I have a question for you liberals

[Narrock]

Would you go for a piece of legislation that went something like this...


Roe v. Wade will be overturned, but with an asterisk attached. The asterisk involves permissible termination of a pregnancy only in 2 instances:

1. The baby will definitely have some sort of severe irreparable handicap.
2. Conception began due to incest or rape.

So, basically if a consenting man and woman engage in intercourse, and either A. The form of contraception fails or B. The couple engaged in risky behavior (not using contraception) then termination of a pregnancy would NOT be allowed.

Knowing that roughly 50% of the population would be against this type of legislation, they also produce another piece of legislation that bars capital punishment in America to keep at least some of that population happy. After all, this is a pro-life idea.

[brinstar]

on paper, yes i would go for this

but in real life i don't think it would help. it would just mean more children being born to people unable (whether financially or responsibly) to properly raise them and provide for them. in other words, trusting dumb bonerfied teens (or any other slice of demographics besides responsible and stable adults) to have that level of personal responsibility is just setting them up for failure. and with more ill-equipped parents comes more governmental assistance checks, and more health care billed to the taxpayer, and more child support garnished from young dumb dads.

quick answer: people are too dumb for this idea

[KaiineTN]

We need more abortions. The human population is rising far too quickly. Abortion is the cure, that is why I feel that the government should pay for and encourage abortions. I also feel that parents should have the ability to abort until the fetus is 18 years old, that way if you end up with a crappy kid, or just decide parenting is too much work, you can just cut your losses and try again later.

[Arlos]

I would not support it, no. First of all, you left off provisions for when it is medically necessary to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother. Vonkaar posted 2 such incidents people he directly knows were involved in, where severe medical complications and internal bleeding meant that the fetus HAD to be aborted, or the mother would've died.

Second, you make no mention on the use of the Morning After pill, which is in that quasi area between birth control and abortion. I know many of the hard core anti-abortionists are also against the morning after pill, but some are not, so it needs to be clearly delineated.

Third, I honestly believe the only person with the right to choose on whether or not she carries a baby to term is the woman herself. It is HER body, not anyone else's. Unless you want to create a policy whereby the government owns the body of any pregnant person (it must own them if it can dictate what they can and cannot do with them), it MUST remain her choice.

Fourth, as we know quite well from Alcohol in prohibition, or drugs now, etc, just making something illegal doesn't mean people won't keep doing it. Period. People will still want abortions, and they will get them, from illegal and possibly dangerous sources. You'll be looking at a sharp rise in deaths and accidental sterilities, etc.

Now, if you wished to change that law and ban any causeless abortions after about the 14th or 15th week, again with the exceptions of health/rape/incest/fetus too malformed to survive/etc. then I would probably go along with it. At that point, the fetus starts to reach the point where it could survive outside the womb, and starts to gain the rights of a full fledged person, and so there better be a DAMN good reason for aborting it at that point.

-Arlos

[Drem]

I think rather than worrying so much about abortion for people w/o the means to raise the child, we should be advocating adoption

I'm not religious by any means so that doesn't have any sway here, but as I grow older and due to some personal reasons, I'm liking abortion less and less

But, no, I would not support something like this, for all the reasons Arlos already covered. As far as I'm concerned, it's a waste of time to focus the public eye on an issue like this. The system is fine as is.

[Sithos]

I would not support it, no. First of all, you left off provisions for when it is medically necessary to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.

This part I agree with. If a woman will come to serious harm or death should she be forced to carry, then I think abortion is a viable alternative.

I do take issue with his point of view that it should only be the woman who decides what to do with the unborn child though. Excepting cases of rape or incest I believe that the male should also have a legal say in what is to be done. They both consented. They both contributed to the pregnancy so they both should have equal say.

[Drem]

They both contributed to the pregnancy so they both should have equal say.

Disagree. The guy just goes off and fucks some other girl or continues about his life with or without the girl he impregnated with just a small psychological impact of aborting or adopting out or whatever. The girl has to actually carry another human being for 9 months and give birth.... the guy should not have equal say (legally), if any at all imo. If you can't come to a mutual decision about what to do, that's your fault

[Tuggan]

maybe instead of legislating life altering very personal decisions, we should mandate real life sexual education at a younger age for all students. stressing abstinence as the only truly safe bet would be key, but obviously it's in peoples nature to explore sex.

