Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

[Dreamy]

Or, more importantly, our bodies.

As to your assertion that no one is stopping us from doing what we want, the GOP is certainly trying its best.

Not true. Guess what? Even righties get to have a point of view that differs from lefties. You may not like their take on the world but unless and until they are a member of Congress who is actually trying to pass a piece of legislature to ban abortion I can only say toughen up and deal. Get use to people not always sharing your view of the world and "gasp" daring to speak openly about their beliefs even if those beliefs make the collective You run around like hysterical Henny Pennys screaming:




"Warning Warning! The big bad RWers are gonna take my abortion away!"

Chill. Abortion is legal and will remain legal. Find another soapbox.

You keep putting up candidates that want to decide the biological functions of women. Until you stop, you're going to be resisted.

Deal yourself, Mr. Big Government.

Hardly. I am not "putting up" anyone since I am affliated with no party. I despise parties and have no letter after my name. I am voting for Gary Johnson for Pres. I vote the candidates not the letter. I write in more often than not. Try it some time.

Bottom line is this:

I don't give a damn if some Bible thumping, flag waving, crucifix wearing dude waxes and wanes about the sin of abortion and the scourge that this action will bring upon your pretty little collective lefty heads. If he is just talking and preaching as his freedoms allow then he is doing nothing I give a damn about honestly. If he creates a piece of legislature to change abortion laws to make them illegal then you have something to whine about and fight but until that actually happens I see nothing more than Henny Pennys blowing smoke.

 

[Chris]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an zygote is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

 

[OODA_Loop]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime.

Half of American woman didn't choose abortion.

 

[Chris]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime.

Half of American woman didn't choose abortion.

Actually tens of millions did.

 

[Dreamy]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an zygote is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Abortion is legal and will remain so. Stalking horse scenario.

Debating the start of life as a legal issue is a moot point since abortion is legal.

 

[Chris]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an zygote is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Abortion is legal and will remain so. Stalking horse scenario.

Debating the start of life as a legal issue is a moot point since abortion is legal.

Not if Romney wins and appoints one Supreme Court justice.

 

[Meister]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an zygote is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Abortion is legal and will remain so. Stalking horse scenario.

Debating the start of life as a legal issue is a moot point since abortion is legal.

Not if Romney wins and appoints one Supreme Court justice.

Before Roe vs. Wade, it was up to a state to decide if it wanted abortion or not. Nevada has always had an pro abortion law as far back as I can remember.
What in the world would be wrong to give the states the authority to govern laws that are within their state powers?
You people act like the states can't govern themselves

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would you, who has said we don't need any government, care about a 'legal' definition?

Because we have government.

That's not logical.

Nor is your reference to 'science'. Personhood as it relates to legal rights and protections is not a scientific determination.

It isn't logical to admit that government exists or to point out that science says that a fetus is alive? Why not? Does reality make your head hurt?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I may disagree on moral grounds, but it is her right and I would in no way interfere with her right to do so.

Does the father have any right to determine the fate of his child?

The Constitution codifies the rights of individuals concerning privacy, and acknowledges the fact that the woman alone enjoys that right concerning her pregnancy. Just as the state may not compel a woman to retain a pregnancy she does not want, so too may the state not empower the father or spouse as some sort of ‘vetoing authority’:

Before birth…the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor.

“If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S., at 453. The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their spouses.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The Constitution does no such thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion is legal and will remain so. Stalking horse scenario.

Debating the start of life as a legal issue is a moot point since abortion is legal.

Not if Romney wins and appoints one Supreme Court justice.

Before Roe vs. Wade, it was up to a state to decide if it wanted abortion or not. Nevada has always had an pro abortion law as far back as I can remember.
What in the world would be wrong to give the states the authority to govern laws that are within their state powers?
You people act like the states can't govern themselves

It would be in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, at least since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, "[d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

One does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and one's civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

You people act like the states can't govern themselves.

That’s the problem, if the states would indeed govern themselves, and respect the privacy and due process rights of their residents, then lawsuits and courts and the like wouldn’t be necessary.

Sadly too many states fail to comprehend and accept this fundamental principle of the rule of law.

 

[buckeye45_73]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an zygote is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Abortion is legal and will remain so. Stalking horse scenario.

