abortions

[angelescrest]

Let’s go back to the dark ages and have everyone decide what I should do with my body, or your body? It’s a choice that any woman must make for herself. No one’s “choice on the issue should count”, except for that woman’s!!!! (And, yep, teens are women.)

Share This

[bt23]

exactly Angel. The neocons are working their way towards a bigger and brighter New Amerikan Taliban.

Share This

[Anonymous]

http://2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=1646#mccain

It’s actually interesting when you read the different viewpoints of each Presidential candidate, the only one that brings religion into the actual act of abortion, is Obama. Also, within one quote regarding abortion, he states twice that he believes it to be immoral.

bt23 and angelescrest – You thoughts and opinions are illuminating, however, the argument that was ensuing, I believe, was the argument on whether abortion should be decided on a state level, considering the Constitution holds no language regarding abortion. Anything not included in the Constitution should be left up to the state.

Why should this be an exception?

Share This

[bt23]

because if things were left up to states we would still have slavery, or at the very least Jim Crow laws. As a nation we are way past Federalism where we are a nation of independent statehoods like the EU.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

“no i don’t think poor women are the only ones who have children who will end up committing crimes “ The reason why I had made that assumption that you believed poor women’s children were the ones committing crimes b/c of the statement you had made earlier: “No, my argument is based on the assumption that the reason birth rates for poor women went down after abortions became available and affordable for those women is that they exercised their choice to not deliver a child they couldn’t support and raise responsibly.”

Considering you are arguing that the legalization of abortions caused crime rates to go down. Then you state that your argument supporting that the legalization of abortion has led to a decrease in crime rates is backed b/c birth rates for poor women have decreased I had assumed that you were in turn making the argument that poor women were the only ones that had criminals for children. Since, as the number of poor women giving birth decreased, abortions went up during this period, and crime rates went down.

The second portion of my post may have seemed confusing b/c I was somewhat confused by the statements that you made in your earlier post. You state that you believe that crime rates have decreased b/c the birth rates of single poor women decreased. IMO, a single poor women could somewhat be considered a troubled mother. And the studies that I have seen show that troubled women are actually more likely to keep their child rather than to have an abortion. Then, JoB you make the statement that

121. “and troubled women are those who are contributing to the problems of unwanted children in our foster system…”

Then you go on to ask the question:

“why is having the child at any cost a good thing for the young mother, the child or society? “

Since these two statements were made back to back in the same reply. I assumed that you were stating that since troubled women were contributing to the unwanted children in our foster system that we should force them into abortion since you also went on to ask the question as to why having a child @ any cost a good thing for the child, the young mother (still confused as to why you are assuming that only young women are either a) troubled or b) having abortions) and society.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Please god, dont tell me that people are actually putting abortion and slavery in the same context…

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

so then why did we all celebrate when California voted it into affect. I am just saying lets focus on one thing @ a time.

Share This

[Anonymous]

BDG – I didn’t understand that correlation either.

I think it’s safe to say that we are well beyond any threat of slavery being re-enacted into law.

I think part of living in a free society is the willingness to be a part of “the people”. Why would a vote with your fellow American’s be threatening? Isn’t the whole idea behind America that our voice (the people) is the voice that matters?

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Well NR, the way Angelcrest and BT23 are talking men shouldnt even be allowed to vote on abortion rights?

So I have to pose the question, should only gun owners be allowed to vote on gun rights since there only argument is dont tell me what to do with my womb??? and they seem to believe that anyone that doesnt agree with them must be an old white christian republican which doesnt quite fit my description.

Share This

[bt23]

It is also the role of the government to protect the few from the tyranny of the many.

Newresident. Read before you post. I did not say that slavery would be reinstated, I said that if states were left on their own, hillbilly outposts like Georgia would still have slavery.

Share This

[Anonymous]

“Newresident. Read before you post. I did not say that slavery would be reinstated, I said that if states were left on their own, hillbilly outposts like Georgia would still have slavery.” – bt23

How can you honestly argue that slavery would still be occurring today? Please help me understand how you can make this assumption. Or explain what sources you are relying on to support this belief.

Share This

[bt23]

“Well NR, the way Angelcrest and BT23 are talking men shouldnt even be allowed to vote on abortion rights?”

How deep did you have to dig up yourself to pull that one out. That is not what I said at all.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

WEll, Angelcrest has repeatedly said nobody has the right to tell her what to do with her body or her womb? (And seriously can soemone get less deep to make such an odd argument.)(Yeah lets fight feminism??? )You stated that you agree with her. In that case, I assumed that if you didnt have a womb in your and Agelcrest’s opinion then you shouldnt get a say.. I was being sarcastic b/c it is an asanine argument to make that just b/c it is my body that i should get to do whatever i want…

Share This

[Anonymous]

And if it were the case, it’s my body …..why is everyone so bent out of shape over suicide/assisted suicide. Shouldn’t that be a personal CHOICE.

