Abortion rights and voting

[NightSpirit]

I started this thread because I didn't want someone to click on the thread of McCain's choice of a running mate and stumble upon and issue that may be sensitive to them.

Theory is one thing but loving other's is what matters. I would interfere with anyone's legal right to do something other than try to persuade them to reconsider.

But I am one of the people that make up this government of by and for the people and have a 1 of 200 fractional million part in influencing the laws we pass to create the society we want that reflects our values.

Again, I wasn't looking to start a debate but I will join in if someone else does want to offer their opinion or to look at this issue when considering who to vote for.

[jokerman]

VP candidate Palin is extremely anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. If McCain/Palin is elected, and the two oldest Supreme Court Justices (who are liberal) retire or die, then McCain (or if he dies, Palin) can appoint two conservative judges to replace them and tip the Court's balance towards the right, after which they will likely overturn Roe v. Wade.

To me, this is one of many reasons I think McCain/Palin would be an awful choice.

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

George Carlin once joked that pro-life is actually pro-death because ultimately the children that aren't cared for or educated end up in the military because they can't do anything else.

It doesn't seem George Carlin was a very wise man if he thought that abortion was a joking matter or that the value of a life is measured by education or economic status. If we follow this logic to where it leads then if the US comes to need more Cannon fodder, as Carlin seems to imply is the purpose of our military, we can pay women not to have abortions and solve the poverty problem at the same time. Of maybe we can all just kill ourselves especially if we can't afford college and be better off like the babies in heaven.

Look, I really didn't mean to start an abortion debate with that one statement. I have put a lot of thought into it and my mind is settled on this issue. I know a lot of people lurk here and the statistics are that 1 in 3 women will chose abortion in their lifetime, although the rate is declining. And with the 840,000 abortions each year there is also man involved too so that's a lot of people to whom this is not just a theoretical issue. It is not my intent to hurt or condemn anyone that may doubt something they can't change if I do convince them it was wrong. The baby is in heaven and there is forgiveness for this like there is for every other way we fail to include God in our decisions.

But the issue is out there now so I feel the need to explain why it has been a main factor in my voting. As a Christian, I believe I am responsible to God for how I use what I have been given. If this were a monarchy or a dictatorship, the only power I would have would be to not have an abortion and to try to influence others to do the same. But in this democracy, I have the power to influence the laws that are made and I will have to account for the way I use that power.

I believe what the Bible says about life beginning for the baby while it is in the womb, although there is no specific point stated in there.
God told Jeremiah, 'Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you.' And John the Baptist was aware and leapt in his mother's womb when she was address by Mary who was pregnant with Jesus. We read and sing to our babies in the womb to give them a head start because of a scientific theory.

As purely a legal issue, we are inconsistent and ride the fence on the issue of the rights of the child verses the rights of the mother. The baby's defintion as a life and it's rights to live vary depending on how the pregancy ends. We will charge anyone else but the mother with a crime if the baby is killed while it is still in the womb. The law says the woman has a right to abortion because she can do whatever she wants with her own body, except put drugs in it while pregnant. We will charge the mother with child abuse if the baby is born with drugs in it's blood but with nothing if it is never born. Maybe our government doesn't care about the babies but is trying to make abortion look like the best option for those who use drugs by threatening them with legal action, a kind of voluntary genocide of undesirables?

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

Frankly I don't think moral issues and personal issues should be decided by the federal government, period. I think it would be better to leave abortion up to the states, and for the government to butt out of marriage altogether, gay or straight. This country is too large and diverse to impose one form of morality on everyone.

All laws are based on moral values and assumptions, including the ones on where the money is spent to do the most good and the laws that route the money into their own pockets. Even the ones about something that seems to not be about morality, like workmen's compensation. If everyone is agreed on what is right then why do we have to make laws? And how do we decide who to protect with the law and what is the correct punishment if it is broken? We, as a government, depend on the moral compass of the people we elect to represent us.

