Percent that want Roe V. Wade overturned continuing to decline

[oragator1]

This is goes along with a point I have made here over the past few years, that the country is arcing towards more personal freedom/choice, but one point the article makes is that the numbers were moved by the abortion and rape comments this year. The biggest movers in the poll were minorities and women without college degrees.

According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions.
That’s the first time since this poll question was first asked in 2003 that a majority maintained that abortion should be legal. Previously (with just one exception in 2008), majorities said abortion should be illegal.
In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision from being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about this.
That’s up from the 58 percent who said the decision shouldn’t be overturned in 1989; the 60 percent who said this in 2002; and the 66 percent who said this in 2005.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16626932-nbcwsj-poll-majority-for-first-time-wants-abortion-to-be-legal?lite

[108]

purely a wedge issue at this point that divides Americans with no real chance of being overturned

[CHFG8R]

purely a wedge issue at this point that divides Americans with no real chance of being overturned

Yes, but it is quite lucrative for the non-profits that continue to fan the flames on an almost daily basis. Don't ya love politics. An issue that exists soley for the purpose of political division and fundraising. It really is a non-issue anyway. Never going to be overturned - or any legislation close to that - in our lifetimes.


I almost feel sorry for the hard-core Pro-Life voter these days: Just pawns being played by the system.

[108]

Yes, but it is quite lucrative for the non-profits that continue to fan the flames on an almost daily basis. Don't ya love politics. An issue that exists soley for the purpose of political division and fundraising. It really is a non-issue anyway. Never going to be overturned - or any legislation close to that - in our lifetimes.


I almost feel sorry for the hard-core Pro-Life voter these days: Just pawns being played by the system.

exactly

the defense of pro-choice is equally a money maker

though I suppose if there was no one to defend it, it could get overturned

[QGator2414]

Yes, but it is quite lucrative for the non-profits that continue to fan the flames on an almost daily basis. Don't ya love politics. An issue that exists soley for the purpose of political division and fundraising. It really is a non-issue anyway. Never going to be overturned - or any legislation close to that - in our lifetimes.


I almost feel sorry for the hard-core Pro-Life voter these days: Just pawns being played by the system.

I agree.

However one can do some real good by seeking out the right organization and potentially help save the life of our most innocent...

http://wpcocala.com/

[CHFG8R]

In a perfect world, these organizations - on both sides - would dive into the adoption side, which if you apply a means-test could be both lucrative and beneficial for the many couples looking to adopt. Think about that, AFA and PP both creating substantial adoption wings (for profit in many cases based on means) that simplify and solidify (eliminating a lot of the games that exist in the practice today) the adoption process.


But then how would the lobbiests feed their families? There's always a rub isn't there?

[QGator2414]

In a perfect world, these organizations - on both sides - would dive into the adoption side, which if you apply a means-test could be both lucrative and beneficial for the many couples looking to adopt. Think about that, AFA and PP both creating substantial adoption wings (for profit in many cases based on means) that simplify and solidify (eliminating a lot of the games that exist in the practice today) the adoption process.


But then how would the lobbiests feed their families? There's always a rub isn't there?

No doubt.

Which is why one should (key word :)) research the organization...

[g8orbill]

it is sad when that many seem to have no regard for human life and support the killing of innocent unborn children

[108]

it is sad when that many seem to have no regard for human life and support the killing of innocent unborn children

its sad when it is so black and white for some people as yourself

if one is pro-choice, in your mind it means that they have no regard for human life and support the killing of innocent unborn children

somehow i bet you find the grey area in say the effect of innocent lives being taken from war

[CHFG8R]

it is sad when that many seem to have no regard for human life and support the killing of innocent unborn children

I assume you feel that abortion - as performed by a Doctor - is First Degree Capital Murder, correct? And punishable as 1st Degree (Death Penalty, Life in Prison), correct?

[g8orbill]

no I don't CHF- I do believe it is murder and I do believe it is wrong-I also know some women who in their younger days had an abortion who have a hard time dealing with the guilt they now feel- I would not charge them or the Dr with capital murder-and I would allow for an abortion from a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest and in instances where it would kill the mother to carry the baby or if they found that the child was either dead in the womb or was mentally deformed

108- it is unfortunate in wars that innocent people die but how you can equate that with the outright deliberate killing of an unborn child is interesting

the fact that I view things in black and white and it seems to bother you so much is amusing

[108]

no I don't CHF- I do believe it is murder and I do believe it is wrong-I also know some women who in their younger days had an abortion who have a hard time dealing with the guilt they now feel- I would not charge them or the Dr with capital murder-and I would allow for an abortion from a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest and in instances where it would kill the mother to carry the baby or if they found that the child was either dead in the womb or was mentally deformed

108- it is unfortunate in wars that innocent people die but how you can equate that with the outright deliberate killing of an unborn child is interesting

the fact that I view things in black and white and it seems to bother you so much is amusing

i don't equate it, but I do understand that life is grey and not black and white

the majority in this nation prefers a woman be allowed to have a choice about an issue that is at least right now very grey, versus banning it

and you don't view everything in black and white, stop BS'ing...you agree with capital punishment

[MichiGator2002]

"Grey" is a sort of moral hook slide. Confronted by a pattern of intricate and difficult to track whites and blacks, it is pretty easy shorthand to just go "eh, grey", figuring that adequately describes it.

[108]

"Grey" is a sort of moral hook slide. Confronted by a pattern of intricate and difficult to track whites and blacks, it is pretty easy shorthand to just go "eh, grey", figuring that adequately describes it.

well let me know when morals are proven to be right from an absolute standpoint

until then, its all grey

"Nothing in this world is right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so."

[g8orbill]

what a pile of liberal gobbidally gook 108

[108]

what a pile of liberal gobbidally gook 108

hey, you are the one who gets all emotional about a woman making a legal choice

[Gatoragman]

108, do you believe partial birth abortion is ok?

[g8orbill]

hey, you are the one who gets all emotional about a woman making a legal choice

just their decision to kill an innocent child

[108]

108, do you believe partial birth abortion is ok?

personally i don't except in cases of saving a mothers life

[108]

just their decision to kill an innocent child

problem is, a lot of people don't equate a fetus to an innocent child

[MichiGator2002]

well let me know when morals are proven to be right from an absolute standpoint

until then, its all grey

"Nothing in this world is right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so."

Was this an effort to disagree? Because it reads like exactly the point I was trying to make -- that "grey" is the default fallback of "these fine moral distinctions are too much trouble".

[QGator2414]

Powerful statement considering the situations of rape and incest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VDA8acKNSk

[Gatoragman]

So 108, if the mother's life is not in question should she be allowed to have a partial birth abortion?

[QGator2414]

I challenge people to watch this...

***Warning it is graphic but you need to know/see what we as a Nation allow to happen and we will be judged for our actions as a society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59fMNimqURE

[neisgator]

Not surprising, being that we have an electorate that just re elected the worst President ever.

Im a libertarian and struggle with the issue of abortion.

[108]

Was this an effort to disagree? Because it reads like exactly the point I was trying to make -- that "grey" is the default fallback of "these fine moral distinctions are too much trouble".

im disagreeing that the grey is just an excuse to reduce one's "trouble"

[108]

So 108, if the mother's life is not in question should she be allowed to have a partial birth abortion?

its not for me to say, but I personally wouldn't if I was a woman

[Gatoragman]

What do you mean it is not for you? Dodging the question? We elect politicians, politicians enact laws, either we agree with the law or we disagree, which is it? You either believe a woman has the right to partial birth abortion or you don't?

