who should decide if abortion is legal or illegal

[actsnoblemartin]

Your thoughts please.

[PostmodernProphet]

the fetus......

[April15]

The woman who is pregnant!

[actsnoblemartin]

Perhaps I should of put an other lol.

[82Marine89]

Marty, did you vote for the judges?

[5stringJeff]

For a long time I thought we should overturn Roe v. Wade and have states decide. However, this really runs contrary to the reason why I am against abortion: it's murder. The Declaration of Independence states that life is the first of our "Unalienable Rights." Federal law makes it illegal to kill humans after they are born; it ought to do the same for humans before they are born.

[musicman]

Judges decide
Individual State legislatures
National citizens of the u.s.a. vote
Each states citizens vote for their state only
Federal Government votes

I'm not quite sure how to vote; don't options #2 and #4 - in practical application - kind of constitute duplication of effort? To look at it that way, so do #3 and #5, for that matter. In any case, it comes down to a basic question of whose call it is - central government's, or the people's. The Constitution is quite clear on the matter:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.


For a long time I thought we should overturn Roe v. Wade and have states decide. However, this really runs contrary to the reason why I am against abortion: it's murder. The Declaration of Independence states that life is the first of our "Unalienable Rights." Federal law makes it illegal to kill humans after they are born; it ought to do the same for humans before they are born.

I am in 100% agreement with you, Jeff, and - in a nation where reason prevailed - that's the tack I would take. Unfortunately, things are otherwise, as we see. But, while our founding fathers could scarcely have foreseen the wholesale slaughter of unborn innocents, under the protection of the federal government, they were always one jump ahead of tyranny. Roe vs. Wade flies in the face of the clear, unambiguous language of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is atrocious law, and must be overturned on that basis.

That is why I consider George Bush and his elitist puppetmasters such a gang of maggots - they have endangered this process. May the wails of the innocent haunt their dreams, all the rest of their lives.

[bullypulpit]

None of the above. It's a medical decision between a woman and her physician.

[avatar4321]

None of the above. It's a medical decision between a woman and her physician.

a woman and her assasin... sighs

[shattered]

None of the above. It's a medical decision between a woman and her physician.

Really? What about the father?

[avatar4321]

Really? What about the father?

he doesnt count. Its not like he did anything to get her pregnant. The doctor did...

[shattered]

he doesnt count. Its not like he did anything to get her pregnant. The doctor did...

How I could miss such a glaringly obvious point, is completely beyond me. I'm SO sorry, Bully. :)

Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways, Avatar. :)

[jimnyc]

The woman who is pregnant!


None of the above. It's a medical decision between a woman and her physician.

Then the woman and/or the doctor, or both, should be fully responsible for child support.

[shattered]

Then the woman and/or the doctor, or both, should be fully responsible for child support.

If the guy isn't even given a choice in the matter, much less entitled to an opinion, you're 100% right. It takes two - the decision should be made by BOTH.

[Gunny]

Then the woman and/or the doctor, or both, should be fully responsible for child support.

I agree.:clap:

[truthmatters]

[4

[Gunny]

And if they disagree what happens?

If the man says she should abort it and she says she wants to keep it what happens?


If the man wants to abort it and the woman wants to keep it, and he's willing to pay for the abortion, then he should be legally absolved of responsibility for the child. Pretty simple.

[shattered]

And if they disagree what happens?

If the man says she should abort it and she says she wants to keep it what happens?

Then she becomes 100% responsible for all care, support, and financial responsibility.

[truthmatters]

4

[actsnoblemartin]

no I have not voted yet. However I do not believe judges should make public policy decisions. Strictly interpret law, not make it from the bench.


Marty, did you vote for the judges?

[actsnoblemartin]

:clap:


Then the woman and/or the doctor, or both, should be fully responsible for child support.

[Gunny]

Great idea , you have just ended child support for tens of millions of childern.

Stupid argument. If the woman decides on her own she wants the child then she SHOULD bear sole responsibility. It's not much harder than that.

But you prefer to keep it as is, the man gets screwed no matter what, but has no say in the decision. Hypocrite.

[Roomy]

Abortion should never be illegal.It is a very personal decision that can only be made by the woman for all the right reasons (hopefully).

[jimnyc]

Abortion should never be illegal.It is a very personal decision that can only be made by the woman for all the right reasons (hopefully).

Child support should never be mandatory. It's a personal decision best left to the fathers and hopefully they'll do the right thing.

[shattered]

Great idea , you have just ended child support for tens of millions of childern.

Fantastic!! Then perhaps people would start taking responsibility for their fucking actions BEFORE it's too late. :)

[Roomy]

Child support should never be mandatory. It's a personal decision best left to the fathers and hopefully they'll do the right thing.


The right thing to do would be to keep their peckers in their pants or suffer the consequences.

