USMB Abortion poll

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'd say only within the first 3 months, for whatever reason.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Good, well thought out choices.
I'm pro-choice but believe the 1st trimester should be the only window for elective procedures but continue to protect the exceptions for anytime.

 

[PredFan]

I had to say "other", here's the explanation:

Personally, I'm against abortion unless the mothers life is in danger. I wouldn't ask a woman to have an abortion and if I had to, I would take and care for my baby myself in order to avoid it being killed.

OTOH, I'm pro-choice in everything. I would not tell anyone else what to do, and abortion is the law of the land.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

 

[DGS49]

I vote for the "status quo ante." This is a latin/legal expression that means, basically, the way things were before.

Before the Supreme Court made up the "right of privacy," in virtually every state, it was a felony to perform an abortion. Furthermore, abortion is prohibited by the Oath of Hippocrates, which has historically guided all doctors. Indeed most doctors shun the practice, and while they don't "shun" doctors who perform abortions they would never voluntarily engage in the practice themselves (although they sometimes agree to do it as part of their training).

The advent of many different forms of birth control, many of which are near-zero in cost and inconvenience, should have virtually eliminated the need for abortions, but about a million babies are killed through abortion every year in the U.S.

Following a "grace period" of a year or so, during which the criminalization of abortion would be loudly advertised and proclaimed, I would outlaw all abortions except those that are necessary to SAVE THE LIFE of the mother or another baby being born concurrently.

The number of deaths of women due to "back-alley abortions" before Roe v. Wade is wildly exaggerated, and never amounted to more than a handful each year throughout the U.S. Certainly the possibility of a few of such deaths per year is no justification to perpetuate the slaughter of a million babies a year.

Just as with the dramatic suppression of smoking, and the advent of the near universal use of auto seat belts, peoples' behavior would quickly change in response to the new reality of "no abortions on demand." We might even see a reduction in the plague of bastardy, as people start taking their reproductive behavior more seriously. Who knows?

 

[Votto]

I'm only for abortion when it comes to Progs.

I view Progs as a fetus. They are dependent and have not developed into a viable human being capable of logical thought.

Therefore, they are subject to termination at any given time.

 

[Wilbur Right]

We might even see a reduction in the plague of bastardy, as people start taking their reproductive behavior more seriously. Who knows?

I take it you are all for poor people having as many kids as they want to increase their welfare payments. SNAP amount. Or even the increase in the EITC for those working.

Why? All those kids you don't want aborted. Democrats.
Republicans have their women in check and they never have abortions. Right?

Quit worrying about someone else's business. It may not work out the way you think it will.

 

[DGS49]

Wilbur, open your fucking eyes. Middle-class people around the world have conspicuously modified their reproductive "choices" in order to limit the number of children they bear. In short, they don't have children that they can't afford, and they don't have children that they don't want. But people like you believe that The Poor are utterly incapable of modifying their behavior, even when the stupidity of it is manifest.

If abortions were outlawed, people would take BC a behavior control a little more seriously.

It is like drunk driving. A generation ago, a drunk driving ticket was an inconvenience; now it's a nightmare, and a lot fewer people are driving drunk.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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.

 

[bendog]

It's an issue, since the gop theocrats across the South are in the process of making abortion unavailable, and the morning after pill as well.

Imo that and the deficits are the defining issues of the election.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

It's an assertion with as much right as is yours.

Since it was your affirmation, please answer yourself the last sentence of your post above.

I have no obligation to refute an assertion with concrete evidence. You must provide concrete evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

It's an assertion with as much right as is yours.

Since it was your affirmation, please answer yourself the last sentence of your post above.

I have no obligation to refute an assertion with concrete evidence. You must provide concrete evidence to support your assertion.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not crazy about abortion, but I'm less crazy when it comes to government getting involved in our personal lives. The less government in my life--the better my life will be.

That being said, I think abortion should remain legal in this country and Republicans should not make such an issue out of it. The only reason they harp on it so much is to secure the religious vote which shrinks every year.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not crazy about abortion, but I'm less crazy when it comes to government getting involved in our personal lives. The less government in my life--the better my life will be.

That being said, I think abortion should remain legal in this country and Republicans should not make such an issue out of it. The only reason they harp on it so much is to secure the religious vote which shrinks every year.

I'm for smaller and less intrusive government too. However, I have to concede that the government has a legitimate role (and the responsibility) to guard the lives and rights of all persons "equally" as our Constitution has mandated and established.

Also, for what it is worth. . . I don't see where religion has anything to do with it. Though I admit that I am a bit different from most who oppose abortion in that regard.