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.
You're back to admitting you would control women's decisions, then.
The government does control men's decisions and women's decisions in many cases already.
My view may control women's decisions, you are correct. But that is not the reason why I support banning abortion; unfortunately, it would be one of the effects of a ban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne
Positions on abortion are "hardly" based in religious beliefs, or align with a political position? Separately or combined they're both ideological stances.
1. Abortion is legal. [Attempts to make it illegal have failed.]
2. Even is abortion were illegal, it would happen. [Attempts to prevent it from happening have failed.]
Now, as a responsible public official, what do you do?
Bill Clinton said it should be made safe, available and rare. That's one viewpoint.
Others choose to go out in the street and protest against folks who support abortion rights. Some folks promote abstinence-only programs (which don't work), some folks promote adoption, self-restraint and self-respect among young women.
The situation is not hardly black and white as to dealing with the facts of the situation.
What would I do?
Make abortion illegal. I'd do the same for capital punishment as well.
Make it easier for people to adopt the unwanted child.
Increase the use of birth control to prevent the unwanted pregancy in the first place.
The government does control men's decisions and women's decisions in many cases already.
My view may control women's decisions, you are correct. But that is not the reason why I support banning abortion; unfortunately, it would be one of the effects of a ban.
Yes, unfortunately it would; that's why it's such an important issue, you see.
Yes, unfortunately it would; that's why it's such an important issue, you see.
And, to pro-lifers, abortion is legal murder which is why it's such an important issue to them.
I have a question for you - why don't you support eliminating the ability of the government to make other decisions for women? Why not for men as well?
Did you see the recent poll? 51% of Americans are "anti-choice" now. 51% of Americans are not RW Christians.
One poll from one organization, which shows a radical shift in position over a time when nothing significant happens. I'll wait to see what the other polls have to say and I'll wait to see what happens over time. But even if it holds, it's irrelevant since abortion has been ruled to be a Constitutional Right.
And, to pro-lifers, abortion is legal murder which is why it's such an important issue to them.
I have a question for you - why don't you support eliminating the ability of the government to make other decisions for women? Why not for men as well?
Since you dont mind the idea of government intrusion ("The government does control men's decisions and women's decisions in many cases already"), how about if the Obama Administration mandates that anti-choicers start adopting more unwanted children, faster, from the less trendy social and economic groups first. Each anti-choice household adopts a minimum of 3 children who would otherwise have been aborted. You maintain the mom throughout her pregnancy and support the kids until they're 18. It might be a little more expensive than it's costing you in tax dollars now, but it might help you appreciate the plight of the poor.
One poll from one organization, which shows a radical shift in position over a time when nothing significant happens. I'll wait to see what the other polls have to say and I'll wait to see what happens over time. But even if it holds, it's irrelevant since abortion has been ruled to be a Constitutional Right.
If the trend continues, it may help to get a pro-life (you know, red) President elected in 2012 who will appoint pro-life SC justices!
The "right" may not exist for much longer.
In fact, if Roe v. Wade were today, it would likely be a 5-4 decision. Abortion would probably be ruled a "right," but it sure wouldn't be 7-2.
Since you like the idea of government intrusion, how about if the Obama Administration mandates that anti-choicers start adopting more unwanted children, faster, from the less trendy social and economic groups first. Each anti-choice household adopts a minimum of 3 children who would otherwise have been aborted. You maintain the mom throughout her pregnancy and support the kids until they're 18. It might be a little more expensive than it's costing you in tax dollars now, but it might help you appreciate the plight of the poor.
I'd like to, ideally, see unwanted pregnanices prevented in the first place. I don't care if we have to hand out contraceptives like candy to do it.
If the number of unwanted pregnancies went down by 90%, there'd be no need for these mass adoptions.
You never answered my question about government intrusion. Why don't you support banning government intrusion that already exists in areas other than abortion?
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.
