Abortion Questions

[b&wpac4]

I shall not ever sugar coat what they really are a baby-butcher. If pro-death/pro-abortion people get offended it is because they know they are wrong and they know they have been outed. Anti-abortion/Pro-lifers get called names all the time why don't you give that little speech to your pro-abortion/pro-death allies.

I find your lack of understanding most interesting.

 

[PassionFruit]

I shall not ever sugar coat what they really are a baby-butcher. If pro-death/pro-abortion people get offended it is because they know they are wrong and they know they have been outed. Anti-abortion/Pro-lifers get called names all the time why don't you give that little speech to your pro-abortion/pro-death allies.

Yeah, when you use emotionally charged terms, you make it harder for people to take you seriously.

 

[Jade Margery]

I shall not ever sugar coat what they really are a baby-butcher. If pro-death/pro-abortion people get offended it is because they know they are wrong and they know they have been outed. Anti-abortion/Pro-lifers get called names all the time why don't you give that little speech to your pro-abortion/pro-death allies.

I find your lack of understanding most interesting.

So do I. I am curious, did you write the list of questions yourself, or did you copy it from somewhere? Your writing style, inflections, phrasing, and grammar has changed if the former is the case. That is kind of odd. Not really important, I'm just sensitive to writing styles.

If you don't play nicer though, you can be the first person I've ever reported. Nobody here has called you any names or anything you did not wish to be called.

 

[b&wpac4]

It is, quite honestly, a horrible sales pitch.

 

[aimejl]

response 1 of now many...I've a miscarriage and I think about that baby everyday, I miss being given the opportunity to hold that child, to be with that child everyday and so many other things.

 

[b&wpac4]

response 1 of now many...I've a miscarriage and I think about that baby everyday, I miss being given the opportunity to hold that child, to be with that child everyday and so many other things.

I'm sorry for your loss.

That said, it still doesn't make any sense to desire to enrage those that are on the other side of this debate with name-calling and holier-than-thou statements. Honestly, you lose as soon as you do this as people tune you out. You become the woman in the subway station that just keeps shouting at random passersby. Nobody pays her any attention because of her behavior. Somebody may offer to help her, but if she has something important to say, the message is lost.

 

[Jade Margery]

response 1 of now many...I've a miscarriage and I think about that baby everyday, I miss being given the opportunity to hold that child, to be with that child everyday and so many other things.

*pat pat* I am very sorry for your loss. It wasn't easy for my mother either, but I do not think it weighs on her as it seems to on you. Of course, she already had four kids, and then two more. You must understand though, that not everyone is going to feel the same way you do, or believe the same things.

 

[aimejl]

I saw these questions and thought they were interesting and I wanted to prove how horrid and sickening pregnancy termination really is. Forgive me for not posting the link. Also instead of looking at my writing style, inflections, phrasing, and grammar please stick to the topic.

 

[aimejl]

I don't take anyone who is pro-abortion seriously because in my opinion they have no heart. sorry if that sounds harsh but that is how I feel. I posted this to show that very thing. The murder of an unborn child is wrong and in my eyes completely unacceptable. A more appropriate term in my case would be anti-abortion.

 

[b&wpac4]

I don't take anyone who is pro-abortion seriously because in my opinion they have no heart. sorry if that sounds harsh but that is how I feel. I posted this to show that very thing. The murder of an unborn child is wrong and in my eyes completely unacceptable. A more appropriate term in my case would be anti-abortion.

It doesn't sound harsh, it sounds foolish. How can you hope to counter the arguments if you refuse to listen to what they have to say? The most powerful resource you have is your mind. Turning it off only hurts you.

 

[Jade Margery]

I saw these questions and thought they were interesting and I wanted to prove how horrid and sickening pregnancy termination really is. Forgive me for not posting the link. Also instead of looking at my writing style, inflections, phrasing, and grammar please stick to the topic.

*tiny glee* I like being able to recognize people by writing, it's a little hobby of mine. If I know the person well, I can even tell how they are feeling in a chatlog by the length of time it takes them to post a message as simple as 'Hello'.

