USMB Abortion poll

[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.

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Not one for never? Surprising

 

[9aces]

Legal. However, when a woman gets an abortion, signs off that she understands that this decision causes the death of a human being, her child.

In those exact words, because that's exactly what happens. If she can live with that decision then, so can I.

 

[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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

The claim that a human being in the first days of their life is NOT "a human being" has been legally defeated with the passing of our Fetal Homicide Laws.

The deniers lost.

 

[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.

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

 

[Chuz Life]

Legal. However, when a woman gets an abortion, signs off that she understands that this decision causes the death of a human being, her child.

In those exact words, because that's exactly what happens. If she can live with that decision then, so can I.

"assuming the above is not sarcasm"

Not to take anything away from your position on this. . . I have have to wonder if you would adopt this same approach to any other violation of a child's rights?

I can't help but to doubt very much that you would.

 

[RandallFlagg]

When do the unborn babies get their rights? So some dumbass woman is too stupid to use proper birth control and she gets pregnant.

Murder is the solution for her stupidity. Hell, why not wait till the kid is 5-6 years old and kill him then? Why not wait till he graduates High School and off him then?

Sorry, but the options are not realistic. You lefties believe that a "fetus" (that term makes it less "personal" to you) isn't a "human" until it's born. That nonsense has been disproven by medical science, but you will not accept it.

So, since the idiot couldn't use simple birth control, and since the "rights" of the mother trump the "rights" of the unborn, the mother should be able to kill the child forever. Hell, why not? That would be right up your alleys, wouldn't it?

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

That "living creature" as you put it, feels pain, sucks its thumb and smiles before birth.

But hell, let's keep it "scientific", shall we? Just like global warming - you guys are reactionary bullshit artists.

 

[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.

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

That "living creature" as you put it, feels pain, sucks its thumb and smiles before birth.

But hell, let's keep it "scientific", shall we? Just like global warming - you guys are reactionary bullshit artists.

Sorry, but I've been a conservative most of my adult life. In fact, that's why I take the stance that I do. I want government as far out of my life as possible, but I won't be a hypocrite about it either.

If government should be out of my life for the things I want, I think that government should be out of all of our lives for what others may want as well whether I like it or not. If it's not affecting me directly or indirectly, it's really none of my business.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so.

Legally, it does.

It's not scientifically proven.

Yes it is and I would dare say, easily so.

Is it a living creature? Yes it is.

See? You just answered most of it, yourself.

But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights.

Try telling that to the lawyers for those already convicted of MURDER under our many Fetal Homicide Laws.

They too are trying to get their convictions overturned on the same basis as you are claiming. . . that their alleged victims were not "persons" and therefor had no rights to be violated.

So far, the Supreme Court has declined to hear anything of it and by refusing them, they have let the lower court Convictions stand.

We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born.

Apparently, (sans our Fetal Homicide laws) sometimes we do and sometimes we don't.

That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

Classic appeal to tradition fallacy, noted. .

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

That's a BIG IF to consider but just so you know, the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that inspired all the other Fetal Homicide laws was a FEDERAL law. . . not a State's law.

 

[Wildman]

what a shame Snarky Jake's mother did not believe in abortion.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

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.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

That "living creature" as you put it, feels pain, sucks its thumb and smiles before birth.

But hell, let's keep it "scientific", shall we? Just like global warming - you guys are reactionary bullshit artists.

Sorry, but I've been a conservative most of my adult life. In fact, that's why I take the stance that I do. I want government as far out of my life as possible, but I won't be a hypocrite about it either.

If government should be out of my life for the things I want, I think that government should be out of all of our lives for what others may want as well whether I like it or not. If it's not affecting me directly or indirectly, it's really none of my business.

Here's the thing. To the left, women are "victims". Look at the way they frame the "discussion". They say that ....in the case of rape or incest but they then push for "morning after" pill. So, even in the event of rape or incest - what's to stop the woman from taking the morning after pill?

Well, that takes the "victim" part out of the equation. Can't have that now, can we?

The left pushed for the birth control pill in the late sixties, early seventies. It was so "women could take control of their lives". So, again, why the need for abortions? Hell, Planned Parenthood tells us CONSTANTLY that they provide MILLIONS of pills for birth control. Yet, an estimated 200 million babies have been aborted over the years. Two ENTIRE generations of human beings thrown into trash cans.