[108]

What do you mean it is not for you? Dodging the question? We elect politicians, politicians enact laws, either we agree with the law or we disagree, which is it? You either believe a woman has the right to partial birth abortion or you don't?

there is a difference in believing that something isn't right for me, and believing others should not have the right to do something

that being said, i do agree that society has the right to come together to legislate what they feel is right and wrong....most are laws against hurting another in various ways

the problem with abortion is that whether it hurts another is up for debate, and given that 70% don't want it overturned, it shows they prefer choice here

[Gatoragman]

I will ask again!!!!!!!!!!!! 108 DO YOU BELIEVE A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION?????????????

[CHFG8R]

I will ask again!!!!!!!!!!!! 108 DO YOU BELIEVE A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION?????????????

I'll answer. Yes, but only under extenuating circumstances (health of mother). That's my opinion and I would not personally (even if I had the power) extend my opinion into law on this matter.

Now, you answer my question (since bill chickened out): Do you believe that abortion is 1st Degree Capital murder and that both the doctor and mother (under normal - make an appointment, etc. - circumstances) should be punished by death penalty or life in prison if the evidence bears out?

[108]

I will ask again!!!!!!!!!!!! 108 DO YOU BELIEVE A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION?????????????

First off, "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, it is simply a term coined by the pro-life movement to label a certain type of procedure that pulls out the fetus through the vagina in the second trimester

But if it were up to me and I had to be the decider

Yes in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in some cases of severe health risks to the potential child

No in cases where the above isn't present

But it doesn't matter what I believe, nor do I have the desire to impose my belief here...the window for me personally is less than 2 months if all things are equal

[MastaG8r]

I guess those on the Left are celebrating that fewer and fewer people support the overturning of Roe v. Wade and with that the restoring of state's rights to determine the legality of abortion on a state-by-state basis? Well don't get too excited. If public opinion on the matter "evolves" to the point that there's no longer any threat of abortion becoming illegal, the Democratic party is going to take a hit on voter turnout.

[Gatoragman]

CH, I can easily answer that question no, the law allows for it now so no they are NOT breaking the current law.
108, so you are saying that even though you wouldn't do it or like it being done you still think a mother should have the option of late term abortion even when her health is not at risk.
I am really not trying to back you into a corner for a gotcha moment. I am just curious of pro abortion advocates if they think the mother should have that right in any circumstance.
Personally I tend to beileve conception is when life begins, but on the same hand I don't have a problem with contreception or the morning after pill. I would like for there to be no abortions but I tend to get iffy when you talk rape, incest, what have you. I think if it was my daughter, in the case of rape, how would I feel, and for the most part I would want to support her deciesion either way therefore making me sound pro-choice on certain situations. I do though believe that only the life of the mother should be considered once you get past a point in the pregnancy no matter how the pregnancy started. I am not well versed enough to know at what point that is but would tend to say it is very early in the pregnancy

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I actually believe this country will reconsider legalized abortion in the coming years. I look forward to it.

[reformedgator]

CH, I can easily answer that question no, the law allows for it now so no they are NOT breaking the current law.
108, so you are saying that even though you wouldn't do it or like it being done you still think a mother should have the option of late term abortion even when her health is not at risk.
I am really not trying to back you into a corner for a gotcha moment. I am just curious of pro abortion advocates if they think the mother should have that right in any circumstance.
Personally I tend to beileve conception is when life begins, but on the same hand I don't have a problem with contreception or the morning after pill. I would like for there to be no abortions but I tend to get iffy when you talk rape, incest, what have you. I think if it was my daughter, in the case of rape, how would I feel, and for the most part I would want to support her deciesion either way therefore making me sound pro-choice on certain situations. I do though believe that only the life of the mother should be considered once you get past a point in the pregnancy no matter how the pregnancy started. I am not well versed enough to know at what point that is but would tend to say it is very early in the pregnancy

It's VERY early in a pregnancy when we as parents looked upon that conception as a human life & didn't even entertain the notion of referring to it as anything else.

[WESGATORS]

Abortion is morally wrong. Criminalizing abortion won't make it go away. It's not that government legislation can't solve the problem, but it's a bit more complex of an issue than just saying "you can't do that." Building family values is what we should be striving for, not implementing more rules that people are expected to magically respect.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8orbill]

problem is, a lot of people don't equate a fetus to an innocent child

Have them watch an ultrasound at 10 weeks an they will see differently

[Dreamliner]

problem is, a lot of people don't equate a fetus to an innocent child

... although they do when they want it. It's a funny thing. You never hear beaming, expectant mothers warbling about their 'fetus.'

[myamiG8R]

roe v. wade is well-grounded precedent at this point... it is certainly a bad precedent, but it is established and grounded nonetheless... overturning roe v. wade would put so much other law into question that it really cannot be overturned...

that written, let's be clear that roe v. wade is one of the most glaring examples of liberal elitists preying on the ignorance of those they claim to serve... overturning roe v. wade would not have made abortion illegal, it would have turned the question of abortion back to the states, where this sort of moral issue should reside, in accordance with the constitution (just like the question of gay marriage properly resides with the states)... sadly, this decision (along with several others) has effectively taken state soveriegnty out of the united STATES of america and turned this great experiment in one simple centrally controlled collection of meaningless boundries...

[WESGATORS]

Gay marriage is significantly different as it is about labeling and benefits that are legally attached to the labels. It is not at all about what people are free to do.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I disagree with that, myami, primarily because one of the fundamental roles of the federal government is to ensure inalienable and civil rights. Those cannot be violated, even by the states.

Now, I don't happen to believe that abortion is an inalienable right, but it's been framed such that a woman's right to do what she pleases with her body is an inalienable right. While I disagree with that, the argument can be made.

Gay marriage is one that would be even harder to argue against as a civil right. Leaving these solely at the discretion of the states actually sets a worse precedent.

[wygator]

Yes, but it is quite lucrative for the non-profits that continue to fan the flames on an almost daily basis. Don't ya love politics. An issue that exists soley for the purpose of political division and fundraising. It really is a non-issue anyway. Never going to be overturned - or any legislation close to that - in our lifetimes.


I almost feel sorry for the hard-core Pro-Life voter these days: Just pawns being played by the system.

I only feel sorry for all the babies that lost their lives.

[CHFG8R]

CH, I can easily answer that question no, the law allows for it now so no they are NOT breaking the current law.

I never asked you if it was illegal in current law (clearly, it isn't). I'm asking whether YOU consider it 1st Degree Murder and whether YOU feel it should be prosecuted as such?

So, in your eyes/opinion, is it 1st Degree Murder or something less?

[CHFG8R]

Have them watch an ultrasound at 10 weeks an they will see differently

So Bill, I ask you again. Murder or something less than that?

[Dreamliner]

In the modern mind 'law = moral.'

[g8orbill]

So Bill, I ask you again. Murder or something less than that?

Go back and read CHF- i answered your question right after you asked it

[CHFG8R]

Gay marriage is significantly different as it is about labeling and benefits that are legally attached to the labels. It is not at all about what people are free to do.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Whereas it SHOULD be simply about the bolded instead of an attempt by both sides to use the word "marriage" as a weapon against the other. The two sides here are like 4yo's arguing over a toy. Remove toy, solve problem.

So, IMO, if the Feds do anything it would be ban the word "marriage" from those documents (take away the toy) and reduce the argument to it's essential, non-emotional, basic facts: The granting of certain rights with respect to probate, power of attorney in case of incapacitation and tax status. PERIOD. The government should not be in the business of defining words, especially when said definitions serve only to weaponize the word for opposing political viewpoints.

