NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious on what people think of this issue of whether or not U.S. states should decide on the abortion issue.

Acctually, this is one time I agree with conservitives, the Tenth Amendment pretty clearly putts this one in the states control.

I concur because the Constitution does give this one right to the states and I am in favor of the full implementation of it.

Just curious on what people think of this issue of weather or not U.S. states should decide on the abortion issue.

Weell, here's the deal. I feel that differing state laws about the legalities of abortion will only mangle the issue. I mean, consider this:

A person in a state where abortion is a crime where the doctor and patient can be arrested for murder goes to another state where abortion is legal and has an abortion. She then returns home. Did she commit a murder? What about the doctor?

And that's a relatively simple example.

I'd rather see the decision decided nationally. Which it already has been.

I say "yes." I'm not really sure where it is a Constituionally granted right as I have heard some Democrats claim, however just because something isn't granted in the Constitution doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. If I had my way, abortion would be legal but something rarely needed outside of cases of rape, etc. I would have the schools teach a comprehensive form of sex-education. It is obvious that you can't get pregnant or get an STD if you are abstinant, but not everyone is going to be. We "owe it to the children" (as much as I hate that phrase) to teach them how to protect themselves should they chose to engage in intercourse or any other sexual activities. After all, "Knowledge is power". And while I'm at it, I'd also legalize the "day-after" pill and allow anyone over the age of consent to obtain it without any parental notification.

Edit:LG you raise some good points about problems with giving this issue to the states, I have similar concerns myself. And though it has been decided nationally already, it isn't "settled" in a lot of peoples minds yet. With the current division I expect we will at some point, have another Supreme Court ruling on this issue. And they could, IMO, rule that this is an issue that should be decided state by state, rather than by the federal government.

I think it should be up to the states; it seems much more a state issue than a Federal one because there is so much debate over where exactly the line should be drawn when it comes to abortion and the extent of notification laws.

A person in a state where abortion is a crime where the doctor and patient can be arrested for murder goes to another state where abortion is legal and has an abortion. She then returns home. Did she commit a murder? What about the doctor?

No, because the abortion occured in another state where it is legal. A similar example might be medicinal marijuana; if you were proscribed and consumed marijuana in a place where it was legalized and then returned to a state where it was illegal, you would not be prosecuted as long as you didn't use or possess the marijuana in the state where it's illegal.

Whether[/grammar nazi]


oi wazz up mi bro?

Yes. Pursuant Amandments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States.

Just curious on what people think of this issue of weather or not U.S. states should decide on the abortion issue.
The right to ownership of one's own person is one of the most fundamental rights a citizen possesses. No state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow slavery, just as no state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow abortion. Permitting slavery, like banning abortion, is a fundamental violation of rights that is not acceptable within the United States.

Just curious on what people think of this issue of weather <snip>It's good that it cooled down a bit :D

It's good that it cooled down a bit
... or not. ;)

I am going to say yes, but I think it could be unconstitutional if the state made it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion.

Should slavery be decided by state?
Should black not able to marry white in some states but could in some?

There are some things that should be not left up to states. Abortion is one of them.

Should states decide who gets pregnant?

Should slavery be decided by state?
Should black not able to marry white in some states but could in some?

There are some things that should be not left up to states. Abortion is one of them.

What is not left up to the States, is determined by the Constitution.

Slavery is obviously a federal matter: the interstate commerce element.

But a foetus would be more of a hapless toad, constitutionally, than a hapless toad itself.

What is not left up to the States, is determined by the Constitution.

Slavery is obviously a federal matter: the interstate commerce element.

But a foetus would be more of a hapless toad, constitutionally, than a hapless toad itself.
So you think that when life begins should be determined individually by the states? I think it falls to the federal government to define these standards across the board.

Otherwise, it would be separated but not equal.

So you think that when life begins should be determined individually by the states? I think it falls to the federal government to define these standards across the board.

Otherwise, it would be separated but not equal.


On which article of the Constitution would you base that view, please?

No, because the abortion occured in another state where it is legal. A similar example might be medicinal marijuana; if you were proscribed and consumed marijuana in a place where it was legalized and then returned to a state where it was illegal, you would not be prosecuted as long as you didn't use or possess the marijuana in the state where it's illegal.
So can a state put a pregnant woman into protective custody and enjoin her from crossing state lines to put a child in danger?

Why is this even an issue?

Well, even if one state legalised abortion, everyone who wanted one would be able to go there to get one, so the idea of doing it at the state level, while constitutional, is ridiculous. Plus, the 'red' states would possibly have to accept that under full faith and credit.

the decision on abortion should be left to the individual. the regulation of abortion services should be left to the state.

so

a woman decides that she wants to have an abortion; the state makes sure its done safely.


what other class of safe medical procedures is left to the states to allow or not?

Should slavery be decided by state?
Should black not able to marry white in some states but could in some?

There are some things that should be not left up to states. Abortion is one of them.

Actually, slavery was banned by the states before the Federal government banned it.

As for the others, states are most decidedly not allowed to violate the civil rights (as defined by the Constitution, including the 9th Amendment) of their citizens. That is one of the few things in which I support Federal intervention into a state's domestic affairs.

Well, I'm not sure...I'm definitely pro-choice, and I see this as a women's rights issue. Are other human rights issues supposed to be decided by the states or the government?

Well, I'm not sure...I'm definitely pro-choice, and I see this as a women's rights issue. Are other human rights issues supposed to be decided by the states or the government?

A little of column A, a little of column B. The states are required by the 14th Amendment to enforce the US Bill of Rights. However, they all have their own Bills of Rights, most of which are far more comprehensive than the US one.

Right now, the Supreme Court finds there to be an unenumerated right to privacy in the 9th Amendment (which I agree completely with), and has decided that abortion falls under that (I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, but I'm pro-choice) so the states are required to enforce that. Of course, South Dakota is trying to force a showdown with it's law, but there's a good chance that the citizens thereof will destroy that law in November during the elections.

I feel that...
The right to ownership of one's own person is one of the most fundamental rights a citizen possesses. No state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow slavery, just as no state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow abortion. Permitting slavery, like banning abortion, is a fundamental violation of rights that is not acceptable within the United States.

But I know that some Americans would oppose this and women would risk losing their right to an abortion throughout the country. Therefore, I prefer it to be regulated by states separately, so that at least women can achieve their rights somewhere.

No, because the abortion occured in another state where it is legal. A similar example might be medicinal marijuana; if you were proscribed and consumed marijuana in a place where it was legalized and then returned to a state where it was illegal, you would not be prosecuted as long as you didn't use or possess the marijuana in the state where it's illegal.

But do you realy think they'd accept that excuse if you failed a drug test?

Legally This is 100% state, the constitution is the law of this land first and formost. IT says if that in that piece of paper it dosnt give it to the national goverment, it is up to the state. Thuse the state gets it. and I think every state should make it legal 100%. and if the christian right says its imoral then they should make banks illegal for usuery(sorry if misspelled). cause its against god to lend money for intrest to another christian, why do you think in the middle ages it was put to the jews to do this. Christians were banned, Jews were banned by the christians from everything else. it was a match made is hell.

But this is a states call, and a state can not deam something done in another state to be illegal, it can just not recognise it. That means they cant say getting that abortion was muder, but they can say that marrige you got is worth less then the piece of paper that says you got one

What ever decision the Federal government makes there is going to be a sizeable chunk who disagree.

Federalism gives people the choice of what laws they want to live under without having to skip the country.

So I say give the States the right to decide. That'll give the conservatives the freedom to tell women what to do with their body - while women will never be too far away from an abortion clinique if they need one.

