Would you support anti abortion legislation as long as it included exceptions?

[JamesInFlorida]

Only for abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Cases of rape/incest I must admit I tend to go back and forth on, but lean towards not allowing it.

But my views are this:

-In today's society there are plenty of tools to practice safe sex (condoms for both males and females, spermicides, birth control, depo-shots, etc.). In many cases you get get protect for free (my college gave out free condoms). So I think if somebody engages in unsafe sex-and are not prepared to take on the responsibility of raising a child-then they're acting irresponsibly.

-I think people should be held accountable for their actions. If you make a mistake and become pregnant (due to making a poor choice)-I think that's on you. Why does personal responsibility end with abortion? If I do an action, I have to be responsible to the reaction/effect of that action.

Then you, along with koshergirl, are big government right wing statists pushing your pro-birth legislation.

Actually I voted for Obama (I admit I wont be doing that again though). I also voted Crist for senate in the past election, and Sink for governor (while closing my eyes lol).

I understand you have a habit of viewing people with blanket terms based on one view of theirs. But you're assuming here-and we both know what that makes you.

I also want to point out that you didn't bring up any original thoughts or ideas in your rebuttal to me, but rather just (incorrectly) asserted that I was a big-government right-winger.

Unlike yourself (based upon this post), I actually think for myself-and don't hold views just because they're liberal or conservative. I view each issue on it's own, and then decide what I think. I don't base it around blanket terms, like you obviously do (or did in this case).

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Not the child's needs. Life.

I don't think there are any considerations that justify murder of a child...except in rare cases, when carrying that child will potentially kill the mother. Not via the regular risks of childbirth, because abortion carries pretty much the same potential of death and illness, but for a very specific reason..the mother is a brittle diabetic, the mother is in need of cancer treatment, or she has some unspecified illness or disorder that would result in her dying if she carried a child to term. I honestly have no idea, aside from renal or liver failure, diabetes, and cancer, what might fit that description, I just know it's extremely rare.

A child can't have NEEDS unless it's alive, and except for life, a mother has no NEEDS that trump another's right to LIVE.

A fetus is not a child. Therefor no child is murdered.

If removed from a womb of which belongs to the woman..... the cells many be alive but it does not have a life of its own.

The woman's needs are what HER body will or will not support, what she is willing or not willing to carry.

If you can't take on the responsibility (or put the child up for adoption-then don't engage in unsafe sex. There are plenty of ways to use protection in today's society (and many free resources to go to as well). As I stated in a previous post in this thread, my university gave out free condoms. There's NO excuse for anybody who gets pregnant today. You either a)didn't use protection or b)didn't use protection properly.

People must be held accountable for their options. If you can't do the time then don't do the crime.

 

[1_Old_Man]

I haven't read any of the pages of responses to this poll, but in the off chance that at least 100 people haven't already pointed this out - Abortion is already legal in the United States, it is not a question of if it should be legal and so the notion of exceptions makes no sense at all.

First - call things what they are. Abortion is legal. Now, what is the argument?

 

[syrenn]

Not the child's needs. Life.

I don't think there are any considerations that justify murder of a child...except in rare cases, when carrying that child will potentially kill the mother. Not via the regular risks of childbirth, because abortion carries pretty much the same potential of death and illness, but for a very specific reason..the mother is a brittle diabetic, the mother is in need of cancer treatment, or she has some unspecified illness or disorder that would result in her dying if she carried a child to term. I honestly have no idea, aside from renal or liver failure, diabetes, and cancer, what might fit that description, I just know it's extremely rare.

A child can't have NEEDS unless it's alive, and except for life, a mother has no NEEDS that trump another's right to LIVE.

A fetus is not a child. Therefor no child is murdered.

If removed from a womb of which belongs to the woman..... the cells many be alive but it does not have a life of its own.

The woman's needs are what HER body will or will not support, what she is willing or not willing to carry.

If you can't take on the responsibility (or put the child up for adoption-then don't engage in unsafe sex. There are plenty of ways to use protection in today's society (and many free resources to go to as well). As I stated in a previous post in this thread, my university gave out free condoms. There's NO excuse for anybody who gets pregnant today. You either a)didn't use protection or b)didn't use protection properly.

People must be held accountable for their options. If you can't do the time then don't do the crime.

first off... I... never had an unwanted pregnancy.

I agree, there is no excuse, but accidents DO happen.

