View Full Version : do you believe abortion should be illegal?
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 04:33 PM
and why
not in all cases. Each case should be taken on it's merits, it should not be used as a form of birth control, but it should also not be totaly illegal.
Abbey Marie
12-07-2008, 04:52 PM
I ordinarily leave poll choices alone, but in this case:
I think you really have to have an option that it should be legal in the case of life of the mother being endangered, and one for rape. A lot of people feel one or both of those should be exceptions to an abortion ban.
Kathianne
12-07-2008, 05:01 PM
I ordinarily leave poll choices alone, but in this case:
I think you really have to have an option that it should be legal in the case of life of the mother being endangered, and one for rape. A lot of people feel one or both of those should be exceptions to an abortion ban.
Exactly. Rape, incest, life of the mother.
LiberalNation
12-07-2008, 05:03 PM
Exactly. Rape, incest, life of the mother.
none of ur business.
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 05:03 PM
rather then make a 2nd thread, i pose a follow up
is sex a choice or a right?
is it even possible to prevent abortions if they were illegal?
any bibical data to suggest god does not support abortion
just wondering
Kathianne
12-07-2008, 05:05 PM
none of ur business.
Respectfully, f off.
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 05:06 PM
none of ur business.
I understand that position but if you dont want people degrading you or your position, why must you denigrate theirs?
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 05:07 PM
Respectfully, f off.
respectfully, I shit in your eggs this morning :coffee:
LiberalNation
12-07-2008, 05:07 PM
Respectfully, f off.
Respectfully, f u.
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 05:08 PM
respectfully, f both of you
(just kidding)
Respectfully, f u.
Kathianne
12-07-2008, 05:08 PM
respectfully, I shit in your eggs this morning :coffee:
I don't do eggs. Whatever.
Kathianne
12-07-2008, 05:09 PM
respectfully, i'd f both of you
:lol:
Seriously not funny.
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 05:09 PM
Respectfully, f u.
respectfully, santa told me, he pissed all your christmas tree :thumb:
Mr. P
12-07-2008, 05:09 PM
Exactly. Rape, incest, life of the mother.
none of ur business.
I agree with LN.
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 05:10 PM
I don't do eggs. Whatever.
just having fun ms k :)
Trigg
12-07-2008, 05:18 PM
I ordinarily leave poll choices alone, but in this case:
I think you really have to have an option that it should be legal in the case of life of the mother being endangered, and one for rape. A lot of people feel one or both of those should be exceptions to an abortion ban.
I agree, exceptions have to be made.
It's already been proven that people won't vote for a total ban.
actsnoblemartin
12-07-2008, 05:24 PM
but the whole point is, you could write in any exception you want, would u then want it illegal or not :)
I agree, exceptions have to be made.
It's already been proven that people won't vote for a total ban.
No. I think abortion after fetal viability should be illegal as long as their is a clause for the life of the mother.
I don't feel arguments like rape and incest make...good arguments, when it comes to abortion legality. If you truly believe abortion is murder, you probably understand that it takes an average of nine months for a human being to gestate. You would also understand most legal proceedings for rape and incest would last a lot longer than nine months (meaning, you'd have to convict the offender before the baby is born), and that the child wouldn't be any less of a child because it was conceived by rape. It's an impossible notion. A woman simply couldn't ask for an otherwise illegal abortion, saying she'd been raped, without providing some proof of that, or without that abortion being used in court.
This is usually why we don't give the government rights over our bodies.
5stringJeff
12-07-2008, 09:45 PM
In general, no, abortion should not be legal. Des nailed it... endangerment of the mother's life should be the only exception.
PostmodernProphet
12-07-2008, 10:22 PM
I favor taking doctors who perform abortions and cutting them into small pieces, then sucking them up in a vacuum hose.....but hey, that's just me....
Mr. P
12-08-2008, 01:17 AM
In general, no, abortion should not be legal. Des nailed it... endangerment of the mother's life should be the only exception.
Then it is legal..There can be no exceptions to a law..it's either legal or it isn't.
PostmodernProphet
12-08-2008, 06:59 AM
Then it is legal..There can be no exceptions to a law..it's either legal or it isn't.
but that simply isn't true....that's what the law IS....defining when an action may be taken and when it may not....that's why there are so many elements to a crime.......entering a home is not illegal,but entering without the consent of the owner is.....and breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony is even worse.....
Abbey Marie
12-08-2008, 07:53 AM
but that simply isn't true....that's what the law IS....defining when an action may be taken and when it may not....that's why there are so many elements to a crime.......entering a home is not illegal,but entering without the consent of the owner is.....and breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony is even worse.....
Excellent analysis, prophet. I was going to use the example of homicide/murder vs. jusitifable homicide. The difference between the two is the reason for the killing, such as self-defense, the meting out of capital punishment, etc. One could even argue that aborting a baby to save the mother's life is a form of self-defense.
Very few actions are black and white. Grey areas abound.