I feel that...


But I know that some Americans would oppose this and women would risk losing their right to an abortion throughout the country. Therefore, I prefer it to be regulated by states separately, so that at least women can achieve their rights somewhere.

Yup. Regardless of how you feel about these rights - relegating it to the States means you can have one somewhere, anyway.

Weell, here's the deal. I feel that differing state laws about the legalities of abortion will only mangle the issue. I mean, consider this:

A person in a state where abortion is a crime where the doctor and patient can be arrested for murder goes to another state where abortion is legal and has an abortion. She then returns home. Did she commit a murder? What about the doctor?

And that's a relatively simple example.

I'd rather see the decision decided nationally. Which it already has been.

simple answer NO

person from state a where gambling is illegal crosses border to states b where gambling is legal and gambles. did the person commit a crime when they go back to state A?

states are not meant to regulate its citizens but to regualte what happens within its borders

So can a state put a pregnant woman into protective custody and enjoin her from crossing state lines to put a child in danger?

No. There would be no way to do so because they would have no legal way of knowing about the abortion; if they did detain her they would be breaking the law and could be seriously punished.

No. There would be no way to do so because they would have no legal way of knowing about the abortion; if they did detain her they would be breaking the law and could be seriously punished.
Conspiracy to commit murder? Attempting to cross state lines to commit a felony? Those are all illegal. Happens enough and you'll sure as hell start seeing bills up to limit movement of pregnant women across state lines.

Should slavery be decided by state?
Should black not able to marry white in some states but could in some?.

Slavery and marriage are interstate issues; abortion, like gambling or medicinal marijuana is not an interstate issue because the action occurs within the borders of the state that legalized it. There's no contract or legal obligation for other states to recognize so it's not the same as slavery or marriage.

Slavery and marriage are interstate issues; abortion, like gambling or medicinal marijuana is not an interstate issue because the action occurs within the borders of the state that legalized it. There's no contract or legal obligation for other states to recognize so it's not the same as slavery or marriage.
Wait, so you are saying that slavery is prohibited because it's an interstate issue?

... medicinal marijuana is not an interstate issue because the action occurs within the borders of the state that legalized it.
Ouch. Nice dig at the supreme court there.

This can't be a State issue. Making abortion illegal hurts women and I cannot believe that any State should be given the right to hurt women.

If you think they should, then I pity you and hope you leave my country very soon. If you like women's oppression, try Saudi Arabia. They're on your side.

Wait, so you are saying that slavery is prohibited because it's an interstate issue?

No, actually the Dred Scott decision found that slaves remained slaves even if they were taken to a free state; slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment did create the incorporation clause which meant that any rights provided by the Federal government can be imposed upon states.

It was the 14th Amendment that legalized abortion, but the grounds for it are very vulnerable particularly with a conservative or strict-interpretation court. Leaving abortion to the states would protect it better than it is under Federal jurisdiction.

Conspiracy to commit murder? Attempting to cross state lines to commit a felony? Those are all illegal. Happens enough and you'll sure as hell start seeing bills up to limit movement of pregnant women across state lines.

That would be unconstitutional and illegal. The state would have no right to do that by law.

That would be unconstitutional and illegal. The state would have no right to do that by law.

Ever hear of long arm jurisdiction? And since when has it been illegal to protect an unborn child, a human, from murder? It's no different then forbidding abusive parents from taking a child out of the state.

Ever hear of long arm jurisdiction? And since when has it been illegal to protect an unborn child, a human, from murder? It's no different then forbidding abusive parents from taking a child out of the state.

It would be the same as detaining a person on suspicion that they are crossing state lines to gamble; even though abortion is illegal in one state it is legal in another so the state could not detain a person for that reason. That's unlike abuse, which is illegal in every state.

It would be the same as detaining a person on suspicion that they are crossing state lines to gamble; Internet gambling.
even though abortion is illegal in one state it is legal in another so the state could not detain a person for that reason. That's unlike abuse, which is illegal in every state.
Murder is illlegal in every state. Simply define life as starting from day one, and you have murder.

This can't be a State issue. Making abortion illegal hurts women and I cannot believe that any State should be given the right to hurt women.

If you think they should, then I pity you and hope you leave my country very soon. If you like women's oppression, try Saudi Arabia. They're on your side.Please, no attacks on someone else’s beliefs like that in this thread, but I do not mind debating ideas. Yet, to point out there is enough confessions by women to say that in fact a good majority of women are harmed one way or another by abortion be it depression or anxiety. (Playing Devil’s advocate as I do believe that abortion should be allowed in the early months of pregnancy)

Acctually, this is one time I agree with conservitives, the Tenth Amendment pretty clearly putts this one in the states control.The Tenth Amendment does not "clearly" put anything in the control of the States. Nor was it intended to do so.

Note that no federal law has ever been stricken by the courts as unconstitutional on the basis of the Tenth Amendment alone. Of course, it was not intended for them to do so.

Indeed, at the time the Tenth Amendment was drafted and ratified, no one was even clear on the fact that one day the Supreme Court would start declaring laws "unconstitutional." The Tenth Amendment in particular, however, was not written in such a way that it would (or could) "invalidate" a law.

If you want to understand the intent--and the effect--of the Tenth Amendment, you have to look at deliberation in Congress. It's sole purpose was to act as a counter-argument to the following: "It doesn't say we can't."

That is, when opponents to a bill in Congress argue that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to do something, advocates of the bill might respond (and have), that neither does it actually forbid it. The purpose of the Tenth Amendment is to remind these Members of Congress that the Constitution is a power-granting document, so that everything Congress does must derive from some mandate actually granted by the document.

Now, this does not mean that the advocates in this example necessarily lose the argument. It may be that they can still make a convincing case that some constitutional provision (chances are, the commerce clause) provides the relevant authority. What the Tenth Amendment does is to keep the burden of proof squarely on those Members of Congress who want to enact some new innovation, rather than on those who oppose it.

Now, back to abortion. This is not a matter of Congress attempting to usurp authority from the states, which is what the Tenth Amendment was meant to suppress. Rather, it is an example of the federal courts protecting constitutional rights guranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of "fundamental liberty" interests.

Remember, the Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Here we have an example in which the Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects fundamental rights to personal privacy and reproductive freedom.

Thus, if the Supreme Court is correct and the Constitution protects these rights, the legal prohibition on abortion is perfectly consistent with the language of the Tenth Amendment. If you want to complain that "privacy" and "reproductive freedom" are not really protected by the Constitution, that may be a compelling legal argument--certainly many people are convinced by it. But assuming that these protections exist, waving around the Tenth Amendment will not avail you.

There is a difference between weather and whether just so you know...

Acctually, this is one time I agree with conservitives, the Tenth Amendment pretty clearly putts this one in the states control.

Could states also decide that you can't get other forms of medical treament? Would it be constitutional, for instance, for your state to decide that you could not have a broken bone set? That you could not be vaccinated? That you could not have the birth control pill?

The 10th Amendment reserves some things for the states, but many rights are reserved BY THE CITIZENS. The right to decide what medical care you will and will not receive falls under that umbrella.

No, because the abortion occured in another state where it is legal. A similar example might be medicinal marijuana; if you were proscribed and consumed marijuana in a place where it was legalized and then returned to a state where it was illegal, you would not be prosecuted as long as you didn't use or possess the marijuana in the state where it's illegal.

Actually, not true. If you test positive for marijuana (and it will stay in your system for up to a month), you can be prosecuted for it. As it stands, a US citizen can go to Amsterdam and smoke it, but if they get drug tested for any reason upon their return, they can be prosecuted.

