go away just because some people don' abide by them in any way. However, I am of a greater kingdom. Jesus said of believers, we are in the world but not of the world. We do hold to a higher standard, and there is no law above truth.

We really have no intentions of forcing anything on anyone, however we do want the best for all. The best is not :what they want" but what is truly best. Your opinion is different, and when you heap immoral laws upon the nation, that is a bed you will have to sleep in. I won't.

Morals exist. But mine are not teh same as yours. My religious beliefs would dictate that such a choice be made by me. Someone who is a fundamentalist muslim might believe that it is moral to throw acid in a woman's face in order to protect their religious "morals" that a woman not be educated.

That is WHY, in a secular country... which we are, notwithstanding the best efforts of the religious right, we get to apply our own religious beliefs and morality to such problems.

In this country, I don't live under YOUR religious mandates or theirs. Your desire that everyone should have "the best", while admirable, substitutes YOUR religion's determination as to what is "the best" over my own.

I think I'll make my own choices. Nothing I've ever seen from anyone else makes me think they are more capable of making my moral choices than I am... no matter how well-meaning they think they are.

Now... do feel free to keep your religious determination as to appropriate morality as far away from me as humanly possible...

and most certainly as far from my government and laws as possible.

And if you need help learning how to use default fonts and the quote function, feel free to ask one of us. We'll be happy to help.

Smartt: You have a right to decide what you want to call morally correct. However, in the end, truth will dictate what morality really is.
In this country, I don't live under the immorality that people like you want to force on me and the future generations. I live under a greater law, and will abide under that law. I will not force you to live by my morals either, however when they come up for a vote, in whatever form, I will vote my conscience as you will vote yours.

I contend that God's plan is the "best" and that is what I want for everyone. I will follow that belief.

You have every right to make your own choices, as do we all. Please do keep your immorality as far away from me as possible too, thanks.

Morality is not a political issue,. For example, Abortion is immoral as I see it, but when it is up or vote, it is abortion I am voring againse, not if it is moral or not. It is, as I see it, about killing unborn babies.

I think the way I am using the Quote function and fonts is working out OK.

 

[code1211]

Why are people's decision on who to vote for decided by matters such as abortion??

Roe v. Wade (A woman's right to choose) was decided in 1973 by the Supreme Court!!! Presidents have absolutely no bearing on the decision for the reversal of Roe v. Wade!! So why is it considered such an important issue when voting for President??

because the GOP could never win national elections on their core platform of deregulation, privitizing social security, and pro-NAFTA trade economic policy, so God, Gays, and abortion are used to make their coalition viable and competitive on at the national scale.

Clinton and Obama are pro NAFTA, Clinton proposed a Social Security program that was nearly indecernable from the one that Bush proposed. Regarding deregulation, how much un-deregulating did Clinton do to help us avoid ENRON and the whole slew of thievery conducted under his watch?

Claiming the high ground for either party is a little like arguing which pig in the sty smells better.

 

[homo#1]

Sorry, but "Uncle Tom" Obama is just there to clean the carpets until the next white guy gets his job. He's been in power for 5 minutes and already he's increased troops in Afghanistan and come out strongly against legalizing marijuana. And his wife is REALLY REALLY REALLY annoying (and fat and ugly).

 

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, but I don't think the ruling will ever be reversed!! 7 of the 9 current supreme court justices were appointed by Republican Presidents!! The supreme court will NEVER be more lopsided than it is now... and they've done nothing to reverse the ruling!!! Yet, the GOP candidates still use this to sway votes!! I don't see it!!!

I think that there are four Justices on the Court right now, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, who could concievably vote to essentially reverse Roe v. Wade. In fact I think it likely that they would if given the opportunity. It only takes five. One can never be sure of how a Justice will vote but the odds of ending up with a Justice who would vote to overturn the decision are obviously better if a Republican appoints one than if somebody like Obama does. It would've been hard for McCain to appoint one who would be obviously likely to do it because there's a Democratic Senate. But I think if you kind of research and recall what's been going on the past few years you'll note that abortion "rights" advocates were quite concerned about the possibility of the Court tipping on that issue.

Realistically, it would take both the election of a Republican President who opposes Roe v. Wade and substantial Republican control of the Senate to create a situation where that President could nominate someone who is almost certain to be willing to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. The odds are against that but nothing is impossible. Many things can happen to change the political winds. But you have to be willing to treat it as a political matter for it to happen.

 

[homo#1]

Homojesus says: John, you should go live in China, they like telling people what to do over there as well.