[CHFG8R]

I only feel sorry for all the babies that lost their lives.

Good for you. But if this issue moves you any increment in any direction politically, then you are a pawn. I have seen nearly ZERO change with respect to this issue and the availability of abortions in 40 years and I don't expect to see any in the next 40. But I do expect to see it routinely used in primaries, generals and for what it seems to do best, gin up fundraising.

What's really sad is the way they play on the real emotions of people like yourselves, when they have no real intention of doing anything on this issue.

[myamiG8R]

I disagree with that, myami, primarily because one of the fundamental roles of the federal government is to ensure inalienable and civil rights.

exactly where is this "fundamental role" of the federal government found in the constitution? larry tribe didn't teach that to me...

[CHFG8R]

no I don't CHF- I do believe it is murder and I do believe it is wrong-I also know some women who in their younger days had an abortion who have a hard time dealing with the guilt they now feel- I would not charge them or the Dr with capital murder-and I would allow for an abortion from a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest and in instances where it would kill the mother to carry the baby or if they found that the child was either dead in the womb or was mentally deformed


First, my bad. I didn't catch this.

Second, your position is inconsistent. Answer me this.

1. Why is it okay to kill the fetus in the case of rape or incest?
2. Why wouldn't it be 1st Degree Murder? It is by definition 1st Degree (premeditated and executed, by appointment no less).
3. Why is it okay to kill the fetus if it's mentally deformed (I assume you mean disabled)?

Lastly, is it a life or something less than a life. Because, in my world, logic dictates that it's either a life or not. Either murder or not. There is no "it's kind of a life," or "it's a life if the mother approves of the sire or the means of insemination."

You can't have it both ways. The political enterprises would have you believe so, but that's because they see the issue as more of a revenue stream than a real issue to be resolved. This is why resolution of the issue is never part of the political narrative.

[QGator2414]

Good for you. But if this issue moves you any increment in any direction politically, then you are a pawn. I have seen nearly ZERO change with respect to this issue and the availability of abortions in 40 years and I don't expect to see any in the next 40. But I do expect to see it routinely used in primaries, generals and for what it seems to do best, gin up fundraising.

What's really sad is the way they play on the real emotions of people like yourselves, when they have no real intention of doing anything on this issue.

I agree with you about the lobbying but this issue will eat at your soul if you actually see what is done to these babies. We as a society will be judged one day for this...

I have no idea who gives money to these lobbyists and it makes no sense to me. But I do get emotional and want to cry when I see the gruesome acts we as a society have deemed acceptable.

[CHFG8R]

I agree with you about the lobbying but this issue will eat at your soul if you actually see what is done to these babies. We as a society will be judged one day for this...

I have no idea who gives money to these lobbyists and it makes no sense to me. But I do get emotional and want to cry when I see the gruesome acts we as a society have deemed acceptable.

I do not see it the same way personally, but I truely respect your opinion and feelings on this matter. This isn't a game, it's a real issue that touches people deeply on both sides. Which is why I'd like to see, at the very least, an attempt at creating some resolution on the issue. It may be one of those things where nobody is truely happy, but that the majority can settle on a timeline for the procedure that we can all live with.

Unfortunately, what we will get is the usual political handball.

[QGator2414]

I do not see it the same way personally, but I truely respect your opinion and feelings on this matter. This isn't a game, it's a real issue that touches people deeply on both sides. Which is why I'd like to see, at the very least, an attempt at creating some resolution on the issue. It may be one of those things where nobody is truely happy, but that the majority can settle on a timeline for the procedure that we can all live with.

Unfortunately, what we will get is the usual political handball.

I agree 100%...

[JerseyGator01]

Most people don't even know what Roe v. Wade decided and most have never even heard of its sister case, Doe v. Bolton. Even the pollster, Pew Research, butchered the definition in a recent poll. The legit polls are those that ask about rape, incest and life of the mother which well over 90% of abortions don't involve. 70%+ of people are against abortion except for those reasons. Unfortunately, most pollsters are either too lazy, politically motivated or flat out dishonest to not frame the question this way.

It's like asking if one is for climate change: a very vague and stupid question which pollsters will probably start using soon if history is any indicator regarding other issues.

[g8orbill]

CHF- by mentally deformed I am talking about anencephaly

[Gatoragman]

Ch, murder by definition is the premeditated taking of another life, so yes I would say this is murder, but as long as the law states that it isn't murder then prosecution of any party involved will not happen.
If at some point it became illegal then yes they should be prosecuted.
This is very emotional issue and I don't know how to deal with the case of incest or rape.
I do know though that if the greatest Gator's mom believed in the right to abort we would never had known Tim Tebow!

[RealGatorFan]

This poll isn't surprising. As society has slowly taken religion out of the state, something invariably must takes its place - immorality. I have a lawyer friend who is looking at this case and might drop a huge bombshell on Roe vs Wade. My guess is if a criminal kills a pregnant woman's unborn child, he can't be charged for that death but only the woman's. It's called involuntary abortion and since abortion is legal, no murder charges can be used if the baby isn't alive. This case is going to get real ugly either way.

[WESGATORS]

For those against the legality of abortion:

- is Plan B (morning after pill) ok?
- is RU-486 ok? (technically, a woman is not pregnant until implantation occurs; for those who say the woman "made a choice" is she not still making one by one last effort to say "not here")
- how about efforts to induce a miscarriage naturally? (presumably only for those who are appalled by the procedures involved in some of the more graphic displays of abortions)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wygator]

Good for you. But if this issue moves you any increment in any direction politically, then you are a pawn. I have seen nearly ZERO change with respect to this issue and the availability of abortions in 40 years and I don't expect to see any in the next 40. But I do expect to see it routinely used in primaries, generals and for what it seems to do best, gin up fundraising.

What's really sad is the way they play on the real emotions of people like yourselves, when they have no real intention of doing anything on this issue.

I'm a big boy...don't worry about people playing my emotions. I make my own decisions.

My conclusion is that human life begins at conception and deserves protection.

[WESGATORS]

...should read: "you can kill an unborn child, but it is illegal to kill an unborn sea turtle."

I grabbed this comment from another thread, thought it was worth adding here. Kind of shows how messed up our society is that killing sea turtles is more taboo than having abortions (at least in FLORIDA).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wargunfan]

Abortion in the US is but a symptom of a larger sickness. As secularism continues to progressively infect the country, those ideas we once held to be universally sacred have been replaced with a radical autonomy of the individual. Moral relativism now allows behavior which would have been unthinkable in previous generations. This is why we hear liberals say that all moral questions are "grey". To them there is no longer any question of black and white moral distinctions. When I say that abortion is wrong the liberal thinks: "Abortion is wrong for you but who are you to impose this on anyone but yourself."
In American popular culture moral absolutes have gone the way of the dodo bird. We can thank Hollywood, public schools and the liberal media for teaching us that what is right and moral is only that which is right and moral for you, no one else.
We no longer even agree on the meaning of words. Morality, truth, personal responsibility; words of which we all once had a common understanding, now mean very different things to the young.
America is sick and getting sicker. Until we can find a way to return to a culture of moral absolutes and a common understanding that truth is not relative to personal autonomy and individual freedom of action, we will remain a sick and increasingly feeble culture.

[gatorev12]

Society's attitudes might be changing--but the overwhelming change on the issue is from women who've had an abortion themselves.

Abortion was always an issue I struggled with since my faith tells me it's 100% wrong...but as someone who genuinely believes in individual rights, I can understand the legal argument for abortion. Towards the end of my junior year at UF several years ago, I met a group of women who were carrying signs saying "I regret my abortion" I remember thinking of what incredible courage it took to take an action like that--and wandered over to talk with them and learn a bit more about the group.