Meanwhile, currently, the federal law against possession and use of marijuana has been ruled to override any state law legalizing it - even for medicinal use. As such, it isn't truly legal anywhere. The federal government can and has arrested little old ladies with cancer for possessing marijuana plants in their homes, even though it is legal according to the state government.

Just curious on what people think of this issue of weather or not U.S. states should decide on the abortion issue.

Not if it's raining.

Civil Rights issues should always be left to the federal government.

The right to ownership of one's own person is one of the most fundamental rights a citizen possesses. No state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow slavery, just as no state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow abortion. Permitting slavery, like banning abortion, is a fundamental violation of rights that is not acceptable within the United States.

Personally I feel that allowing abortion is akin to allowing slavery. The people who defend abortion are using arguments that are just as specious as those that defended slavery. I have no problem with contraception, etc.

The main problem with the Roe decision, aside from its questionable constitutionality, is that it did nothing to solve the issue. It did nothing to legally draw a solid line of demarcation. It was a liberal edict from a liberal court to placate a liberal movement. It said nothing about the status of the fetus. If its OK to kill the fetus at 3 months; and somewhat OK at 6 mos; somewhat bad mojo but still OK in some circumstances at 9 mos; why not after the baby is born? What's the difference? Baby outside, murder; Baby inside, right to choose. Its a bad decision.

If the government (state) has a legal and constitutional interest in keeping us citizens from killing each other, then why is abortion any different. Rape and incest should be the only exceptions.

Honestly, this should go back before the legislatures. Let the country go through a catharsis of national apopletic debate and just purge this from the national consciousness. The ramifications of differing state opinions on abortion can be hammered out in federal court.

I'm sorry, in this age of readily available contraception if you get pregnant, or you get your partner pregnant, you are RESPONSIBLE. I understand that people don't like to hear that word, but its a fact.

I'm sorry, in this age of readily available contraception if you get pregnant, or you get your partner pregnant, you are RESPONSIBLE. I understand that people don't like to hear that word, but its a fact.

Contraception doesn't work all the time. Therefore, abortion becomes a last resort.

This is such a fiercely debated issue, I say it should be decided on a national level.

Every american has the same right to have an abortion, regardless of where she lives.

We settled this with the civil war.

I'm sorry, in this age of readily available contraception if you get pregnant, or you get your partner pregnant, you are RESPONSIBLE. I understand that people don't like to hear that word, but its a fact.


Abortion is the very essence of personal responsibility.

The alternative is pawning the kid off on family, strangers, or most likely the taxpayer and the government.

no because if you are poor and live in a state where it is illegal, it could be too tough to get to a state where it is legal - especially for younger girls living with their parents. we dont want them trying risky self-abortions because of this.

Severe government intrusion in people's private medical lives combined with an enormous government bureaucracy of orphanages to deal with the huge numbers of unwanted, otherwise-prevented children is a recipe for big-government and higher taxes.

The right to ownership of one's own person is one of the most fundamental rights a citizen possesses.
Slight exaggeration. Abortion is not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its legalisation is not on Amnesty's agenda.

Just curious on what people think of this issue of weather or not U.S. states should decide on the abortion issue.

I don't know if any state can stop it if it started raining Aborted Fetuses.

But no I don't think that it should be the State's right. Because the State would spend it's whole time with one side Approving and the other side appealing and Vetoing. The law will get reinstated for one term, then revoked the next term, and so on and so on.

No. Texans would bring new children into the world they can't even afford to care for and give them a good life, all because at one point in their lives they were irresponsible.

Should states decide who gets pregnant?
Holy hell yes!

Contraception doesn't work all the time. Therefore, abortion becomes a last resort.

No, it becomes the elimination of an inconvenience. People don't want to deal the ramifications of their actions.

If you are depending on only a condom, then you reap what you sow. However, there's female contraceptional as well. Plus a woman can learn to understand her menstrual cycle; when she is more fertile. There are steps that can be taken.

There is also the option of giving the child up for adoption which is far more humane than killing it.

Every american has the same right to have an abortion, regardless of where she lives.

We settled this with the civil war.

No. We settled the matter of a state's right to cecede from the Union, as well the legal concept of Nullification.

So basically what you want is abortion as birth control. Do you know how fast that approach would get shot down in flames if it went before the public.

Abortion is the very essence of personal responsibility.

The alternative is pawning the kid off on family, strangers, or most likely the taxpayer and the government.

Exactly. Do you have any idea how hard it is for a girl/woman to decide to abort? I have already set it in my head that if I ever get a girl pregnant, I'd have to assume I'll never be able to convince her of aborting it.

No. We settled the matter of a state's right to cecede from the Union, as well the legal concept of Nullification.

So basically what you want is abortion as birth control. Do you know how fast that approach would get shot down in flames if it went before the public.


That idea is already dominant in the public.

Why do you think people get abortions? As a form of birth control.

No, it becomes the elimination of an inconvenience. People don't want to deal the ramifications of their actions.

Or rather, the biggest decision they've ever had to make. You think that the typical pregnant aborion-considering girl is like "Oh, pfft, I don't want this baby, get it out of my hands". No, it's more like weighing the advantages and disadvantages of bringing a baby into this world at this time. If she feels it would be best to have a baby later in life, then she will have an abortion.

It's hard to have an abortion, and it stays on your mind for many years, if not for the rest of your life. If the woman decides that it is more responsible to abort the fetus and have one when she's ready, then that should be her choice.

Weather abortion ? Would that have worked on Katrina ? :D

That idea is already dominant in the public.

Why do you think people get abortions? As a form of birth control.

And you think this is OK... I bet you hate the Iraqi war because off all the innocent Iraqis that are being killed. War is hell because off all the death. Yet, an innocent child is fair game because birthing it would be too inconvenient for the family.

Its not as dominant as you think it is. Why do you think pro-choice advocates want to keep it out of the legislatures? You want to know what abortion is, a feminist battle-cry. That's all. The sycophants on the left won't challenge them on it because its a sacred cow of their cause. So they go along justyfing their actions making pretend that they are morally correct.

Did you know that according to Southern churches that slavery was condoned by the Bible. We were doing the poor negros a favor and God's will by keeping them on the plantations. What the heck would they do in society if they were all freed, how would the poor, unintelligent slaves care for themselves. What would be the economic damage of freeing all that property? The Dread Scott decision was also approved by the Court, yet this is not a bright spot in our nations past. Abortion on demand is just as evil as slavery and there is no moral justification, only a sad reality in the cases of rape and incest.

Or rather, the biggest decision they've ever had to make. You think that the typical pregnant aborion-considering girl is like "Oh, pfft, I don't want this baby, get it out of my hands". No, it's more like weighing the advantages and disadvantages of bringing a baby into this world at this time. If she feels it would be best to have a baby later in life, then she will have an abortion.

It's hard to have an abortion, and it stays on your mind for many years, if not for the rest of your life. If the woman decides that it is more responsible to abort the fetus and have one when she's ready, then that should be her choice.

So again, its permissable to rectify a mistake with murder?? Perhaps if we ingrain a little more personal responsibilty in our culture then the poor girl would not be in the situation necessitating that decision.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

This is what I feel like every time this issue comes up.

As has been already stated: rights are not and should not be subject to a vote. A woman owns her body, including the contents of her womb. Any intrusion into that is a violation of her rights, just as it was a violation of the rights of blacks to make them sit at the back of the bus or to not allow gays to marry.

And for anyone who thinks that abortion is not taking responsibility for actions, I suggest you ensure that your definition of "responsible" is not one that you are making up just for this purpose, i.e. pre-defining abortion as "irresponsible".