Share This

[RS]

“Why would a vote with your fellow American’s be threatening?” I think because, as bt23 has said, different states have very different ideas about how certain issues should be legislated. It wouldn’t be “our voice”, it would be Alabama’s voice versus California’s voice versus Delaware’s voice on different issues. You’ve seen the electoral maps that show how divided the country is. If we adopted a true federalist system, we’d have very different laws one state to the next. And people would be crossing state lines to get married, have abortions, or learn the science of evolution.

Share This

[Anonymous]

RS, I think that would be true for awhile, but no matter how many say they vote on moral issues, in the end it comes down to economics. The prevailing view that supports making the most money, almost always wins out.

It’s my understanding that the tax revenue in King County, supports a lot of programs in eastern Washington. If there was a state dividing line, more and more people would migrate to this side where the money is.

Share This

[Anonymous]

RS – That’s a very likely scenario.

I still, though, have yet to hear a persuasive argument for the very fact that abortion is NOT included in the Constitution, therefore should remain a state issue, not federal.

As Cait said (in so many words – not trying to speak for ya, Cait), the federal Government should be working to uphold our Constitution, not dealing with whether a particular issue can be implied, or twisted, into the wording of the Constitution.

Share This

[acemotel]

I wonder if the abortion question will be resolved by post #500?

Share This

[angelescrest]

I do keep saying it, BDG. These personal choices must stay personal, and my fellow American may choose differently than I, and he/she should ALWAYS have the right to make his/her choice w/out someone trying to assert control with an adenda/regulation/feeling.

I hope feminism is not a taunt. And, I do wonder how much of what one wants to control in others eminates from regrets about decisions one’s made in the past?

Share This

[Cait]

Oh NR, though I am loathe to agree with you most time (*wink*) you are right on that one, and in your assessment of what I said. I want the choices about my uterus to happen as close to me as possible.

Interesting point brought up about the gun laws only being voted on by gun owners thing though, but I think like the slavery/abortion comparison (a joke in my opinion) we’re comparing apples and oranges. Abortion laws effect the female and pre-infant population and gun laws effect everyone. Am I right on that one? Perhaps someone can help me flesh out that argument, but that’s the way I’m going on that one.

Share This

[Anonymous]

I think this is being twisted into personal agendas.

I don’t see abortion in that way. I think that the fact is, abortion is not found anywhere in the Constitution and, therefore, should be held on the state level. I’m not seeing much weight in any reasons as to why this shouldn’t be so.

As far as the whole, “It’s my body, my business” argument, it’s tiresome. If we use that logic as the sole argument, then I would have to agree with JT and ask, why don’t we find a way to “imply” that suicide is included in the Constitution.

I have no personal agenda regarding this issue, to suggest such borders on intolerance. I simply believe in the Constitution and what it states and does not state. Regulation, IMO, would not be a bad thing in regard to abortion.

Share This

[Tonya42]

I am Christian, however a pretty lazy and rotten one, I am also a conservative leaning libertarian and I believe in choice. It should be an option to those who elect to have it.

But I do find it interesting that everyone who is for abortion has already been born…

Share This

[Anonymous]

for abortion choice, not necessarily for abortion

Share This

[RS]

I think the broader “upholding of the constitution” should include interpreting how *current* issues that the framers might not have anticipated, fit within the context of my guaranteed rights to free speech, due process, etc.

Cait, I would agree with you about wanting choices to happen close to me if I hadn’t spent time living in states where the majority population would have loved to take those rights away from me and I was grateful for the federal “protection.” On the other hand, I was very proud to be a “mass-hole” when we legalized gay marriage before anyone else. I think where people come down on states’ rights often depends on whether they find themselves in the majority or the minority on the issues they care about.

Share This

[Cait]

If you can hunt it down, I suggest the article about body ownership by Alan Hyde – it’s pretty fascinating. The whole “my body my business” thing rarely holds up because no one truly “owns” their body. Much less a fetus which is seen as even less your property and a ward of society because it can’t fend for itself. The idea of caring for the weak plays into this greatly and though I agree with it, I feel that because a fetus is by nature dependent it’s in a separate category. That’s more of a intellectual belief than a heartfelt one, but I can’t seem to argue myself out of that one. So that discussion usually leaves me feeling frustrated and alienated from both society and my uterus which is a terrible feeling. However, that’s mostly what’s going on here. My pro-choice view is less about abortion and more about preserving what I can of my bodily integrity.

But NR you are totally right about the personal agenda business, I said it a few posts ago. These discussions are great but it’s no use getting so worked up about people’s positions. They are what they are…

Share This

[Author]

Posts