I won't point out the moral dilemmas of the laws that limit behaviors of gambling, prostitution, drug use, age limits on sexual activity, drinking, or military service and even laws on stock tips and tax evasion as well as public decency and exposure. We may think there is no victim in abortion, but do we know that? If the baby is ruled out having any rights, what about the father, or the medical staff, counselors and school personnel that may lose their jobs if they don't support or participate in something they feel to be morally wrong?

Some of us don't come to our senses about a lot of our behavior until we are older and our values shift as we live and grow wiser. And some people, especially young people, look to public opinion and society when deciding their values and finding their place. By saying a particular behavior is legal, like abortion, it may seem that our society is supporting that behavior as morally acceptable. Personally, I am glad for the process and a chance to shape our society to reflect our vales with the vote.

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

but I think we can all agree that taking care of our kids is a big priority, and if we put plans into motion to better the lives of our young ones, we can hail the virtues of adoption (and many who would otherwise be poor will be in a position to take care of their child, thus they would never consider abortion) and lessen the number of abortions that way.

Eric, you argument for the elimination of poverty the way to prevent abortions would be a good one if poverty was the reason most women are choosing to have abortions but it is not. The average woman having an abortion is 26, has kids and wants more, just not now. The reasons they give in surveys vary such as inconvenience, financial considerations, which includes poverty but also maintain current status and unstable relationships.

I agree that we should take care of the kids that are already here. But there is about two year wait in this country to adopt an infant even a minority or special needs baby. Do you really think that those who chose abortion don't know someone wants their baby? Maybe we should mandate a consolation with an adoption counselor before a non-medical abortion can be performed.

I would be more at peace that the baby didn't feel pain from the procedure if we could limit abortions to the first trimester and I would at least feel better if the limit was at the second trimester. But as it is now, it is legal to kill a baby for any reason up until the time it clears the vagina, even by holding it there and sucking the brains out before it can take a breath and be entitled to legal rights.

I know this is necessary sometimes if the mother becomes ill and has to abort the baby for her health, to save the family from having to watch a premature baby suffer that won't live. And it is also used in late term when a defect is found but there are no laws on the severity of the defect. So it is now a legal option in cases of correctable birth defects. And when we get that national health plan, what is to prevent the government from pressuring parents into choosing abortion if the baby has some expensive problems, to eliminate the weak from joining our ranks and becoming our burden?

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by jokerman

VP candidate Palin is extremely anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. If McCain/Palin is elected, and the two oldest Supreme Court Justices (who are liberal) retire or die, then McCain (or if he dies, Palin) can appoint two conservative judges to replace them and tip the Court's balance towards the right, after which they will likely overturn Roe v. Wade.

To me, this is one of many reasons I think McCain/Palin would be an awful choice.

I know what you mean. Extremes are bad either way and I think that is why we are still fighting over it.

Some people say abortion any time, any reason, even with repeated abortions as a means of birth control. I knew a woman, a co-worker of my husband, that had chosen to have nine of them and maybe more after we lost contact with her when my husband changed jobs.

She didn't like the pill and her husband didn't like condoms and her dogs were her babies, she said. Knowing her caused me to be torn between making abortion illegal so she wouldn't have that as a choice and keeping it legal to protect the babies from having her for a mother.

And then I wondered if maybe I could get her mother to have a retroactive abortion. Just kidding.

The sad thing to me is I think they may be keeping it up in the air as an issue on purpose. If they agree on a compromise, then how will we tell them apart? They will have to choose opposite sides on another polarizing issue to stir up our interest and get their guy in.

Obama has said in the past that he would work to find ways to reduce the number of abortions that take place. So if we can't save all the babies maybe I could go with the one that might actually do something that would save some of them. Or do I go with the guy that promises to stop all of them? Did you hear all the flap when he mentioned Tom Ridge because he's Pro-choice?

Why are there only two voices being heard or camps on this issue? What would the third voice be? Pro-choice, Pro-life and Pro-what? Pro-Peace?
I am not an activist so maybe a group like that already exists and I need to join it.

What about you? I know you are pro-choice but could you compromise at all from where it is now?

[jokerman]

I agree that abortions should be limited to the 2nd trimester at the latest, and ideally the 1st. That is one reason I think abortions should not only remain legal, but become less of a taboo even among religious conservatives. The more acceptable abortions are to pregnant women (many of whom are only teenagers), the more likely women are to get them promptly with minimal risk to their health, and far less fetal development.

I also agree that abortions should not be done indiscriminately, and therefore some restrictions should be placed on how many can be done and in what circumstances (e.g. sex selection isn't a valid reason, but perhaps it's appropriate to prevent a defective fetus from becoming a vastly disabled human).

Of course, sex education (at both school and at home), and easily accessible contraceptives, are critical to cutting down the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions.

I think we're actually not so far apart on this issue, as although I am "pro-choice", I am ALSO very "pro-life" and of course want the best possible life for all babies born into the world. The reality is, that is not always possible, and so in some circumstances abortion is not only acceptable, but perhaps the merciful thing to do.

I don't think McCain/Palin respect the all-important grey area on this issue, nor are enlightened enough to seek more fundamental solutions to unwanted pregnancies (e.g. better sex education, more widely available contraceptives). I think criminalizing abortion outright is a truly wrongheaded pursuit that will only lead to lots of "back alley/wire coat-hanger" abortions, not to mention an increased burden on society.

[jokerman]

I can empathize with the religious perspective, as there is something undeniably sacred and precious about pregnancy, but I don't think it's realistic to demand that every conception be made to come to fruition. Impregnation is very often an unintentional and unwanted "byproduct" of sex, and I think it's fair to give the woman a break or two (but perhaps not three) if she is not ready to take on the enormous responsibility of motherhood.

Again, better sex education and freely available contraceptives are the most effective and fair means to cutting down on abortions. Women, too, should be held accountable for failing to use contraceptives after a number of previous unwanted pregnancies and subject to legal ramifications for continued negligence. That would also limit the number of abortions.

Your thoughts? What compromise would satisfy you?

[Barcs]

Again, better sex education and freely available contraceptives are the most effective and fair means to cutting down on abortions.

I agree with this, but Palin unfortunately does not. She thinks that sex education is a bad thing. I simply cannot understand that perspective. I mean obviously the abstinence only teaching method worked great for her daughter right?

To me, abortion has no place in politics, and it is silly to make it the number one thing to choose a candidate for. It completely polarizes people, and makes them focus on something that has little to do with our country and it's development. Basically you focus on abortion much moreso than actual issues. It seems as if somebody like that might be perfectly fine choosing a president who destroys this nation, as long as he/she doesn't support abortion.

That is the main problem I have with this issue in politics and voting. I agree that it should be something that the state and local governments decide, because if you look at New York City or New Jersey and compare it with Texas or Georgia, you will find very different political views and religious views. Why should both have to conform to the same ideology?

One other point I'd like to make about this, is that this country was founded on religious freedom. Why should that be restricted to force everyone to conform to the Judeo-Christian standard? By not allowing abortion, you do exactly that. Why should non-religious and other religions have to follow the Christian guidelines? While I understand why Christians are against abortion, these rules should only apply to Christians (not legally, just in the church). If you are against abortion, then you shouldn't get one. If you support abortion you should be able to. That's how freedom works. When you get fuzzy about the separation of church and state you are going against everything this country was founded on.

Now, personally I wouldn't want to have an abortion done, besides in rape, incest and health problems, but I think people should still have the choice. I also believe that you need to make the decision right away. None of this 2nd and 3rd trimester stuff besides with health issues. You need to decide when the baby is first conceived, not wait a few months and change your mind.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by jokerman

I can empathize with the religious perspective, as there is something undeniably sacred and precious about pregnancy, but I don't think it's realistic to demand that every conception be made to come to fruition. Impregnation is very often an unintentional and unwanted "byproduct" of sex, and I think it's fair to give the woman a break or two (but perhaps not three) if she is not ready to take on the enormous responsibility of motherhood.