What they had to say was pretty eye-opening: significant majorities of women regret their abortion later on in life and an overwhelming percentage struggle with depression, anxiety disorders, and mental health issues. A comprehensive recent study by the British Journal of Psychiatry confirmed those findings:

Science supports this sad reality. In the fall, a meta-analysis was published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry. The report was the most extensive of its kind to date -- the author looked at 22 published studies and data from more than 870,000 women. The results showed that women who have an abortion are at an 81 percent increased risk for mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, drug abuse and suicidal behaviors. The study revealed the shocking statistic that close to 10 percent of all mental health problems in women can be directly attributed to abortion.


http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/the-mental-toll-of-abortion-218839/#ixzz2ImLWYVJp

Curiously enough, while studies are just starting to measure the psychiatric effect on men whose wives or girlfriends had an abortion--initial findings seem to confirm similar results in men as well.

At the very minimum, people need to be aware of these facts before finalizing their opinions on the issue.

[108]

Abortion in the US is but a symptom of a larger sickness. As secularism continues to progressively infect the country, those ideas we once held to be universally sacred have been replaced with a radical autonomy of the individual. Moral relativism now allows behavior which would have been unthinkable in previous generations. This is why we hear liberals say that all moral questions are "grey". To them there is no longer any question of black and white moral distinctions. When I say that abortion is wrong the liberal thinks: "Abortion is wrong for you but who are you to impose this on anyone but yourself."
In American popular culture moral absolutes have gone the way of the dodo bird. We can thank Hollywood, public schools and the liberal media for teaching us that what is right and moral is only that which is right and moral for you, no one else.
We no longer even agree on the meaning of words. Morality, truth, personal responsibility; words of which we all once had a common understanding, now mean very different things to the young.
America is sick and getting sicker. Until we can find a way to return to a culture of moral absolutes and a common understanding that truth is not relative to personal autonomy and individual freedom of action, we will remain a sick and increasingly feeble culture.


moral absolutism may make for a better society in your opinion (though there are some examples in the middle east that would suggest otherwise), but it still doesn't make it fact

younger people are increasingly leaning towards science and facts over religion

maybe instead of idolizing about the days of old, change with the times

pro-lifers should be spending their time on contraception and adoption, not wasting their time on abstinence education

[CHFG8R]

Let me finish this for you. . .

pro-lifers should be spending their time on contraception and adoption, not wasting their time and money on abstinence education and anti-abortion legislation/lobbying.

I would add that a nice ad campaign (see: Tebow SB ad) would be a better place to put that money as well. There are compelling reasons to make choices other than abortion (as gatorev hit on), SELL THEM. Stop enriching political types (non-profits, lobbiests) who've done nothing with respect to this in the last 40 years.

I'd be willing to bet that if the Pro-Life movement took all that money they toss into the political machine and focused on adoption services and information campaigns, they could make an immediate impact/reduction on the number of abortions performed in this country. Instead, though, they'll keep pouring it into the political machine, which if one looks at the last 40 years, is basically throwing it in the trash.

[JerseyGator01]

The US government is not exactly pro-adoption, especially across racial lines. The pro-life movement is probably the most pro-adoption voice out there. Planned Parenthood doesn't do any adoption referrals at the vast majority of their affiliates. Nice try.

And younger people are edging more towards science, much to the chagrin of NARAL leadership.

[CHFG8R]

Nice try on what? I've lamented that PP doesn't focus more on adoptions (as I said in an earlier post, if means tested it could actually be profitable) and I agree that they are one of the political entities/parasites that are part of the problem. Doesn't mean that your side can't put MORE into adoption and MORE into information campaigns (as I said, compelling reasons NOT to have an abortion) and LESS into the pockets of political operatives and lobbiests.

Do you have an argument with that?

[GatorNorth]

Abortion in the US is but a symptom of a larger sickness. As secularism continues to progressively infect the country, those ideas we once held to be universally sacred have been replaced with a radical autonomy of the individual. Moral relativism now allows behavior which would have been unthinkable in previous generations. This is why we hear liberals say that all moral questions are "grey". To them there is no longer any question of black and white moral distinctions. When I say that abortion is wrong the liberal thinks: "Abortion is wrong for you but who are you to impose this on anyone but yourself."
In American popular culture moral absolutes have gone the way of the dodo bird. We can thank Hollywood, public schools and the liberal media for teaching us that what is right and moral is only that which is right and moral for you, no one else.
We no longer even agree on the meaning of words. Morality, truth, personal responsibility; words of which we all once had a common understanding, now mean very different things to the young.
America is sick and getting sicker. Until we can find a way to return to a culture of moral absolutes and a common understanding that truth is not relative to personal autonomy and individual freedom of action, we will remain a sick and increasingly feeble culture.

The Constitution is based in individual freedoms and I for one am glad to not live in a totalitarian state of moral absolutes imposed top down by our government or relious leaders.

I expect that if you disagreed with the then "common understanding" you'd be among the first to argue for the immediate reinstitution of your individual autonomy rather than the abolition of them. Situational ethics.

[JerseyGator01]

CHF,

Do you even know how the typical "political" pro-life organization is structured across this country? Your post hints that you do not know. While I sometimes question their priorities, their historical structure is borderline brilliant which allows them to switch gears from lobbying/political to educational in no time.

[wargunfan]

The Constitution is based in individual freedoms and I for one am glad to not live in a totalitarian state of moral absolutes imposed top down by our government or relious leaders.

I expect that if you disagreed with the then "common understanding" you'd be among the first to argue for the immediate reinstitution of your individual autonomy rather than the abolition of them. Situational ethics.

Do you allow for any "individual freedom" for the unborn child? Abortion of a defenseless child is is always wrong. That is a moral absolute. It is not situational. The imposition of this absolute should start not from the top down but from the inside out starting with a woman's heart attitude about her "situation". When she chose to have unprotected sex and then abort the result of her choice she engaged in the very definition of "situational ethics".
Of course we should work harder to convince women to carry their babies to term. American couples are scouring the world for babies to adopt because American women cannot be bothered to deliver a live child. That is the height of situational ethics.
Moral relativism and situational ethics are diseases which have infected humankind. That is the slippery slope upon which the NAZIs took the German people into ruin. It became acceptable to eliminate all manner of "undesirables" using moral relativism. Surely the German people would be better off if the mentally ill were eliminated. Surely the nation would be better off if the old and infirm were eliminated. Then the gypsies. Then the Jews. All compliments of moral relativism.
Abortion is no different, First the first trimester. Then the second trimester. Then partial birth abortion. Then....... These are human beings being thrown into the dumpster of situational ethics.

[GatorNorth]

The unborn child is the slipperiest of all slopes, as it transforms from a mass of cells to a functioning human over time. Nazi Germany is a much less unclear case.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take abortion lightly and don't think it should be used to replace birth control. It should be the hardest decision anyone ever has to make. However, to a certain point I place a woman's right to choose over the rights of the unborn fetus.

It's not as if our society doesn't allow some legalized murders either-capital punishment, self defense, war, euthanasia to some extent. I've heard some view abortion like that, although an "innocent" fetus makes it much more difficult for ME to apply that line of reasoning.

[g8trjax]

Dems aren't in favor of ALL abortions, they will still need some kids to use as props, and to pay their fair share when they grow up.