[jimnyc]

The right thing to do would be to keep their peckers in their pants or suffer the consequences.

And the woman has nothing to do with what transpired?

[shattered]

The right thing to do would be to keep their peckers in their pants or suffer the consequences.

The right thing to do would be to keep her legs closed, or suffer the consequences.

[Roomy]

And the woman has nothing to do with what transpired?

Of course she has.

[Roomy]

The right thing to do would be to keep her legs closed, or suffer the consequences.


Goes without saying.

[shattered]

Goes without saying.

Well, since we agree on that, why's it so hard to agree on what those consequences should be?

[Roomy]

Well, since we agree on that, why's it so hard to agree on what those consequences should be?
It's hardly rocket science, kids are the consequence and both parents should have to suffer them one way or another.

[Gunny]

It's hardly rocket science, kids are the consequence and both parents should have to suffer them one way or another.

Not when those consequences are determined by only one.

[truthmatters]

4

[shattered]

So a 13 year old girl get suduced by a 17 year old and he says she has to get an abortion and that gets him out of child support for life?

You dont think things through very well do you?

A rape victim has her rapist say she has to keep the child then what?

Give me a break, and don't be so stupid. A rape victim is not a willing participant.

A 13 year old being seduced by a 17 year old? Where are this girls parents?

[Roomy]

Not when those consequences are determined by only one.


Which brings us back to peckers in trousers and legs tight shut.

[Gunny]

So a 13 year old girl get suduced by a 17 year old and he says she has to get an abortion and that gets him out of child support for life?

You dont think things through very well do you?

A rape victim has her rapist say she has to keep the child then what?

Why do you always have to come up with some out-of-the-ordinary, extreme examples? Since when did rape equate to two adults sharing in a decision they both will suffer the consequences of?

Hint: it doesnt.

[Roomy]

So a 13 year old girl get suduced by a 17 year old and he says she has to get an abortion and that gets him out of child support for life?

You dont think things through very well do you?

A rape victim has her rapist say she has to keep the child then what?


And one fine day you may graduate Clown school.:laugh2:

[shattered]

And one fine day you may graduate Clown school.:laugh2:

I'd like to see THAT degree...

[April15]

Why do you always have to come up with some out-of-the-ordinary, extreme examples? Since when did rape equate to two adults sharing in a decision they both will suffer the consequences of?

Hint: it doesnt.They are not so unordinary in the real world.
WAKE up !

[shattered]

They are not so unordinary in the real world.
WAKE up !

You wake up.. Where the hell did any one of us say that a rape victim must be forced to keep a child?

[Roomy]

They are not so unordinary in the real world.
WAKE up !
Context is everything, April.

[April15]

You wake up.. Where the hell did any one of us say that a rape victim must be forced to keep a child?It is the innuendo of the no abortion group that even rape is not reason for termination of pregnancy. Sorry bout that!

[Gunny]

They are not so unordinary in the real world.
WAKE up !

Perhaps you should wake up. Learning to read and comprehend wouldn't hurt either.

No one was discussing extreme examples. Rape is handled by the law. It is not a decision made between two consenting adults who should be allowed to share a responsibility equally; which, is what we've been discussing.

[truthmatters]

4

[shattered]

It is the innuendo of the no abortion group that even rape is not reason for termination of pregnancy. Sorry bout that!

It is the innuendo of the extremists that even rape is not reason for termination of pregnancy.. Those of us with a brain tend to think differently, and realize not everything in life is black and white.

[April15]

Perhaps you should wake up. Learning to read and comprehend wouldn't hurt either.

No one was discussing extreme examples. Rape is handled by the law. It is not a decision made between two consenting adults who should be allowed to share a responsibility equally; which, is what we've been discussing.And it is the unspoken that gets put into law. That is why it is necessary to bring up the issue! Now you could quash this idea by stating this situation would be an exception to any abortion law. I don't believe a law on a medical procedure is needed except maybe saving conservatives lives.

[shattered]

Will you answer my questions please?

I gave your questions exactly as much attention as they're worth.

But, for the simple minded, let's take one at a time.

A rape victim is NOT a willing participant. The choice to conceive a child has been taken from her unwillingly.

Which part of that did you not understand?

[actsnoblemartin]

Gunny, I would just ignore april if i were you. She is not capable of having a rational discussion, because she is an extreme left wing lunatic.

Im blocking her myself :)


Not when those consequences are determined by only one.

[Gunny]

Will you answer my questions please?

Irrelvant as they are to the discussion, I believe they have been answered.

[Gunny]

Gunny, I would just ignore april if i were you. She is not capable of having a rational discussion, because she is an extreme left wing lunatic.

Im blocking her myself :)

I don't block anyone.

