Hey Pro Choice Folks, Defend This!

[FyredUp]

jkuhn22...

I am glad that you and your mom survived. But what makes you think you or anyone else should have the right to decide for any other family who is more important to the family?

Let's suppose we have a young couple with 2 young children. Then the news comes that she is pregnant again, but as the pregnancy developes there is trouble with the baby that is life threatening to both mom and the baby. An abortion done in a medical setting by a skilled and trained doctor gives a good survival rate to the mom. Giving birth has a high chance of killing one or both of them. So to recap...continue the pregnancy and risk everything or abort and be there for the kids you already had and your husband. Maybe some would make the same decision your mom did, and maybe some would decide to abort and be there for sure for the family already alive. Either way THEY decided not you or some religion or the government.

I just shake my head at the fact that so many in this country want to deprive people of their rights under the law. Given any other circumstance you would be wringing your hands, or marching in the streets if the government tried to meddle in your private affairs. Unless you are the mother or father involved in the decision to abort it is frankly none of your business.

FyredUp

[Firetacoma1]

Do you have reason to believe it DOES occur in the US?

Do the US and the UK have the same laws on abortion, especially late-term?

You of all people I wouldn't expect this statement without all the facts. Some cop eh?

[DaSharkie]

Do you have reason to believe it DOES occur in the US?

Do the US and the UK have the same laws on abortion, especially late-term?

You of all people I wouldn't expect this statement without all the facts. Some cop eh?

I have done OB/Gyn rotations and I can tell you that it is done and a lot more frequently than you might like.

Every mother with competant pre-natal care is offered an Alpha Feto-protein test. This is performed to determine if there is a chromosomal anomaly with the fetus; especially Downe's Syndrome.

Thing is that there is no way of determining how affected the child will be until about 2 years of age. Yet abortion is offered (and often accepted) to these mothers by a large number of providers. The offer is taken up by many mothers as well.

It does go on, and the empiric evidence is there - regardless of any evidence based study that may or may not have been completed.

[tbonetrexler]

Everyone also never seems to know that roe v wade is settled law. You cannot overturn the ruling. The new case that you would have to reverse is Casey v Planned Parenthood. And the Court will never overturn it. Chief Justice Roberts (the swing vote really) swore, while under oath in senate confirmation hearings, that he would not overturn precedent law. Casey vs. Planned Parenthood is precedent law.

Another thing to think about is that the law is not always morally right. look at sex offender laws. Most people could make a moral argument that they should be put to death. yet it is not a charge in which one faces the eath pentelty.

And as i said before, legal abortion is the law in this country and will likely be the law for years to come. A womans right to chose what to do with her body is one of her protected rights and cannot be violated.

[ChicagoFF]

Everyone also never seems to know that roe v wade is settled law.

Another thing to think about is that the law is not always morally right. look at sex offender laws. Most people could make a moral argument that they should be put to death. yet it is not a charge in which one faces the eath pentelty.

And as i said before, legal abortion is the law in this country and will likely be the law for years to come. A womans right to chose what to do with her body is one of her protected rights and cannot be violated.

I don't think that anyone was arguing whether it was a law or not. I think the thread was started to debate the morality of the law. If your only comment on the issue is "It's the law" then you really don't add much to the debate, do you?

[ChicagoFF]

But they don't have to because you can get an abortion. I mean this is just my opinion on abortions and I know there is someone out there who will disagree but I still think its their own choice, you want to have an abortion then ok.

And is this casual, throw away line the advice you would give a sixteen year old daughter? "Do what you want, have unprotected sex, don't worry about anything. If you get pregnant you can always get an abortion. And you can get as many as you need honey, so do what feels good. Have fun at the prom!" Ever think about writting a parenting book?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I don't think that anyone was arguing whether it was a law or not. I think the thread was started to debate the morality of the law. If your only comment on the issue is "It's the law" then you really don't add much to the debate, do you?

Amen.

And people also don't often realize that Roe v. Wade is actually a state's rights case more than it is an abortion case.

[FyredUp]

ChicagoFF...

The morality issue is with how we as a society and as parents view sex and how we educate our young regarding it. The abortion issue is a side bar to the larger issue.

I had a strong heart to heart with my 16 year old son regarding sex and consequences. I made it clear to him that if he engaged in sex with his girlfriend and got her pregnant his life as he knows it would be over. I made it clear the baby would be HIS financial responsibility, not mine. I also made it clear that virtually every waking moment not in school would be spent working to support his baby. The other thing we discussed was disease and how that would mess him up.

Parents need to be responsible enough to teach their kids about sex and birth control as well as abstinance. It is not the schools job, it is not the teachers job. It is the parents job to raise decent kids who become decent adults.