As for dont do the crime if you cant do the time. I am more then happy to extract a fetus and implant it into the father.... let him gestate if he if wants it.

i don't give a shit about anyone's personal "morals" of any of this. The bottom line is a woman's body belongs to HER and her alone.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

A fetus is not a child. Therefor no child is murdered.

If removed from a womb of which belongs to the woman..... the cells many be alive but it does not have a life of its own.

The woman's needs are what HER body will or will not support, what she is willing or not willing to carry.

If you can't take on the responsibility (or put the child up for adoption-then don't engage in unsafe sex. There are plenty of ways to use protection in today's society (and many free resources to go to as well). As I stated in a previous post in this thread, my university gave out free condoms. There's NO excuse for anybody who gets pregnant today. You either a)didn't use protection or b)didn't use protection properly.

People must be held accountable for their options. If you can't do the time then don't do the crime.

first off... I... never had an unwanted pregnancy.

I agree, there is no excuse, but accidents DO happen.

As for dont do the crime if you cant do the time. I am more then happy to extract a fetus and implant it into the father.... let him gestate if he if wants it.

i don't give a shit about anyone's personal "morals" of any of this. The bottom line is a woman's body belongs to HER and her alone.

I didn't mean you personally, so if I came across as attacking you personally-I do apologize.

And I'm well aware that accidents happen. But that shouldn't strip the person's responsibility away. If you get into a car accident-you're still held responsible.

I'm not debating "morals" here. I don't think if somebody gets an abortion that they're immoral.

And yes a woman's body is her body-BUT once she gets pregnant she is sharing her body with that fetus. And we know that that fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.

Just a few questions (not trying to "get you", just honestly curious in your views):

-What's the difference between a fetus the minutes before it's born, and the minute after? If you kill a baby a minute after it's born-that's murder (and I think we can both agree that it should be). So why wouldn't it be murder a minute before?

-If you somebody kills a pregnant mother, why can they be held for two counts of murder?

 

[koshergrl]

And apparently her baby's body belongs to her and her alone, too.

Sorry, I don't buy that. We don't own each other. A woman doesn't own her baby any more than I own my neighbor or anyone else.

So yes, you have a right to do what you want with your body. Unless you're using it to hurt someone else. Nobody has that right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We already have constitutional law that is anti-abortion but includes exceptions.

It's called Roe v Wade.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And apparently her baby's body belongs to her and her alone, too.

Sorry, I don't buy that. We don't own each other. A woman doesn't own her baby any more than I own my neighbor or anyone else.

So yes, you have a right to do what you want with your body. Unless you're using it to hurt someone else. Nobody has that right.

There are no constitutional rights for a fetus, except to the extent that Roe v. Wade provided them,

in a bit of 'judicial activism'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't believe killing babies is a choice we should allow people to have, this is true.

What should the criminal penalty be for killing a baby?

 

[Gadawg73]

I have asked koshergirl 1001 times what law would she want to stop abortion and how does one enforce that law with "the abortion was done in the best health interests of the mother" that a doctor provides.
No answer to date.

 

[syrenn]

If you can't take on the responsibility (or put the child up for adoption-then don't engage in unsafe sex. There are plenty of ways to use protection in today's society (and many free resources to go to as well). As I stated in a previous post in this thread, my university gave out free condoms. There's NO excuse for anybody who gets pregnant today. You either a)didn't use protection or b)didn't use protection properly.

People must be held accountable for their options. If you can't do the time then don't do the crime.

first off... I... never had an unwanted pregnancy.

I agree, there is no excuse, but accidents DO happen.

As for dont do the crime if you cant do the time. I am more then happy to extract a fetus and implant it into the father.... let him gestate if he if wants it.

i don't give a shit about anyone's personal "morals" of any of this. The bottom line is a woman's body belongs to HER and her alone.

I didn't mean you personally, so if I came across as attacking you personally-I do apologize.

And I'm well aware that accidents happen. But that shouldn't strip the person's responsibility away. If you get into a car accident-you're still held responsible.

I'm not debating "morals" here. I don't think if somebody gets an abortion that they're immoral.

And yes a woman's body is her body-BUT once she gets pregnant she is sharing her body with that fetus. And we know that that fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.

Just a few questions (not trying to "get you", just honestly curious in your views):

-What's the difference between a fetus the minutes before it's born, and the minute after? If you kill a baby a minute after it's born-that's murder (and I think we can both agree that it should be). So why wouldn't it be murder a minute before?