[CHFG8R]

Do you allow for any "individual freedom" for the unborn child? Abortion of a defenseless child is is always wrong. That is a moral absolute. It is not situational. The imposition of this absolute should start not from the top down but from the inside out starting with a woman's heart attitude about her "situation". When she chose to have unprotected sex and then abort the result of her choice she engaged in the very definition of "situational ethics".
Of course we should work harder to convince women to carry their babies to term. American couples are scouring the world for babies to adopt because American women cannot be bothered to deliver a live child. That is the height of situational ethics.
Moral relativism and situational ethics are diseases which have infected humankind. That is the slippery slope upon which the NAZIs took the German people into ruin. It became acceptable to eliminate all manner of "undesirables" using moral relativism. Surely the German people would be better off if the mentally ill were eliminated. Surely the nation would be better off if the old and infirm were eliminated. Then the gypsies. Then the Jews. All compliments of moral relativism.
Abortion is no different, First the first trimester. Then the second trimester. Then partial birth abortion. Then....... These are human beings being thrown into the dumpster of situational ethics.


The question, IMO, isn't whether it's right or wrong ("acceptable" under current law), but how wrong is it? Is it murder wrong? Is it something less than that?

[wygator]

moral absolutism may make for a better society in your opinion (though there are some examples in the middle east that would suggest otherwise), but it still doesn't make it fact

younger people are increasingly leaning towards science and facts over religion

maybe instead of idolizing about the days of old, change with the times

pro-lifers should be spending their time on contraception and adoption, not wasting their time on abstinence education

There still needs to be some kind of code of ethics that are generally agreed upon...that constitute a somewhat universal sense or right and wrong.

How do you get that from science? Are we all supposed to think like Peter Singer?

[wygator]

The unborn child is the slipperiest of all slopes, as it transforms from a mass of cells to a functioning human over time. Nazi Germany is a much less unclear case.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take abortion lightly and don't think it should be used to replace birth control. It should be the hardest decision anyone ever has to make. However, to a certain point I place a woman's right to choose over the rights of the unborn fetus.

It's not as if our society doesn't allow some legalized murders either-capital punishment, self defense, war, euthanasia to some extent. I've heard some view abortion like that, although an "innocent" fetus makes it much more difficult for ME to apply that line of reasoning.

The unborn child is human life from the earliest stages...it is simply very young.

In each of the other examples you give, except euthanasia, there is a recognized guilt before "legalized murder" may be accomplished. In most cases of euthanasia (with which I disagree, but that's another thread) the person made their own decision.

The unborn child is perfectly innocent and has no voice. These are the ones we should want to protect the most.

[wygator]

How callous is this celebration of the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8xiNx7mXm4

[wargunfan]

The unborn child is the slipperiest of all slopes, as it transforms from a mass of cells to a functioning human over time. Nazi Germany is a much less unclear case.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take abortion lightly and don't think it should be used to replace birth control. It should be the hardest decision anyone ever has to make. However, to a certain point I place a woman's right to choose over the rights of the unborn fetus.

It's not as if our society doesn't allow some legalized murders either-capital punishment, self defense, war, euthanasia to some extent. I've heard some view abortion like that, although an "innocent" fetus makes it much more difficult for ME to apply that line of reasoning.

When a pregnant woman is murdered most states will charge the perpetrator with two homicides no matter how early the pregnancy.
We don't consider her child to be a mass of cells or a fetus. We consider that a person has been murdered.
That same woman can go to an abortion clinic and have a procedure which is legal.
The murderer killed a person in the eyes of the law.
What did the woman do inside the abortion clinic?
This is an example of the situational ethics of abortion. We simply define away the humanity of the child.
I know that our society can do better than simply redefining murder. But I am not optimistic that we ever will. We are picking up speed down that slippery slope into the pit.

[jimgata]

Check out polls on abortion being used for birth control.That is the true feeling on abortion.

[g8orbill]

Check out polls on abortion being used for birth control.That is the true feeling on abortion.

The black community is far and away the highest incident of abortion- they are killing of an entire generation

[Gatormb]

I challenge people to watch this...

***Warning it is graphic but you need to know/see what we as a Nation allow to happen and we will be judged for our actions as a society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59fMNimqURE

My God, you just made me cry. Every pro-choicer should see this.

[Gatormb]

I never asked you if it was illegal in current law (clearly, it isn't). I'm asking whether YOU consider it 1st Degree Murder and whether YOU feel it should be prosecuted as such?

So, in your eyes/opinion, is it 1st Degree Murder or something less?

I'll not answer for Bill, but a question for you. Was the killing of six million Jews murder? It was legal was it not?

Yes they were prosecuted. No, I don't believe abortions should be, although a case could be made that because of advances in science since R v W you have to be ignorant not to believe the unborn are not a separate human life deserving of the protection afforded by the constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Gatormb]

Ch, murder by definition is the premeditated taking of another life, so yes I would say this is murder, but as long as the law states that it isn't murder then prosecution of any party involved will not happen.
If at some point it became illegal then yes they should be prosecuted.
This is very emotional issue and I don't know how to deal with the case of incest or rape.
I do know though that if the greatest Gator's mom believed in the right to abort we would never had known Tim Tebow!

Perhaps I can help with the rape/incest issue. Why would you give the ultimate punishment to the child for the sins of the father? Which is worse, rape or murder.

To be consistent rape and incest should be off the table leaving only the life of the mother, IMO.

[NJG8tor]

Ch, murder by definition is the premeditated taking of another life, so yes I would say this is murder, but as long as the law states that it isn't murder then prosecution of any party involved will not happen.
If at some point it became illegal then yes they should be prosecuted.
This is very emotional issue and I don't know how to deal with the case of incest or rape.
I do know though that if the greatest Gator's mom believed in the right to abort we would never had known Tim Tebow!

No, its not. Murder is unlawful killing, and it does not have to be premeditated.

[WESGATORS]

I do know though that if the greatest Gator's mom believed in the right to abort we would never had known Tim Tebow!

This is a popular misconception among "pro-lifers" The idea that one believes in the right to do something does not mean that one thinks it is moral or would even accept the burden of participating in the activity. Smoking is immoral and deadly, but I believe people have a right to do that as well.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[NJG8tor]

Perhaps I can help with the rape/incest issue. Why would you give the ultimate punishment to the child for the sins of the father? Which is worse, rape or murder.

To be consistent rape and incest should be off the table leaving only the life of the mother, IMO.

The issue is not what the fetus or child or whatever you wish to call it deserves, but what duty does the woman have to carry that other party to term. It is her body, and person or not, she is not obligated to give birth to the child of her rapist. Pregnancy carries with it serious potential mental and physical health consequences that should not be forced on a female for the benefit of a party that she has no responsibility in creating. If I see you drowning in the lake, I do not have to jump in to help you, even if Im a pretty good swimmer. Maybe I should do it, but I do not have a legal obligation.

[wygator]

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/width336/cartoons/roevwadesouls.gif

[wygator]

Someone was speaking on this or another thread about media bias in general. Here's how it affects the abortion debate:

In the past 10 years, 91 percent of ABC, NBC, and CBS anchor reports on the March for Life and Roe v. Wade failed to mention the word, “life.”

In 22 reports, “life” was used just twice. The first came from NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell. O’Donnell said in a Jan. 22, 2003, “Today” segment when she introduced a “pro-life group.” The other came from CBS’ Russ Mitchell in a Jan. 22, 2007, “Early Show” report when he described a “march for life” marking the 34th Roe v. Wade anniversary. The other 20 reports employed a variety of alternate descriptions for the March for Life and pro-life activists. The March and counter-demonstrations were rallies sponsored by both opponents and supporters of Roe v. Wade, according to NBC’s Brian Williams on Jan. 24, 2005 and his colleague Ann Curry on Jan. 22, 2007. The marchers were “opponents” (ABC’s Jake Tapper, Jan. 23, 2006), and “anti-abortion activists” (NBC’s Tom Brokaw, Jan. 22, 2003) rather than “pro-lifers” or “pro-life marchers,” as they self-describe.