[actsnoblemartin]

youll be happy to know, my new strategy gunny, if someone annoys or trys to goad me into a verbal spat, im just gonna block them. Ive already got three unnamed knuckehads on my ignore list, and feel :coffee: better already.


Irrelvant as they are to the discussion, I believe they have been answered.

[Gunny]

youll be happy to know, my new strategy gunny, if someone annoys or trys to goad me into a verbal spat, im just gonna block them. Ive already got three unnamed knuckehads on my ignore list, and feel :coffee: better already.

What do you come here for then? If you block eveyone that annoys you or disagrees with you, you'll have the entire board blocked pretty soon.

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

I asked severl questions you did not answer.

You are the one who said that a man should just be able to say wether or not the woman had an abortion and I was trying to ask about situations where the two disagree on what should be done so you could clairify your points.

This is how you figure out a law can work or not in society so please would you answer me?

I answered the question and you ignored me.

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not gonna block people who disagree with me, I have friends all over both boards who think im full of crap. But I wont tolerate, vicious people who personally attack me, or are mean spirited towards me. Rather then call them names, and fight back. Better to ignore, keep my sanity and not get banned.

:dance: If someone disagrees with me great, we can discuss it, but if they just wanna fight, ill let the snaring pitbull fight with someone else.


What do you come here for then? If you block eveyone that annoys you or disagrees with you, you'll have the entire board blocked pretty soon.

[Roomy]

Im not gonna block people who disagree with me, I have friends all over both boards who think im full of crap. But I wont tolerate, vicious people who personally attack me, or are mean spirited towards me. Rather then call them names, and fight back. Better to ignore, keep my sanity and not get banned.

:dance: If someone disagrees with me great, we can discuss it, but if they just wanna fight, ill let the snaring pitbull fight with someone else.

The fun is in the fighting Marty.:lol:

[truthmatters]

4

[manu1959]

Great idea , you have just ended child support for tens of millions of childern.

her body, her choice....

[Roomy]

I was merely trying to understand how your position would play out in the real world in individual situations.

What if he tells her he wants to have a child with her and marries her.

Then she finds out the marraige is invalid because of a legal reason luike he is already married.

Then she wants it and he doesnt?

Does she get child support or not?
What if someone punched you in the face just to shut you up but you died instead, would it be seen as a crime or service to mankind?:laugh2:


Makes about as much sense as your stupid posts and has as much relevance.

[shattered]

What if someone punched you in the face just to shut you up but you died instead, would it be seen as a crime or service to mankind?:laugh2:


Makes about as much sense as your stupid posts and has as much relevance.

Damn.. I don't think I've ever seen you effectively kick someones ass in the past.. :D

[truthmatters]

What if someone punched you in the face just to shut you up but you died instead, would it be seen as a crime or service to mankind?:laugh2:


Makes about as much sense as your stupid posts and has as much relevance.


Why do you say that?

These are things that can happen in reality.

[shattered]

Why do you say that?

These are things that can happen in reality.

How is it even remotely possible that one single person can be so completely and utterly dense?

[Roomy]

Why do you say that?

These are things that can happen in reality.


I know, that is why I said it, I must be on the same wave length as you?I have had about 8 tins of lager though:laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

I voted for this one

Each states citizens vote for their state only

[shattered]

Why do you say that?

These are things that can happen in reality.

What part of two consenting adults are you missing? THAT is the current discussion. Perhaps when that's resolved to everyone's satisfaction, we can move on to your discussion..Or, you can start your own thread.

Right now, you're little more than an annoyance.

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

Im not gonna block people who disagree with me, I have friends all over both boards who think im full of crap. But I wont tolerate, vicious people who personally attack me, or are mean spirited towards me. Rather then call them names, and fight back. Better to ignore, keep my sanity and not get banned.

:dance: If someone disagrees with me great, we can discuss it, but if they just wanna fight, ill let the snaring pitbull fight with someone else.

I just get ignored by liberals who can't handle facts, logic and common sense.

[JohnDoe]

i just did a search on Judaism and abortion to see what their religious views were on abortion and found this article on it, which was very informing and surprising at the same time to me.

It clearly implies the old testament does not give the same worth to a fetus as a born human.... though they do recognize it as human and of great worth, but not as great a worth as a BORN human being.... it also supports the fetus as being a part of the woman?



WHEN DOES HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGIN?
BELIEF 4: JEWISH BELIEFS
Background:
Within Christianity, Judaism, Humanism and other religions and ethical systems, the morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus. There is a general consensus in North America that when the fetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. Most would confine abortions at that stage to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:

The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.

Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.

With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5

Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." 1

Abortion-related passages in the Hebrew Scriptures & Talmud:
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1 This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:

One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.

Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.