-If you somebody kills a pregnant mother, why can they be held for two counts of murder?

Apology accepted. Thanks


No..... if a woman gets pregnant she is allowing cells to grow insider her body. There is not sharing of a body. It is the woman's body. The moment she does not want to "share" then she has the right to remove it.

if have no issue with " fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.".... The operative word is .....become. Until it is a stand alone life... viable as a life.

The difference is where it will live on its ownoutside of the womb. At that point it is a life....with a life of its own. Until that point it is not a life of its own. I am not pro late term abortion in any way.

As for the double murder of a pregnant woman.... the lacy perteson case set the precedent for it. It all depends on if the woman... wanted the baby.

 

[koshergrl]

Not the child's needs. Life.

I don't think there are any considerations that justify murder of a child...except in rare cases, when carrying that child will potentially kill the mother. Not via the regular risks of childbirth, because abortion carries pretty much the same potential of death and illness, but for a very specific reason..the mother is a brittle diabetic, the mother is in need of cancer treatment, or she has some unspecified illness or disorder that would result in her dying if she carried a child to term. I honestly have no idea, aside from renal or liver failure, diabetes, and cancer, what might fit that description, I just know it's extremely rare.

A child can't have NEEDS unless it's alive, and except for life, a mother has no NEEDS that trump another's right to LIVE.

A fetus is not a child. Therefor no child is murdered.

If removed from a womb of which belongs to the woman..... the cells many be alive but it does not have a life of its own.

The woman's needs are what HER body will or will not support, what she is willing or not willing to carry.

And a child isn't an adult.

But they're still people. It doesn't matter what you call them. I've never proposed forcing women whose bodies cannot bear a child to see pregnancy out.

Regarding what she *wants*...her *wants* don't trump another's life. Sorry.

 

[Caroljo]

first off... I... never had an unwanted pregnancy.

I agree, there is no excuse, but accidents DO happen.

As for dont do the crime if you cant do the time. I am more then happy to extract a fetus and implant it into the father.... let him gestate if he if wants it.

i don't give a shit about anyone's personal "morals" of any of this. The bottom line is a woman's body belongs to HER and her alone.

I didn't mean you personally, so if I came across as attacking you personally-I do apologize.

And I'm well aware that accidents happen. But that shouldn't strip the person's responsibility away. If you get into a car accident-you're still held responsible.

I'm not debating "morals" here. I don't think if somebody gets an abortion that they're immoral.

And yes a woman's body is her body-BUT once she gets pregnant she is sharing her body with that fetus. And we know that that fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.

Just a few questions (not trying to "get you", just honestly curious in your views):

-What's the difference between a fetus the minutes before it's born, and the minute after? If you kill a baby a minute after it's born-that's murder (and I think we can both agree that it should be). So why wouldn't it be murder a minute before?

-If you somebody kills a pregnant mother, why can they be held for two counts of murder?

Apology accepted. Thanks


No..... if a woman gets pregnant she is allowing cells to grow insider her body. There is not sharing of a body. It is the woman's body. The moment she does not want to "share" then she has the right to remove it.

if have no issue with " fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.".... The operative word is .....become. Until it is a stand alone life... viable as a life.

The difference is where it will live on its ownoutside of the womb. At that point it is a life....with a life of its own. Until that point it is not a life of its own. I am not pro late term abortion in any way.

As for the double murder of a pregnant woman.... the lacy perteson case set the precedent for it. It all depends on if the woman... wanted the baby.

I believe Lacy Peterson was near the end of her pregnancy, so yes....you can be pretty sure that she wanted that baby, otherwise the baby "could" have been gone long before.

Please read this link....this will tell you exactly how a fetus develops, when the heart start beating, when the brain starts working....it's HUMAN. Like the question that was asked earlier....
What's the difference between a baby just a minute before it's born and a minute after it's born?

http://prolifeaction.org/faq/unborn.php

 

[syrenn]

Not the child's needs. Life.

I don't think there are any considerations that justify murder of a child...except in rare cases, when carrying that child will potentially kill the mother. Not via the regular risks of childbirth, because abortion carries pretty much the same potential of death and illness, but for a very specific reason..the mother is a brittle diabetic, the mother is in need of cancer treatment, or she has some unspecified illness or disorder that would result in her dying if she carried a child to term. I honestly have no idea, aside from renal or liver failure, diabetes, and cancer, what might fit that description, I just know it's extremely rare.

