Roe v. Wade - What's happening now??

[kddani]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
So if you are going to judge somebody for aborting, then also judge the fact that they are having illicit fornication, too... As many folks that are up in the Dating and Relationships Forum lamenting of lost lovers... Hmmmm....

Why do that when you can pick and choose what's a sin and what's not? Selectively moral, I guess.

ETA: The sheer number of people who are pro-life but also pro-death penalty never cease to amaze me. Isn't this quite a contradiction?

If murder is SO wrong, and so absolute, then why do we have the death penalty, DNR orders (do-not-rescusitate), legal defense to murder (self defense, etc), and varying degress of murder (first degree, manslaughter, etc- manslaughter carrying lesser sentences). Shouldn't it all be the same?

None of us know what the right answers are. None of us ever will until after we leave this planet and go wherever it is we'll go. Don't be so sure that your position is right.

Originally posted by damasa
You should share with us, some of "the many laws today that are right along with the 10 commandments."

Secondly, we have a law that allows murder, it's called The Death Penalty buddy.

But I have a feeling that you'd be the type of person that supports The Death Penatly, yet you'll argue about life and whatnot until the death. Life, what a concept...

Perhaps "many" was the wrong choice of words, but Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal are two that come to mind. I

You're right, I do support the death penalty in SOME cases. I would be 100% for it if the capital punishment system was completely error free, that no innocent person who ever got convicted of a capital crime was put to death, unfortunately it's not. Therefore I can not honestly say that I support it COMPLETELY.
What's even more interesting is that many people who are pro abortion are against the death penalthy, just like many who are pro life are for the death penalty. Strange.

ETA: The sheer number of people who are pro-life but also pro-death penalty never cease to amaze me. Isn't this quite a contradiction?

I know I just mentioned this in the previous post, but..........
On the same token, it never ceases to amaze ME the number of people who are pro-choice and against the death penalty. Those of us on the other side (pro-life for the most part pro-cp) view that to be just as strange. I guess it really matters when you believe life starts. If you don't believe it starts till birth, then aborting it before then is not murder.

Again, this is simply a matter of opinion. AS KDDani so nicely pointed out, no one knows for sure so don't be so sure YOUR opinion is right. I don't know that my opinion is right, I believe I will find out one day, but it still is that, my opinion, which I am entitled to. As are you. I go along with what I've been taught and what I have come to believe.

I would hate for anyone to get into a huge fight over this because the issue will never be resolved. Especially not here on Greekchat.com. Roe v. Wade will probably never be overturned.

I will say this to all of those who are pro-choice and who think me and other conservative Christians are so close minded and evil people who spend all day reading our Bibles and are so naive to the real world. I have NEVER been in the situation where I have been pregnant under bad circumstances (i.e. not ready, raped, incest, etc). So honestly, it's a lot easier for me to sit here and say that it's wrong and I would never do it and it should be outlawed. If I ever was in that situation, I say now I wouldn't do it, but the truth is, I DON"T KNOW. I can't see how the trauma of having an abortion will make the trauma of the other circumstance any easier, but like I said, I've never been in that situation. Therefore, I have never judged anyone for having it done. As I've said before one of my best friends did it in college. I stilll love her very much and have never held that against her.

Anyway, I dont' think any less of those who believe different from me. I'm just stating what I believe to be true.

[KSig RC]

God I'm so hungover at work today . . . this will be a fun one, duder.

Originally posted by honeychile
I promised myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this debate, but...

1) Viability of an unborn child is as low as 20 weeks now, and with continued scientific advances, will probably get lower. At what point do we decide to protect this 20 week child? I have friends in Atlanta whose son was born at 22 weeks, and survived. By the time he was 1 year old, his medical bills were over hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars. What if he had not been wanted? Does that mean that he could have just as easily been tissue in an incinerator? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of saving the one 22 week child, and aborting another, simply because of his or her convenience?

This is a completely specious argument, except for the first sentence. Thanks for your fallacious appeal to emotion, but the reality is that fetus viability has already been addressed as a sticky issue. There's no hypocrisy involved here, unless you apply some sort of morality to the issue. Speaking of . . .

Originally posted by honeychile
2) We have always legislated morality. We have laws concerning theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc - not one of these has any basis other than morality. And yes, theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc will always happen, whether or not they are legal. Does that make abortion any different - or is it just more popular due to its convenience?

NONE OF THESE ARE RELIGIOUSLY MORAL.

They are infringement upon the rights of others. If you can't see this, exit the thread immediately b/c you're going to force me to smash it down your throat until you understand how our nation and our laws originally were intended to work. Next you'll be tossing "in god we trust" at me, and I'll have a seizure.

Theft: infringing on a person's constitutional rights
Murder: infringing on a person's personal rights
adultery: not illegal, that i know of - feel free to enlighten me as to where you get arrested for having sex
perjury: you are infringing on a person's right to a fair trial

There is no moral aspect involved, lovely.

Originally posted by honeychile
3) Does anyone know a mother who has - or wanted or considered - an abortion? I do - and if you know anyone who was adopted, you probably do, too. Each of these people who I know was almost aborted (well, all but one, to be honest) is one of the nicest, sweetest people I know. If you were adopted yourself, if you love someone who was, aren't you secretly glad that his or her mother decided to be inconvenienced for nine months?