Seriously though, you should really provide source links for words that aren't yours. I'm not attacking you for it, just suggesting. It's good internet etiquette.

Anyway, I am quite happy to remain on topic, and awaiting links to the examples mentioned in your questions whenever you choose to present them. I also worked very hard on my reply to you, so I would appreciate a respectful response.

 

[PassionFruit]

I don't take anyone who is pro-abortion seriously because in my opinion they have no heart. sorry if that sounds harsh but that is how I feel. I posted this to show that very thing. The murder of an unborn child is wrong and in my eyes completely unacceptable. A more appropriate term in my case would be anti-abortion.

Then there was no point in you posting here.

 

[Washington]

Then answer them! I am anti-abortion that is that.

Nah. You're simply anti-choice.

 

[MoonLancer]

I don't take anyone who is pro-abortion seriously because in my opinion they have no heart. sorry if that sounds harsh but that is how I feel. I posted this to show that very thing. The murder of an unborn child is wrong and in my eyes completely unacceptable. A more appropriate term in my case would be anti-abortion.

good luck with those answers... LOL. you derail your own thread using loaded language. is this what you wanted?

 

[jayem]

(22)How can abortion be a “fundamental right” if it is not found in the text of the Constitution and was never recognized as a right in American history prior to Roe v. Wade?

I'll expand a bit on this.

If you've actually read the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, this question is answered. Justice Blackmun discusses the history of abortion laws in some detail. Abortion was NOT against the law in most states until the mid to late 19th century. It was a commonly performed, although risky procedure in the pre-antibiotic days. In fact, laws forbidding abortion were passed not to protect the fetus, but to protect the mother from the risk of septic abortion. Furthermore, there is another important Constitutional question that can be asked. Where does the Constitution say, or even imply, that a fetus is considered a "person," with 14th Amendment rights. It was admitted by the appellee, Texas AG Henry Wade, that there was no precedent in federal law for a fetus to be considered as a person, in the legal sense. This is pasted directly from Section IX of Roe:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

The court also noted that the 9th Amendment explicity states that rights exist, even though they are not specifically mentioned. And that they belong to the people, not the states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You're entitled to disagree, but this part of Roe was decided on firm Constitutional grounds. Read the whole decision for yourself.


ROE v. WADE

 

[lawtonfogle]

(1) "Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?"

While I do believe in some fundamentals in regards to privacy (no one should have access to my sex life... or lack there of , unless I say so), and I do believe in that some forms of abortion should be legal (not all), I do not agree with the reasoning of privacy. I believe that the actual argument is bodily integrity.

(2) "If what you say is true and the issue isn’t really abortion but a woman’s right to control her own body, why doesn’t your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren’t laws against those just as restrictive to a woman’s right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body, as laws against abortion are?"

Actually, there is a good argument that many drugs should be legalized and treated like alcohol (you are still responsible for crimes you commit and are not allowed to engage in activity which can harm others (drive)). But the truth is that a woman cannot do what ever she wants with her body, she cannot use it rape someone, for example. So the question becomes which side does abortion fall under. Is it something allowed, or something not allowed. And that issue is answered by observing and considering our method of deciding what is or is not allowed (rights and such things). I think bodily integrity makes a decent argument for abortion.

(3) "Why is it that the very people who say the government should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?"

I think the idea is not that the government should by defacto pay for abortions, but that as a medical service, they should be offered to all. The idea is not that government should stay out of abortion (at least, I think it should not), but that the ways it does interact with it are different, just like I think the government should allowed common forms of abortion (such as the morning after pill, though calling it abortion can be a lesson is semantics) but should ban others (namely IDX's, aka partial birth abortions).

(4) "Abortion advocates say they are in business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are you doing?"

You are protecting their bodily integrity. In fact, if there was a way to protect their bodily integrity without killing the child, I think such a route should be taken, and the killing outlawed (and such a route exist with late term abortions, and as such, late term abortions should be outlawed).

(5) "Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does it have a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has it’s own immune system? Why is it male about half the time?"

I do not use this reasoning, and disagree with it. What is true is that the child is dependant upon the mothers life, and for much of the gestation, any form of removing this dependancy results in death.