A child can't have NEEDS unless it's alive, and except for life, a mother has no NEEDS that trump another's right to LIVE.

A fetus is not a child. Therefor no child is murdered.

If removed from a womb of which belongs to the woman..... the cells many be alive but it does not have a life of its own.

The woman's needs are what HER body will or will not support, what she is willing or not willing to carry.

And a child isn't an adult.

But they're still people. It doesn't matter what you call them. I've never proposed forcing women whose bodies cannot bear a child to see pregnancy out.

Regarding what she *wants*...her *wants* don't trump another's life. Sorry.

I did not say a child was an adult... or a baby was not a child. I said a fetus was not a baby. Which is why its called a fetus.

I agree.... c-section it out and give it birth. Then it can have its life ...all on its own.

 

[koshergrl]

Lovely sentiment syrenn and you've shared it many times. It shows your loving care for the women who are pregnant, too, since c-sections are also incredibly risky.

My point is it doesn't matter what you call it, those names only indicate the AGE, not the humanity. They're humans at every AGE.

 

[syrenn]

I didn't mean you personally, so if I came across as attacking you personally-I do apologize.

And I'm well aware that accidents happen. But that shouldn't strip the person's responsibility away. If you get into a car accident-you're still held responsible.

I'm not debating "morals" here. I don't think if somebody gets an abortion that they're immoral.

And yes a woman's body is her body-BUT once she gets pregnant she is sharing her body with that fetus. And we know that that fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.

Just a few questions (not trying to "get you", just honestly curious in your views):

-What's the difference between a fetus the minutes before it's born, and the minute after? If you kill a baby a minute after it's born-that's murder (and I think we can both agree that it should be). So why wouldn't it be murder a minute before?

-If you somebody kills a pregnant mother, why can they be held for two counts of murder?

Apology accepted. Thanks


No..... if a woman gets pregnant she is allowing cells to grow insider her body. There is not sharing of a body. It is the woman's body. The moment she does not want to "share" then she has the right to remove it.

if have no issue with " fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.".... The operative word is .....become. Until it is a stand alone life... viable as a life.

The difference is where it will live on its ownoutside of the womb. At that point it is a life....with a life of its own. Until that point it is not a life of its own. I am not pro late term abortion in any way.

As for the double murder of a pregnant woman.... the lacy perteson case set the precedent for it. It all depends on if the woman... wanted the baby.

I believe Lacy Peterson was near the end of her pregnancy, so yes....you can be pretty sure that she wanted that baby, otherwise the baby "could" have been gone long before.

Please read this link....this will tell you exactly how a fetus develops, when the heart start beating, when the brain starts working....it's HUMAN. Like the question that was asked earlier....
What's the difference between a baby just a minute before it's born and a minute after it's born?

Q & A about the Unborn Child

I do not say the cells are not human cells. I know how a fetus develops.

The cells are human, the cells are alive. Just as every cell in your body is alive they do not have stand alone lives. They are only alive as part of the body... it is not viable as a life. That being said the cells are part of the body... they belong to the individual.

If a fetus is a life of its own... then c-section it out at 12 weeks and give it birth to have a life of its own.... put in in an incubator and give it all the life support you want... and let live its life.

The point of demarcation of fetus to living alive, life of its own BABY is where it can be removed and live.

The difference between a baby just a minute before it's born and a minute after it's born is becoming a life of its own and NOT a part of the woman.

 

[syrenn]

Lovely sentiment syrenn and you've shared it many times. It shows your loving care for the women who are pregnant, too, since c-sections are also incredibly risky.

My point is it doesn't matter what you call it, those names only indicate the AGE, not the humanity. They're humans at every AGE.

All medical procedures are carry risk.


All cells are human. If they are in the body they are human cells that are alive. That does not make it a life of its own.

Your heart consists of living human cells. Can you take it out of your body, put it in an incubator and it will have a life of its own? How about your kidneys or brain? A fetus is no different. It is living human tissue... but not a life.

 

[Chris]

Pro child abuse Republicans

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Santorum on Abortion After Rape: Accept God's Gift - YouTube​

 

[koshergrl]

You have a point?

Aside from wanting to rape him for daring to say children are a gift? We already got that part..