[Evermore]

people keep missing the point.

It's not the abortion itself

Its the right to make the choise.

[ClakarEQ]

No way, and evermore hit it right on for me, it isn't the GOV's right to make that chioce for an already existing living walking human being. The other issue for me is that there are too many stupid people who still think doing things like dusching(sp), standing on your head, or jumping up and down will stop you from getting pregnant. Until education is so ingrained and at a young enough age (no, not 6 or 7 LOL), then I wouldn't even entertain the thought.

[Naethyn]

Why any conservative would think that the federal government should be deciding this...

Overturn roe vs wade sure, but don't start putting people in prison for a new federal law that doesn't work.

[Eziekial]

What's wrong with the Government telling people what they can and cannot do with themselves? The US Government has volumes of laws and regulations that tell people what they can and cannot do in a number of aspects of our lives and it's perfectly acceptable to many on this board. Why is a pregnant woman any different from an airline pilot, a scientist or a doctor?

[Naethyn]

What's wrong with the Government telling people what they can and cannot do with themselves? The US Government has volumes of laws and regulations that tell people what they can and cannot do in a number of aspects of our lives and it's perfectly acceptable to many on this board. Why is a pregnant woman any different from an airline pilot, a scientist or a doctor?

Big difference, at least there should be be, between government and federal government.

[Eziekial]

What? Like it matters if the guy telling you what to do gets his mail in D.C. or Tallahassee?

[ClakarEQ]

I'm not aware of an instance such that a person is forced to endure something like a pregnancy, say for example a tumor, because of law. Ez, Can you give me an example of when any person is forced to endure something like a pregnancy against their will, being left with no options?

[Naethyn]

What? Like it matters if the guy telling you what to do gets his mail in D.C. or Tallahassee?

If it's not written in the constitution it should be handled on the state or local level.

[ClakarEQ]

If it's not written in the constitution it should be handled on the state or local level.

While I hear what you're saying, we're far beyond that point today, there is no going back sorry to say.

[Eziekial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

[ClakarEQ]

That isn't the same thing. That is euthanasia and that in some way is legal. For example if you have a will that specifcally states to not be connected to machines or that if you are, and become disconnected, to not reconnect to you said machine.

I'm talking about something growing inside you and the law says you can't remove it, you have no choice. Things like cancer, a tumor, etc would fall into this category. Not someone that wants to die because they are on their deathbed and didn't write a will to cover the bases. But for the record, and while I don't agree with it, I do think euthanasia should be conditionally legal. We put down pets more gracefully than we let our fellow man die.

[Eziekial]

My point is that the government has control over your life in many aspects that most of this board find perfectly acceptable including how and when you die so it's ironic that those same people get riled up over the abortion issue. I'm not sure what your point of trying to equate a child to a tumor was getting at but I assume you were playing some relevance angle.

There are laws and regulations on what drugs you can take. The Supreme Court will be hearing a case to determine if you can even sue a drug company for damages caused by their product (I believe it's a case of a musician who lost her arm from gangrene after a cortisone shot). I don't know how that "ranks" on your scale.

Some medical procedures are restricted by the FDA so people fly to Bahamas or Europe to get them done. Who knows, maybe the cure for cancer is being held up by the FDA as we debate this topic. Is that enough tumors? Would that anger you?

It's the same general authority which fuels this debate on abortion that is used to take the product of your labor against your will to be used as someone else sees fit. It's all about control. Control over your wallet, your mind and your body. No matter how you slice it, if you believe that the government HAS this authority to control you to begin with then all that we will ever do here is a fruitless struggle to define a pointless grey line that shifts each day.

[ClakarEQ]

I was not trying to equate a tumor to a zygote other than to say, it is a growth, they scientificaly aren't the same thing. My point is, that to my knowledge there are no laws that stop you from removing a growth and I thought you were trying to say there were. There really isn't anything equal to an abortion though and I am grabbing at straws in an attempt to make a comparison. Perhaps I'm unclear on what it is that your saying, so if you like, please clarify it as best you can.