Again, better sex education and freely available contraceptives are the most effective and fair means to cutting down on abortions. Women, too, should be held accountable for failing to use contraceptives after a number of previous unwanted pregnancies and subject to legal ramifications for continued negligence. That would also limit the number of abortions.

Your thoughts? What compromise would satisfy you?

Another part of the religious, or Christian perspective is that God can deal with all kinds of 'unwanted' or 'unintentional' babies, can use their life, can teach through them and the conditions they are brought into the world under.

It's also a belief that life begins at conception - not the first month, or the second, or the third - but the instant of conception.

On the flipside, it is understood that God is all forgiving, if asked, even for killing unborn children. He can heal the guilt and shame, no questions asked. Forgiveness is by the grace of God. Where you and I may fall short in forgiveness, God is plentiful, and can bring you peace. Tragedy can be used for redemtion - even the tragedy of abortion - this is the beauty of God. Even our poor, carnal choices can be used for good.

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by jokerman

Your thoughts? What compromise would satisfy you?

I agree with almost all of what you said, enough to vote for you if you were running for reproduction czar. Maybe that's an office we need to create without any other responsibilities but to reduce abortions.

I hear that most Americans are for keeping abortion legal as an option but with restrictions. But these elections are all about keeping your mouth shut if you disagree with the party line and seek to please your constituencies.
When are they going to realize that the biggest constituency is the Americans that want to stop the ideological debates and get on with compromise? Most of us are not satified with the status quo and want practical solutions and policies that we all may not agree with but that at least meet some of our biggest concerns?

[Akashic_Librarian]

From my perspective I think every woman has th eright to abortion, your extremely arrogant to suggest otherwise.

I don't happen to believe in the God of the Bible, and so I think what he has to say in his so called book (Read: Childrens story), is total and utter nonsense.

So what do I believe?

I believe that children are NOT conscious until they are born.

I believe that an adult who has lived, and who may suffer has more rights than an unborn child.

I believe that I would rather see a dead baby than another violent teenager making sure no one can leave their homes after 9pm in some areas.

I believe that if you make abortion illegal the number of backstreet abortions will invariably increase.

I believe that pro-life is pathetic, sad, and most of all; assinine.

Finally I believe that people who continue to try and form a Democracy (Read Theocracy) on ancient ideas likeThe Bible or The Koran are going to meet a lot of resistance in the future. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those books argue against abortion because when they where written it was a dangerous procedure? That probably ended in the death of the mother most of the time as well? No of course not. Imagine if God wasn't behind everything...you might have to think for yourselves.

[sgregory]

The killing of currently living people and the welfare of currently living people is of FAR greater importance than someone who is not out of the womb yet.

It's a state matter, not a federal one. Shouldn't be an issue in presidential elections at all.

It's an issue that is intentionally designed to get certain groups of people to vote for a certain political candidate.

I wholeheartedly think that contraception should be pushed more and more. More contraceptions = less need for abortions.

And finally, it doesn't matter if abortion is made illegal. Many, many people will still do it the old fashioned way and I've even heard of certain herbs or things a woman can take to kill the fetus long before anyone knows she is pregnant. I could be wrong on that last part, though. I've only saw things in passing and never looked into it- but I would.

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Barcs

To me, abortion has no place in politics, and it is silly to make it the number one thing to choose a candidate for. It completely polarizes people, and makes them focus on something that has little to do with our country and it's development.

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.

Originally Posted by Barcs

Basically you focus on abortion much more so than actual issues. It seems as if somebody like that might be perfectly fine choosing a president who destroys this nation, as long as he/she doesn't support abortion.

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.

Originally Posted by Barcs

That is the main problem I have with this issue in politics and voting. I agree that it should be something that the state and local governments decide, because if you look at New York City or New Jersey and compare it with Texas or Georgia, you will find very different political views and religious views. Why should both have to conform to the same ideology?