Abortions needed to save the life of the mother:
A passage from the Mishna quotes a Jewish legal text from the second century CE. It describes the situation in which a woman's life is endangered during childbirth. A D&X procedure (often called Partial Birth Abortion in recent years) might be used under these conditions today. However, this technique was unknown in ancient times. The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if "the greater part" of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal. Before personhood has been reached, it may be necessary to "sacrifice a potential life in order to save a fully existent human life, i.e. the pregnant woman in labor." 1 After the forehead emerges from the birth canal, the fetus is regarded as a person. Neither the baby nor the mother can be killed to save the life of the other.

A second consideration is the principle of self-defense. Some Jewish authorities have asserted that if the fetus placed its mother's life at risk, then the mother should be permitted to kill the fetus to save herself, even if the "greater portion [of its body] had already emerged" from the birth canal.

Other abortions:
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases:

One case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except for its mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case. An abortion of the fetus, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

An abortion would be permissible if the woman was suicidal because of her pregnancy.

Jewish authorities differed in a case where a continued pregnancy would leave the mother permanently deaf. She obtained permission for an abortion from the Chief Rabbi of Israel.

Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.

Most authorities do not permit abortion in the event that the fetus is genetically defective or will probably pick up a disease from its mother. The rationale is that even though the child will be malformed, disabled, or diseased, it would still be formed in the image of the creator. Rabbi Eliezar Waldenberg is one authority who believes otherwise. He "allows first trimester abortion of a fetus which would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the end of the second trimester of gestation." 3

An abortion is sometimes permitted if the woman suffers great emotional pain about the birth of a child who will experience health problems.

Abortions are not permitted for economic reasons, to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried.

In a very unusual case, a woman in New Jersey was pregnant with a hydroencephalic fetus. Its large head prevented a conventional delivery. The physician recommended a Caesarian section. But the woman asked for a D&X procedure on the grounds that the fetus' life was doomed anyway and a C section would weaken her uterus for her next pregnancy. Her rabbinic authorities agreed. 4

Political aspects of abortion access:
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance.

All recognize that the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without considerable thought.

[truthmatters]

4

[5stringJeff]

If the man says she should abort it and she says she wants to keep it what happens?

That choice was made when the two of them decided to have sex. Everyone knows that having sex is how you make babies; if you decide to exercise your right to have sex, you also take responsibility for the consequences of sex, which may include a baby 9 months down the road.

[actsnoblemartin]

sadly, too many liberals lack those three things you mentioned


I just get ignored by liberals who can't handle facts, logic and common sense.

[truthmatters]

4

[5stringJeff]

So is the burden equally shared when all he has to do is say he doesnt want it after the fact and then pays no child support because he said so?

I didn't make that claim. I think the two parents ought to share that burden according to mutual agreement, or barring that, by court order.

[truthmatters]

4

[Abbey Marie]

the fetus......

:clap: No one has more to lose from the decision.

[shattered]

This is why I was trying to get Shattered to further explain her position of both persons getting a say in what happens in these cases.

That's an outright lie - you were specifically discussing rape cases, and the man saying he "wants" the child. Not two people choosing to have sex.

Rape cases do not involve two consenting adults; there is no "choice" to be "discussed" between the two parties. All choice was removed from the woman; why in the HELL would the criminal get a say in the matter?

[Abbey Marie]

That's an outright lie - you were specifically discussing rape cases, and the man saying he "wants" the child. Not two people choosing to have sex.

Rape cases do not involve two consenting adults; there is no "choice" to be "discussed" between the two parties. All choice was removed from the woman; why in the HELL would the criminal get a say in the matter?

The only say he should get is which testicle should be cut off first.

[truthmatters]

4

[shattered]

The only say he should get is which testicle should be cut off first.

Not even. Apparently, he likes the "element of surprise".

[truthmatters]

4

[truthmatters]

4

[avatar4321]

Both the mother and the father are responsible for the child period. There is no other choice. the second you had sex you made your choice. Its the only fair solution.

[Abbey Marie]

Not even. Apparently, he likes the "element of surprise".

You make a compelling argument.

[manu1959]

Along with these.

I was merely trying to detail your beliefs are insults really needed?

trying to finally win an argument?........

[Gunny]

Along with these.

I was merely trying to detail your beliefs are insults really needed?

What you were doing was your usual tapdancing when cornered with a bogus argument. You bring on the insults, ma'am, by just refusing to accept defeat, or that you could be wrong, and/or just continuing on and ignoring any and all facts presented to you, and/or deflecting your ass off.

[Said1]

What you were doing was your usual tapdancing when cornered with a bogus argument. You bring on the insults, ma'am, by just refusing to accept defeat, or that you could be wrong, and/or just continuing on and ignoring any and all facts presented to you, and/or deflecting your ass off.

Totally passive-aggressive. I love crack psychiatry, don't you? :laugh2: