Abortion

[aaron91]

Should America pass a Constitutional ban on Abortion? Why is that your opinion, and you MUST state a reason!

 

[New_Found_Faith]

I voted 'yes.' Abortion is murder when you can chose to put the baby up for adoption, and give it an oporotunity to live.
Sean C.

 

[Redneck]

Yes. It's murder. People that perform abortions and people that hire people to perform abortions need a little neck stretching.

 

[aaron91]

I voted 'yes.' Abortion is murder when you can chose to put the baby up for adoption, and give it an oporotunity to live.
Sean C.

AMEN, Brother, AMEN! IT'S MURDER, AS IS STEM-CELL RESEARCH!

 

[Covenant Heart]

Yes, abortion is the taking of a life. But we may question the propriety of redressing it in the way proposed. Frequent as it is, infanticide was more common under Imperial Rome. Daily, people carried their infants out of the city and left them to die on the hillside. But it didn’t work. Each evening, God’s people went out, took the children in their arms and raised them to be good Christians.



Years ago, the Wizard of Id featured a cartoon in which the King and an officious looking cleric were walking together. “As I see it,” the cleric said, “our problems are interrelated.” “Oh, and how is that” his majesty asked. “Government is responsible for 90% of the sin in the country.”



As with nearly everything else, our approach to the abortion crisis is terribly wrong headed. Just politicize it. Forget that government commits 90% of our national sin. Forget that any body that makes a decision can reverse it. Forget the example of the early church in changing culture. Let’s subvert the cause of justice by making it bow to partisan agendas. After all, we can get some political mileage out of a Constitutional Amendment!



Speaking of the questionable propriety of our approach to the abortion crisis, Redneck’s “neck-stretching” reference reminds this member of a former friend by the name Paul Hill who did just that. He shot and killed an abortionist.

Did we mention that our approach to the abortion crisis is terribly wrong-headed?

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[jazzbird]

As with nearly everything else, our approach to the abortion crisis is terribly wrong headed. Just politicize it. Forget that government commits 90% of our national sin. Forget that any body that makes a decision can reverse it. Forget the example of the early church in changing culture. Let’s subvert the cause of justice by making it bow to partisan agendas. After all, we can get some political mileage out of a Constitutional Amendment!

Well said. We're not going to change hearts and minds by making laws. The only effective way to lessen the atrocities against the unborn is by reaching out with Christlike love.

 

[jayem]

An amendment is probably necessary to decide the issue of "personhood." The legal aspect of the conflict arises because the Constitution never explicity says that a fetus has the rights of a "person."

I would support a compromise, where personhood is defined as occurring at either of two points, whichever comes first:

1) At birth, whenever that occurs (and if anyone wants more specificity, the common definition of birth is when the head is delivered from the mother's body.)

2) When a fetus reaches 25 weeks of gestational age, as determined by standard medical procedures. After this point, a fetus is a legal person, and states can restrict abortion.

Any amendment of course, can only addresses the legal issue of abortion. The moral issue is a philosophic one, about which people will probably always disagree.

 

[Glaz]

I can think 'no' without it making me a liberal. Its naive to think that passing laws against things solves the problem.

 

[ade32]

How about 'Yes, I'm a liberal and I think its murder'?

I voted Yes, but I'm not a conservative. There are Pro-Life Democrats you know.

 

[ade32]

I can think 'no' without it making me a liberal. Its naive to think that passing laws against things solves the problem.

Exactly right. It needs a multi pronged attack to elminate the problem, not just making it illegal.

 

[ade32]

AMEN, Brother, AMEN! IT'S MURDER, AS IS STEM-CELL RESEARCH!

Its murder, but I don't think Stem Cell Research is...at least, not until they take action on IVF.

 

[tollytee]

I voted 'Yes'. In accordance with the wishes of the OP poster, I will explain my vote with certain caveats. I do not do so as to provoke a debate, or to elicit a response. In fact, I would prefer each votes and explains their votes completely on their own values and believes and not respond to mine. I don't have the answers, I am not that smart.

The following explanation of my vote incorporates my belief that the vast majority of abortions performed in this country are 'abortions of convenience', and are not medically or psycologically necessary, but rather a quick and easy resolution to a avoidable, personal problem. It does not include those abortions performed in cases of serious medical conditions or rape. I have not come to any conclusions related to these scenarios.

