Umm, abortion?
the other day i found out that obama is pro-choice. Im not of age to vote and thats why i JUST found out. Im not sure of McCains view of abortion but all i know is that at the moment of conception a human is thriving and we have no right to kill it and technically its against the law.
Almost ironic, the law is doing the opposite of the government.
Almost ironic, the law is doing the opposite of the government.
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by chevellemouse on -
Well McCain seems to be pro life, but the best example I could give to show why abortion could serve a valid purpose is this, Imagine if a 13 year old girl was raped by her father repeatedly and got pregnant...should she be forced into a situation at that young of an age that could actually further complicate the pregnancy due to her body not being fully developed? This was the question proposed to Sarah Palin and she replied that should would try to counsel the girl into having the child. I do believe some people abuse the right to choice just because they aren't ready, but in a circumstance like that the should be a right to choose.
-
Permalink Reply by nimasco on -
i am personally pro-life and used to argue with people about it but then i matured. all the two politicians are doing is offering a choice and thankfully not condemning people to eternal damnation. if a person doesnt like the idea of an abortion then they shouldn't have one.
i think something like this was posted already though.
-
Permalink Reply by Dylan Angeron on -
thanks guys
-
Permalink Reply by Atticus Eros on -
I respectfully disagree. When has it ever been stated that abortion is against the law? The guidelines are clearly stated in Roe v. Wade based on which trimester one is in during the preganancy, plus to deny the right of choice to a citizen when it is applicable is a violation of one's right of privacy.
AE
-
Permalink Reply by Xeranar on -
"Technically it is against the law" is actually not accurate. Roe v. Wade granted the privacy to have an abortion and since an abortion is a medical procedure agreed to by a consenting patient and a willing doctor it isn't a crime.
I respect your decision to view a cluster of cells as a person, I also respect my choice to let women do what they wish with their bodies. The federal standard held for abortion has been officially that since a fetus before the first trimester is a non-person it has no rights. After that you need doctor permission and by the 3rd it is technically a crime, but even then I have yet to see anybody prosecuted under it. Abortions are not the most pleasant thing for anybody but it is a woman's right.
Maybe you should check out the laws of Roe v. Wade and abortion laws in general. I think you're just a bit misinformed about the way abortion laws apply.
Being anti-abortion or pro-choice is your right, but once you are starting to legislate based largely on religious beliefs and attempting to take away rights granted by the constitution things need to be handled. This is exactly why the anti-abortion coalitions have yet to make anymore headway than they did thirty years ago. The country isn't interested in what a minority has to say over an amendment that can't be changed without another amendment.
If your religion damns a soul to hell for aborting it, maybe there is something wrong with the belief system in general? I say that with the most gracious respect to all religions who believe this but if Christianity (which is what we're largely arguing here) says according to St. Aquinas that our good deeds decide if we make it into heaven or not and that the unbaptized are doomed to an eternity in hell then I think we have a strong conflict of dogma here.
I take a personal belief as a mixed-religion type that aborted children souls simply get recycled...but call me a crazy...
-
Permalink Reply by Brer Bear on -
In my opinion u should only allow abortions if it was "forced love" or Rape, something like that
-
Permalink Reply by Sirius on -
there are always more options than just pro-life and pro-choice. what about something that helps prevent such things from happening? in the case of rape, i can't think of anything to do early for it, and my view is that it's ok for abortion in the instance of rape. however, all other instances, i'm pro-life. the child should live. it didn't ask to be conceived. but back on the topic of prevention. i'm not talking about condoms and birth control. what if people (at about the age of 16 or so) were required to take a type of test. this test would evaluate the person and see if he/she would be a good father/mother if they were to have a child. for instance, a well-educated, working, man/woman of 25 would probably be accepted, among other pre-requisites. but a high-school dropout who continuously spends the money they are generously given on drugs and alcohol should not be permitted to have children. of course this test isn't full-proof, but you could get a general idea. now, if you pass the test, your body would be left alone. if you fail the test, you would (required by law) have some kind of birth control set within you. something simple, but something that can't be removed by the patient. simple so it's minimally painful and quick. and you can't forget to use it like a condom or birth control pill. now, if you take the test later, this can be removed with the same simplicity, but only by a doctor or other properly trained personnel. this entire option would solve the problem of abortion and the problem of unprepared or abusive parents (once again, not full-proof). the major downfall would be the fact of fewer adoptions. finally, the other option i've considered is in the early stages, have the zygote removed and replaced within a willing mother. soon, technology could be able to freeze the cell reproduction cycle temporarily until a willing mother is ready to accept the zygote. (which would solve the adoption problem). please tell me what you think of these ideas. don't hold back on criticism.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben on -
im not gonna lie, the US tried this in the 1920's. its called eugenics, and Hitler did it too. i greatly respect your desire to protect the quality of life for the individual and for society as a whole, but the problem with rape is rape, not the ensuing baby. the baby does cause problems, but the problem that really ought to be stopped in this situation is rape, and rape is not stopped through eugenics.
apart from that, this limitation of personal freedom leaves the government with far more power than it ever deserves. but thats another discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by nimasco on
-
once the gov't regulates who can have children and under what circumstances you no longer have control over your own body.
Videos
Groups
-
Progressive Veterans
77 members
-
Next Human Evolution
28 members
-
South East Region
39 members
-
Street Fighters of Publi…
8 members
© 2012 Created by Fight With Tools.