As has been already stated: rights are not and should not be subject to a vote. A woman owns her body, including the contents of her womb.

That being in her womb, is a dependent form of life. Its not an object or a thing. Its a living being that will grow to become an intelligent human being whom if you kill is a capital offense.


And for anyone who thinks that abortion is not taking responsibility for actions, I suggest you ensure that your definition of "responsible" is not one that you are making up just for this purpose, i.e. pre-defining abortion as "irresponsible".

When murder is sanctioned by the state you need to damn well be sure that it is a justifiable act. All you peace and love liberals are a bunch of pure hypocrites on this issue.

That being in her womb, is a dependent form of life.
Her womb. Her. Self-Ownership.

It's not yours. You have no say. It's hers. That's it. If you believe otherwise, then you believe you own the woman or that the fetus owns the woman. IOW: you advocate slavery.

You might also like to know that I'm an anarchocapitalist. IOW: anarchy + capitalism.

Doesn't that just blow the shit outta your prejudice? Why yes, yes it does.

And you think this is OK... I bet you hate the Iraqi war because off all the innocent Iraqis that are being killed. War is hell because off all the death. Yet, an innocent child is fair game because birthing it would be too inconvenient for the family.



A fetus isnt an "innocent child," roe v wade restricts and allows the states to restrict late term abortion.


No problem here.

Her womb. Her. Self-Ownership.Yet, the way you imply is you are describing that the baby in the womb is hers entirely and thus when born is her property. (playing devil’s advocate ;) )

Yet, the way you imply is you are describing that the baby in the womb is hers entirely and thus when born is her property. (playing devil’s advocate ;) )


I think a better conclusion is "once it is removed from her body it is no longer part of her body."

I concur as I was only trying to have a little fun with that post.

I'm opposed to abortion in pretty much any instance where it's not a case of both the mother and the child dying otherwise.

But, personally, I also don't think abortion never should have become a federal issue to begin with. The fact is, even with the federal courts rulings on the subject, there's no state by state concensus on what makes legal terms for abortion; In theory, it's whenever people want it in a state by state basis, but you've only got to look at the licensing requirements to even allow abortions to tell how likely it'll be for someone to get one. California's pretty much open on anything, states such as South Dakota and Utah set things up so as to make it as difficult as possible.

Since the supposed existing federal ruling on the matter stays inconsistently enforceable from state to state, why not just recognize this is one of the many areas where states are going to have some say anyways?

Yet, the way you imply is you are describing that the baby in the womb is hers entirely and thus when born is her property. (playing devil’s advocate ;) )
I don't imply that at all, though.

Abortion should be legal, and as rare as possible (with proper sex education and contraception)

If you use sex for recreation and get pregnant, than you are in the same boat as someone who uses a loaded revolver to hammer nails.

We have legal adoption, abortion is not needed to augment stupidity.

Three men die and go to heaven. They are told that they can do what ever they want but they can't ever step on a bug. Well about a week later one steps on a bug and is handcuffed to a hideously ugly woman for ten years and told he must sleep with her every night. A month later the 2nd man steps on a bug and an unglier more hideous woman is handcuffed to him and he must sleep w/ her every night for ten years. About 3 months later a blonde bombshell is handcuffed to the 3rd man and under her breath can be heard muttering, damn bugs.

The point of this joke is this. No human deserves to be in the possition of the 1st two women or the last man. No one deserves to have their life reduced to a punishment for someone else. To do so devalues human life to an incredibly high degree. Yet, here we see "pro-lifers" saying that one who gets impregnated deserves to have their child become a punishment for her. What value they place in life:rolleyes: Even if the child gets put up for adoption, it still is nine months of life (if you're a pro-lifer then it is life, if not then it's irrelivent) that the child is being used as a punishment. In order to keep life precious we must allow abortion to prevent the resentment of life.

States should not have the power to decide. Individual people should have the power to decide. If both the father and mother agree to get rid of the mindless fetus, they should be able to get rid of it without being hassled by the government.

Yes. Then all the pro-life soccer moms and protestors can either move to another state or keep their annoying mouths shut.

Just curious on what people think of this issue of weather or not U.S. states should decide on the abortion issue.

i am pro choice,yet conservative?

i would not want anyone to have an abortion(i tried to talk my girl into one,and she refused,and i have the greatest kid in the world)however,i would never dare to presume my situation is the same as everyone elses..so there is but no choice..it is the womans decision..period..no brainer.

you do raise an interesting point however,one i happen to agree with.

i am a huge believer in individual rights..obviously..but taken a step farther,out of neccasity..i do believe in states rights.

if i dissagree with the majority of my state,i can always go to a state that is more in line with my views..the beauty of states rights..

when you have an all encompassing federal gov.


you have no recourse other then violating the law...with states rights..it cuts both ways.

you may have a hillbilly state that hates this or that,but you also have other states that are more progressive...at least you have an option...ergo..i hate centralized power..it usurps the peoples rights for the opinion of the few in charge.

america is diverse,and it should remain so in my opinion.

put it this way..i want to live in a state..where i can walk out back,nekid,and fire my gun drunk off my ass(disclaimer...dont try this at home)but if i am in the country where i wont hurt anyone but myself...i dont want the guy from nyc telling me how to live,but i respect his right to not have drunken nekid people shooting off his guns in a city.

i think it is common sense,rural areas have far differing needs then urban areas.

Well, even if one state legalised abortion, everyone who wanted one would be able to go there to get one, so the idea of doing it at the state level, while constitutional, is ridiculous. Plus, the 'red' states would possibly have to accept that under full faith and credit.

Indeed. I believe the reason that the reason that the conservatives have been pushing the "protection of marriage" as a constitutional amendment is to prevent having to accept a marriage from a state allowing gay marriage.

Some may feel that this falls under the same scrutiny.

The decision that "legalized abortion" didn't, really -- it simply said that the government has no business interfering in a doctor and patient's decisions on medicl care. I believe that should still stand.

Three men die and go to heaven. They are told that they can do what ever they want but they can't ever step on a bug. Well about a week later one steps on a bug and is handcuffed to a hideously ugly woman for ten years and told he must sleep with her every night. A month later the 2nd man steps on a bug and an unglier more hideous woman is handcuffed to him and he must sleep w/ her every night for ten years. About 3 months later a blonde bombshell is handcuffed to the 3rd man and under her breath can be heard muttering, damn bugs.

The point of this joke is this. No human deserves to be in the possition of the 1st two women or the last man. No one deserves to have their life reduced to a punishment for someone else. To do so devalues human life to an incredibly high degree. Yet, here we see "pro-lifers" saying that one who gets impregnated deserves to have their child become a punishment for her. What value they place in life:rolleyes: Even if the child gets put up for adoption, it still is nine months of life (if you're a pro-lifer then it is life, if not then it's irrelivent) that the child is being used as a punishment. In order to keep life precious we must allow abortion to prevent the resentment of life.
I agree. And don't forget that the punishment is just pregnancy, not motherhood. So once the punishment has been completed, the child can just be abandoned into an impersonal, overloaded, often abusive system without anyone caring what happens to it. Saving the babies, they call it. :rolleyes:

Her womb. Her. Self-Ownership.

It's not yours. You have no say. It's hers. That's it. If you believe otherwise, then you believe you own the woman or that the fetus owns the woman. IOW: you advocate slavery.

You might also like to know that I'm an anarchocapitalist. IOW: anarchy + capitalism.

Doesn't that just blow the shit outta your prejudice? Why yes, yes it does.