These are again fallacious arguments. Everyone I know who has had an abortion has not regretted the decision. Also, adoption and abortion are not in some sort of diametric opposition, although it is an alternative - you're burning the candle pretty low with this argument.

Also, how do you know they were 'almost aborted'? You're making this up, kiddo.

Originally posted by honeychile
4) It is not easy to admit this, but I've changed my own views on abortion - the more I talked with those who have had one or considered one, the more I realized the devastation it causes. Maybe not at the time of the inconvenience, but the devastation does happen. It can play out in the promotion of anti-abortion campaigns; it can play out in pro-abortion campaigns, but it is and will always be a turning point in the life of the mother. Granted, I am lucky in that I never had to make such a decision, but I ache for those who did.

Fantastic, but irrelevant. Sure, it's a tough decision - but until you can provide me a constitutionally sound reason to remove the right to make this tough decision, it doesn't matter.

If it's a shitty decision, hey that's tough, but we cannot remove the option to make it. You might think it's ruining someone's life, but LET THEM RUIN THEIR LIFE, it is ultimately their option.

Originally posted by honeychile
In summing up, like it or not, most of our laws are based on morality. Until a better argument is discovered, maybe convenience of one person or another should be reconsidered.

Very few of our laws are based on morality, and the ideal is that NONE of our laws would be based on morality. Drug laws aside, I think you're just blowing smoke. Your arguments aren't based in either logic or actual constitutional law, but instead on your personal beliefs and experiences.

Guess what? These are exactly the kinds of things we need to AVOID when discussing law. Fair enough?

They are infringement upon the rights of others. If you can't see this, exit the thread immediately b/c you're going to force me to smash it down your throat until you understand how our nation and our laws originally were intended to work. Next you'll be tossing "in god we trust" at me, and I'll have a seizure.

she's going to force you to smash it down her throat until she understands how our nation and laws originally were intended to work? PUHLEAZE!!! I suposse YOU know the original intent of the laws since YOU WERE THERE AND ALL.
No one is being an ass to you, so kindly return the favor.

[valkyrie]

<333 KSig RC. I also know people who haven't regretted having an abortion -- not that I think the fact that some women may regret it is even close to a valid reason to prohibit abortion.

I don't see how being pro-choice and anti-death penalty is any sort of contradiction. The reasons for being pro-choice and those for being anti-death penalty really have nothing to do with each other. However, I don't understand how someone can be pro-life because "life is sacred" or "life must be protected at all costs" and pro-death penalty. To me, that sounds like OMG WE MUST SAVE BABIEZ BUT KILL THE CRIMINALZ!!!111! I don't get it.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
she's going to force you to smash it down her throat until she understands how our nation and laws originally were intended to work? PUHLEAZE!!! I suposse YOU know the original intent of the laws since YOU WERE THERE AND ALL.
No one is being an ass to you, so kindly return the favor.

You should check out the "win this thread" thread - now THERE I was being a dick.


Also I was serious - none of this should be a morality issue. I completely respect you for feeling the way you do, and I know you're OK w/ how I feel, but I'm saying from a legal standpoint it just doesn't make sense.

No, i wasn't there, but that's completely irrelevant, and you know it.

You should check out the "win this thread" thread - now THERE I was being a dick.

HEY, we agree on something!!!!!!!

[RUgreek]

I also don't see any contradiction with being on one side for abortion rights and an opposite one with the death penalty. It's not just about life vs. death you know, there are many more issues involved.

Abortion is the death penalty for a fetus, but now you're trying to argue a right to life before being born. My whole personal opinion is that until you exit the womb, there is a chance something can go wrong and that includes an abortion. No, I don't think 3rd trimester abortions are ok unless there is a serious late-discovered problem for the child. The death penalty is a punishment for a crime against safety and welfare of the public. The only flaw is that sometimes an innocent person can be convicted. But let's not convert this thread into the death penalty debate....

The whole viability of a fetus is recognized in many court opinions. Yes a fetus has a heartbeat, fingers, eyes, brain, toes, etc. before it is born. However, my argument is not whether or not the fetus has the characteristics of life, but can it sustain itself yet. You can stretch the argument that at conception it has developed the genetic characteristics of life, but you don't see fertilized eggs hopping around and eventually turning into kids.


As for legislating based on religious morality, I think that is incorrect. Just because religions follow the same belief that something is wrong doesn't mean the law is based in religion. Thou shalt not steal and robbery are the same, but you won't see any court opinion's quoting Moses as the definitive source. Kepping people from harming other people is why we have laws. They do have their roots connected to relgious beliefs, but I couldn't find the first amendment anywhere in religious scriptures.


I think the modern approach is to say there are 3 positions for abortion:

Pro-life=life is sacred
Pro-choice=if you want one, you should have a choice
Pro-abortion=complete control over a woman's body

Just pick a side and move on I guess


RUgreek

[Rudey]

I think there are some sick individuals who not only would kill the baby at any point prior to it popping out the mother, but wouldn't mind having a one week grace period to kill it after it's birth.