The United States' concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse, justification and an exculpation. In other words, it takes a case that would otherwise have been a murder or another crime representing intentional killing, and either excuses or justifies the individual accused from all criminal liability or treats the accused differently from other intentional killers.
Then it is legal..There can be no exceptions to a law..it's either legal or it isn't.
Not so, cannabis is illegal, however, docs can pescribe it for it's pain relievng qualities. So it is illegal but not in certain circumstances.
In general, no, abortion should not be legal. Des nailed it... endangerment of the mother's life should be the only exception.
Well, no, I think fetal viability and the mothers life should be the only things that determine if an abortion should be legal up to a point. Meaning, if the baby is not viable or if the baby is viable but the mothers life is in danger, (or, obvious cases, the baby is dead), abortion should be allowed under any circumstances. I just don't buy into the "rape and incest" argument, that's all.
Hobbit
12-08-2008, 11:39 AM
Well, no, I think fetal viability and the mothers life should be the only things that determine if an abortion should be legal up to a point. Meaning, if the baby is not viable or if the baby is viable but the mothers life is in danger, (or, obvious cases, the baby is dead), abortion should be allowed under any circumstances. I just don't buy into the "rape and incest" argument, that's all.
Neither do I. I have met people who were the children of rape or incest and they're glad they weren't aborted. My belief is that everyone has a right to live, and the only right a mother can have that supersedes the child's right to live is her own right to live.
darin
12-08-2008, 11:44 AM
Well, no, I think fetal viability and the mothers life should be the only things that determine if an abortion should be legal up to a point. Meaning, if the baby is not viable or if the baby is viable but the mothers life is in danger, (or, obvious cases, the baby is dead), abortion should be allowed under any circumstances. I just don't buy into the "rape and incest" argument, that's all.
I agree with Jeff's view, and your original statement on abortion. The only side question I'll ask - maybe for another thread? Mods? - is "Would you also allow for euthanasia of non-viable old/injured people?"
While there are babies who need instant care, upon delivery, to ensure they keep living, there are also folk who similarly rely on machines to keep their body processes working.
Neither do I. I have met people who were the children of rape or incest and they're glad they weren't aborted. My belief is that everyone has a right to live, and the only right a mother can have that supersedes the child's right to live is her own right to live.
I believe that, too, but I don't think that before fetal viability, anyone else has the right to make that call besides the mother. Meaning, the law should only dictate what could happen after the baby is viable (could be born and live without the mother)
darin
12-08-2008, 12:06 PM
I believe that, too, but I don't think that before fetal viability, anyone else has the right to make that call besides the mother. Meaning, the law should only dictate what could happen after the baby is viable (could be born and live without the mother)
so..20 weeks or so?
avatar4321
12-08-2008, 12:11 PM
It's already against the laws of God. And you cant change that through the legislature.
so..20 weeks or so?
Well, don't different states have laws about when a baby is viable anyway, when it comes to life support and abortion? Usually it's when medical science can support a baby outside of the womb. But when you bring in things like the health of a baby being born too early to the argument, it just makes it too complicated.
I think it should be determined with state guidelines on a case by case medical basis.
5stringJeff
12-08-2008, 05:51 PM
I believe that, too, but I don't think that before fetal viability, anyone else has the right to make that call besides the mother. Meaning, the law should only dictate what could happen after the baby is viable (could be born and live without the mother)
Fetal viability is a straw man argument. A new life is formed at conception. It doesn't matter whether that life is "viable" or not. Heck, a newborn can't survive on his/her own, so "survival outside the womb" is not a good argument.
Fetal viability is a straw man argument. A new life is formed at conception. It doesn't matter whether that life is "viable" or not. Heck, a newborn can't survive on his/her own, so "survival outside the womb" is not a good argument.
It's a perfect argument. The baby cannot survive without living physcially inside it's mother up until a certain point. Meaning, the life of the child is directly linked to the life of the mother...physically. Meaning, the mother is keeping the baby alive with her body...making it her choice because it's her situation and dependent completely on her. Once the baby can survive without her womb, it's no longer dependant on her and becomes, in essense, a separate person.
That is completely different than someone taking care of a newborn child.
5stringJeff
12-08-2008, 06:31 PM
It's a perfect argument. The baby cannot survive without living physcially inside it's mother up until a certain point. Meaning, the life of the child is directly linked to the life of the mother...physically. Meaning, the mother is keeping the baby alive with her body...making it her choice because it's her situation and dependent completely on her. Once the baby can survive without her womb, it's no longer dependant on her and becomes, in essense, a separate person.
That is completely different than someone taking care of a newborn child.
It's no different. A newborn baby needs someone to feed it, keep it warm, keep it clean, etc. Because the baby is outside the womb, the mother doesn't do all these things on her own; nevertheless, the baby cannot feed or shelter itself, and will die if left alone.
The fact of the matter is that a new human life is created at conception, and if it is wrong to kill a human for convenience's sake after birth, it is just as wrong to kill that child for convenience's sake before birth.