Thats a load of bullshit, if I must say so myself. The state has the constitutional right to restrict drug abuse, murder, business transactions, vehicle registration, etc with no claim of ownership to the person or object being regulated. This is no different. So don't give me that crap that I'm claiming ownership over women for opposing abortion. Opposing abortion does not nullify my support female equality.

I agree. And don't forget that the punishment is just pregnancy, not motherhood. So once the punishment has been completed, the child can just be abandoned into an impersonal, overloaded, often abusive system without anyone caring what happens to it. Saving the babies, they call it. :rolleyes:

If your talking about adoption agencies then your talking out of your ass. Its not the 19th Century, we're not sending the kids to work in the mills anymore. Adoption agencies have to screen prospective parents in some cases up to year before approval. I'm sure that you can bring up some anecdotal stories, but give some real evidence before making wild claims.

I think its far more moral to give an unwanted child to couple who can't concieve a child on their own, instead of murdering it.

I think its far more moral to give an unwanted child to couple who can't concieve a child on their own, instead of murdering it.

I'd question your scope of morality, since you can't make a fair assessment of the situation without using hyperboile and extremist speech.

Abortion is not "murder" by definition. Murder is a legal term, and as long as an abortion is legal, it is not murder. Extremists call it murder to try and demonize it, instead of giving it a fair moral analysis.

And Muravyets was right about adoption. Foster homes are notoriously bad. So much so, that many psychologists and psychiatrists have special practices that focus only on the mental problems of children who were adopted. But hey, I guess the fact that adoption is often so trauamtic that therapists have practices to deal with that, and that alone, doesn't say anything about foster homes and the practice of adoption.

After all, there are surely just as many therapists that specialize with mental problems due to abortion, right? (The answer is no)

If your talking about adoption agencies then your talking out of your ass. Its not the 19th Century, we're not sending the kids to work in the mills anymore. Adoption agencies have to screen prospective parents in some cases up to year before approval. I'm sure that you can bring up some anecdotal stories, but give some real evidence before making wild claims.

And since you reject the accepted fact regarding foster homes, here are the statistics on foster care from an adoption agency (http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html):

After aging out of foster care, 27% of males and 10% of females were incarcerated within 12 to 18 months. 50% were unemployed, 37% had not finished high school, 33% received public assistance, and 19% of females had given birth to children. Before leaving care, 47 percent were receiving some kind of counseling or medication for mental health problems; that number dropped to 21% after leaving care. (Courtney and Piliavin, 1998)

And here are more foster care statistics, from a 'foster care survivor' website. Note the sources of the statistics, don't try to poison the well due to the website:

Stats (http://fostersurvivor.netfirms.com/statistics.shtml)

A few pieces of information that really bring home the point that CPS is not taking care of their charges. These facts have been gathered from many sources. The reporting organisation is listed at the end of each paragraph.

There are more than half a million children and youth in the U.S. foster care system, a 90% increase since 1987. Three of 10 of the nation’s homeless are former foster children. A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
50% were unemployed

*Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support

Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems, including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and impaired social relationships. Some experts estimate that about 30% of the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems. Various studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment than the general population.

*Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support

80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.

*National Association of Social Workers

Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care than they are in their own homes.

*National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN)

Children died as a result of abuse in foster care 5.25 times more often than children in the general population. 2.1 percent of all child fatalities took place in foster care. While this may seem like a relatively low number, we must consider the contrast in population between children in the general population versus children in foster care. In 1997, there were nearly 71 million children in the general population (99.6%), but only 302 thousand in state care (.4%) in state care. As state care is supposed to be a 'safe haven', the number of fatalities should be less or at least equal to what it is in the general population of children. By this standard, there should have been less than .4% of child fatalities occurring in foster care, however, there was 5.25 times that amount. (31 states reporting)

*CPS Watch Inc.

A fetus isnt an "innocent child," roe v wade restricts and allows the states to restrict late term abortion.


No problem here.

So at what point does this thing become a fetus? Where is the exact point, please tell me. Does it magically transform at one point from killable to unkillable?

Ahh... OK we do need to dehumanize the being in the womb, don't we. That makes easier on the conscience, doesn't it. Calling it a lump of flesh, a bit of junk akin to a zit or boil. That does make it easier to deal with. Removing an object its easier than killing a living being.

Look, I don't hate women. I don't oppose equal rights. I'm not a fundementalist Bible-thumper. Abortion is just plain wrong.

And here are more foster care statistics, from a 'foster care survivor' website. Note the sources of the statistics, don't try to poison the well due to the website:

Stats (http://fostersurvivor.netfirms.com/statistics.shtml)

Umm... that's foster care. Thats children being removed from a broken home, moved into state care and being placed in another. That's not adoption. That's a whole different animal.

So at what point does this thing become a fetus? Where is the exact point, please tell me. Does it magically transform at one point from killable to unkillable?

According to what is virtually bioethical concensus today, personhood results when one of two things occurs - the fetus is either not directly dependent on another, or the abstract capacity to value the self. A fetus, even at late term, exhibits neither.

This is also why modern bioethics, in general, tends to accept things like terminating life support for adults. Nothing magical about it. Rather, its based on sound reason.

So at what point does this thing become a fetus? Where is the exact point, please tell me. Does it magically transform at one point from killable to unkillable?

Ahh... OK we do need to dehumanize the being in the womb, don't we. That makes easier on the conscience, doesn't it. Calling it a lump of flesh, a bit of junk akin to a zit or boil. That does make it easier to deal with. Removing an object its easier than killing a living being.

Look, I don't hate women. I don't oppose equal rights. I'm not a fundementalist Bible-thumper. Abortion is just plain wrong.

I think that a woman has an absolute right to have her womb emptied whenever she wants it(assuming the risk to her health doesn't warrant it.)

The question is really suvivabiity. I don't think it's ethical to abort an unborn child with a reasonable chance of survival(the question on what is reasonable is debatable).

Also, at some point it become apparent that the risk to both the mother and the unborn child by forcing a premature birth is unacceptable.

But in my opinion is not 'at what point can an abortion be performed?' The question is 'At what point can an unborn child be removed and survive?'

Umm... that's foster care. Thats children being removed from a broken home, moved into state care and being placed in another. That's not adoption. That's a whole different animal.

Foster care is where children go when they are put up for adoption. What, do you think they live on a baby farm?

This is why the adoption agency website I listed gives statistics on foster care, and refers to itself as a foster care facility. :rolleyes:

If your talking about adoption agencies then your talking out of your ass. Its not the 19th Century, we're not sending the kids to work in the mills anymore. Adoption agencies have to screen prospective parents in some cases up to year before approval. I'm sure that you can bring up some anecdotal stories, but give some real evidence before making wild claims.

I think its far more moral to give an unwanted child to couple who can't concieve a child on their own, instead of murdering it.
Uh what the **** are you talking about.

Adoption agencys can be corrupt and down right useless. There aren't enough people who want to adopt. And if they don't get Adopted or the parents refuse to take care of them at all, they end up in the Government Foster program. Which is almost a fate worse than death.

Not to mention the effects a child feels when they realize that their orginal mother didn't want them!

Thats a load of bullshit, if I must say so myself. The state has the constitutional right to restrict drug abuse, murder, business transactions, vehicle registration, etc with no claim of ownership to the person or object being regulated.
The states have overstepped their bounds regarding that.

Here's how it works:

A woman owns herself.

Meaning--

A woman owns the contents of her womb.

If you tell her that she cannot do something with her womb--to herself--then you are attempting to live her life for her. You are saying you know better than she does how to live her life.

You are owning her.

You are preventing her from doing something to her body which affects NO ONE ELSE.

You are saying she doesn't know how to live her life, and that you know best.