The linguistic selections are far from unconscious. A recent interview by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell illustrated the “life” language prejudice pervading broadcast media. When Republican strategist Juleanna Glover identified herself as “deeply pro-life” in an interview, Mitchell interrupted, “Well, what I would call anti-abortion,” and added, “to use the term that I think is more value neutral.”

And the bias is institutionalized. Journalists should “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice,” according to The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook’s 44th edition. Instead of making the argument about life and death or choice and constraint, AP advocates for the flat, procedural term: abortion.

There's more in this article, including changing the title of a Catholic bishop advocate to suit their linguistic preferences.

linky (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2013/01/24/march-nets-don-t-use-life-abortion-debate)

[Gatormb]

The issue is not what the fetus or child or whatever you wish to call it deserves, but what duty does the woman have to carry that other party to term. It is her body, and person or not, she is not obligated to give birth to the child of her rapist. Pregnancy carries with it serious potential mental and physical health consequences that should not be forced on a female for the benefit of a party that she has no responsibility in creating. If I see you drowning in the lake, I do not have to jump in to help you, even if Im a pretty good swimmer. Maybe I should do it, but I do not have a legal obligation.

What do you call "something" that has it's own unique DNA separate from the mother?

So, which is worse? Rape or murder? Simple question. One word answer will suffice.

[WESGATORS]

So, which is worse? Rape or murder? Simple question. One word answer will suffice.

That's a rather disingenuous way to look at it. How about if I asked you, which is worse, to lose something that you know you have or to lose something that you never knew you had nor ever knew you were going to have?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[CHFG8R]

I'll not answer for Bill, but a question for you. Was the killing of six million Jews murder? It was legal was it not?

Yes they were prosecuted. No, I don't believe abortions should be, although a case could be made that because of advances in science since R v W you have to be ignorant not to believe the unborn are not a separate human life deserving of the protection afforded by the constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1. It was legal under Nazi law, but clearly not under International Law. They were prosecuted, most hung, and rightly so.

2. Why? Explain to me why killing an innocent life (as you claim a fetus is) should not be prosecuted as murder? How could it be anything less?

[NJG8tor]

What do you call "something" that has it's own unique DNA separate from the mother?

So, which is worse? Rape or murder? Simple question. One word answer will suffice.

For the sake of the rape argument, you can call it whatever you want. FWIW, I would say murder is probably worse than rape. That hardly matters concerning this argument. It isnt murder if I dont save you from drowning unless I have a duty to you; i.e, I pushed you in the lake. A female does not have an obligation to carry a child for nine months that she had no role in creating. It is her body.

[wygator]

For the sake of the rape argument, you can call it whatever you want. FWIW, I would say murder is probably worse than rape. That hardly matters concerning this argument. It isnt murder if I dont save you from drowning unless I have a duty to you; i.e, I pushed you in the lake. A female does not have an obligation to carry a child for nine months that she had no role in creating. It is her body.

The child is a wholly distinct and separate human being. It is being carried by the woman. The rape situation is obviously the most difficult of all. Here's the best answer I've heard, from a former Wyoming gubernatorial candidate who was a doctor and a rancher. Short and to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unw-aMwZxuI

[CHFG8R]

For the sake of the rape argument, you can call it whatever you want. FWIW, I would say murder is probably worse than rape. That hardly matters concerning this argument. It isnt murder if I dont save you from drowning unless I have a duty to you; i.e, I pushed you in the lake. A female does not have an obligation to carry a child for nine months that she had no role in creating. It is her body.

Not to mention, I'm sure there are non-medical ways to induce a miscarriage. Do we prosecute those too (rhetorical question)?

[AzCatFan]

My question to the pro-lifers is what would you do with a pregnant woman that was raped and was hell bent on abortion? Do you prosecute her for murder if she goes through with the abortion? Do you place her in a pregnancy internment camp until she gives birth? And wouldn't it be cruel to punish this poor woman further for actions she certainly did not welcome? Or do you make an exception for the small minority of women who have abortions who became pregnant from rape?

[CHFG8R]

The child is a wholly distinct and separate human being. It is being carried by the woman. The rape situation is obviously the most difficult of all. Here's the best answer I've heard, from a former Wyoming gubernatorial candidate who was a doctor and a rancher. Short and to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unw-aMwZxuI

That's a great approach to the issue. However, it is an emotional/intellectual plea (and a good one) to, essentially, make THAT choice instead of the abortion choice. Unfortuately, it doesn't deal with the legal issues of legislating abortion.

[wygator]

That's a great approach to the issue. However, it is an emotional/intellectual plea (and a good one) to, essentially, make THAT choice instead of the abortion choice. Unfortuately, it doesn't deal with the legal issues of legislating abortion.

Aren't most of the pro-abortion arguments only emotional? I believe the true scientific and intellectual arguments are on the side of pro-life.

Edit...added the following
Here's support for my view from the Planned Parenthood website. Why have an abortion? Note that it's all about "her":

Women have abortions because they care about themselves and their families or their future families. The most common reasons a woman decides to have an abortion are

She is not ready to become a parent.
She cannot afford a baby.
She feels that having a baby now would make it too difficult to work, go to school, or care for her children.
She doesn't want to be a single parent.
She doesn't want anyone to know she has had sex or is pregnant.
She feels too young or too immature to have a child.
She has all the children she wants.
She or the fetus has a health problem.
She is a survivor of rape or incest.

Every woman's situation is different, and only you can decide what is best in your case. If you're trying to decide if abortion is the right option for you, you may find it helpful to list the advantages and disadvantages of having an abortion. Think about what advantages or disadvantages are most important to you. Consider how you feel and what you think about abortion, what you want for your life and for your family or future family.

line (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/abortion-21519.htm)

[CHFG8R]

Aren't most of the pro-abortion arguments only emotional? I believe the true scientific and intellectual arguments are on the side of pro-life.

The key component on the scientific/intellectual side is simply the question "when does life begin." Well, from what I've seen, myriad opinions on both sides but nothing that resembles fact or even national consensus.

So, back to my original point. Make the emotional pleas (many are very salient points). Start an ad campaign, but stop this nonsense with regards to legislating it away.

What irritates me most about the Pro-Life movement is the fact that I have never seen anyone on that side get into the details of exactly how you plan to legislate away abortion. Tons of emotional pleas and rhetoric, but no black & white on paper. What is you plan? How would the law read? Would it pass Constitutional muster?

The rest is just mental mastrubation and, frankly, pointless IMO. That is, unless you're a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice lobbiest. Then it's a gravy train.

[wygator]

The key component on the scientific/intellectual side is simply the question "when does life begin." Well, from what I've seen, myriad opinions on both sides but nothing that resembles fact or even national consensus.

So, back to my original point. Make the emotional pleas (many are very salient points). Start an ad campaign, but stop this nonsense with regards to legislating it away.

What irritates me most about the Pro-Life movement is the fact that I have never seen anyone on that side get into the details of exactly how you plan to legislate away abortion. Tons of emotional pleas and rhetoric, but no black & white on paper. What is you plan? How would the law read? Would it pass Constitutional muster?