It's no different. A newborn baby needs someone to feed it, keep it warm, keep it clean, etc. Because the baby is outside the womb, the mother doesn't do all these things on her own; nevertheless, the baby cannot feed or shelter itself, and will die if left alone.
The fact of the matter is that a new human life is created at conception, and if it is wrong to kill a human for convenience's sake after birth, it is just as wrong to kill that child for convenience's sake before birth.
A newborn baby doesn't NEED it's mother to survive, or else babies whos mother die in childbirth or are adopted would automatically die. A baby stops needing its mother to survive, technically, when it is viable.
Nobody said anything about convenience.
I agree that a human life is created at conception. I don't agree that the government or anyone else has any right whatsoever to force anyone to keep a human being alive inside of them if that life is dependant on them completely. Once that life isn't anymore, in utero, it has certain rights that trumph that.
darin
12-08-2008, 08:01 PM
how nice of you to be selective in your 'truths'.... :(
how nice of you to be selective in your 'truths'.... :(
what are you talking about?
Psychoblues
12-08-2008, 10:22 PM
Like most all good Democrats, I believe abortion should be safe, rare and legal. But, it's never my call to start with. The woman, her physician and her Lord can sort all that out among themselves.
Psychoblues
PostmodernProphet
12-09-2008, 06:22 AM
It's a perfect argument. The baby cannot survive without living physcially inside it's mother up until a certain point. Meaning, the life of the child is directly linked to the life of the mother...physically. Meaning, the mother is keeping the baby alive with her body...making it her choice because it's her situation and dependent completely on her. Once the baby can survive without her womb, it's no longer dependant on her and becomes, in essense, a separate person.
That is completely different than someone taking care of a newborn child.
the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.....while it was dicta, in the most recent abortion decision the majority opinion stated that viability was no longer a valid argument......the issue of viability is a moving target....first of all, our knowledge of medicine advances.....what is viable now was not viable in 1972.....what is not viable now, may be viable next week....secondly, it varies with the health of the individual, there is no way, prior to an abortion, to truly know if an individual is "viable" or not........moving targets are by necessity arbitrary.....and the standard by which rights are extended may not be arbitrary....
JohnDoe
12-09-2008, 08:33 AM
any bibical data to suggest god does not support abortion
just wondering
I don't think God would accept abortion, other than saving the life of the mother..... Of course, there is nothing Biblically that supports my thoughts on this mentioned specifically about abortion, other than taking the Bible on its WHOLE....so it is my own gut instinct that says he would NOT want to see women aborting their children to be....
BUT, also from reading the entire Bible, I believe that God would forgive those that chose to abort and will be by their side in their own personally agony and pain from having done such....and will be waiting with opened arms, to help these women.
jd
the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.....while it was dicta, in the most recent abortion decision the majority opinion stated that viability was no longer a valid argument......the issue of viability is a moving target....first of all, our knowledge of medicine advances.....what is viable now was not viable in 1972.....what is not viable now, may be viable next week....secondly, it varies with the health of the individual, there is no way, prior to an abortion, to truly know if an individual is "viable" or not........moving targets are by necessity arbitrary.....and the standard by which rights are extended may not be arbitrary....
Hm. I always thought abortion legality had rested on the safety of the mother for the procedure, first and foremost.
LiberalNation
12-09-2008, 08:52 AM
privacy rights first and formost.
PostmodernProphet
12-09-2008, 10:15 AM
Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of a right of privacy.....those things carved out of that right for a perceived legitimate basis have been required to have a safety net based upon safety for the mother....so you are both right.....
what we are beginning to see now is a recognition by the courts that there are interests of the fetus involved.....I say it is only a matter of time, compelled by the advances of science, before the courts recognize there is no logical basis to distinguish between the rights of a one minute old birthed and a fetus one minute prior to birth/abortion.......
LiberalNation
12-09-2008, 10:36 AM
you know a lot of women have spontanous abortions, failure to implant at one day. Sperm and eggs are potential humans as well.
actsnoblemartin
12-09-2008, 10:39 AM
just remember, you were once sperm and egg
were you not a person?
you know a lot of women have spontanous abortions, failure to implant at one day. Sperm and eggs are potential humans as well.
just remember, you were once sperm and egg
were you not a person?
Their is a difference between potential and kinetic energy too, though, no?
actsnoblemartin
12-09-2008, 12:22 PM
I guess :coffee:
Their is a difference between potential and kinetic energy too, though, no?
Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of a right of privacy.....those things carved out of that right for a perceived legitimate basis have been required to have a safety net based upon safety for the mother....so you are both right.....
what we are beginning to see now is a recognition by the courts that there are interests of the fetus involved.....I say it is only a matter of time, compelled by the advances of science, before the courts recognize there is no logical basis to distinguish between the rights of a one minute old birthed and a fetus one minute prior to birth/abortion.......
Don't forget, though, that this human is growing inside another persons body. You just cannot give the government control over that, to a point. It's a slippery slope. Childbirth rights (yes, I realize this isn't the same as abortion) are already slippery in some areas.
In response to you...thus, the need for fetal viability to be the cut-off point.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.