So unless and until you can demonstrate to me the concept of rights which allows you to make such a claim upon another person's body, I'm afraid you'll just have to keep your damned nose out of someone else's business.

Thats a load of bullshit, if I must say so myself.

You would like to tihnk that, wouldn't you?

The state has the constitutional right to restrict drug abuse, murder, business transactions, vehicle registration, etc with no claim of ownership to the person or object being regulated.

None of these involve forcing person to use their own body for something they do not wish to do.

Would you advocate forced organ transplants? If a person could be kept alive if only you would give them your kidney, is it alright for the government to force you to give it up?

If your answer is no, then there is no logical way that you can suggest that the government can force a woman to use her body for 9 months to bring a child into the world if that is not something she wants to do.

So don't give me that crap that I'm claiming ownership over women for opposing abortion.

You are. You are stating that you and the government should have the right to enslave a woman - controlling her bodily processes - for 9 months.

Opposing abortion does not nullify my support female equality.

At what point in a man's life do you advocate using a man as a slave?

I think its far more moral to give an unwanted child to couple who can't concieve a child on their own, instead of murdering it.

You do realize that most children who go into the adoption system never get adopted, right?

Meanwhile, I don't really think it is any more moral or responsible to give a child up for adoption than it is to have an early trimester abortion. Once an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the only choices left are hard ones.

So at what point does this thing become a fetus?

At 8 weeks, an embryo becomes a fetus.
Between 10-12 weeks, a fetus develops the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity, and can thus be termed an organism.
Around 20-22 weeks, a fetus' brain has generally developed enough that it would not meet the criterioin to declare a person brain-dead, and is thus medically alive.


Umm... that's foster care. Thats children being removed from a broken home, moved into state care and being placed in another. That's not adoption. That's a whole different animal.

Not all children in foster care were "removed from a broken home." Many have been in the system since birth, but because they were unhealthy or drug-addicted, they were essentially "unadoptable". Most of the couples waiting to adopt wish to adopt a healthy infant, not a sick one.

You would like to tihnk that, wouldn't you?
Like to? I do.


None of these involve forcing person to use their own body for something they do not wish to do.


So murder is fine in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Nobody forced the woman to get pregnant. Unless it was rape, it was a consensual process. Abortion is just a cop out of the responsibility.


Would you advocate forced organ transplants? If a person could be kept alive if only you would give them your kidney, is it alright for the government to force you to give it up?


Apples... Oranges... ya know... That's a nonsensical red herring argument which isn't even related to the discussion.


If your answer is no, then there is no logical way that you can suggest that the government can force a woman to use her body for 9 months to bring a child into the world if that is not something she wants to do.


The woman had no problem consenting to the sex. If she doesn't want a baby there is CONTRACEPTION. Don't give the economically poor woman line of BS either. That's not justification.


You are. You are stating that you and the government should have the right to enslave a woman - controlling her bodily processes - for 9 months.


No, I'm saying that her child has every right to exist as much as she does. Her actions, as well as her partner, created life.


At what point in a man's life do you advocate using a man as a slave?


Oooh, I'm supposed to be afraid of the word 'slave', please. He is responsible for the child as well. Nail his ass for child support.


You do realize that most children who go into the adoption system never get adopted, right? Meanwhile, I don't really think it is any more moral or responsible to give a child up for adoption than it is to have an early trimester abortion. Once an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the only choices left are hard ones.


No the hard choices begin before the sex. Choices like, what the hell do I need to do to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Again, the hedonists of the world cringe at the words 'personal responsibility'. Be responsible BEFORE you are forced to go down that road. Murder should not be condoned because you made poor life decisions.


At 8 weeks, an embryo becomes a fetus.
Between 10-12 weeks, a fetus develops the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity, and can thus be termed an organism.
Around 20-22 weeks, a fetus' brain has generally developed enough that it would not meet the criterioin to declare a person brain-dead, and is thus medically alive.


Yes, thanks for Bio 101 cliffs notes. I took that in grade school.


Not all children in foster care were "removed from a broken home." Many have been in the system since birth, but because they were unhealthy or drug-addicted, they were essentially "unadoptable". Most of the couples waiting to adopt wish to adopt a healthy infant, not a sick one.

Don't blame social services for the problems of the world. Maybe if drugs weren't a liberal cause celebre then maybe drug abuse would be a little less prevalent, but drug abuse is cool. Let's legalize and toke up. Oh, and you admit couples are waiting to adopt. I thought it was the other way around, or so that's what I've been told.

So murder is fine in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Nobody forced the woman to get pregnant. Unless it was rape, it was a consensual process. Abortion is just a cop out of the responsibility.
We're still using the dictionary definition of "responsibility", right?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/responsibility

Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: ri-"spän(t)-s&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/responsible

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong

I'm failing to see how you can say abortion is a cop-out on responsibility unless you've pre-defined abortion that way, because the dictionary certainly doesn't agree with your warped definition.

So at what point does this thing become a fetus? Where is the exact point, please tell me. Does it magically transform at one point from killable to unkillable?

Ahh... OK we do need to dehumanize the being in the womb, don't we. That makes easier on the conscience, doesn't it. Calling it a lump of flesh, a bit of junk akin to a zit or boil. That does make it easier to deal with. Removing an object its easier than killing a living being.

Look, I don't hate women. I don't oppose equal rights. I'm not a fundementalist Bible-thumper. Abortion is just plain wrong.


When a fetus can be removed and function, it is clearly a separate living human, and can be removed rather than aborted if the woman chooses.

The law deals in trimesters, with the first trimester - when the fetus is unequivocally not a separate living human being - being the trimester in which there is no compelling interest in restricting abortion.

Nothing human is being dehumanized. No pang of conscience is being worked-around. Nothing is killed.

You do oppose the rights of women, you make that perfectly clear when you say that the government should force them to carry pregnancies to term.

We're still using the dictionary definition of "responsibility", right?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/responsibility

Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: ri-"spän(t)-s&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/responsible

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong

I'm failing to see how you can say abortion is a cop-out on responsibility unless you've pre-defined abortion that way, because the dictionary certainly doesn't agree with your warped definition.

This is helping your cause?

When a fetus can be removed and function, it is clearly a separate living human, and can be removed rather than aborted if the woman chooses.

The law deals in trimesters, with the first trimester - when the fetus is unequivocally not a separate living human being - being the trimester in which there is no compelling interest in restricting abortion.

Nothing human is being dehumanized. No pang of conscience is being worked-around. Nothing is killed.

You do oppose the rights of women, you make that perfectly clear when you say that the government should force them to carry pregnancies to term.

Maybe in your twisted soul there's no pang of conscience.

Don't try to pretend that you have any idea of my stance on women's rights, on one issue. You're the one making abortion the sacred cow; equating one facet of the issue to equal the whole dynamic.

Like to? I do.


So murder is fine in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Nobody forced the woman to get pregnant. Unless it was rape, it was a consensual process. Abortion is just a cop out of the responsibility.


Apples... Oranges... ya know... That's a nonsensical red herring argument which isn't even related to the discussion.


The woman had no problem consenting to the sex. If she doesn't want a baby there is CONTRACEPTION. Don't give the economically poor woman line of BS either. That's not justification.


No, I'm saying that her child has every right to exist as much as she does. Her actions, as well as her partner, created life.


Oooh, I'm supposed to be afraid of the word 'slave', please. He is responsible for the child as well. Nail his ass for child support.


No the hard choices begin before the sex. Choices like, what the hell do I need to do to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Again, the hedonists of the world cringe at the words 'personal responsibility'. Be responsible BEFORE you are forced to go down that road. Murder should not be condoned because you made poor life decisions.