FyredUp

[tbonetrexler]

I don't think that anyone was arguing whether it was a law or not. I think the thread was started to debate the morality of the law. If your only comment on the issue is "It's the law" then you really don't add much to the debate, do you?

If you would have read my entire post instead of just skimming you may have seen this little tidbit:

Another thing to think about is that the law is not always morally right. look at sex offender laws. Most people could make a moral argument that they should be put to death. yet it is not a charge in which one faces the eath pentelty.

Read the enitre post before you bash on it next time ok?

And if you think my comment did not add much to this debate, what did yours add?

[ChicagoFF]

If you would have read my entire post instead of just skimming you may have seen this little tidbit:
Read the enitre post before you bash on it next time ok?

And if you think my comment did not add much to this debate, what did yours add?

I did read the entire post. That was why that little "tidbit" was specifically included in my reply while other lines were not. I included it to show that the one time you brought up the main point of this thread, morality, your point was so what if a law is not moral , its still the law. The post was asking for strong abortion rights supporters to defend a moraly repugnant practice, not tell everyone the obvious - it's the law.

[tbonetrexler]

So abortion is morally repugnant to you. Obviously not every one believes that or abortion would be illegal. Therefore what is morally wrong to you is not morally wrong to others. Personally, i believe that forcing a woman to carry a child that she does not wish to carry is morally wrong.

Most (if not all) pro-life supporters are basing thier idea on religous principles. Such principles have no place in the laws of this country or have you forgotten that the constitution strictly pohibits the union of church and state.

But in the end, there truly is no compromise. it is either one extreme or the other, and neither side will ever convince the other. Therefore this is my last post in this thread (barring extenuating circumstances, of course ) because we will just keep arguing until the webteam bans us, and i dont feel like getting kicked off this board.

[Jasper 45]

Most (if not all) pro-life supporters are basing thier idea on religous principles. Such principles have no place in the laws of this country or have you forgotten that the constitution strictly pohibits the union of church and state.

Well, then it must be all right to steal, or murder another person, or wrong to accept the concept of marriage. After all, these are all rules founded in religion. Let’s get rid of them. With your philosophy, they have no business in our legal system anyway. Your statement may hold bearing with the religious whacks of the far right, but it is not accurate. I know more than just a few people (non-churchgoers) who view abortion as a birth control method as wrong. Using abortion as a method of birth control is about as pathetic as it gets, and shows nothing but a lack of respect for human life. It also shows a selfishness that is beyond words. There are plenty of options to prevent pregnancy that are foolproof.
I don’t think you will find any reasonable person oppose abortion when the mothers life is in imminent danger, or she is a victim of rape, or incest. You will never convince me it is acceptable as a form of birth control, however. That concept has nothing to do with religion, either. If you have ever seen an ultra-sound, you realize very quickly that that is a human being in there, and not just a “fetus”.
Again though, as was stated earlier, roe vs. wade is more of a states right issue than it is abortion.

[ChicagoFF]

So abortion is morally repugnant to you. Obviously not every one believes that or abortion would be illegal. Therefore what is morally wrong to you is not morally wrong to others. Personally, i believe that forcing a woman to carry a child that she does not wish to carry is morally wrong.

The thread was about aborting a child because it does not meet your expectations of a "perfect" baby. Cleft lip? Kill it. Club foot? Kill it. Brown eyes - not blue? Kill it. If this is not morally repugnant and the very worst of eugenics than there is something seriously wrong with our country.

Most (if not all) pro-life supporters are basing thier idea on religous principles. Such principles have no place in the laws of this country or have you forgotten that the constitution strictly pohibits the union of church and state.

I have never been baptized, and outside of weddings or a funneral have never set foot in a church as anything other than a tourist. I have never read the bible cover to cover and just got my first copy from my cousin, a priest, because we enjoy arguing about things and I needed some ammo against him! I appreciate religion and respect believers, but it has never been a part of my life. To say that all people who have a set of morals, a firm idea of right and wrong, are doing so because of religion is just flat out wrong. P.S. Nowhere in the constitution will you find a separation of church and state.

But in the end, there truly is no compromise. it is either one extreme or the other, and neither side will ever convince the other. Therefore this is my last post in this thread (barring extenuating circumstances, of course ) because we will just keep arguing until the webteam bans us, and i dont feel like getting kicked off this board.

I am not the standard bearer of the right and am certainly flexable on this issue. As has been brought up, cases of rape, incest, or the mothers life are one thing. Using it as a crutch to support irresponsible behavior or outright eugenics is another.

