Pro life or choice? (poll)

[blackhawk]

I don’t support a total abortion ban nor do I support abortion with no restrictions. I believe this is the view of most people outside to the two extremes of both sides.

 

[Rambunctious]

Roe V Wade was unconstitutional... come up with a bill that is constitutionally written and try and get it passed... there are more pro choice legislators than pro life right now....

 

[Votto]

no

I agree somewhat. But where do you draw the line about taking away natural rights from the mother?

That question is not relevant to the question of personhood, other than coming to a compromise, depending on the situation.

I'm not sure how you can agree somewhat. They are either a person or not a person.

 

[Votto]

Roe V Wade was unconstitutional... come up with a bill that is constitutionally written and try and get it passed... there are more pro choice legislators than pro life right now....

Democrats disagree, which is all that matters in the Swamp.

The only Constitution they agree with is one in which their stooge Black Robes can manipulate to their favor.

 

[TNHarley]

That question is not relevant to the question of personhood, other than coming to a compromise, depending on the situation.

I'm not sure how you can agree somewhat. They are either a person or not a person.

I was referring to the constitutional part. I agree with that, thats why I threw out the mothers rights.
I dont think they are. Personhood has a definition. It literally means an individual person. And fetuses dont fit that definition.

 

[Meathead]

Roe V. Wade allowed states to decide for themselves as to whether or not to allow woman and their doctors to kill their babies. And Trump get's all sorts of fake praises by pro life people for selecting SC judges that overturned R. v W. But is this really a pro-life stance?
Up until I gave this this whole issue some thought, I was 99% pro life. (having the normal exceptions, like rape, incest and severe medical conditions). But let's dig into this whole concept of states rights & being pro life.
When Trump credits himself for being pro life, using R. v. W. as his proof, is he really pro life? Because he still supports these pro abortion states rights to kill babies. There are no borders or state line for babies being murdered. A baby in CA or Texas is still a baby. So if one supports the killing babies in CA, but not Tx, then one still supports a womans right to kill a baby. That in itself makes one pro choice.

So the question is, if you support R. v. W. being states rights, does that mean you're still pro choice? Because the only way to stop abortions throughout the USA, and be an actual pro life politician, would be to support a federal abortion ban. Which Trump doesn't support.

For the record, I support Trumps pro choice stance on this. If people want to kill their babies, fine. It's not like these people are going to be producing anything that benefits society. In fact, it helps to reduce crime later on.

I am not against abortion but I approve of the overturning of Roe v Wade. Like the death penalty, it's up to the state.

 

[Rambunctious]

Democrats disagree, which is all that matters in the Swamp.

The only Constitution they agree with is one in which their stooge Black Robes can manipulate to their favor.

And now pro choice supporters are screwed because the dems will use it as an election tool and will never find or agree to a fix...

 

[Oddball]

Is whether a black has equal protection under the law like a white also a state issue?

To me, the question is about personhood and rights under the Constitution, which is a federal issue.

When is a person a person? Is it when the Birth Fairty waves her magic wand over the infant as it comes out of the womb but not a second before?

These questions need answered and something Roe vs. Wade dared not attempt to answer.

That's the argument that you need to make with the abortionists.

You didn't think that the magic waving of the Repeal Roe fairy's wand was going to make the issue go away, didja?

 

[Oddball]

And now pro choice supporters are screwed because the dems will use it as an election tool and will never find or agree to a fix...

As long as they keep it up with the shitty finger-wagging arguments.

 

[BluesLegend]

Though I'm a pro-lifer, a federal ban on abortion will "work" like a federal ban on alcohol did....As in it won't work.

You need to win hearts and minds at the state level.

The right is recreating the same fuck-up they made in 1994, when they * unexpectedly* won both houses of congress, then acted as though they were done....You need to keep working to change hearts and minds....It's not one win and it's Miller time.

I don't see abortion mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it's none of the Feds business.

 

[Oddball]

I agree somewhat. But where do you draw the line about taking away natural rights from the mother?

Is a medical abortion an act of nature?

Not taking any sides here, mind you...These are just one of the slew of questions/issues that need to be hashed out.

 

[TNHarley]

Is a medical abortion an act of nature?

Not taking any sides here, mind you...These are just one of the slew of questions/issues that need to be hashed out.

I was referring to bodily autonomy. And absolutely. There are many questions.

 

[Oddball]

I don't see abortion mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it's none of the Feds business.

I get that.

My overall point is that the repeal of Roe didn't end the fight for the issue, as the a lot of the pro-lifers act like it did.

 

[JWBooth]

I’d be 100% supportive of abortion if it was retroactive and I was chosen to be the one who makes the selection.

 

[BluesLegend]

I get that.

My overall point is that the repeal of Roe didn't end the fight for the issue, as the a lot of the pro-lifers act like it did.

It returned it to the states where it always belonged. Democrats HATE that they can't DICTATE to and CONTROL everyone. CRAMMING their world view down everyones throats.

 

[Oddball]

I was referring to bodily autonomy. And absolutely. There are many questions.

OK...At what point is the zygote determined to have a "body" worthy of natural rights?

Don't answer that...It's just another example of the steps down the rabbit hole.

 

[Oddball]

It returned it to the states where it always belonged. Democrats HATE that they can't DICTATE to and CONTROL everyone.

Point is that it's not going to end there...The abortionists are always going to try to elevate it back to a federal issue.

They're like the Vietcong....Varmintcong.

 

[BluesLegend]

Point is that it's not going to end there...The abortionists are always going to try to elevate it back to a federal issue.

They're like the Vietcong....Varmintcong.

Abortion and every other issue, Dems long to rule with an IRON FIST like communist regimes do.

 

[Oddball]

Abortion and every other issue, Dems long to rule with an IRON FIST like communist regimes do.

Right....Which is why the pro-lifers need to get the sticks out of their asses and get back to messaging that will win over a portion of the pro-abort crowd, who also believe that anything after the first trimester isn't any good.

 

[Votto]

I was referring to the constitutional part. I agree with that, thats why I threw out the mothers rights.
I dont think they are. Personhood has a definition. It literally means an individual person. And fetuses dont fit that definition.

So, it is your position that the infant can be killed seconds before exiting the womb because it is still in the mother?

Also, where is the term individual defined in the Constitution?