Yes, thanks for Bio 101 cliffs notes. I took that in grade school.


Don't blame social services for the problems of the world. Maybe if drugs weren't a liberal cause celebre then maybe drug abuse would be a little less prevalent, but drug abuse is cool. Let's legalize and toke up. Oh, and you admit couples are waiting to adopt. I thought it was the other way around, or so that's what I've been told.
Let's talk about apples and oranges, shall we? Apple = Realities of pregnancy decisions. Orange = Your personal preferences. Two completely different things.

1) You ignore the fact that "murder" is a specific legal term, and it is not -- repeat, NOT -- applicable to abortion. When you call abortion "murder," you're just misusing the term "murder." It is nothing but meaningless hyperbole.

2) You persist in comparing abortion to crimes -- murder, illegal drug use, etc. Abortion is not a crime. So this is just more meaningless hyperbole.

3) All your remarks about how women should conduct themselves sexually is nothing but your personal preference. Unfortunately for you, nobody else in the world cares what you think about how they should be having sex.

4) Likewise, your assertion that abortion is not a responsible decision is nothing but that -- your assertion. Just because it's a decision you don't like, that doesn't make it irresponsible. And like your morality, nobody cares what you think about how they should be responsible, either.

Maybe in your twisted soul there's no pang of conscience.

Don't try to pretend that you have any idea of my stance on women's rights, on one issue. You're the one making abortion the sacred cow; equating one facet of the issue to equal the whole dynamic.


Abortion rights are probably the biggest issue of women's rights in contention today in the civilized world.

Crypto-religious nonsense about early term embryos and fetuses being "murdered" by abortion is not a sound base for public policy. This isnt afghanistan, saudi arabia or Iran.

To make-believe that you can somehow empower the government to force women to carry pregnancies while championing their rights is as best absurd, at worst simply dishonest.

Like to? I do.



So murder is fine in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Nobody forced the woman to get pregnant. Unless it was rape, it was a consensual process. Abortion is just a cop out of the responsibility.



Apples... Oranges... ya know... That's a nonsensical red herring argument which isn't even related to the discussion.



The woman had no problem consenting to the sex. If she doesn't want a baby there is CONTRACEPTION. Don't give the economically poor woman line of BS either. That's not justification.



No, I'm saying that her child has every right to exist as much as she does. Her actions, as well as her partner, created life.



Oooh, I'm supposed to be afraid of the word 'slave', please. He is responsible for the child as well. Nail his ass for child support.



No the hard choices begin before the sex. Choices like, what the hell do I need to do to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Again, the hedonists of the world cringe at the words 'personal responsibility'. Be responsible BEFORE you are forced to go down that road. Murder should not be condoned because you made poor life decisions.



Yes, thanks for Bio 101 cliffs notes. I took that in grade school.



Don't blame social services for the problems of the world. Maybe if drugs weren't a liberal cause celebre then maybe drug abuse would be a little less prevalent, but drug abuse is cool. Let's legalize and toke up. Oh, and you admit couples are waiting to adopt. I thought it was the other way around, or so that's what I've been told.


So your solution to the problem of hedonism is to inflict children upon them if they err? One would think that hedonists should be the last people to have children around for those who truly value children's welfare. . .oh.

It should be legal, but stritly monitered. If a hooker wants an abortion, it was her bad decision. Theres a lot more but lets not flame.

We're still using the dictionary definition of "responsibility", right?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/responsibility

Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: ri-"spän(t)-s&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/responsible

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong

I'm failing to see how you can say abortion is a cop-out on responsibility unless you've pre-defined abortion that way, because the dictionary certainly doesn't agree with your warped definition.
This is helping your cause?
Yes.

Please show how abortion is a cop-out on responsibility.

i depends if the federal government would set a law in my favor.......so "Maybe"

I personally feel abortion should be legal, but thats a completely different debate. I guess it all depends on what the people want.

Just curious on what people think of this issue of weather or not U.S. states should decide on the abortion issue.
The weather has nothing to do with abortion, whether or not you believe so.

It should be legal, but stritly monitered. If a hooker wants an abortion, it was her bad decision. Theres a lot more but lets not flame.
So you want to see hookers raising children.

I'm not trying to spark a flame. I'm just pointing out the flaw in this "she made a bad decision" argument. Abortion is probably the most responsible decision that could possibly be made by the women who decide to get one. Either they are responsible enough to recognize conditions that will make it a bad thing for them to have a baby at that time, or they are responsible enough to realize that they, as individuals, are simply not qualified to be a parent.

Let's talk about apples and oranges, shall we? Apple = Realities of pregnancy decisions. Orange = Your personal preferences. Two completely different things.

1) You ignore the fact that "murder" is a specific legal term, and it is not -- repeat, NOT -- applicable to abortion. When you call abortion "murder," you're just misusing the term "murder." It is nothing but meaningless hyperbole.

2) You persist in comparing abortion to crimes -- murder, illegal drug use, etc. Abortion is not a crime. So this is just more meaningless hyperbole.

3) All your remarks about how women should conduct themselves sexually is nothing but your personal preference. Unfortunately for you, nobody else in the world cares what you think about how they should be having sex.


Women and men. It still does take some sperm and an egg to create a child via sex. Both are equally responsible for the decisions they make in life. I understand that people want the sex and could care less about future ramifications of it. The personal egotistical pleasure of the moment does far outweigh the rights of the child that will be murdered as a result of the act.


4) Likewise, your assertion that abortion is not a responsible decision is nothing but that -- your assertion. Just because it's a decision you don't like, that doesn't make it irresponsible. And like your morality, nobody cares what you think about how they should be responsible, either.

Ahh, I see so you're using moral relativism to defend your arguments. Morality is a personal decision. What I find moral is different from what you find moral, and both are equally good. The societal impact of these decisions have no bearing, neither does the general consensus of society.

The problem obviously lays with education. European's are much less prudent about when kids should/could/would become sexually active. Hell, 16 and STILL a virgin. Damn - what a looser. ;) Anyhow, our pregnancy rates at that age are muck lower than in the states. Personally I know 1 girl out of hundrets I went to school and uni with, who had a child at the age of 17. And I grew up in country-side Switzerland. ;) The reason is simple: neither teachers nor parents have problems talking about sex, starting at 13 or 14. Once you wanna get laid...you at least know how to prevent pregnancy and STD. Well, yeah, maybe a few years later you might regret that you started out so early...but at least you won't be marked for live for that!

I say: free condoms at every school!

So your solution to the problem of hedonism is to inflict children upon them if they err? One would think that hedonists should be the last people to have children around for those who truly value children's welfare. . .oh.

No. What I would like is personal responsibility to be more of a factor in modern society. There are few mechanisms in society to enforce it. However, since personal responsibility is such a dirty word, its far more palatable to accept concepts such as abortion, instead of having society look at itself in the mirror.

To sum it up, if people were more responsible about their actions then abortion would not be necessary. I know its not a perfect world, but too many people are willing to cop out from responsibility. They look at themselves in collective numbers and say ' Hey, its not me it's society. Since we can't change society, there's no reason for me to change. So I'm not even going to bother.'

So to answer your question, yes, these hedonists will have to look at what they've done. Grow up and mature. Accept what they've done and raise their child. If you still can't do that then give it up for adoption. The people who support abortion have no backbone to make that statement. They're too afraid of being branded as some women-hating monster, which is not the case.

