USMB Abortion poll

[Carla_Danger]

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?

If you're not a preacher, you missed your calling.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think a big part of the problem with this topic is that there are many out there that say no to abortion for whatever reason they have, yet at the same time they realize that there are instances where maybe abortion should be considered.
For instance, I think that rape or incest should allow for abortion. Yet, that contradicts my objection to abortion because its taking a human life. And even though I firmly believe that abortion is acceptable in those cases, I still have to ask myself, does that child being aborted have any less right to live simply due to the circumstances surrounding its conception.

I think you and I could have a very interesting and maybe even a productive exchange on the rape exception.

Interested?

Only problem with that is others that will join in.
but I do welcome the exchange. Not sure I would change my mind for various reasons, like, carrying and giving birth to the baby of either circumstance could cause psychological problems for the woman, so that goes back to the health of the mother. Its how I come to terms with it.

I don't think we are that far apart with regard to neither the rape exception nor with any other life of the mother exception.

In fact, our views may be a lot closer then you think. Where we might differ is with the ways we arrive at our positions and that is what I think would be worth exploring.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I think a big part of the problem with this topic is that there are many out there that say no to abortion for whatever reason they have, yet at the same time they realize that there are instances where maybe abortion should be considered.
For instance, I think that rape or incest should allow for abortion. Yet, that contradicts my objection to abortion because its taking a human life. And even though I firmly believe that abortion is acceptable in those cases, I still have to ask myself, does that child being aborted have any less right to live simply due to the circumstances surrounding its conception.

I think you and I could have a very interesting and maybe even a productive exchange on the rape exception.

Interested?

Only problem with that is others that will join in.
but I do welcome the exchange. Not sure I would change my mind for various reasons, like, carrying and giving birth to the baby of either circumstance could cause psychological problems for the woman, so that goes back to the health of the mother. Its how I come to terms with it.

I don't think we are that far apart with regard to neither the rape exception nor any other life of the mother exception.

In fact, our views may be a lot closer then you think. Where we might differ is with the ways we arrive at our positions and that is what I think would be worth exploring.

mine comes down to a couple things only. one is that in rape or incest, there is no consent in the first place so the choice to abort becomes more of an issue than simply for convenience, If she had no choice in the pregnancy, would it be right to force her to carry it to full term.
Then as I said there is a psychological aspect to it. To have the baby in her for 9 months is a constant reminder of what she was put through, the healing for her can not start until the baby is born and away from her. 9 months is a lifetime with that kind of mental torture. Then there is always going to be the fact that she knows she has a child out there somewhere, and that is going to also be an issue with her well being.
I just think in those cases I have to put aside my concern for the life forming inside of her and think only of her.
There is more at stake here than just the fetus. or, unborn baby if you prefer.

 

[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.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think a big part of the problem with this topic is that there are many out there that say no to abortion for whatever reason they have, yet at the same time they realize that there are instances where maybe abortion should be considered.
For instance, I think that rape or incest should allow for abortion. Yet, that contradicts my objection to abortion because its taking a human life. And even though I firmly believe that abortion is acceptable in those cases, I still have to ask myself, does that child being aborted have any less right to live simply due to the circumstances surrounding its conception.

I think you and I could have a very interesting and maybe even a productive exchange on the rape exception.

Interested?

Only problem with that is others that will join in.
but I do welcome the exchange. Not sure I would change my mind for various reasons, like, carrying and giving birth to the baby of either circumstance could cause psychological problems for the woman, so that goes back to the health of the mother. Its how I come to terms with it.

I don't think we are that far apart with regard to neither the rape exception nor any other life of the mother exception.

In fact, our views may be a lot closer then you think. Where we might differ is with the ways we arrive at our positions and that is what I think would be worth exploring.

mine comes down to a couple things only. one is that in rape or incest, there is no consent in the first place so the choice to abort becomes more of an issue than simply for convenience, If she had no choice in the pregnancy, would it be right to force her to carry it to full term.
Then as I said there is a psychological aspect to it. To have the baby in her for 9 months is a constant reminder of what she was put through, the healing for her can not start until the baby is born and away from her. 9 months is a lifetime with that kind of mental torture. Then there is always going to be the fact that she knows she has a child out there somewhere, and that is going to also be an issue with her well being.
I just think in those cases I have to put aside my concern for the life forming inside of her and think only of her.
There is more at stake here than just the fetus. or, unborn baby if you prefer.