(6) "If we use the absence of brain waves to determine that a person’s life has ended, why shouldn’t we use the presence of brain waves to determine that someone’s life has begun?"

As to away to define sentience, this is a decent way to do it, and thus I do agree that once brain activity begins, the child is a sentient being. Of course, this does not change the issue of bodily integrity.

Also, as a side note, one can be dead but have brain waves, an example is where a person has lost a majority of their brain structure (say to cancer), but they still have brain waves. Such people are often considered legally dead. There is an entire idea of information death, where one is only truely dead once the structure of the brain is destroyed (either due to decay or trauma), though there are cases of life 'restarting' where some decay was experienced, but the brain rebuilt itself. Such a case one teacher used as a story is where a little girl, or around 13, had to have a large portion of her brain cut out (I forget why, it may have even been a acident which destroyed it). She lost all sense of self, but survived and started over as a toddler (mentally). She then developed at a slightly increased speed to an otherwise normal adult, though her mental capabilities will always be less than if she had her entire brain. Of course, such an example may be nothing short of a miracle (or as science says, a unique case which one is not likely going to ever repeat).

(7) "Since you say that your interest is in protecting women, what is your position on these at home, do-it-yourself, abortion kits now being offered by many abortion advocates? Also, do you feel it’s ethical for them to advise women to avoid the gynecologist’s office for not only these procedures, but regular check-ups as well?"

(

"We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?"

I don't know of such kits, and off the top of my head, I can guess a few problems with it.

(9) "Pro-abortionists try to justify their actions by saying that, while the unborn may be human, it’s not a ‘person’. Can you give a detailed description of the differences?"

I think the difference is semantical, and my argument works regardless of which it is. I personally consider the unborn a person, though they are not currently defined as a legal person.

(10) "Pro-abortionists base a significant part of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a description of what it means for someone to be viable?"

To have a reasonable chance of surviving. Of course I do not have the mathematical exacts, but then neither does many areas of law. Consider inappropriate contentography for a second. Where is the exact point where nudity (which is legal for children to be exposed to) crosses over to inappropriate contentogaphy (which is not legal to expose children to)? It is not rigourously defined. We have the Miller test, but even that is very subjective. Not all definitions have a clear cut, though a clear cut may exist and just need hypercomputation to reach (and I just lost 99.9% of those reading my post... don't worry about hypercomputation except to say it is the ability to computer things that no human or computer currently can (or may ever be able to do)).

(11) "Does it bother you that abortion is legal after the point where medical science has evidence that the unborn child feels pain?"

I think that a woman who chooses to abort instead of prematurely birth the child is likely fooling herself. Of course, there is some definition into what pain is. Even single cell organisms react and attempt to flee form environments which are dangerous to them. Get an ameoba, and put a drop of poison near it (some work much better than others), and once it contacts it, it will start moving the other way. But is this pain. When does cellular reactiosn become pain (in case you needed another case of not being well defined).

(12) "Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they then fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?"

Depends upon what you mean by totally informed consent. If it is actualy informed consent, I see no problem. But they should not be lied to, and in some of the cases, that is what people were fighting to do. As for why do others fight against things which are not lies, but informed consent, it is likely because they have not fully logically worked out their posisiton.

(13) "What rights do you feel a father should have in an abortion decision?"

None. But there is the issue of child support, and I am currently thinking on the issue, but it seems that if the woman's act of sex does not give implied consent to the child living in her body, then the man's act of sex does not give informed consent to support said baby if born.

(14) "Why is it that pro-abortionists fight so viciously to keep parents from having a say in whether their minor daughter has an abortion or not?"

In fact, one could argue that a child should not have a choice about abortions, but be forced to get them (since they cannot consent to have a baby inside them). The fact that the child is given a choice is a bit of logical consession while we work around the issue. What it seems to come down to is that some forms of consent are so powerful, that even children possess them. Of course, once we start talking about children and consent, things tend to go downhill, so I'll stop here.

(15) "If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against medical standards as legitimate out-patient surgery clinics?"

I am not sure of your question. If you are saying that some pro-abortionist think that the clinics should not be kept up to medical standards, they I say they are just being stupid.

