[Barcs]

NightSpirit, please note that my initial response in this thread was not directly specifically at you. It was mainly directed that the current system of government and the ridiculousness of the media in regards to the abortion issue. I feel it's blown way out of proportion. I appreciate the time you took to write all of that and I will try respond to each of your points.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Any legal issue is a political issue, especially one like abortion, in which constitutional and Supreme Court issues are pending. I think you are missing my point, that for me, casting a vote in support of abortion on demand without restrictions, which is what the Democratic stance is, I think would morally make me an accomplice to the abortions that are performed.

That's the thing right there. Not all democrats are in favor of having no restrictions on abortion. Obama believes that a common ground can be reached as far as pro-life vs pro-choice goes, and also believes that the state should have the final ruling on late term abortions. He also believes in contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which will essentially reduce abortion nationwide. If I understood your earlier post correctly, you feel the same way, at least as far as those points are concerned. You wouldn't be casting a vote in favor of abortion. More like compromise. I'm not even voting for Obama (probably libertarian)either, I just agree with his stance on this issue much more than McCain, who wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and prosecute abortion doctors. If voting for somebody who believes in abortion makes you feel like an accomplice, then what about being an accomplice to the murder of thousands overseas, or an accomplice to the poor education that puts us not even in the top 25 worldwide, or an accomplice to the downfall of the dollar? See there's so much more, and it's so much more important than one opinion on something that cannot be proven either way.

What I said that created these responses was that it has always been my main reason for voting at all. I know there are other recent issues like the nearly 5000 Americans and the 1.2 million Iraqis that have been killed in a war that started from a lie. And I don't want to help elect someone who is "ready" from either side that wants to show the world our "power" and get us all killed.

Even if they stand where I do on the issues, I don't know the heart of either of them or what future challenges may come so I guess I should ask God, who knows all that, to direct me. I do know I won't be voting for the one that I think can make me richer or from a fear of poverty.

See that's the problem, in my opinion. You think that following your heart on a single issue is much more important than all the other issues that are more important in choosing a leader of the world's biggest super power. This is what angered me about the last election. Most people who voted for Bush, voted for him simply because of "morals and values"... aka abortion and the fact that he's Christian. Education, crime, homeland security, ending the wars on terror, drugs and other concepts that cannot be won, social security, the economy, our debt, etc etc etc, have no relevance or importance at all according to the religious right. When looking to elect somebody to run this nation, you have to consider the important issues and how you feel on them, because with the influence we currently have in the world, the future of our species depends on it, not just their belief on abortion. Afterall, it is just a belief. Nobody actually knows for sure what happens to aborted babies, and that fact alone should let people at least work out a compromise

Throughout our history, state autonomy works but, in some cases, has led to the constitutional rights of people being violated, like the Jim Crow laws that held blacks down in the South and blue laws to control people that didn't think Sunday was any more special than any other day even if they were Christians.

That a person has certain in inalienable rights that are nationally guaranteed, such as to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what has caused this issue to rise to the national level. People, on both sides of the issue, feel that some state laws on abortion are restricting individual liberty and constitutional rights and have asked the federal government to override those laws.

I don't really see how the issue of rights being violated is comparable to those situations you named above as far as abortion goes. People can still have the same rights, it is just up to the individual states whether it can be done there, and what the restrictions are. It just makes more sense when you think about the diversity of people here. I don't want the fundamentalist Christians of the bible belt dictating my life, any more than they want the liberal secular people telling them how to be moral. This is exactly why it must vary per state.

The issue will boil down to one decision on whether a baby has any rights before it breathes and how do we balance those rights against the mother's rights. We can't restrict a woman's right to have an abortion in late term just because we think it's nasty or a bad idea.

That's true, but there has to be some kind of limit. You can't just waltz into a clinic 8 months pregnant and ask for an abortion. Planning is everything. I don't think it's just the woman's choice either. The father should have some say in the matter as well, unless he wants nothing to do with the woman or her child. The baby is part his, as well.

It has to be accepted by the Supreme Court that a baby begins to be a person before that baby can be protected by the Constitution. Pro-choice people might even agree that the baby has rights at some point but once that point of person hood is set, they think pro-life people will argue to slide that point on back as more science and medical advances come. And they probably will and the argument will go on.

Good point, and I agree that a standard on when the fetus becomes a baby should be set, however, that standard can vary depending on the state. It doesn't have to be that one Judge's decision dictates this for the entire country. You can't apply the constitution to an unborn child. I believe the child should have no rights until it is developed enough to be able to breathe and survive on its own (I don't mean hunting its own food, just being able to breath and live without an incubator or physical attachment to mommy).

I addressed this briefly in the last post but maybe you missed it because it was so long, sorry. I agree that by not allowing abortions at all we would be imposing a moral judgment and that would be wrong. I just believe the baby has interests in that decision that are being ignored.

Yes, well the child is unborn and cannot comprehend even being alive, so you can't exactly ask the baby what he wants to do. Whether that's right or not is totally subjective, depending on your beliefs on the afterlife. One who believes that every human only gets one life and then is judged for eternity on it would believe that the kid should get his life. One who believes in reincarnation, however, would think that you'd be doing both the parents AND the baby a favor, if the conditions are unfavorable for the child having a good life. Those 2 separate viewpoints are based solely on opinion. That is the problem with making an absolute supreme court decision on the matter. You almost have to conform to one or the other. You have to make a determination on the value of life, when you have no knowledge or evidence to determine that. This is a big dilemma for anyone making this decision. This further enforces the point that it should either be up to the states, or even up the parents to make this decision based on their personal morals.

WOW. I gotta continue to the next post. That's a first!