This might sidetrack into another debate of state's rights to govern but this thread is about voting in this national election. Even if I agreed with you that abortion should remain a state issue, it doesn't help me decide how it should be handled now that the issue has reached the national level in court cases and appeals.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Barcs

One other point I'd like to make about this, is that this country was founded on religious freedom. Why should that be restricted to force everyone to conform to the Judeo-Christian standard? By not allowing abortion, you do exactly that.

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.

But when the right to do something is considered legal, then interfering or impeding their right to do so becomes against the law and participation of citizens in that activity becomes required by law. To refuse to give a woman an abortion or to assist in the procedure or to throw out the remains, etc. etc. can get a person fired or cause them to be sued for infringing on a woman's legal rights. There has to be a counter law passed that protects our rights to follow our conscience, which is in the works. New Bush Rule: Doctors Can Refuse To Give Women Abortions

That's what all the hubbub is about on abstinence education. Unless it is supported as legal to be mentioned as an option, then those that mention it can be legally accused of pushing religion on kids. I think anyone would agree, except some fringe people, that delaying sex for kids might
result in them making better choices and have fewer problems.

But because abstinence is also what religions teach, to even say that might be considered a violation of church and state and is why it has become necessary to seek a law to protect that right to say it.

The contraceptive argument is coming mostly from the Catholics but also some Muslims, Jews and Christians. Because some believe contraception is a sin, a school teaching contraceptive options is in effect teaching their kids how to practice the sin of contraception.

As a conservative Christian, if you have protected your kids from R rated movies and nasty video games and explicit songs and taught them to be modest, then you don't want them to get their information about sex in a group, especially a mixed-gender group and from a person of whom you have no knowledge of their values.

Parents want the right to opt out and give their kids that information themselves. Assuming that the parents can't do a good job of that in the privacy of their own home and needs the help of the "state" is usurping parents authority and making a judgment on their values.

Notice I didn't take a stance on the right and wrong of these issues. It is just too easy, especially in this culture, to assume that because a person believes in God that their concerns on sex and contraception are shallow and religious. They are judged and dismissed as having bad judgment without first trying to understand.

In education, there is a fine line between being neutral about God and teaching ideas that assume an absence of a god.

Originally Posted by Barcs

Now, personally I wouldn't want to have an abortion done, besides in rape, incest and health problems, but I think people should still have the choice. I also believe that you need to make the decision right away. None of this 2nd and 3rd trimester stuff besides with health issues. You need to decide when the baby is first conceived, not wait a few months and change your mind.

Great. So if I think that and you think that, why haven't any of the political parties proposed this to draw us in?

[NightSpirit]

Thanks for taking the time to add your opinion to the question. I am genuinely interested about the basis that those who don't believe in God use to make their decisions about legal issues, such as determining the value of a life.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I don't happen to believe in the God of the Bible, and so I think what he has to say in his so called book (Read: Childrens story), is total and utter nonsense..

If you don't believe in Him, how can you think what He has to say is nonsense?

Of course a belief there is no God would automatically lead a person to think a book about him is total nonsense. But if you considered that there may be a God, then would your opinion change about the nonsense of the actual content?

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those books argue against abortion because when they where written it was a dangerous procedure? That probably ended in the death of the mother most of the time as well? .

You are making a lot of assumptions here that are not true. There are no books in the Bible that argue against abortion. It's not even mentioned there as a possibility. It does not say that life begins at a certain point as I think I have said.

People that believe in the God of the Bible are making their decisions based on the principles in there, that children are valuable, that God knows us before we are born, that life itself is a gift from God.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

No of course not. Imagine if God wasn't behind everything...you might have to think for yourselves

I don't mind that you don't agree with me that there is a God or on the truth in the Bible. But it is insulting for you to suggest my beliefs come from a lack of critical thinking or that I have not contemplated or examined them.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I believe that children are NOT conscious until they are born.

So your definition of consciousness is that it stems from breath and not from the heartbeat and brain waves of the baby that are working before birth? What is magical about breath? If consciousness comes from oxygen then oxygen is coming to the baby from the mother's blood through the cord.