My opinion? Most of these women are not "victims". They are being led around, like cattle, by the left in this country. Women!! You want to be taken seriously?? Be responsible for your actions for a change.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

Because religious people are hell bent on abortion. In the Christian circles, they too believe it's murder. So the Republicans have always tried to side with religious people on various issues including abortion.

But your argument is the same that's been going on since outlawing abortion was ruled a constitutional violation; when is a human a human?

That question can never be answered; it's a matter of opinion. Because of that, the human argument for or against abortion goes right out the window. A fetus is the property of the mother--not the government.

I don't like abortion, I'm against abortion, but I don't believe it should be a government issue.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

That "living creature" as you put it, feels pain, sucks its thumb and smiles before birth.

But hell, let's keep it "scientific", shall we? Just like global warming - you guys are reactionary bullshit artists.

Sorry, but I've been a conservative most of my adult life. In fact, that's why I take the stance that I do. I want government as far out of my life as possible, but I won't be a hypocrite about it either.

If government should be out of my life for the things I want, I think that government should be out of all of our lives for what others may want as well whether I like it or not. If it's not affecting me directly or indirectly, it's really none of my business.

Here's the thing. To the left, women are "victims". Look at the way they frame the "discussion". They say that ....in the case of rape or incest but they then push for "morning after" pill. So, even in the event of rape or incest - what's to stop the woman from taking the morning after pill?

Well, that takes the "victim" part out of the equation. Can't have that now, can we?

The left pushed for the birth control pill in the late sixties, early seventies. It was so "women could take control of their lives". So, again, why the need for abortions? Hell, Planned Parenthood tells us CONSTANTLY that they provide MILLIONS of pills for birth control. Yet, an estimated 200 million babies have been aborted over the years. Two ENTIRE generations of human beings thrown into trash cans.

My opinion? Most of these women are not "victims". They are being led around, like cattle, by the left in this country. Women!! You want to be taken seriously?? Be responsible for your actions for a change.

I agree with you100%, however, you are not going to make all people responsible; I wish we could. It would be the end of the Democrat party forever.

My priority as a Republican is big government. That's paramount to me. In fact, I consider myself 70% conservative and 30% Libertarian. The only reason I lean towards Libertarianism is because the establishment lost the message of eliminating big government. I would be total Libertarian, but I totally disagree with their stance on our military and recreational narcotics.

That being the case, when a woman has a fetus, it's her fetus--not the governments. Abortion is a personal issue and should not be a government issue. Again......I don't like abortion, I don't agree with abortion, but I strongly disagree that it's the citizens business.

If it's my business that my neighbor has a child she doesn't want, then it's her business whether I own a firearm or not. If it's her business whether I own a firearm or not, it's her neighbors business whether she smokes cigarettes or not. I hope you see where I'm going with all this.

 

[Chuz Life]

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

For as long as our fetal homicide laws remain on the books and are being upheld by our Supreme Court, the question of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" has already been answered.

There is a legal reason for why our Fetal Homicide laws had to make exceptions to themselves to prohibit the prosecutions of abortions.

That reason is because the authors of the law knew they would have to make those exceptions to get the law passed. And contained within those laws are the (now) legal definitions which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Just because legislatures consider a fetus a human being doesn't make it so. It's not scientifically proven. Is it a living creature? Yes it is. But that living creature doesn't have constitutional rights. We don't consider a human being a person in this country until it is born. That's why we celebrate birth days and not conception days.

As the debate progresses, more and more states are trying to push it to the limit. Because we had a more conservative court these past few years, not many on the left have challenged the states or their laws. However, if Hillary does make it back to the White House and does get to nominate a liberal judge(s), then those issues will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court once again.

That "living creature" as you put it, feels pain, sucks its thumb and smiles before birth.

But hell, let's keep it "scientific", shall we? Just like global warming - you guys are reactionary bullshit artists.

Sorry, but I've been a conservative most of my adult life. In fact, that's why I take the stance that I do. I want government as far out of my life as possible, but I won't be a hypocrite about it either.