[fflynn17]

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the United States was formed on the basis of individual rights. Any law that attempts to take away a woman's absolute right to her own body should be unconstitutional.

In this article: Judge Was Right to Declare "Partial-Birth" Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
substitute "possibly disabled fetus" for partial-birth.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

ChicagoFF...

The morality issue is with how we as a society and as parents view sex and how we educate our young regarding it. The abortion issue is a side bar to the larger issue.

I had a strong heart to heart with my 16 year old son regarding sex and consequences. I made it clear to him that if he engaged in sex with his girlfriend and got her pregnant his life as he knows it would be over. I made it clear the baby would be HIS financial responsibility, not mine. I also made it clear that virtually every waking moment not in school would be spent working to support his baby. The other thing we discussed was disease and how that would mess him up.

Parents need to be responsible enough to teach their kids about sex and birth control as well as abstinance. It is not the schools job, it is not the teachers job. It is the parents job to raise decent kids who become decent adults.

FyredUp

How about, "Sex before marriage is wrong"?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So abortion is morally repugnant to you. Obviously not every one believes that or abortion would be illegal. Therefore what is morally wrong to you is not morally wrong to others. Personally, i believe that forcing a woman to carry a child that she does not wish to carry is morally wrong.

Most (if not all) pro-life supporters are basing thier idea on religous principles. Such principles have no place in the laws of this country or have you forgotten that the constitution strictly pohibits the union of church and state.

But in the end, there truly is no compromise. it is either one extreme or the other, and neither side will ever convince the other. Therefore this is my last post in this thread (barring extenuating circumstances, of course ) because we will just keep arguing until the webteam bans us, and i dont feel like getting kicked off this board.

"Every life is sacred" is not a religious principal.

I guess I can put you down as supporting convenience abortion in order to get the perfect baby?

[Bones42]

George (and others), simple question....who/what says sex before marriage is wrong?

I know a couple that have lived together for close to 10 years, they just never got married. Without asking them, you would never know if they were married or not (other than not having a common name). Why is it wrong for them to have relations?

Really curious as to your answer, however I am guessing it will have some religious basis to it.

[RoughRider]

Bones,

Yes, it’s biblical. The book of Ephesians is about relationships and how a man should treat a woman. I don't expect you to share my beliefs or benchmarks.

Just curious, are you saying anyone who follows a Christian value system is wrong?

I don't expect anyone to share my beliefs or the moralistic bar I set for myself. By the same token when others try to force me live with a much lower moralistic bar (In my view) it rubs me the wrong way. We live in a world that celebrates the right to kill the most vulnerable of all, the unborn child. We killed over 1 million babies a year practicing abortion since 1972. Woo Hoo raise the roof!! I think it’s a sin, I think its wrong but I won’t demand that you agree(not saying you do, roe v. wade does). I support a woman’s right to choose but I also strongly believe in the sanctity of life. So finding a compromise is the challenge.

[tbonetrexler]

"Every life is sacred" is not a religious principal.

I guess I can put you down as supporting convenience abortion in order to get the perfect baby?

I know that i said that the last post was my last in this forum, but George now you ticked me off.

I NEVER said that i was in favor of using abortion in this way. I never said a d*mn think about the story you posted. I only pointed out logical facts (ok i went a little over the line with the religion comment i apologize for that). It is not morally right to force a woman to deliver a baby that she does not want to deliver, physical defects or not.

DO NOT put words into my mouth. I believe in the principal of the democracy, where a woman (or any person) can do what they want to themselves. One could even argue that a fetus in th ewomb is not a life, mearly the potential for life. So really if there is not life then how can it be sacred? But i guess "every potential life is sacred" isint a very good slogan is it?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I know that i said that the last post was my last in this forum, but George now you ticked me off.

I NEVER said that i was in favor of using abortion in this way. I never said a d*mn think about the story you posted. I only pointed out logical facts (ok i went a little over the line with the religion comment i apologize for that). It is not morally right to force a woman to deliver a baby that she does not want to deliver, physical defects or not.

DO NOT put words into my mouth. I believe in the principal of the democracy, where a woman (or any person) can do what they want to themselves. One could even argue that a fetus in th ewomb is not a life, mearly the potential for life. So really if there is not life then how can it be sacred? But i guess "every potential life is sacred" isint a very good slogan is it?

As someone pointed out, after looking at an ultrasound of even a very young unborn baby, it is virtually impossible to argue, factually, that a baby in the womb is not a life.

Sooooo, if it is morally wrong to make a woman carry a pregnancy with birth defects to term, then, in your world, it is morally acceptable for a woman to kill a baby with birth defects.

Can't have it both ways.