The Abortion Issue

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Carried over here from the Political Arena - The Obama Administration's First 100 Days.

. . . However, the modern day pro-abortion crowd doesn't care about that because their movement is based on the eugenics movement of the late 1800s through the 1940s. In fact, the entire modern day Democrat party is.

Kerry, I am tolerant and accepting of individuals that, for what ever reason, feel a personal need to avail themselves of the legal medical procedure of aborting a pregnancy and I choose to not sit in judgment of their decision. Further, I don't know a single individual who claims to be "pro-abortion". Most of the people I know would much rather that there were fewer abortions, more adoptions and better family planning education, but feel that abortion is a difficult personal medical choice, not a matter for government to dictate.

Characterizing everyone that disagrees with you on this issue as "pro-abortion" merely serves to continue an argument and will never lead to a discussion. I simply can't understand how anyone can describe themselves as "pro-life" and still support the death penalty and other state sponsored killing. Perhaps if we start by simply acknowledging our personal reverence for every life, we can find some common ground.

Michael Smith

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

[MadMonk]

I guess I'm "pro-innocent life". I have a big problem with ending the life of an innocent human, be they 2-weeks from conception or wrongly convicted on death row.

[Prunepicker]

I'm anti-abortion. Not pro-life.

Abortion is the ultimate display of selfishness.

[Karried]

Abortion is the ultimate display of selfishness.

Not even close.

Ask Kaylee Anthony.

Oh wait, you can't ask her...her selfish mother killed her because she got in the way of her 'single' life.

I think murder and suicide are the ultimate selfish acts.

[Prunepicker]

Not even close.

Ask Kaylee Anthony.

Oh wait, you can't ask her... her selfish mother killed her because she got in the
way of her 'single' life.

I think murder and suicide are the ultimate selfish acts.

Abortion is murder.

[GWB]

Not even close.

Ask Kaylee Anthony.

Oh wait, you can't ask her...her selfish mother killed her because she got in the way of her 'single' life.

I think murder and suicide are the ultimate selfish acts.

A selfish mother kills her three year 3 year old daughter.

A selfish mother hires an abortionist to kill her pre-born child.

No difference.

[Insider]

Abortion is murder.

How can you murder something that can't survive on its own (first and second trimester)?

[Insider]

Abortion is the ultimate display of selfishness.

So if you (if you are female) or one of your friends/daughter/mother is raped and gets pregnant, it would be selfish of them to have an abortion? You are totally clueless if you truly meant what you said. You can disagree with abortion, so don't have one. You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't have one. It is their choice, whether you agree or not!

[Prunepicker]

How can you murder something that can't survive on its own (first and second trimester)?

By killing it.

By the way, a baby can't survive on it's own after birth.

[Caboose]

So if you (if you are female) or one of your friends/daughter/mother is raped and gets pregnant, it would be selfish of them to have an abortion? You are totally clueless if you truly meant what you said. You can disagree with abortion, so don't have one. You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't have one. It is their choice, whether you agree or not!

So if you (if you are female) or one of your friends/daughter/mother is raped and gets pregnant, it would be selfish of them to kill the newborn infant? You are totally clueless if you truly meant what you said. You can disagree with killing newborn infants, so don't have do it. You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't kill newborn infants. It is their choice, whether you agree or not!

[Prunepicker]

You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't have one. It is their
choice, whether you agree or not!

Murder is also a choice. That doesn't make it right.

[OKCMallen]

We can argue the science and morality all day, but I fall on the side of pro-choice SHEERLY because the government shouldn't have ANY hand in this debate. Let people decide their own spirituality and morality on such an issue.

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

[Midtowner]

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

I'm guessing some folks will deny it anyhow.

As for me, I'm kind of happy where we're at legally. Casey seems to be as fair a framework for the competing rights and powers as could possibly be conceived.

