Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The polls haven't changed because both sides are solidly entrenched in their positions. I have yet to find a single person who is non-chalant on the topic of abortion. Everybody I know is very passionate about their view of abortion and defends it almost violently. It is an extremely polarizing issue, as you would expect when one side knows it is murder while the other side considers it scant different from liposuction or trimming your fingernails -- just removing some wasteful organic matter from the body.
Exactly. The late April ABC/WaPo poll generated the following results. There's a HUGE difference in support depending on the reason for the abortion:
Mother's physical health is endangered:
82% keep them legal
12% make them illegal
Pregnancy caused by rape or incest:
79% keep them legal
16% make them illegal
Serious birth defects detected:
67% keep them legal
23% make them illegal
Convenience abortions (98.3% of all abortions):
48% keep them legal
45% make them illegal
The US is about evenly split on whether or not to keep convenience abortions legal.
The way I see it is that abortion definitely is the killing of a fetus.
But if the parents did not want that fetus, then was its life worth living in the first place?
This is why it is tough for me to come down on one side or the other of this issue.
Well, any parent that kills their child of any age from newborn on up goes to prison for murder. Anyone besides the mother (and her health care provider) who kills a fetus goes to prison for murder. Sure looks to me like killing a fetus is murder.
I believe if Roe v Wade is struck down (it being a cornerstone of progressive ideals), there will be political retaliation via an eventual expansion of the Supreme Court and a decision that will cancel out Heller’s majority interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It won’t end private ownership of firearms, just like striking down RvW won’t end abortion…. but it will create an undue burden on both people who seek to have an abortion and people who seek to own a firearm for purposes of self-defense.
Just like Biden will likely be impeached because Trump was impeached… we will leave in a world of constant politically motivated retaliation much more extreme than we’ve experienced in recent history. It’s unfortunate that both sides can’t simply leave each other’s shyyyte alone. It’s not enough to keep yours, you must restrict the other (what ever side you fall on).
If they believed that then they would pass legislation giving a fetus personhood status with all the rights and protections afforded a person. How can you murder something that is not a person?
Why is that necessary? There is no law that everyone from the moment of birth and after that has personhood. Since that doesn't exist, why are any/all of them considered to be persons? And if even corporations are legally recognized as persons (SCOTUS), how is it that children in utero are not?
Well, any parent that kills their child of any age from newborn on up goes to prison for murder. Anyone besides the mother (and her health care provider) who kills a fetus goes to prison for murder. Sure looks to me like killing a fetus is murder.
Except in certain instances (rape, incest, etc), I see it as murder. But... there is also the question of what sort of a mother would that "child bearing person" have been had she been forced to bear that child? Chances are, that offspring would end up being a taxpayer expense for life in the prison system. So... I really have no answers for this situation. Ultimately such women will answer to God.
Many that want no restrictions on abortions want the most restrictions on gun ownership - the issue is that abortions are not a constitutional right, gun ownership is. Also those restrictions on abortions gives the unborn kids some rights against being killed, yet those same people want to take away others rights in the name of protecting those same kids just a few years older. Just hypocrites - can they not see the irony?
TIL that the first (religious rights) and fourteenth (right to privacy) amendments don't count as rights.
Why is that necessary? There is no law that everyone from the moment of birth and after that has personhood. Since that doesn't exist, why are any/all of them considered to be persons? And if even corporations are legally recognized as persons (SCOTUS), how is it that children in utero are not?
Legal subjectivity begins at birth according to the 14th amendment, so yes there is a law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