Women and men. It still does take some sperm and an egg to create a child via sex. Both are equally responsible for the decisions they make in life. I understand that people want the sex and could care less about future ramifications of it. The personal egotistical pleasure of the moment does far outweigh the rights of the child that will be murdered as a result of the act.
So you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem and a hasty generalization. Further, you've compounded that by assuming the fetus has rights. There is no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being. There is no such thing as the right to be a parasite. And make no mistake about it: a fetus is an endobiological parasite. Whether or not you want to admit it--whether or not you think that's cold and callous--that is the reality of the situation.

So please--kill your idea that a person's rights are up for a vote or should be eliminated because of your aesthetic preferences.

No. What I would like is personal responsibility to be more of a factor in modern society. There are few mechanisms in society to enforce it. However, since personal responsibility is such a dirty word, its far more palatable to accept concepts such as abortion, instead of having society look at itself in the mirror.
Why do you keep running from demonstrating how abortion is not taking responsibility?

Why do you think anyone who advocates for a woman's right to an abortion is a hedonist?

Why can't you think for yourself?

So murder is fine in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Murder is never "fine". Of course, abortion is not murder, by any definition of the word. It is the ending of a pregnancy. If a fetus were removed intact from a woman's womb and incubated eslewhere, it would still be an abortion.

Nobody forced the woman to get pregnant. Unless it was rape, it was a consensual process.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Abortion is just a cop out of the responsibility.

If you cannot take the responsibilty, then getting out of it is the only good thing you can do. Abortion is no more a "cop out of the responsibility" than adoption is. In fact, adoption may be moreso, as there is actually a child that someone must now take care of.

Apples... Oranges... ya know... That's a nonsensical red herring argument which isn't even related to the discussion.

Actually, it is directly related. An abortion is an ending of a pregnancy - nothing more, nothing less. A woman decides that her organs will not be used against her will. This is logically related to a person who decides that their organs will not be used against their will to save another person.

The woman had no problem consenting to the sex.

And I have no problem consenting to driving. But I don't consent to any accident that happens, nor do I consent to not having treatment if it happens.

If she doesn't want a baby there is CONTRACEPTION.

Indeed. Of course, contraception is not 100%. Many women who must resort to abortion were using contraception.

No, I'm saying that her child has every right to exist as much as she does. Her actions, as well as her partner, created life.

She does not have the right to use the body of another against that person's will in order to exist. If the embryo/fetus has the same rights she does, then it does not have rights to her body, and she can have it removed if she so chooses.

No the hard choices begin before the sex. Choices like, what the hell do I need to do to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Again, the hedonists of the world cringe at the words 'personal responsibility'. Be responsible BEFORE you are forced to go down that road. Murder should not be condoned because you made poor life decisions.

Nobody is condoning murder, nor is anyone condoning irresponsible choices. Strawman.

Yes, thanks for Bio 101 cliffs notes. I took that in grade school.

You asked a question. I answered it. If you didn't want the answer, you shouldn't have asked it.

Don't blame social services for the problems of the world.

I'm not. Social services are generally wonderful people who want to make a difference. I'm just pointing out that reality isn't as rosy as you would like it to be.

Oh, and you admit couples are waiting to adopt. I thought it was the other way around, or so that's what I've been told.

They are. But it is because they will only adopt healthy white infants - and there is a short supply of these infants up for adoption. Meanwhile, there are millions of children awaiting adoption - adoption that will most likley never happen for them. If the selfish couples who sit and wait for an infant would adopt a toddler or preteen or even a less healthy infant, there would be many less children awaiting adoption.

I think we should just have a centralised government.

I think we should just have a centralised government.

A centralized government works well enough for many countries, but the US is just far too large for it to work properly. I actually prefer a relatively large degree of centralization within my state (which is comparable in size, population, and economic strength to Belgium), but extreme decentralization on the Federal level.

No. What I would like is personal responsibility to be more of a factor in modern society. There are few mechanisms in society to enforce it. However, since personal responsibility is such a dirty word, its far more palatable to accept concepts such as abortion, instead of having society look at itself in the mirror.

To sum it up, if people were more responsible about their actions then abortion would not be necessary. I know its not a perfect world, but too many people are willing to cop out from responsibility. They look at themselves in collective numbers and say ' Hey, its not me it's society. Since we can't change society, there's no reason for me to change. So I'm not even going to bother.'

So to answer your question, yes, these hedonists will have to look at what they've done. Grow up and mature. Accept what they've done and raise their child. If you still can't do that then give it up for adoption. The people who support abortion have no backbone to make that statement. They're too afraid of being branded as some women-hating monster, which is not the case.

Since you put it that way, I'll bite.

Abortion is not necessarily an abdication of responsibility; in fact, it rarely is. Even in those cases where it is an abdication, it is still necessary, because of practical concerns.

Put simply, you seem to be under the impression that behind the stirrups of every aborter is some carefree hippie who got drunk or high and had a wild orgy without condoms. The truth is that for every one that might possibly fit that category, there are a hundred other women who are taking their decisions very responsibly. A mother of four already who can only afford three between herself and her husband's income is taking responsibility for her actions: she's doing what is in the best interest of her children and her husband. A woman who is physically too small to pass a baby and survive is taking responsibility for her actions, because she's doing what is in her interests of survival. A rape victim is taking responsibility for her actions, because she recognizes that she could never provide a child with the love that it needs, and recognizes further that if she can't, an overburdened foster system is highly unlikely to as well. Hell, even the stereotypical college student who's boyfriend's condom broke is taking responsibility for her actions, because by her actions she will ensure that she can make herself a responsible member of society in the future who can care for a baby. This is of course opposed to her status now which, lacking any clear means of financial support, might very well make her dependent upon the social outlets proponents of self-reliance like you tend to despise.

In short, I think you have an absurd measure of what constitutes responsibility. If you were to say we should punish a guy who gets drunk and makes an ass of himself at a party by fining him $25,000 for the next 18 years of his life, I would call you not just an idiot, but heir to the kingdom of idiots, as paying $500,000 or so for 20 years seems pretty unfair for one night's foolishness. But make the same fiduciary claim about pregnant women, and suddenly you are the paragon of civic virtue? Not in this life. Furthermore, I would also say that you seem to be proposing the abortive equivalent of a hurricane-evacuation plan predicated upon men sprouting wings and flying out of danger: if we lived in a society of angels, it might work. We, however, do not. We live in a society of fallible men, and the purpose of the law should be to maximize the flourishing of men in society in spite of their foibles, and to help them rise above their failings. I do not see at all how using children as punishment and effectively tying an economic millstone around the neck of a woman who, by chance, by accident, or heck, even by irresponsibility gets pregnant serves this purpose. All it does it lead to a lot of dead and failing women, which is hardly the model of parenthood I'd want to see children inflicted with.

The right to ownership of one's own person is one of the most fundamental rights a citizen possesses. No state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow slavery, just as no state should have the power to decide whether or not to allow abortion. Permitting slavery, like banning abortion, is a fundamental violation of rights that is not acceptable within the United States.
True, but one could argue that the fetus inside the body is not part of your body thus not making it an issue of ownership.

From another thread:

Everyone, please repeat after me...


Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.


There. Stop trying to control women's sexuality with threats of them having to put up with unwanted pregnancies and having their lives ruined just because they've been naughty and "consenting to sex means consenting to pregnancy" shit.

Man, this is the second thread I kill with the same post. Can anybody say "two birds with one stone"?

Ah, "The Kindness of Strangers,"-- gets right to the heart about why abortion should be looked at more closely. It used to be in the middle ages, when a woman had an unwanted child she would leave the baby by the roadside to die, hoping that someone would pick up the baby and raise it as their own. This at least is the legend. Creating a situation where there are massive amounts of unwanted children in society raises crime, murder, depression, and neglect. This is the a major cruel side effect of abortion. Less unwanted people means less crime and a more stable society.