(16) "Let’s look at a hypothetical situation: two women become pregnant on the same day; six and a half months later woman A has a premature, yet healthy, baby; woman B is still pregnant; a week later each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?"

The baby in woman B is still violating her bodily integrity. Of course, if there is an ability to cease that violation without resulting in killing the child, that route should be taken, and at six 1/2 months, I believe such a route likely exist. If woman's B baby is clearly non-viable (aka, a miscarriage) then I do not think there should be an issue with how the miscarried unborn is removed except in concerns to the womans health.

(17) "If it became absolutely clear to you that the unborn child is a living human being, would you then favor outlawing abortion?"

I am already in favor of outlawing any abortion we have alternatives to, and researching it so we have more alternatives and can outlaw more abortions. Hopefully one day, all abortions will be outlawed because there will be a different way of allowing the woman to remove the child, no matter the stage of pregnacy, and yet not kill the child.

(18) "Why don’t we each look at the downside of our respective positions? Have you ever thought about what the ramifications are if you are wrong?"

Considering I take a middle posisiton where I try to work with both sets of principals, I try to make my argument work regardless which side is right.

(19) "When it was first discovered that the brain cells of aborted babies were a potential treatment for Parkinson’s Disease, the ABC NEWS program, NIGHTLINE, carried a story about a woman who’s father suffered with this malady. She wanted to be impregnated with the sperm of her father, for the purpose of creating a child, which would then be aborted, and it’s parts used to treat him. Do you see anything wrong with this?"

Yes. I do not see something inherently wrong as far as the incest, but instead I think we can customize cells without having to grow a fetus and abort it. In other words, we just need a single cell.

(20) "Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion for absolutely any reason, such as sex selection, selective reduction, or job promotion? If not, when not?"

In the end, there is only one reason for abortion, the violation of bodily integrity. Of course, a woman is allowed to choose what child is allowed, though sometimes the choice in and of itself may be wrong (such as it may be sexist).

(21) "I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I’m wrong. You want abortion to be legal right up to the moment of birth, in other words for all nine months of pregnancy; for any reason whatsoever, for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age, without parental consent, without even parental knowledge; and if she can’t pay for it, you think the taxpayer ought to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement?"

The abortion at any point. Ideally, I want no abortions, but that not being an option, I think all late term abortions should be banned. As to the tax payer money, medical services should be provided regardless of ability to pay. As to the involvement of the minor, I am still unsure as to why my reasoning allows a choice to not abortion, though emotionally I think she should have that source, and thus I am still devoting resources to figuring out this dilemma.

(22)How can abortion be a “fundamental right” if it is not found in the text of the Constitution and was never recognized as a right in American history prior to Roe v. Wade?

I think we have fundamental rights regardless if a piece of paper says they exist or not. For all the constitution is, if a right it truely fundamental, it does not depend if it is written in the constitution or not. Of course, I do not think there is a right to abortion, but I do think that currently, what rights we do have should allow for abortions in some cases.

Now, truthfully, did anyone read all of that or did I just waste a huge block of time?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I would like to say if you don't want to answer the questions don't post. I use pro-abortion because anyone who is "pro-choice" is also in my opinion pro-abortion.

One can be morally against something but at the same time think it should be legal.

 

[lawtonfogle]

baby butcher is actually quite accurate because pregnancy termination is butcher a baby and it results in the death of a living being so in essence pro-death is also quite accurate to use when debating this issue. My goal is to not only reduce the number of pregnancy terminations that are committed but ultimately the banning of pregnancy termination.

And pro-life could also be called baby-damnation because if you let some of those babies live, they will go to hell (unless you think God already sends babies to hell, in which case I am about to declare jihad on you right now, my not being a Muslim is irrelevant to my ability to do so). Of course, such responses are not being civil in our discussions, so if you want this to become a shouting match, then go ahead. But I was hoping of a intellectual discourse.

 

[Jade Margery]

Now, truthfully, did anyone read all of that or did I just waste a huge block of time?

*raises hand*

I did! Very well thought out it was, too.

