USMB Abortion poll

[Redfish]

. . . . How many potential siblings were sacrificed for your mother's beliefs?

Against the rules, is it not. No attacking family?

no attack, simply a question

The question was clearly an attack.

not for you to decide.

 

[Contumacious]

Since abortion always impacts our elections, here is a new poll on the subject.

I am pro life ......the mother's .

She owns her body including the uterus.

The decision to abort belongs exclusively to her and, if she chooses, her health care provider.


.

that's your opinion, and you have a right to express it. Many disagree with you and they also have the right to express their opinions.

Personally I believe that the mother does not have the right to kill her child before or after birth.

This is why we have a democracy and why everyone gets to vote. Sensitive issues like this should be decided by society as a whole, not dictated by one side or the other. The majority opinion should always prevail in a free society.

Mr Dumb ass states " the majority opinion should always prevail in a free society"

How can a society be free if it depends on majority opinions?

Isn't tyranny by the majority tyranny nevertheless?

Did the Jews in Germany have rights or were they REQUIRED to die because the majority of Germans decided they were enemies of the state?

We elect presidents by majority vote, we elect governors and representatives by majority vote, we enact laws by majority vote, we decide on tax rates and amendments by majority vote, supreme court justices are selected by majority vote. The majority opinion always prevails in a free democratic state.

What you want is tyranny by a minority. Maybe North Korea would be a good fit for you.

the holocaust was not a majority movement, it was done by a small minority of Germans who controlled the country with an iron fist. Your historical knowledge is sorely lacking.

The Constitutional Republic (1787) set up by the Founding Fathers protect the rights.

The people have the right to elect elected officials but the election does not affect the rights CONSTITUTIONALLY protected.

Laws are enacted by the majority and are Constitutional so long as they do not transgressed upon those rights and authorized by the Constitution.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

First and Second trimesters: abortion should be allowed without question of motive.

Third Trimester: only in cases of rape, incest, where the mother's life is at stake, or birth/genetic defect.

Why is the life of a fetus conceived by rape or incest less worthy of protection than any other?

Because that is the mother's decision not yours.

when does the human being about to be killed get to vote?

The question is: Is an unborn child a human being or not? If not, what is it?

A fetus with limited rights, if any.

at what point does he/she obtain constitutional rights? 3 months, 6 months, birth? What happens that suddenly makes a fetus a human being? Describe that process for us.

Why? That's the case right now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . . How many potential siblings were sacrificed for your mother's beliefs?

Against the rules, is it not. No attacking family?

no attack, simply a question

The question was clearly an attack.

not for you to decide.

I can make a conclusion, yes, based on your words and their obvious intent. I am glad to see you are back tracking, though.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Liberals choose to ignore the realities of life in exchange for their own personal comfort. They shirk their responsibilities if those responsibilities inconvenience them. Liberals are sick human beings.

And how many unwanted kids do you support?

are you talking about the over 20 year old kids still living at home? One.

as far as responsibility, that boat set sail on the woman the night she got pregnant.

 

[Never3ndr]

I believe in the right to an abortion whenever. My reasoning is simply based upon weighing freedom of choice (for the woman and her body) and sanctity of life (for the unborn child) and leaning in favor of freedom of choice. It is primarily based upon the fact that I see that, until the woman stops supporting the child physically, it is part of her body and her decision on how to handle that body.

With that said, believing in the right to an abortion is not necessarily the same as encouraging abortion. I think that, especially given the decreasing birth rates of first world countries, that adoption should be the primary option for unwanted child...there are tons of families out there without the ability to reproduce that would love for the opportunity to raise a child of their own.

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Okay, that was a very considerate and well thought out answer to my questions. . .

BUT!

How do you reconcile all of that with the premise set in our Constitution - that all persons have a right to their life and to the "equal protections" of our laws?

How are the children who are about to be aborted being afforded their Constitutional rights?

I don't. Now, for sure, I love the Constitutional rights that we are given as Americans. However, I don't really derive my system of morality from the Constitution. So, I won't go so far as to say that Constitutional rights don't matter, what I will say is that I generally consider abortion to be a moral issue, and, as such, I use my own morality as compass for this issue rather than any sort of legal, religious, scientific, etc. guidance.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Liberals choose to ignore the realities of life in exchange for their own personal comfort. They shirk their responsibilities if those responsibilities inconvenience them. Liberals are sick human beings.

And how many unwanted kids do you support?

They don't support any. The whole 'anti-abortion' thing is put forth by people who don't have to spend any money or invest any time. All they have to do is whine about it. It is the perfect issue for the lazy.

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course, you are not obligated to support your assertion I can't force you to explain how your claim is supported by the concept of "equal rights" as required by the Constitution, either. That said, I can't imagine why you would make such a claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

I can't imagine why you would make a prior claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

Chuz, that's the way it works. You make a claim, you support it, then someone can answer your evidence. Get to it.

I already gave the support for my claim.

That being our fetal homicide laws and the Constitution.