Debating the start of life as a legal issue is a moot point since abortion is legal.

Not if Romney wins and appoints one Supreme Court justice.

Wait I thought you libtards say he was pro abortion? So which is it?
I hope to see another Scalia and Thomas......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those who believe abortion is wrong, that one is a ‘person’ at conception, are indeed entitled to that belief. This means that they themselves won’t have an abortion, or would counsel a female friend or family member to not have an abortion.

One may not, however, attempt to codify this subjective personal belief into secular law all must abide; the state may not violate the right to privacy of any person, including a woman considering terminating her pregnancy within the confines of the laws of her state.

 

[Clementine]

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

That is seriously a stupid question. Abortion is legal and no one needs "support" to do it.

It's like asking if you support people who smoke. Or people who drink. Or grossly overweight people who wear spandex in public. Does Obama support filmmakers when they practice freedom of speech? Does Obama support people's choice when it comes to their own health care?

Do as you will as long as it harms no one else. If others get hurt physically, mentally or financially, you are dragging them in and you've no right to do that.

I think us taxpayers "support" people enough as it is. For many of us, the limit of our budgets have been reached, so back off. No one is stopping anyone from doing things, but it would be nice if government would get their fucking hands out of our pockets and their nose of our homes.

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Federal law prohibits public funding of abortion, with the exception of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life. See: Todd Akin and ‘legitimate rape.’

Sandra Fluke's mission, with the help of the Democrat party, was to force Catholic organizations to provide coverage for birth control and abortions. See post #95 above and read the signs of what some want- Free abortions on demand. I am talking to those when I say no.

Regarding endangerment of mother's life and late term abortions, it's actually more dangerous to the mother to extend the time it takes to remove the baby because they have to stop and kill the child before it's out of the birth canal. It would be quicker and less stressful to the mother to allow the child to be born or removed by C-section. No need to kill the fetus. The reason they kill the baby in late term abortions is because that is what the mother wants and not because her life depends on it. Otherwise, there would be attempts to save it.

As far as funding for certain cases, bad things happen to good people all the time, but obviously the tax payers can't pay for everything. Our taxes are high enough, as is everything else at present time.

Planned Parenthood takes millions of tax payer money each year and shows a hefty profit in the millions. They do not provide breast exams or other services, yet somehow they show a big profit each year. Why do they need funding? And how do they make so much money?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes.

Additionally, I thiink a women has a right to an abortion if the continued pregnancy puts her life in danger.

Additionally, I think a woman has a right to an abortion for any reason whatsoever up until the end of the first trimester. After that, only if her life in endangered by the continuing pregnancy.

There should be NO late term abortions. either make up your mind in the first three months or deal with the birth.

In the words of CJ Roberts, Roe v. Wade is settled law.

It's also made up law. Should we have stuck with Dred Scott because it was "settled?"

Should we stay with Citizens United because it is settled?

 

[GHook93]

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

Of course 98% of Republicans do! Only the loons don't! There are even a few conservatives, like myself, that think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

Of course 98% of Republicans do! Only the loons don't! There are even a few conservatives, like myself, that think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

If you're correct the loons are very loud.

 

[westwall]

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

Of course.

 

[skye]

Well.... that has never happened to me but... I guess yes I would support it.... all theoretical of course since I don't understand anything about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the words of CJ Roberts, Roe v. Wade is settled law.

It's also made up law. Should we have stuck with Dred Scott because it was "settled?"

Should we stay with Citizens United because it is settled?

Actually, yes.

Griswold/Roe/Casey and Citizens United are similar in that both were never intended to ‘solve’ the political and social problems of abortion or corrupt campaign financing.

Both rulings merely protected the Constitution from being violated as partisans battled over their respective issues; opponents of abortion may not violate privacy rights, opponents of corporate financing of political campaigns may not violate First Amendment rights.

The problems remain, different avenues must be taken to resolve both problems, however.

 

[Chris]

Because we have government.

That's not logical.

Nor is your reference to 'science'. Personhood as it relates to legal rights and protections is not a scientific determination.

It isn't logical to admit that government exists or to point out that science says that a fetus is alive? Why not? Does reality make your head hurt?

You want to bring millions of unwanted children into the world to be abused.

You are pro child abuse.