If government should be out of my life for the things I want, I think that government should be out of all of our lives for what others may want as well whether I like it or not. If it's not affecting me directly or indirectly, it's really none of my business.

Here's the thing. To the left, women are "victims". Look at the way they frame the "discussion". They say that ....in the case of rape or incest but they then push for "morning after" pill. So, even in the event of rape or incest - what's to stop the woman from taking the morning after pill?

Well, that takes the "victim" part out of the equation. Can't have that now, can we?

The left pushed for the birth control pill in the late sixties, early seventies. It was so "women could take control of their lives". So, again, why the need for abortions? Hell, Planned Parenthood tells us CONSTANTLY that they provide MILLIONS of pills for birth control. Yet, an estimated 200 million babies have been aborted over the years. Two ENTIRE generations of human beings thrown into trash cans.

My opinion? Most of these women are not "victims". They are being led around, like cattle, by the left in this country. Women!! You want to be taken seriously?? Be responsible for your actions for a change.

I agree with you100%, however, you are not going to make all people responsible; I wish we could. It would be the end of the Democrat party forever.

My priority as a Republican is big government. That's paramount to me. In fact, I consider myself 70% conservative and 30% Libertarian. The only reason I lean towards Libertarianism is because the establishment lost the message of eliminating big government. I would be total Libertarian, but I totally disagree with their stance on our military and recreational narcotics.

That being the case, when a woman has a fetus, it's her fetus--not the governments. Abortion is a personal issue and should not be a government issue. Again......I don't like abortion, I don't agree with abortion, but I strongly disagree that it's the citizens business.

If it's my business that my neighbor has a child she doesn't want, then it's her business whether I own a firearm or not. If it's her business whether I own a firearm or not, it's her neighbors business whether she smokes cigarettes or not. I hope you see where I'm going with all this.

If abortions do not violate a child in any way. . . what is there not to like about it? Why would you disagree with it?

Conversely, if you agree that it does violate a child?

How can you continue to support it?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Rape, incest or health of the mother. or a baby that will be born severely deformed or some other birth defect that will leave them with a very poor quality of life.
other than that there is only one reason left, and thats not a good enough reason for abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Rape, incest or health of the mother. or a baby that will be born severely deformed or some other birth defect that will leave them with a very poor quality of life.
other than that there is only one reason left, and thats not a good enough reason for abortion.

Do children with birth defects have less a right to their life than typical "normal" healthy kids do?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Rape, incest or health of the mother. or a baby that will be born severely deformed or some other birth defect that will leave them with a very poor quality of life.
other than that there is only one reason left, and thats not a good enough reason for abortion.

Do children with birth defects have less a right to their life than typical "normal" healthy kids do?

depends on the severity of the defect. In some cases it could be considered showing mercy. As I said, leave them with a VERY POOR QUALITY OF LIFE.

 

[Chuz Life]

Rape, incest or health of the mother. or a baby that will be born severely deformed or some other birth defect that will leave them with a very poor quality of life.
other than that there is only one reason left, and thats not a good enough reason for abortion.

Do children with birth defects have less a right to their life than typical "normal" healthy kids do?

depends on the severity of the defect. In some cases it could be considered showing mercy. As I said, leave them with a VERY POOR QUALITY OF LIFE.

I think I have a very poor quality of life sometimes. So, I hope you can appreciate my concern about the sentiments you have expressed.

 

[IsaacNewton]

A fertilized egg is a cell, not a person. A baby that is just born is a person. And I think the day before a baby is born it is a human baby. So there is a spectrum from a single cell to being a viable human baby, and somewhere during pregnancy the group of cells becomes a human baby. Working backwards from the day of birth I can see an argument for 'well what about the day before, or the day before that'? An abortion a day before birth is hard to defend and you can proceed backwards along that spectrum.

But, I also cannot cross the threshold of telling a woman, 'after this day you have to give birth'. It is physically taking ownership of a woman's body and that thought is also beyond grotesque to me.

This isn't an easy issue. In a perfect world women would always use birth control. It isn't a perfect world and never will be. There will never be a perfect solution either. Ever. The best we will ever do is as a society agree on some point along the spectrum.

At the moment that decision is wholly in the hands of the woman who's body it is. I can't personally cross that line and have society take ownership of her body.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.