So far, you have not provided anything to support your claims, however and I am still waiting to see what you have to support the claim that the mother's life "always" take precedent over her child's life.

You have to explain clearly what the laws entail and in what situations do they apply. You have not done that. Since you are not a Constitutional expert, you need to explain how that applies to abortion; SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretations. When you do that, we can move forward.

I do now owe you any further explanation of my views and you don't owe me any further explanation of yours.

YOU made the assertion that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence over her child's life. I asked for you to support that opinion and you have so far refused to do so.

That's fine. You don't owe me anything more than and neither do I owe you anything more in the way of an explanation of mine.

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe in the right to an abortion whenever. My reasoning is simply based upon weighing freedom of choice (for the woman and her body) and sanctity of life (for the unborn child) and leaning in favor of freedom of choice. It is primarily based upon the fact that I see that, until the woman stops supporting the child physically, it is part of her body and her decision on how to handle that body.

With that said, believing in the right to an abortion is not necessarily the same as encouraging abortion. I think that, especially given the decreasing birth rates of first world countries, that adoption should be the primary option for unwanted child...there are tons of families out there without the ability to reproduce that would love for the opportunity to raise a child of their own.

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Okay, that was a very considerate and well thought out answer to my questions. . .

BUT!

How do you reconcile all of that with the premise set in our Constitution - that all persons have a right to their life and to the "equal protections" of our laws?

How are the children who are about to be aborted being afforded their Constitutional rights?

I don't. Now, for sure, I love the Constitutional rights that we are given as Americans. However, I don't really derive my system of morality from the Constitution. So, I won't go so far as to say that Constitutional rights don't matter, what I will say is that I generally consider abortion to be a moral issue, and, as such, I use my own morality as compass for this issue rather than any sort of legal, religious, scientific, etc. guidance.

Are we to be a nation of Constitutional laws or are we to be a nation where each individual is free to follow each their own idea of morality. . . even to the demise of prenatal children who can not speak for nor defend themselves?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Of course, you are not obligated to support your assertion I can't force you to explain how your claim is supported by the concept of "equal rights" as required by the Constitution, either. That said, I can't imagine why you would make such a claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

I can't imagine why you would make a prior claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

Chuz, that's the way it works. You make a claim, you support it, then someone can answer your evidence. Get to it.

I already gave the support for my claim.

That being our fetal homicide laws and the Constitution.

So far, you have not provided anything to support your claims, however and I am still waiting to see what you have to support the claim that the mother's life "always" take precedent over her child's life.

You have to explain clearly what the laws entail and in what situations do they apply. You have not done that. Since you are not a Constitutional expert, you need to explain how that applies to abortion; SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretations. When you do that, we can move forward.

I do now owe you any further explanation of my views and you don't owe me any further explanation of yours.

YOU made the assertion that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence over her child's life. I asked for you to support that opinion and you have so far refused to do so.

That's fine. You don't owe me anything more than and neither do I owe you anything more in the way of an explanation of mine.

I thought your values or stance on the matter have been put out there perfectly clear. Of course in some ways it does require one to look at the relationship of the questions you asked to figure out what you were getting at. Not at all fair of you to make some people actually think.

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe in the right to an abortion whenever. My reasoning is simply based upon weighing freedom of choice (for the woman and her body) and sanctity of life (for the unborn child) and leaning in favor of freedom of choice. It is primarily based upon the fact that I see that, until the woman stops supporting the child physically, it is part of her body and her decision on how to handle that body.

With that said, believing in the right to an abortion is not necessarily the same as encouraging abortion. I think that, especially given the decreasing birth rates of first world countries, that adoption should be the primary option for unwanted child...there are tons of families out there without the ability to reproduce that would love for the opportunity to raise a child of their own.

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I believe in the right to an abortion whenever. My reasoning is simply based upon weighing freedom of choice (for the woman and her body) and sanctity of life (for the unborn child) and leaning in favor of freedom of choice. It is primarily based upon the fact that I see that, until the woman stops supporting the child physically, it is part of her body and her decision on how to handle that body.

With that said, believing in the right to an abortion is not necessarily the same as encouraging abortion. I think that, especially given the decreasing birth rates of first world countries, that adoption should be the primary option for unwanted child...there are tons of families out there without the ability to reproduce that would love for the opportunity to raise a child of their own.

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

Tell me that thought has not crossed peoples minds while shopping at WalMart.

 

[Chuz Life]

Also, your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of how many women are just as anti-abortion as anyone else is.

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

Seriously, I can name a dozen or more leaders of the pro-life movement and by far, the majority are women.

Lila Rose, Rebecca Kiessling, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, Alveda King, Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jesson. . . just to name a few.

How many Male leaders can I name?

Two or three.

Frank Pavone, Troy Newman and Bryan Kemper

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

That's a red herring.

Children's Constitutional rights are not contingent upon that sort of thing. They are Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protection of our laws. . . regardless of whether they are planned, wanted or face a certain future.

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want?

You are obviously confused about what my "wants" and about how my "wants" have any bearing at all on this issue.

Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

I reject the idea that the poor conditions of children in one area of our society or world is a Constitutional justification for the denial of rights and protections in that or in any other area of our society. If you are that bothered by poverty, that you see it as a justification for killing children who MIGHT face a life of poverty. . . why aren't you lining up and executing homeless people on the street who are already living a life of poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

If women were only doing things with their own body, I would not be in their business at all.

There is more than one life and body involved in any abortion and the other life has rights too. Same as the woman did when she too was once in her own mother's womb.

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe in the right to an abortion whenever. My reasoning is simply based upon weighing freedom of choice (for the woman and her body) and sanctity of life (for the unborn child) and leaning in favor of freedom of choice. It is primarily based upon the fact that I see that, until the woman stops supporting the child physically, it is part of her body and her decision on how to handle that body.

With that said, believing in the right to an abortion is not necessarily the same as encouraging abortion. I think that, especially given the decreasing birth rates of first world countries, that adoption should be the primary option for unwanted child...there are tons of families out there without the ability to reproduce that would love for the opportunity to raise a child of their own.

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

Tell me that thought has not crossed peoples minds while shopping at WalMart.

I'm sure the thought is there but is anyone actually doing it?

 

[HenryBHough]

After long deliberation I have decided I am very much in favour of taxpayer funded abortion as it might help eliminate the thuggery that has been so much in evidence. In fact, I'd be in favour of extending that further - perhaps most cash payments in addition to funding - for each instance a female has been aborted. Cheaper by far than child support.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Liberals choose to ignore the realities of life in exchange for their own personal comfort. They shirk their responsibilities if those responsibilities inconvenience them. Liberals are sick human beings.

And how many unwanted kids do you support?

Ever hear of adoption? Hell, all the perverts that the left supports need kids, right?

 

[RandallFlagg]

A fertilized egg is a cell, not a person.

Please post the legal definition for what a "natural person" is and tell me why a human being - even in the first days of their life - does not meet that definition.

Choose to take responsibility, too many use abortion for birth control

What's makes having an unwanted child responsible behaviour?

what makes murder responsible behavior?

Also, your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of how many women are just as anti-abortion as anyone else is.

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want? Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

the unborn human being in the womb is not "their bodies". It is a separate individual human being. It is dependent on its mother for oxygen and nourishment, just as a born baby is dependent on its parents for many years after birth.

abortion kills that human being. abortion is a form of murder. partial birth abortion is infanticide.

Liberals choose to ignore the realities of life in exchange for their own personal comfort. They shirk their responsibilities if those responsibilities inconvenience them. Liberals are sick human beings.

Putting a woman in prison for having an abortion is barbarism. We have moved beyond that. With or without you.

However, putting hundreds of thousands of babies into trash cans is "civilized"?

Your "logic" tells me all I need to know about you.....

 

[Never3ndr]

Are we to be a nation of Constitutional laws or are we to be a nation where each individual is free to follow each their own idea of morality. . . even to the demise of prenatal children who can not speak for nor defend themselves?

I'd argue that we are a nation where each individual IS free to follow their own idea of morality bound by some basic common threads found in our laws. If we were not, then you wouldn't be arguing as a pro-lifer. As the Supreme Court has made its decision, by individuals far more qualified than you or I, then, by your logic, you CANNOT argue against pro-choice.

However, the reality is that you can. In fact, you should. In America we are afforded the freedom to speak our mind and try to get our nation changed to better reflect our sense of the world. That is one of the major foundations of our society, built upon the structures described in our Constitution.

 

[Rustic]

As far as the federal government is concerned day of delivery, a few days or more after...

 

[Chuz Life]

Are we to be a nation of Constitutional laws or are we to be a nation where each individual is free to follow each their own idea of morality. . . even to the demise of prenatal children who can not speak for nor defend themselves?

I'd argue that we are a nation where each individual IS free to follow their own idea of morality bound by some basic common threads found in our laws. If we were not, then you wouldn't be arguing as a pro-lifer. As the Supreme Court has made its decision, by individuals far more qualified than you or I, then, by your logic, you CANNOT argue against pro-choice.

However, the reality is that you can. In fact, you should. In America we are afforded the freedom to speak our mind and try to get our nation changed to better reflect our sense of the world. That is one of the major foundations of our society, built upon the structures described in our Constitution.

The Roe v Wade decision was NOT a unanimous decision. And Justice Rehnquist who wrote the dissent was not only as smart as the other justices, he went on to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, we have a lot more knowledge about the beginnings of a human life now than we did when Roe was being decided. Since Roe we have had advances in new technologies like Ultrasounds, IVF, DNA and others that give us far more information than the justices had when they were deciding Roe.

In addition to all of that, we now also have our Fetal Homicide laws which now define "children in the womb" as "human beings" and by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" during a criminal act. . . those laws also are recognizing the personhood status of "children in the womb."

So, yeah. . . I have the audacity to claim that I know MORE about the subject of abortion and even the Constitutional aspects surround the issue than our Justices did during Roe.