Your value of worth in the world is on performance? That those that are not contributing are not of value and deserve no legal rights?

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by sgregory

And finally, it doesn't matter if abortion is made illegal. Many, many people will still do it the old fashioned way and I've even heard of certain herbs or things a woman can take to kill the fetus long before anyone knows she is pregnant. I could be wrong on that last part, though. I've only saw things in passing and never looked into it- but I would.

I think I addressed all of your other points in other posts and agree with some of them.

Abortions by other means, coat hangers, purposefully failing, using chemicals etc. are happening whether it is legal or not. They are happening now by people who have no money or want to try other things before paying for one.

The idea that people are going to do a thing or not so we might as well help them be safe in it is not a logic that we use much of in deciding what should or shouldn't be legal.

[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!

[Barcs]

But when the right to do something is considered legal, then interfering or impeding their right to do so becomes against the law and participation of citizens in that activity becomes required by law. To refuse to give a woman an abortion or to assist in the procedure or to throw out the remains, etc. etc. can get a person fired or cause them to be sued for infringing on a woman's legal rights. There has to be a counter law passed that protects our rights to follow our conscience, which is in the works. New Bush Rule: Doctors Can Refuse To Give Women Abortions

That's what all the hubbub is about on abstinence education. Unless it is supported as legal to be mentioned as an option, then those that mention it can be legally accused of pushing religion on kids. I think anyone would agree, except some fringe people, that delaying sex for kids might
result in them making better choices and have fewer problems.

Obviously a doctor should have a choice whether he performs abortions, but if morals were truly the issue here, he wouldn't work at a place that supports abortion in the first place right? That would really be following his or her conscience. That law sounds silly and unnecessary unless I'm missing something . Delaying sex for kids might produce better future choices, however, good luck getting teens to actually do that. Teenagers are horny (to put it lightly). Most of them are going to continue to have sex regardless of what you teach them about god and abstinence. I know this first hand, from my teen church youth group. Kids will be kids, no matter what. They will be rebellious. They WILL have sex. In fact, if you tell them not to, they will probably be much more likely to do it. Morality is good, but reality wins. It doesn't hurt at all to teach them the consequences and how to be safe about it. Thanks to the hormones in most of our foods these days, kids hit puberty earlier and earlier, so they have sex earlier and earlier. It's human nature.

But because abstinence is also what religions teach, to even say that might be considered a violation of church and state and is why it has become necessary to seek a law to protect that right to say it.

The contraceptive argument is coming mostly from the Catholics but also some Muslims, Jews and Christians. Because some believe contraception is a sin, a school teaching contraceptive options is in effect teaching their kids how to practice the sin of contraception.

It is also a sin to have sex without the intent of procreation in these same religions you mentioned. That is why they do not want to teach contraception. But that is why we have private and religious schools. If you (collective you, not you personally) feel that strongly (as Palin does) about not teaching safe sex, then you should send your child to a private school that does not teach these things, and assume that your teenager will never experiment. I feel that suppressing this knowledge is detrimental to society, because when your child DOES experiment it will be without protection and could spread diseases or get her pregnant. Knowledge is power and any child old enough to have a baby or have sex, should know exactly what it is for and what the consequences can be if you do not practice it safely. Assuming that kids will never experiment if they are taught not to is an absolutely ludicrous way of thinking and encourages the spread of disease AND teen pregnancy, which in effect INCREASES abortions, nationwide. In my opinion, if there is a god, he does not care about abstinence. If he did, he would not have made sex so pleasurable.

As a conservative Christian, if you have protected your kids from R rated movies and nasty video games and explicit songs and taught them to be modest, then you don't want them to get their information about sex in a group, especially a mixed-gender group and from a person of whom you have no knowledge of their values.

Parents want the right to opt out and give their kids that information themselves. Assuming that the parents can't do a good job of that in the privacy of their own home and needs the help of the "state" is usurping parents authority and making a judgment on their values.