I do think the government has the authority to make abortions or anything else illegal. However I do not think roe v wade will ever be overturned and even if it was, it would be quickly reversed.

The government only has control of your life if you let it. Of course that is a bit tongue in cheek but you can break the laws all you want. I choose to abid by some laws and break others, I speed damn near every day, I don't come to a complete stop at stop signs, I don't claim side jobs as extra income, etc etc. At the same time I don't use a gun to kill people, and I don't stick up party stores and banks to make money.

As for the FDA snuffing projects and that type thing, I think this goes on all the time, sometimes there are big things others, not so big. I think there has been ample opportunity to kill the combustion engine but these projects have been snuffed, I think there could be a ton more medical solutions but then there are those pesky pharmalobbiests, etc .

However the things that get snuffed I don't blame the government directly, they are only humans who answer to self advancement.

No matter how you slice it, if you believe that the government HAS this authority to control you to begin with then all that we will ever do here is a fruitless struggle to define a pointless grey line that shifts each day.

I don't believe this, and neither should ANY American. If you do, buy a gun or some sleeping pills and do us proper justice (j/k of course)

[Jennay]

I'm not sure what to think anymore. I used to be completely pro-life but then I realized that if we were to make abortions illegal altogether, women would be sneaking around getting them in dirty unregulated places, getting infections and dying. Perhaps if there was a way to track how many times a woman seeks an abortion. If you come back for #2, you get your tubes tied or uterus taken away.

[Drem]

My point is that the government has control over your life in many aspects that most of this board find perfectly acceptable including how and when you die so it's ironic that those same people get riled up over the abortion issue. I'm not sure what your point of trying to equate a child to a tumor was getting at but I assume you were playing some relevance angle.

There are laws and regulations on what drugs you can take. The Supreme Court will be hearing a case to determine if you can even sue a drug company for damages caused by their product (I believe it's a case of a musician who lost her arm from gangrene after a cortisone shot). I don't know how that "ranks" on your scale.

Some medical procedures are restricted by the FDA so people fly to Bahamas or Europe to get them done. Who knows, maybe the cure for cancer is being held up by the FDA as we debate this topic. Is that enough tumors? Would that anger you?

It's the same general authority which fuels this debate on abortion that is used to take the product of your labor against your will to be used as someone else sees fit. It's all about control. Control over your wallet, your mind and your body. No matter how you slice it, if you believe that the government HAS this authority to control you to begin with then all that we will ever do here is a fruitless struggle to define a pointless grey line that shifts each day.

Yep. Medicine's a business, like anything else. In a lot of situations, they don't sell you cures, they sell you temporary relief

[Iccarra]

I suppose for once I'll share my opinion on the whole abortion matter. First off, I don't believe that abortion should be the first choice for an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. I do think that if the pregnancy causes the mother's life to be at risk then that difficult decision will have to be made. I know that I would have a hell of a time choosing my life over my child's....whether the baby is 2 weeks in gestation or 4 months. It doesn't matter to me how "far along" the pregnancy is...to me it's a baby at conception.

At the same time, these are my personal beliefs and while I would discourage another woman from having an abortion I do believe ultimately it is her choice. It's a decision they will have to live with. Her choice to end the life of her child...which I have a huge moral issue with for a person to willingly do that when it isn't medically necessary in order to preserve their own life.

Actually...Jennay's comment got me thinking. There are certainly women out there who habitually become pregnant by not using any form of birth control and simply go get an abortion whenever this occurs.

[Jeddas]

Hi, I'm Jeddas, greatest poster in the galaxy.

I find there is no difference between 'aborting' via contraception and 'aborting' in the early stages of pregnancy. What does changing the law do? Shit on the poor. If a rich someone wants an abortion, they'll still get it. The Jesus morality-police just fuck over a select group of people who don't agree with them.

Even then, I am poor - but if my girlfriend got knocked up, I'd drop my tuition money to get her on a plane to a doctor rather than deal with the result of our lives getting ashed by bad luck. That, or she'd just say she was raped, but it would happen one way or the other.

In the end, morality pushing dosen't change anything. It may alter the perceptions of the mindless cows who elect to initiate their way of thinking from our legal system, but then again, those people are already pro-life.

Love,
Jeddas, greatest poster in the galaxy.