 

[ArteestX]

Whew, that's a lot of questions, but despite my better judgment about getting involved in an online discussion on abortion, I'll try to answer honestly....

(1) "Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?"

I don't think any right is absolute. Even with the right to life, we kill people on death row all the time. Abortion is a complex situation where the rights of two individuals are at stake and there is no wonderful "everybody wins" solution.

(2) "If what you say is true and the issue isn’t really abortion but a woman’s right to control her own body, why doesn’t your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren’t laws against those just as restrictive to a woman’s right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body, as laws against abortion are?"

You're absolutely correct. I think the right to privacy should be extended to drugs and prostitution.

(3) "Why is it that the very people who say the government should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?"

I don't want the government to pay for them. I think it should be included in all insurance, but I don't think the government needs to be stuck with the bill.

(4) "Abortion advocates say they are in business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are you doing?"

Allowing women control over their own reproductive life and not have forced pregnancy imposed on them.

(5) "Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does it have a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has it’s own immune system? Why is it male about half the time?"

The fact that the fetus is part of the mother's body doesn't mean it doesn't have its own DNA, blood, immune system, etc. What that means is that the fetus is 100% entirely depenedent on the woman to be alive, not that it isn't a distinct being.

(6) "If we use the absence of brain waves to determine that a person’s life has ended, why shouldn’t we use the presence of brain waves to determine that someone’s life has begun?"

Life is so mysterious, there is no absolute scientific definition for it. But perhaps that definition could work. For me, even if you go with that definition, it still doesn't mean that abortion should be illegal, though.

(7) "Since you say that your interest is in protecting women, what is your position on these at home, do-it-yourself, abortion kits now being offered by many abortion advocates? Also, do you feel it’s ethical for them to advise women to avoid the gynecologist’s office for not only these procedures, but regular check-ups as well?"

Kits? I've never heard of that. I am all in favor for RU 486 and other pills that can induce an abortion. I don't think an abortion kit to allow untrained people to perform complex medical procedures is a good idea.

(8) "We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?"

The fetus, or unborn child. The fact that an unborn child can have procedures performed on it doesn't mean it has equal status as an adult. More on that later....

(9) "Pro-abortionists try to justify their actions by saying that, while the unborn may be human, it’s not a ‘person’. Can you give a detailed description of the differences?"

I think the idea is that "human" means it has the proper DNA, but a "person" means it has equal rights as an adult. I don't think that's a good way to phrase the debate, but I think that's the intention.

(10) "Pro-abortionists base a significant part of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a description of what it means for someone to be viable?"

That's not my argument, but "viable" means that the fetus/baby is able to survive on its own outside of the mother's womb, in that it can breathe for itself, has enough of its own blood, immunity, etc. to live, and so forth. That's what it means for someone to be viable.

(11) "Does it bother you that abortion is legal after the point where medical science has evidence that the unborn child feels pain?"

Of course it bothers me. Abortion itself bothers me. It's a horrible situation and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I still think it should be legal.

(12) "Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they then fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?"

There's nothing wrong with informed consent. There is something wrong with informed consent when it means using scare tactics and emotionally changed literature on someone in a vulnerable and nervous state. Some tactics of the pro-life side fall into this category, which is why pro-choice advocates tend to be against anything remotely resembling "informed consent."

(13) "What rights do you feel a father should have in an abortion decision?"

Again, very complex. As a man, I do think men don't have as many rights as women. If they don't want a child and the woman does, she ultimately decides. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she ultimately decides. It's a horrible situation and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I think ultimately it should be up to her. I hope she would consult the man, I hope she would consult her parents, spiritual advisor, best friend, and anyone else who could help. But ultimately she decides.

(14) "Why is it that pro-abortionists fight so viciously to keep parents from having a say in whether their minor daughter has an abortion or not?"

Because for those children who have wonderful parents, the child typically tells them. That is undoubtedly the ideal case (all else considered). But when a child doesn't have great parents, what then? What if she were molested by her father? Should a daughter be compelled to get consent from the father who did that to her? Doesn't seem right to me.

(15) "If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against medical standards as legitimate out-patient surgery clinics?"

I doubt pro-choice people are against medical standards. They probably don't want the same standards as you, so you'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about.

(16) "Let’s look at a hypothetical situation: two women become pregnant on the same day; six and a half months later woman A has a premature, yet healthy, baby; woman B is still pregnant; a week later each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?"

Because B is legally a fetus and A is legally a baby. Why is someone not allowed to drive by themselves at 15 years 11 months and 29 days but they can at 16 years (or whatever your state's laws are)? Because legal definitions, arbitrary though they are, for "adult", "child", and so forth is necessary.

(17) "If it became absolutely clear to you that the unborn child is a living human being, would you then favor outlawing abortion?"

I do think an unborn child is a living human being, and I am still pro-choice. A child does not have all the legal protections of an adult. And I don't think a fetus should have all the legal protections of a child. I have seen live pictures of a fetus, heard its heartbeat, I have felt the rush of emotions for a loved one who was pregnant and felt the joy when that baby was born and held that little person in my arms, marveling at how what was once a small number of cells is now a fully developed and amazing person. And I have talked to women who have been pregnant (after the fact) and had to make gut-wrenching decisions to abort their child. I'm not a heartless person who doesn't feel wonder at a fetus. It's a horrible situation and we should all do everything we can to minimize the number of women in that situation. But at the end of the day, it has to be her choice. Not you or me, not the government, not the church, it has to be her choice.

(18) "Why don’t we each look at the downside of our respective positions? Have you ever thought about what the ramifications are if you are wrong?"

We've seen the ramifications when abortion is made illegal. More women die trying to get abortions, there are more disabled babies, it's a far far worse situation when abortion was illegal. We've been there as a country, and I don't want to go back.

(19) "When it was first discovered that the brain cells of aborted babies were a potential treatment for Parkinson’s Disease, the ABC NEWS program, NIGHTLINE, carried a story about a woman who’s father suffered with this malady. She wanted to be impregnated with the sperm of her father, for the purpose of creating a child, which would then be aborted, and it’s parts used to treat him. Do you see anything wrong with this?"

Not knowing anything other than what you describe, I see a difficult situation where a woman chose to go through something extremely personal and strenuous in order to help a suffering loved one. It might not be the choice you would make, but it certainly doesn't sound heartless to me.

(20) "Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion for absolutely any reason, such as sex selection, selective reduction, or job promotion? If not, when not?"

Absolutely yes. Selective reduction is not wantonly killing a child you don't want. That is done purely for the health of the mother and the rest of the children in her womb. I know people who had to have that done, and it is terrible. But if they didn't selectively abort one child, then all three were in extreme risk (and I mean *extreme*). Believe me, if there were another way, they would have done it. As for your other examples, I still think yes, the woman should be in control of her reproductive life. I think most women do not treat abortion lightly, they take it very very seriously, and I don't want to limit their options on such an important matter.

(21) "I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I’m wrong. You want abortion to be legal right up to the moment of birth, in other words for all nine months of pregnancy; for any reason whatsoever, for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age, without parental consent, without even parental knowledge; and if she can’t pay for it, you think the taxpayer ought to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement?"

Only that I don't think the taxpayer should pay for it. It should be mandatory in insurance, yes, but not paid for by the government.

(22)How can abortion be a “fundamental right” if it is not found in the text of the Constitution and was never recognized as a right in American history prior to Roe v. Wade?

By your logic, you have no right to privacy either. That's not in the text of the Constitution.


I think in this country, abortion has become very polarizing. Either you care about life or you're a baby killer. Either you want to oppress women or you consider women equal to men. The fact is, the vast VAST majority of women take abortion very seriously, and it's not some casual baby-killing kind of a thing. It's a difficult decision for everyone involved. But it's a decision that involves lifelong consequences and risks, so therefore it is ultimately IMHO up to the woman to decide, between her and her doctor, what is best. I don't think pro-life/anti-choice people want to oppress women, and I don't think pro-choice/pro-abortion people are heartless monsters who could not care less about the unborn. They both see a complex situation and come to two honest different conclusions. It's a very difficult situation, but to me, in the end women should and do have more rights than a fetus and are the ones that need to decide.

I hope these answers help you.