Pro Life, or Pro Choice?

haha, yet another one of your polls that I can't answer

I believe that the mother has total rights to her body, and therefore has the right to choose an abortion or not, but I also don't believe that it is the moral thing to do unless there's an eminent threat to the mother's life without an abortion.

I believe a woman does not have a right to do what she wants to a child, even if it is inside her body. Because the child is not a part of her body, it is attached to her like a parasite and as long as it doesn't mortally harm her, it is of no threat and of no need to get rid of.

Biologically speaking the child is half hers and half of the male parent's. If the male parent is an active parent, in terms he didn't desert the child before it was born. That then he would have some say to the child being her body, because after all it is a part of his body that happens to be inside of her. I believe it is rather sexist to view that a woman has the right to do anything she wants to any male thing that goes inside of her body. I mean that therefore makes it legal for a woman to cut off a man's dick, just because it went inside of her during sexual intercourse. Now I agree that in an act of self defense that it could be legal. But not if the woman consciously had agree to sexual intercourse with the male or that she was the one enforcing herself onto the male.

Would you think it would be legal of a woman to cut off your dick after she raped you?

One correction Dark. "it is attached to her like a parasite"
It is not a parasite. A parasite invades a host body. There was no invasion, she willingly let it happen onless of course she was raped?

No... Guhh do I really have to define what a parasite is and what the word like means?

like - Definitions from Dictionary.com



Similary to as in not exact, but similar to. Do you understand yet?

parasite - Definitions from Dictionary.com

I think the key stetement is "and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."
What is different about the organisms? And isn't procreation contributing something as opposed to nothing?

Tell a woman she has no rights to her uterus, and see how far it gets you. In the medical world, unless a patient is going to die immediately, the doctor has to get consent from that patient to perform procedures on him/her. You can't just enforce rules exclusively because a moral question might come about, so she can do whatever she'd like. Let the woman live with her decisions and make them right as she chooses.

She has every right for her uterus, just not total right for what grows inside. Even by definition of law it is messed up. We enforce rules about murder for the sake of being moral, IMO this is no diferent.

You know, in my opinion, doing what amounts to chaining a woman to a wall and forcing her to let a baby grow inside of her is a violent, evil act.

Not saying that abortion is not evil.

But, I'm sorry, but if you have to choose between evil towards a fully formed, conscious, human person and evil towards a potential human, in the form of a cluster of cells that are about as conscious as my hand, I'd say the fully formed, conscious human person trumps the fetus.

Third trimester, I'm not for it, of course. Second trimester, ehh... iffy. First trimester, yeah. I'm for it to be legal. Legal. Not that it's moral or should be considered a wonderful thing, it's not. It IS an evil act. But the evil against the adult human woman is greater.

Because by banning abortion, you figuratively chain that woman to a wall and force her to let a baby grow inside of her that she doesn't want. It sickens me.


---

Actually, we don't enforce murder laws for moral reasons. We enforce murder laws for the sake of order and for matters of self-preservation. Because we don't want to be killed, we punish those who do. Social contract, and whatnot.

"This debate is on whether or not the mother has a right to abort her baby. Remember, this topic does not focus on, should you kill the baby if it is endangering the mother's life. You can talk about it if you like, but such occurrences are rare, and should not affect what happens to all other examples"

"Tell a woman she has no rights to her uterus, and see how far it gets you.... Let the woman live with her decisions and make them right as she chooses."

I completely support this position. For me, as an American individual and based on my moral compass, if I am responsible for a woman becoming pregnant through sexual intercourse, I would encourage, persuade and aid that woman through her pregnancy, through child birth, and assist in any way I can in the responsibility of parental guidance for said child.

However, I believe I can only attempt to persuade this woman. If she wants to terminate a pregancy that I am responsible for, I support her legal right to do so. I would then question my choice in sexual partners.

I think what should of happened is the women should of chained her legs together. Or do you think she was chained to the wall prior too having sex?

The Constitution gaurantee's Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness. Abortion deny's all of these? Is that not unConstitutional?

Who decides who lives and dies? Where do you draw the line? Your willing to kill it when it is more then one cell, how many cells is justifiable? Two, two thousand, two million, two billion? How many cells are in a baby at the second trimester? Why do you differentiate between this clump of cells and a clump of cells in it's third trimester? Where do you define if and when a human being is created? You must have an answer if you have an opinion between abortion being ok for the first tri, iffy for the second and no for the third? When is your difference between personal choice and murder? Is it human at it's first breath, heartbeat, thought, sensation of pain? If you can't answer all of these, you need to apply yourself a little before you inject such a one sided sexist arguement, IMO.

I'm Pro Life personally, but that's a moral dicision so abortion should be legal. So I picked Pro Choice

where's the "Pro Abortion" option?

I'm a firm believer and founding member of the "Can't afford it? Abort it" campaign. I'm tired of paying for kids from deadbeat parents.

I would assume your stance is Pro Life. If true, Would you agree/disagree with this statement based on your stand?