The rest is just mental mastrubation and, frankly, pointless IMO. That is, unless you're a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice lobbiest. Then it's a gravy train.

What is the purest definition of life? An organism that respirates and replicates. The human embryo is doing immediately after conception. If we found something like the earliest possible embryo on Mars what would they say? We've found life on Mars!!

Personally, I think abortion should be legal except in the most extreme case of the LIFE of the mother...not just "health".

[WESGATORS]

Aren't most of the pro-abortion arguments only emotional?

No, the other way around. The mere fact that you use the term "pro-abortion" kind of speaks to the point, doesn't it? Many pro-lifers' arguments basically amount to "how could you do such a thing, it's so cruel?" And naturally, some pro-lifers will read that and interpret my comments to mean "Wes doesn't think it's cruel!"

Looking strictly at X's and O's here, the woman has a right to remove from her body anything she wishes, and it's none of the government's business. It's been mentioned countless times on these boards all the nuances that would be associated with any sort of abortion bans, and most pro-lifers tend to agree with the conclusions of such legislation not being particularly effective or practical (but at least it would increase the cost of government). At the end of the day, pro-lifers (when they think about it) will realize that the real societal solution does not lie in legislation that bans abortions.

The ones that don't are the ones that ignore the critical questions. Abortion sucks, I think we all agree on that, but that's not what's being debated.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

The key component on the scientific/intellectual side is simply the question "when does life begin."

I don't think that even matters. Whether it's a "life" or not doesn't establish whether or not it has the right to use the woman's body against her will. It's a living organism, that much cannot be denied. Whether we call it a "human" is strictly based on how we define "human." Same goes for most of the other labels we could attach to it. It becomes a new organism prior to pregnancy.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[CHFG8R]

What is the purest definition of life? An organism that respirates and replicates. The human embryo is doing immediately after conception. If we found something like the earliest possible embryo on Mars what would they say? We've found life on Mars!!

Personally, I think abortion should be legal except in the most extreme case of the LIFE of the mother...not just "health".

(earlier post) I'm not fan of PP and personally think they should be defunded. IMO, when there is this much division of opinion on a topic as inflamatory as this, it's patently unfair to ask nearly half of the country to pay for something they find so distasteful. Unfortunately, and because of the political nature of the debate and their very existance (fed funding), they have literally become a pro-abortion organization. Also, don't see why they can't survive on their own fundraising if what they do is indeed beneficial. Susan G Komen seems to do just fine on their own.

(bolded) Makes sense, but not consistent. If it's a life - guaranteed the same rights as you or me - then how do we make the choice that the mother comes first. This is the sticky part of actually crafting legislation as opposed to throwing emotional pleas against a wall.

[CHFG8R]

I don't think that even matters. Whether it's a "life" or not doesn't establish whether or not it has the right to use the woman's body against her will. It's a living organism, that much cannot be denied. Whether we call it a "human" is strictly based on how we define "human." Same goes for most of the other labels we could attach to it. It becomes a new organism prior to pregnancy.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

You and I are probably on the same side of this argument. My point is, if you are going to create real legislation, then something with regards to this has to be established. And I don't see anything close to scientific fact or even scientific consensus on this.

I favor the earlier definition of "a nervous system" as a reasonable starting point to this issue.

[wygator]

What is the purest definition of life? An organism that respirates and replicates. The human embryo is doing immediately after conception. If we found something like the earliest possible embryo on Mars what would they say? We've found life on Mars!!

Personally, I think abortion should be legal except in the most extreme case of the LIFE of the mother...not just "health".

(earlier post) I'm not fan of PP and personally think they should be defunded. IMO, when there is this much division of opinion on a topic as inflamatory as this, it's patently unfair to ask nearly half of the country to pay for something they find so distasteful. Unfortunately, and because of the political nature of the debate and their very existance (fed funding), they have literally become a pro-abortion organization. Also, don't see why they can't survive on their own fundraising if what they do is indeed beneficial. Susan G Komen seems to do just fine on their own.

(bolded) Makes sense, but not consistent. If it's a life - guaranteed the same rights as you or me - then how do we make the choice that the mother comes first. This is the sticky part of actually crafting legislation as opposed to throwing emotional pleas against a wall.

Miniseries years ago, the Thornbirds, in which Richard Chamberlain played a Catholic priest who eventually became a cardinal.

A woman was struggling in childbirth and the doctor asked the priest who he should save? The priest responded, "you must try to save both". Probably the best answer.

[wygator]

I don't think that even matters. Whether it's a "life" or not doesn't establish whether or not it has the right to use the woman's body against her will. It's a living organism, that much cannot be denied. Whether we call it a "human" is strictly based on how we define "human." Same goes for most of the other labels we could attach to it. It becomes a new organism prior to pregnancy.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

It is not against her will, except in the case of rape. Pregnancy is an obvious consequence of sex and should never be considered a "surprise".

[CHFG8R]

[QUOTE=CHFG8R;6364421]

Miniseries years ago, the Thornbirds, in which Richard Chamberlain played a Catholic priest who eventually became a cardinal.

A woman was struggling in childbirth and the doctor asked the priest who he should save? The priest responded, "you must try to save both". Probably the best answer.

Agreed.

"The Thornbirds." LOL, my mom was addicted. I was pissed (missed my favorite show "Baa Baa Black Sheep)." I was, I believe, 9 at the time.

[wygator]

[QUOTE=wygator;6364429]

Agreed.

"The Thornbirds." LOL, my mom was addicted. I was pissed (missed my favorite show "Baa Baa Black Sheep)." I was, I believe, 9 at the time.

Yes, I think I'm a little older than you. My wife was hooked on it, so I was along for the ride.

[108]

the thing is, life doesn't begin or end, it only changes form...one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively via form

so this is all moot! :joecool:

[CHFG8R]

the thing is, life doesn't begin or end, it only changes form...one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively via form

so this is all moot! :joecool:

You must be Hindu! :laugh:

[NJG8tor]

What is the purest definition of life? An organism that respirates and replicates. The human embryo is doing immediately after conception. If we found something like the earliest possible embryo on Mars what would they say? We've found life on Mars!!

Personally, I think abortion should be legal except in the most extreme case of the LIFE of the mother...not just "health".

If we found bacteria on mars it would be an amazing discovery. Thats neither here nor there. In biology life is a cycle; there is not any magic moment when life "begins". Because we have decided to protect the life of an infant it does not naturally follow we must protect the life of a zygote. Science can help us make the decision where to draw the line, but it does not make the decision for us.

And regarding your view on abortion and rape, wow. You are going to force a woman who has been brutally raped to then undergo a 9 month pregnancy? As if her life were not disrupted enough. Im sure that kind of legislation will go over well.

[WESGATORS]

It is not against her will, except in the case of rape. Pregnancy is an obvious consequence of sex and should never be considered a "surprise".

Is it fair to say that most incidences of people having sex involve the explicit hope/expectation of *not* getting pregnant?

I will tell you that I always find it incredibly bizarre that people are ever surprised that they got pregnant, but I don't think that carelessness or ignorance should be confused with explicit consent.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Would love to see Wy and MB address AZ's comment:

My question to the pro-lifers is what would you do with a pregnant woman that was raped and was hell bent on abortion? Do you prosecute her for murder if she goes through with the abortion? Do you place her in a pregnancy internment camp until she gives birth? And wouldn't it be cruel to punish this poor woman further for actions she certainly did not welcome? Or do you make an exception for the small minority of women who have abortions who became pregnant from rape?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wygator]

Would love to see Wy and MB address AZ's comment:



Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I would say to treat it as a civil offense...big fines, probation, etc.