Some parents do a good job teaching their kids about sex, and some do not. This is why it should be taught in school, just like any other bodily function. If you have doubts about the school system, then communicate with your kid. Talk to him about what the school teaches and what you believe. You shouldn't expect the school to be the parent for you. You need to constantly interact with your children and teach them at the same time. Teach them that you believe sex is immoral, however, the school is correct about using protection. The school doesn't teach morality. It teaches practicality. Morality is up to the parents, however the information about body functions, pregnancy and disease should be taught to every single kid in America.

Notice I didn't take a stance on the right and wrong of these issues. It is just too easy, especially in this culture, to assume that because a person believes in God that their concerns on sex and contraception are shallow and religious. They are judged and dismissed as having bad judgment without first trying to understand.

I do not believe this to be true. Obviously there's people out there that will judge you based on your religion, but in general the ones who are judged are the types that end up being hypocrites. For example, Foley, who spent his career fighting against and prosecuting child molesters, and then turns out that he is trying to fornicate with an underage intern. Palin advocates not teaching about safe sex and only abstinence, and bang, her daughter's pregnant. These are the people who are judged by others, and also the reason why other people are so quick to judge. Bad judgment is bad judgment and refusing to teach safe sex is very bad judgment, regardless of your personal beliefs on god and religion.

In education, there is a fine line between being neutral about God and teaching ideas that assume an absence of a god.

I disagree. Schools do not comment on god or teach about god, besides in specified classes. The reason for this is because America is based on freedom of religion, and if you teach or conform to one version of god, you will essentially have to teach or conform to all of the others, which will contradict each other. Schools do not teach that there is no god, nor do they teach that there is. Do you know why? It's because there is absolutely no evidence of (or against)any sort of creator, AND because there's so many different versions of god out there that it would get way too confusing. Religion is personal and should either be taught in the home, or taught in a private school. What you're saying about teaching ideas that assume an absence of god, is actually an absence of what you interpret as YOUR god. When the average person in America thinks of "god", they immediately think of the bible. The god of the bible is against contraception, but not every single version of god is, including the interpretations of many branches of Christianity. To be fair you can't assume something that has no logical proof and teach it to kids, especially when there's so many interpretations. "Unprotected sex causes pregnancy and spreads STDS." This is scientific fact. "God does not want you to have sex. It is immoral." No evidence supports that statement whatsoever.

Also, you can't hold back, teaching logical scientific proven facts because it MIGHT contradict one religion. If everyone did that, our society would not be as advanced as it is. Many things would be suppressed (for example the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe, or isn't flat). The pursuit of knowledge is very important to our progression as a species and I feel that this type of mentality holds us back. Science and religion should be kept separate, just like church and state. Many feel that evolution somehow disproves a god, when in reality it does no such thing. If anything it gives him way more credit to set up a system so advanced and complicated that it evolves on its own.

Great. So if I think that and you think that, why haven't any of the political parties proposed this to draw us in?

I'm guessing we are a minority in this belief, and also that the parties prefer the polarization of its believers. It always has to be absolutely FOR or absolutely AGAINST. It's never in the middle. This is why I can't stand democrats or republicans. It's almost as if they conspire together to maintain their grip on society. I believe that concept is called "Divide and conquer." What I am definitely against is fundamentalism, no matter what religion you follow. No fundamentalist should ever hold office here in America, because their judgment is impaired by their religion, they are generally intolerant of other religions (and even different branches of their own religion), and interpret scriptures literally. This mentality keeps society back in the stone age. I'd like to think we've come a long way since then, but many do not.

Well, I hope I didn't ramble too much in there, sometimes I tend to go on and on, but hopefully I addressed most of your points fully and to be honest, that is probably the longest thing I've ever written in my life about abortion. It's kind of weird too, because I've never really cared about it because it doesn't really affect me personally as I don't plan on ever having kids. Ah well.

[Angela]

The republican vice presidential candidate supports a rapist's right to forcibly choose the mothers of his children.