I do not support destroying human life based on financial reasons.

nope, i'm pro-abortion.

I think more people should have them. i'm tired of paying welfare and supporting "your" kids.

I could care less about "human life" and "fetus" and all the technical terms. I really don't care.

If you want to have a kid, have it, but you better have the means to support it. If you don't, abort it.

That's my opinion, of course. and no one else in the world seems to have my mind-set.

"I think what should of happened is the women should of chained her legs together. Or do you think she was chained to the wall prior too having sex?"

Wow. I see your view of women is rather negative, isn't it? Sometimes, yes, in the case of rape, actually. But beyond that, why should they have to? Why should they be forced to do that?

They shouldn't have to do that, though! Do you see them as something negative, these women who have sex?

"The Constitution gaurantee's Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness. Abortion deny's all of these? Is that not unConstitutional?"

The 14th Amendment is the only place these things are mentioned. I had said something innacurate before but deleted it, due to actually looking the damn thing up. Here.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any personwithin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

On the first hand, legally, unborn people, if I'm right, aren't yet citizens. That's the first key.

Second, I made clear the due process clause, under which Roe v. Wade was decided upon.

"No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

The decision was also, and this is key and something I hold to, that abortion is permissible until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

The opinion of the Court at that time, which was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, stated "the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Now, I'd need to look at all later cases to make sure of the precise current legal standing of abortion, but I'm not a legal scholar and I don't have time at the moment.

You may not agree, but based on the actual Constitution, abortion is and should be legal.

Now, a problem does come when it comes to defining a fetus as a person. Do that, and it is a totally different ballgame, yes? I agree! However. The Court decided at that time that the Constitution's protections were not including the unborn., and were not persons under the law.

Some, including many liberal scholars, may argue that the decision is just making something up out of thin air, that it isn't in the Constitution. I don't see it that way, I agree with the reasoning that the Justices used for Roe v. Wade. I also see it in a few different places, but that's not the point, that has nothing to do with the current law or its current reasoning.

A good arguement does exist for it to be left to the states. I agree with that, in the legal sense. But I still support the law as is.



"Who decides who lives and dies?"

As for unborn children? The mother.


"Where do you draw the line? "

Legally, second trimester is the line. There and beyond, no.


"Your willing to kill it when it is more then one cell, how many cells is justifiable? Two, two thousand, two million, two billion? How many cells are in a baby at the second trimester?"

After clarifying my view above, this should be obvious.

"Why do you differentiate between this clump of cells and a clump of cells in it's third trimester?"

Shall I mention that the thing I value is sentience, consciousness, personhood, not human life in and of itself? Also, I'll make this clear: viability is a clear difference. The baby is viable. Sorry, that viable baby shouldn't be aborted.

"Where do you define if and when a human being is created?"

Obviously, human life exists as soon as conception.

That doesn't mean it's a person. Which it's not. My hand is also human life, and in those first few months, my hand is closer to a person than that lump of cells.

"You must have an answer if you have an opinion between abortion being ok for the first tri, iffy for the second and no for the third? "

Look above.

"When is your difference between personal choice and murder?"

Murder is a legal thing. Perhaps you should rephrase that to "your difference between eprsonal choice and killing?"

Obviously, human life dies. But it's legal to kill far more important human life than that. Big deal.

" Is it human at it's first breath, heartbeat, thought, sensation of pain? If you can't answer all of these, you need to apply yourself a little before you inject such a one sided sexist arguement, IMO."

Ha. It's ALIVE, it's HUMAN, in the first moment. Personhood? Birth. But, viability means it could be born and survive. That's close enough for me to keep from killing it.

One sided sexist arguement, is it?

Cute. That's really cute. The only sexist here is you, Mr. "chain their legs together."

Why not adoption?

briansol, you said "I'm tired of paying welfare and supporting your kid."

Your lack of empathy annoys me.

I sympothize with Brian although I'd stop short of caling myself pro-abortion

I pay Social Security into a system I'll never collect benniefts from
. Meanwhile my Senator will collect his full pay for the rest of his life, Pay that comes from my tax dollars

I pay taxes to public schools neither I nor my children attend

anyone with a landline phone is still paying a tax which was supposed to expire at the end of WWI

I pay taxes that provide government money for college to kids who refuse to serve their country and can't afford college

and I don't even want to think about where my money will go if Hildabeast gets elected. Do you kow last year in Germany tax money payed for a 12 year old to have a sex change operation because he was low income?

Taxes as a whole are out of control, reform needs to happen, and that means allot less money for welfare moms and the like.

Family has no money? Can't afford college? Enlist, it worked great for my Dad and Me!

[/rant]

Didn't it say person, not citizen? So now we can kill noncitizens?

At the time, the court was well stocked with liberals.

From the moment of conception, the baby is defined as everything it will be, it has al it's DNA and it is a living human, even if you don't think it looks like one. Your hand has no chance of becoming a fully-fledged person.