Thanks, like I said. . . we are a lot closer on that view than you might 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.

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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Since abortion always impacts our elections..."

Needlessly so.

It's a non-issue contrived by the social right into a 'controversy' for purely partisan reasons – the consequence of the authoritarianism common to most most conservatives seeking to increase the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, the issue is not 'abortion,' the issue is the right to privacy, where there are limits placed on government by the Constitution, prohibiting government from engaging in unwarranted interference in the personal, private lives of citizens.

To seek to 'ban' abortion, therefore, and to make criminals of women who exercise their protected liberty of privacy, jeopardizes the liberties of all citizens concerning much more than just the 'issue' of 'abortion.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"...the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that inspired all the other Fetal Homicide laws was a FEDERAL law. . . not a State's law."

Where such measures have provisions excluding abortion – acknowledging the settled, accepted fact of Federal Constitutional law that prior to birth an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby' or 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[Chuz Life]

"...the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that inspired all the other Fetal Homicide laws was a FEDERAL law. . . not a State's law."

Where such measures have provisions excluding abortion – acknowledging the settled, accepted fact of Federal Constitutional law that prior to birth an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby' or 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Which begs the question about what other areas in life can our government get away with saying this being is a "person" in this given set of circumstances. . . but NOT a person in any others.

You might be happy with our laws trying to have it both ways. . . but it is a contradiction that will inevitably have to be addressed before the courts.

Either Roe has it right or the Fetal Homicide laws have it right but there is no way they are both right about the personhood status of the child in the womb at the same time.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

Im just curious,
How exactly does one know that another poster is not a Constitutional expert?
or, an expert on anything for that matter. I mean, I can understand questioning a liberal on their expertise, but lets be real here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

What's makes having an unwanted child responsible behaviour?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This should help to clear up Chuz's opinion of absolutism supposedly of feticide laws. The concern includes avoiding an adversarial position legally between mother and child. The laws criminalize a third person(s) criminal behavior toward the mother than results in damage or death to the fetus.

March 2015
The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates vie for the upper hand in this contentious issue. In recent years, states have expanded this debate to include the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. In some states, legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.

Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. Such legislation is hotly debated under names such as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these acts, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and provide an opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers.

Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a "slippery slope" that could jeopardize a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[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.

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.

Im just curious,
How exactly does one know that another poster is not a Constitutional expert?
or, an expert on anything for that matter. I mean, I can understand questioning a liberal on their expertise, but lets be real here.

We have silliness on the Constitution posted from the left and the center and the right. One can tell by the posting if the person grasps the essence of Article III.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

While not researching the subject myself, your point is true for white babies. Minority babies are a dime a dozen to adopt from what I understand.

My cousin waited years to get a white child. She and her husband live in a very nice area here, she's a professional, they have a very nice house, but couldn't get a white baby for anything.

They finally settled for a baby of a different race from another country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I'm not interested in 'definitions' or 'parsing of words' or any other nonsense like this. I generally don't get involved in abortion discussions because it always devolves into someone thinking a dictionary is the almighty authority of the universe.

Believe what you want. Be happy.

First of all, no one forced you to jump into this thread or conversation, did they? Did they?

Did you not expect to be questioned on any of it?

I don't think even our legal dictionaries are infallible but why not at least use them as a starting point?

Abortion is as much a legal and Constitutional matter as it is anything else. So, pretending that the legal definitions and the Constitution doesn't matter seems kind of illogical to me.

something that seems illogical to me is that I can be fined and put in jail for disturbing a turtle egg because it is or could kill a turtle. Yet, the human embryo, and even the fetus that has already developed arms and legs, has movement, feelings etc... is not considered a human life yet.
It is a shame that we give the life of a turtle more value than the life of a human.

That's the way it is in America today. If a person has an illness they will never recover from and suffering, we give them drugs to keep them alive or reduce the pain. If we have a pet in the same condition, we put the pet to sleep because it's the humane thing to do.

Welcome to the USA, a country where you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than you can for beating your wife.

 

[Wilbur Right]

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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?

I support the legalization of it, not the actual action of abortion. That's not a government decision--it's an individuals decision. I see the fetus as part of a woman, not an individual in a woman. When the baby is separated from it's mother upon birth, then it's an individual.

It's all a matter of opinion I guess.

 

[Redfish]

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?