[missing]

Originally Posted by Angela

The republican vice presidential candidate supports a rapist's right to forcibly choose the mothers of his children.

what's sad is that as absurd as this statement sounds, it is 100% indisputable fact.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Angela

The republican vice presidential candidate supports a rapist's right to forcibly choose the mothers of his children.

The flip side of that is, the generally leftist, anti death penalty crowd who says we can't kill a rapist for doing the raping will gladly fill a trash can with their babies to avoid the inconvenience of raising a child.

[Angela]

Well, maybe not gladly.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by jeff3

The flip side of that is, the generally leftist, anti death penalty crowd who says we can't kill a rapist for doing the raping will gladly fill a trash can with their babies to avoid the inconvenience of raising a child.

Rapists get less time in jail than pot growers. But that's a drug war for ya, huh?

Now as far as the death penalty.. it's pretty badass.

[Angela]

That was very funny, Dan!

[missing]

Originally Posted by jeff3

The flip side of that is, the generally leftist, anti death penalty crowd who says we can't kill a rapist for doing the raping will gladly fill a trash can with their babies to avoid the inconvenience of raising a child.

not really though; nobody supports killing actual babies. It's fetuses that are fair game. Is that the correct plural? Would it not be feti? Ah crap...

[Erock]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I know what you mean. Extremes are bad either way and I think that is why we are still fighting over it.

Some people say abortion any time, any reason, even with repeated abortions as a means of birth control. I knew a woman, a co-worker of my husband, that had chosen to have nine of them and maybe more after we lost contact with her when my husband changed jobs.

Obviously this woman is disgusting, and you will always have these rare cases when abortion is legal. However, the repercussions of making it completely illegal would be dreadful. When people aren't ready to have a baby they shouldn't have to. It bothers me far more to see abused and mistreated children then it does that people have abortions. I think a very fair compromise would be to say that after a certain point it would be illegal to have an abortion (some trimester, I don't really know when).

Erock

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by jeff3

The flip side of that is, the generally leftist, anti death penalty crowd who says we can't kill a rapist for doing the raping will gladly fill a trash can with their babies to avoid the inconvenience of raising a child.

No one should be forced to proceed with a pregnancy if it is going to ruin her health, even if it's her mental health. Even if the fetus is considered to be a person, sometimes you have to kill another person to save your own life.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Quite true Nightspirit.

[sgregory]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

The idea that people are going to do a thing or not so we might as well help them be safe in it is not a logic that we use much of in deciding what should or shouldn't be legal.

I only said that the purpose of making abortion illegal is to cut down on abortions. If you make it illegal now, after it has been legal for so many years and so many people are used to the idea of abortion, they will not hesitate to do it illegally and thus many abortions will still happen regardless.

[sgregory]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

No one should be forced to proceed with a pregnancy if it is going to ruin her health, even if it's her mental health. Even if the fetus is considered to be a person, sometimes you have to kill another person to save your own life.

Whole heartedly agree.

On another note, does anyone have a statistic on the number of babies given up for adoption and the rate at which they are placed with families? I don't think any kid should have to be an orphan and I'm not sure how often kids are adopted. I was just wondering that if abortion became illegal than the amount of babies put up for adoption might get larger and therefore more orphans.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by sgregory

Whole heartedly agree.

On another note, does anyone have a statistic on the number of babies given up for adoption and the rate at which they are placed with families? I don't think any kid should have to be an orphan and I'm not sure how often kids are adopted. I was just wondering that if abortion became illegal than the amount of babies put up for adoption might get larger and therefore more orphans.

Newborns are adopted almost immediately. In fact, you can set it up ahead of time. Also, kill or be killed? That's almost never the choice. And, I'm sorry, but killing a baby so you don't have to be stressed out is disgusting. Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

[Trezker]

If abortion becomes illegal, you'll just be forcing desperate pregnant women to stab themselves to force an abortion for medical reasons.

You can't stop abortions with laws. Unless you restrain and force feed the women that want abortion for the duration of their pregnancy. Do you want a world like that?