[CuatrodeMayo]

It hinges (for me) on the question of when life begins. (In my mind) the most logical point is conception. At that point the woman's right to her body is superceeded by the child's right to continue to exist as a human life. To terminate the life is homocide, IMO.

[Caboose]

We can argue the science and morality all day, but I fall on the side of pro-choice SHEERLY because the government shouldn't have ANY hand in this debate. Let people decide their own spirituality and morality on such an issue.

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

We can argue the science and morality all day, but I fall on the side of pro-choice SHEERLY because the government shouldn't have ANY hand in this debate. Let people decide their own spirituality and morality on such an issue.

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that killing newborn babies are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

[PennyQuilts]

How can you murder something that can't survive on its own (first and second trimester)?

The same way you murder someone who has had a terrible accident and needs life support to give them time to heal.

[traxx]

I simply can't understand how anyone can describe themselves as "pro-life" and still support the death penalty and other state sponsored killing.

I have never understood this viewpoint. Why someone would think it was okay to kill a baby in the womb but want a murderer to live. You're equating Tim McVeigh with an unborn child whose future is yet to be seen. McVeigh made his choice. The unborn haven't.

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

I hope this was said in jest. But this aligns with the whole argument that women should abort due to rape or incest.

Ask John Cox, one of the Republican candidates for president in the last election process, how he feels about it. You may not agree with his politics, but he was conceived in rape but he has gone on to try to serve and make his country better.

Or what about Frederic Douglass? He believed that he was a product of rape and may very well have been.

There are many others out there who were products of rape who are thankful for their life and have gone on to live normal or exceptional lives.

[onthestrip]

The same way you murder someone who has had a terrible accident and needs life support to give them time to heal.

So euthenasia is wrong too? When every doctor says that someone has no chance of recovery you still would never pull the plug? That just sounds idiotic to me. Allow someone to pass on with dignity. If I were ever in a vegetative state, the last thing I would want is to drag on a slow painful death and be a constant and horrible burden on my family and friends.

[OKCMallen]

I hope this was said in jest. But this aligns with the whole argument that women should abort due to rape or incest.

No, it wasn't at all. There are probably more than a few solid arguments for allowing abortions so as to benefit society. Unwanted children are a financial drain on individuals and the community as a whole. For instance, the woman that just had octuplets after already having 6 kids. Prime example that allowing some of those fetuses to be aborted would be better for EVERYONE involved in a hardcore economic sense.

[Caboose]

So euthenasia is wrong too? When every doctor says that someone has no chance of recovery you still would never pull the plug? That just sounds idiotic to me. Allow someone to pass on with dignity. If I were ever in a vegetative state, the last thing I would want is to drag on a slow painful death and be a constant and horrible burden on my family and friends.

Thats not at all what ECO was talking about.
I could be in an accident that would require quick medical attention and life-support or I would die. Yet 6 months after receiving medical attention and life support I am fully able to survive on my own and am pretty much back to normal.

So how is that any different from a 3 month old fetus if your argument is "the fetus can't survive on its own"? Neither can a fully grown man who was just in an accident or a new born infant. So why don't we just ignore that 6 months (or a few years) down the road that they will be able to survive and just kill them?

[Caboose]

No, it wasn't at all. There are probably more than a few solid arguments for allowing abortions so as to benefit society. Unwanted children are a financial drain on individuals and the community as a whole. For instance, the woman that just had octuplets after already having 6 kids. Prime example that allowing some of those fetuses to be aborted would be better for EVERYONE involved in a hardcore economic sense.

So why not just kill the new born octuplets since it would be better for society?

[traxx]

No, it wasn't at all. There are probably more than a few solid arguments for allowing abortions so as to benefit society. Unwanted children are a financial drain on individuals and the community as a whole. For instance, the woman that just had octuplets after already having 6 kids. Prime example that allowing some of those fetuses to be aborted would be better for EVERYONE involved in a hardcore economic sense.