Abortion has been an issue in this country since its founding. There were abortion laws on the books as early as the early 1800's. Society didn't agree or solve the issue then. We won't solve it now, regardless of what we do. Never will I see the issue from the other side's perspective, and nor they from mine. Any discussion, in my opinion, is useless.

First, in my observation, it is a game of semantics. You might say 'inviable', I would say, 'baby'. Where you might say 'fetus', I would say 'child', where you use the term 'choice', I use the term 'responsible', and so forth. Who is correct is relative.

It seems to me, until we define 'life' as starting from conception and bestow all human rights upon that 'life' from conception, then there will never be any value placed on the developing baby. If we can agree to recognize that it is a life, then are there not many, many alternatives to abortion which accomplish the same goals as an abortion? Wouldn't it reach the same result? Should we not at least expect a women who gets pregnant due to personal irresponsibility or carelessness to at least consider alternatives before deciding on abortion? The attitude from some is that since the baby is not a viable human being, an abortion is no more an issue than removing, say, a mole, or a kidney stone. I will never be able to understand this type of thinking.

I can think of no argument anyone could possibly submit that will change my principles and believes on this issue. This is true for many on my side of the argument, as well as many on the other. For that reason I conclude that it will never be resolved.

Respectfully

 

[KenH]

Actually, I would prefer to see Roe v. Wade overturned and that we go back to the status quo ante. Prior to January 1973 this was an issue handled by the respective States and I would like for it to be that way today.

 

[charmtrap]

No, it's not murder, and I support abortion on demand. For, frankly, totally pragmatic reasons. Because without abortion we'd have 1m+ more babies that are unwanted, unloved and uncared-for. And considering social conservatives (ie. the party currently in power) positions on caring for the unwanted, unloved and uncared-for, they're better off aborted.

 

[mmadison777]

Abortion is wrong. God detests it.

 

[scraparcs]

I believe abortion should not be permissible, but I would be against amending the constitution to make it so. The constitution should be as brief as possible, and is an instrument to expand rights. Abortion could be made illegal by statute, and not by amendment.

I don't see anything in the constitution explicitly forbidding murder, but yet each state considers it against statute, as far as I know.

 

[TheBear]

I can't believe how narrow and limited some of these polls are.

 

[ade32]

No, it's not murder, and I support abortion on demand. For, frankly, totally pragmatic reasons. Because without abortion we'd have 1m+ more babies that are unwanted, unloved and uncared-for. And considering social conservatives (ie. the party currently in power) positions on caring for the unwanted, unloved and uncared-for, they're better off aborted.

Charm, there are a huge amount of people waiting to adopt children. I know because my wife and I are going through the adoption process. Contrary to popular belief, there are not this huge amount of kids abandoned in ophanages in the US. Because of the lack of adoptable children in the US and the actual cost ($20k+), we have been forced to adopt from overseas. If they could streamline the adoption process and make it less costly then the so-called 'unwanted' babies would largely have loving adopted homes.

 

[seagulls]

Should America pass a Constitutional Ban on Abortion, why, and you MUST state why!!!!

You had the reason included in the poll option. I voted no, by the way.

 

[Donut Hole]

I voted no, but I would never myself use the wording of that option.

I can see no valid reason to outlaw any abortions before the cortical structures of the brain develop. The earliest date you can put on this is the 20th-24th week, and about the latest you can possibly put it is the 8th month. As for outlawing it after that, I'm generally supportive, as long as there is an exception for the mother's life. But the fact that if it is outlawed, some women will just get back alley abortions instead should be given very serious consideration.

An amendment is probably necessary to decide the issue of "personhood." The legal aspect of the conflict arises because the Constitution never explicity says that a fetus has the rights of a "person."

I would support a compromise, where personhood is defined as occurring at either of two points, whichever comes first:

1) At birth, whenever that occurs (and if anyone wants more specificity, the common definition of birth is when the head is delivered from the mother's body.)

2) When a fetus reaches 25 weeks of gestational age, as determined by standard medical procedures. After this point, a fetus is a legal person, and states can restrict abortion.

Any amendment of course, can only addresses the legal issue of abortion. The moral issue is a philosophic one, about which people will probably always disagree.

I would heartily support that. Part 1) doesn't make any sense to me, because being born inside or outside the womb is an artificial distinction that doesn't make any difference in the development of the baby/foetus. I'd also prefer that Part 2) reference specifically brain development, because it varies to some extent from individual to individual. But I'd support it if necessary for a compromise.