[Gatormb]

My question to the pro-lifers is what would you do with a pregnant woman that was raped and was hell bent on abortion? Do you prosecute her for murder if she goes through with the abortion? Do you place her in a pregnancy internment camp until she gives birth? And wouldn't it be cruel to punish this poor woman further for actions she certainly did not welcome? Or do you make an exception for the small minority of women who have abortions who became pregnant from rape?


So you are against abortion except for rape and incest? I thought not. Hope I'm wrong.

[AzCatFan]

So you are against abortion except for rape and incest? I thought not. Hope I'm wrong.

I am personally against abortion and find it reprehensible. But I'm pro-choice as the issues are very complex, and as a man, I will never truly understand pregnancy and what it means to be pregnant.

I also find those who are pro-life except in cases of rape to be displaying cognitive dissonance. Is the fetus conceived by rape any less innocent than the one conceived by consensual sex? Does the fetus conceived by rape have less right to live than the one conceived by consensual sex? And if you believe in the rape/incest exception, are you not engaging in situational ethics?

And therein lies the rub and back to the original question. What do you do with the raped pregnant woman hell bent on having an abortion? Do you further punish her by fining her or imprisoning her if she goes through with it? Do you put her in pregnancy internment camp and force her to carry to term? Is there any solution that doesn't further punish the rape victim?

If you allow for one exception, you should allow for all, because frankly, who are we do judge what abortion exceptions are allowable? That decision should hopefully be between the mother, father, any clergy, family, etc., but ultimately, the power resides in the pregnant woman. Why? Because she, and only she is the only living soul that can nurture the fetus to the next stage of life.

[Gatormb]

If we found bacteria on mars it would be an amazing discovery. Thats neither here nor there. In biology life is a cycle; there is not any magic moment when life "begins". Because we have decided to protect the life of an infant it does not naturally follow we must protect the life of a zygote. Science can help us make the decision where to draw the line, but it does not make the decision for us.

And regarding your view on abortion and rape, wow. You are going to force a woman who has been brutally raped to then undergo a 9 month pregnancy? As if her life were not disrupted enough. Im sure that kind of legislation will go over well.

Science has now answered that question Jersey. Individual life begins when 23 chromosomes from the egg fertilize with 23 from the sperm. Within 24 hours you have a unique, never to be duplicated, human being with it's own DNA completely separate from the mother. It is "programmed" with everything necessary to live to old age given a caretaker, which BTW, is required long after birth. Zygote, embryo, infant, adolescence, middle and old ages are all stages of the same life which begins when it is unique and separate. A zygote is NOT part of a woman's body. It has it's own separate DNA.

[WESGATORS]

Science has now answered that question Jersey. Individual life begins when 23 chromosomes from the egg fertilize with 23 from the sperm. Within 24 hours you have a unique, never to be duplicated, human being with it's own DNA completely separate from the mother. It is "programmed" with everything necessary to live to old age given a caretaker, which BTW, is required long after birth. Zygote, embryo, infant, adolescence, middle and old ages are all stages of the same life which begins when it is unique and separate. A zygote is NOT part of a woman's body. It has it's own separate DNA.

And continuing with that thought, is the woman not allowed to refuse to allow the new individual to rest in her womb? Fertilization occurs before pregnancy; should the woman be punished if she makes an explicit claim of "not here" after fertilization takes place?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gatorev12]

I am personally against abortion and find it reprehensible. But I'm pro-choice as the issues are very complex, and as a man, I will never truly understand pregnancy and what it means to be pregnant.

I also find those who are pro-life except in cases of rape to be displaying cognitive dissonance. Is the fetus conceived by rape any less innocent than the one conceived by consensual sex? Does the fetus conceived by rape have less right to live than the one conceived by consensual sex? And if you believe in the rape/incest exception, are you not engaging in situational ethics?

And therein lies the rub and back to the original question. What do you do with the raped pregnant woman hell bent on having an abortion? Do you further punish her by fining her or imprisoning her if she goes through with it? Do you put her in pregnancy internment camp and force her to carry to term? Is there any solution that doesn't further punish the rape victim?

If you allow for one exception, you should allow for all, because frankly, who are we do judge what abortion exceptions are allowable? That decision should hopefully be between the mother, father, any clergy, family, etc., but ultimately, the power resides in the pregnant woman. Why? Because she, and only she is the only living soul that can nurture the fetus to the next stage of life.

I'll take a stab at it here by admitting that yes, your point is an astute one and illustrates the complexity of the problem.

But, to give you 1 example that also deals with life/death...killing another person is always murder or manslaughter--*except* in instances of self-defense. One could additionally argue many of the things you're pointing out here about picking/choosing what's "self-defense" and what's not. There are many instances of claimed self-defense in which the person who was killed wasn't even armed; but law enforcement or the courts felt deadly self-defense was allowable due to a reasonable fear for the person's life. Again, an argument could be made that's using "situational ethics." Just to play devil's advocate.

[JerseyGator01]

What other medical procedure allows for the termination of innocent, healthy human life, especially when there's a so-called solving of the problem within 9 months? To imply guilt on the fetus is laughable. No court without a bribe (see Roe v. Wade) would agree to that.

[CHFG8R]

I would say to treat it as a civil offense...big fines, probation, etc.

You see the problem here, right? A Civil offense. The killing of a life is a Civil Offense!?

This is the larger point I'm trying to make. If it's a life, then it's murder. And the last time I checked, the circumstances surrounding the fertilization (no matter how horrific) of the egg is not cause to euthanize.

It's a quandry and probably explains why guys like bill and mb dance around or avoid my direct and simple questions. Bottom line is that most on the Pro Life side, IMO, do believe it is murder and do believe it should be prosecuted as such, but know they do not have nor will they ever have the political "juice" to make it happen. Simply put, the country will never go down that road (and we won't even get into the other legal messes this would cause).

But it is the crux of why you can't legislate abortion away. Some of you say it's less than murder. Well, I ask why? Are you saying it's less of a life? How much less? Less than the mother, I would assume. Does this stance not begin to take you down the slippery slope to the other side?

[CHFG8R]

Science has now answered that question Jersey. Individual life begins when 23 chromosomes from the egg fertilize with 23 from the sperm. Within 24 hours you have a unique, never to be duplicated, human being with it's own DNA completely separate from the mother. It is "programmed" with everything necessary to live to old age given a caretaker, which BTW, is required long after birth. Zygote, embryo, infant, adolescence, middle and old ages are all stages of the same life which begins when it is unique and separate. A zygote is NOT part of a woman's body. It has it's own separate DNA.

So, by definition, abortion is 1st Degree Murder?

[JerseyGator01]

Today's March for Life pretty much makes the poll cited by the OP ridiculous. A huge rally in the bitter cold of DC on a weekday ... AGAIN! No astroturf to be found anywhere in DC today.

[ufrulz2]

I'd be very curious to see how many people opposing abortion on "states' rights" grounds supported the federal government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. I'm guessing there would be some pretty significant overlap ...

[JerseyGator01]

Yet another hijacked beyond measure abortion thread.

[CHFG8R]

Yet another hijacked beyond measure abortion thread.

How was it hijacked?

[myamiG8R]

I'd be very curious to see how many people opposing abortion on "states' rights" grounds supported the federal government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. I'm guessing there would be some pretty significant overlap ...

keep the feds out of my wallet and my bedroom... that said, i am happy to pay federal taxes to build roads, protect the borders, and inspect meat-packing plants... other than that, not so much...

[JerseyGator01]

CHF,

You can't be serious. I've been warned by a mod for less.