Aborting babies is not the way to get unemployed single mothers to stop having babies. Stopping the government and society from giving handouts to these people based on how many mouths they have to feed is the answer to stopping that.

I've known some couples who couldn't have babies and have adopted. Many end up going overseas because the wait in the US is so long. How about instead of aborting these babies, they get put up for adoption? We solve two problems right there. These children aren't unwanted, they're just wanted by different people. Someone wants them. It just may not be the biological parent.

I guess I just take any crime against children personal since I'm a father of four and I see how precious children can be.

But I can see you point about allowing abortions to benefit society. If your parents had aborted you we'd all be a lot better off. How did that feel? Someone else making the decision of whether you live or die for you.

[OKCMallen]

Well, first of all, I am a contributing member of the tax base, so aborting me would have been a NEGATIVE thing for society.

Secondly, don't let your heart get in the way of making a legal point or a logical point. Your way (stopping all welfare) would put children in the way of starvation, disease, and increased crime, which is draining on society. My way would preclude all of that.

I'm glad you love your children. 99.8% of parents do. But we're just making hypotehticals here and discussing ideas; we're not asking you to abort your children, so there's no need to go to that emotional plane that makes logic futile. Forcing women to have unwanted children, I believe, steps beyond the government's constitutional role and is intrusive upon individuals. Carrying a child and giving birth is one of the most physically traumatic and emotionally draining things a human woman can go through. And the government is going to FORCE people to do that? Not to mention, once the government FORCES a woman to go through that, does the government pay for ALL of the costs of the kid since it forced the woman to have it? Nope. Just some, and that's a drain on all of us. Not to mention, parents that don't want the kid have a higher propensity of not nurturing the kid, leading to destructive behavior. (All I'm doing is making points here about the societal utility of allowing abortions; not making judgments on whether it's morally right or wrong.)

You say all babies are wanted by someone? I think a socialized baby-placement service isn't very reasonable logistically.

Look, 100 years ago it benefited society, the world, and the human race to have as many children as possible. In this day and age, as a personal thought, I think it's irresponsible to not have family planning.


BTW- I'm adopted. I'm glad I wasn't aborted, obviously. But I still believe the government shouldn't have that control over people. Like most things, I believe a compromise is best. I personally think that 3rd trimester abortions should be banned, 1st trimester should be allowed, and I'm not quite sure about the in-between. I could live with that compromise.

[traxx]

You say you're a contributing member of society and you pay your taxes. How did we know that before you were born? How did we know that when you were 5? You could've grown up to be on welfare and too lazy to get off your butt and do something. So why should we make the assumption that these babies won't grow up to be contributing members of society.

And I didn't say to stop all welfare to children. I'm saying that how welfare is done needs to be overhauled. These women are putting the cart before the horse. They think if they need more money they'll just have more children because the gov't. will give them more welfare. And it becomes and endless circle.

You speak of logic. Well if we can get people to think (teenagers et. al.) before having sex and thus having children then there will be little need for welfare for "unwanted" children. That's logical. You don't solve the problem after it's here, you solve it before it's here and thus it isn't a problem. Family planning should be thinking before hand not aborting after. People need to be responsible for their actions.

Yes, having a baby is physically traumatic for a woman's body. But having an abortion is emotionally and mentally traumatic. Many women who've had abortions have come forward and said so. They've said if they had been told what an abortion encompassed and what it would do to them emotionally they would've made a different decision.

You tell us not to be emotional about this, but emotion and logic are not mutually exclusive. I think we're all emotional to some extent when it comes to issues like this. I know people on the other side of the debate from me can be and are passionate about their belief.

I'm with you, I think we need less gov't. intrusion in our life. But when it comes to preserving human life then I think it's what the gov't. was intended for - not whether or not we need a playoff in college football. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[traxx]

Sorry, I know double post.

But you also made a statement about socialized baby-placement. That's putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. Why can't we just use the placement and adoption agencies that are already in place such as the Catholic Charities?