-Rudey

[damasa]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
Perhaps "many" was the wrong choice of words, but Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal are two that come to mind. I

You're right, I do support the death penalty in SOME cases. I would be 100% for it if the capital punishment system was completely error free, that no innocent person who ever got convicted of a capital crime was put to death, unfortunately it's not. Therefore I can not honestly say that I support it COMPLETELY.
What's even more interesting is that many people who are pro abortion are against the death penalthy, just like many who are pro life are for the death penalty. Strange.

I don't find it as that strange because a lot of pro-choice people disagree with pro-life people as to when life actually begins. Many pro-life people that I've encountered feel that life begins at conception. Therefore, an abortion=murder.

Myself, being pro-choice, do not believe that life begins at conception so I don't view abortion as murder. I view the death penalty as murder because a life is being taken. (My view on life, not yours.)

Yet, you support a method of death, such as the death penatly in "some cases" even when the system "is not error free." That's flawed to me, and I would never suppprt something that has the potential to take the life of an innocent person.

But that's only my view and I don't expect you to feel the same way, nor would I go as far as to feel that it be necessary for you to feel this way, being forced to by law or otherwise. Which is pretty much the entire point of the thread and one that RC has hit home a few times...

[damasa]

Originally posted by RUgreek

However, my argument is not whether or not the fetus has the characteristics of life, but can it sustain itself yet. You can stretch the argument that at conception it has developed the genetic characteristics of life, but you don't see fertilized eggs hopping around and eventually turning into kids.

I just wanted to quote this because it's one of the best statements in this entire thread.

[AGDee]

I have been thinking about this much of the day and, while I've stated many times that I'm pro-choice on this board, I want us to think about the logistics of making abortion illegal. Many have mentioned that abortions happened before it was legal and it was horrendous, but let's think about other logistics.

It seems that most agree that in the case of rape or incest it might be ok to be legal. So, if we are in a situation where it's illegal EXCEPT for cases of rape or incest, how do we define these things? Does there have to be a rape conviction before the woman is allowed to abort? Do we use an honor system? Will this increase false rape reports by women who are desperate to get an abortion? Do we include all victims of statuatory rape, so all teens would still be able to get abortions? How do we prove incest? Do we do DNA samples on the fetus before the abortion to be sure? Watch Maury's "Who's the daddy" shows and you'll see how hard it is to prove who the daddy is sometimes. Most also agree that if the life of the mother is in danger, it is ok to abort the fetus.

Then, how far do we take this? If a woman deliberately does things that might induce a spontaneous abortion, such as heavy lifting, not staying on bed rest if it's recommended, etc, do we charge her then? What if she continues to smoke, drink or take medications that could be known to harm a fetus? Do we prosecute her then? What if she has a medical condition that isn't completely life threatening, but only life altering and her meds can seriously damage the fetus but if she doesn't take them, then it can also be damaging to the fetus AND herself? Who decides if it is medically necessarily? The doctor who performs the abortion? Another doctor? What if she spontaneously aborts because of things she does BEFORE she knows she is pregnant? What if she gets pregnant while on the pill and continues taking the pill after she knows she is pregnant and the fetus dies? Who do we prosecute for the abortions? The doctor? The nurse? The woman seeking the abortion? Do we toss a 13 year old kid into prison for seeking a back alley abortion?

It was those types of questions that were in the original Roe v. Wade complaint.

I can honestly say that I have several friends who have had abortions who do not regret it at all. Most of them are happily married now with children who they love very much because they had them when they were emotionally, physically and financially ready to have them. One of them is a divorced single mom who didn't have the financial resources to go through a high risk pregnancy since she has two teenagers to support. I have worked with numerous mentally ill teens who have had abortions and I can honestly say that carrying a pregnancy to full term would not have been mentally healthy for them. I'm not sure who made the comment that a pregnancy is a 9 month inconvenience, but I don't think that person is a mother. A pregnancy is a lifetime commitment for a mother.

The primary reason that I am pro-choice is because I don't feel that I can make that type of decision for someone else without walking in their shoes. (I also have thoughts about when life begins.. and it's not at conception). If abortion is illegal, then it follows that since abstinence is the only way to ensure that you do not get pregnant, then if you aren't physically, emotionally and financially capable of having a child, then you shouldn't have sex. I don't see that happening in our society, nor do I think it's fair to expect that.

Dee

[kddani]

excellent post, AGDee

Especially about abortion being "okay" if a woman was raped, etc. Where's the line? What counts as rape? A criminal trial could take well more than the 9 months of gestation. Plus appeals. Some go on for years and years.

If it is so wrong, then why do some people believe that abortion is okay in some circumstances (rape, health reasons) than others? If abortion is murder and wrong, then why is is okay in some circumstances?

Do pro-lifers really want to see a country where abortions aren't out there? All the back alley, illegal procedures that would end up killing many women?

Also, as a general rule, conservatives have been more in favor of state's rights, rather than federal government running more (though recently this has seemed to fly out the window)- why is it the federal gov't's job to rule on this? It's a state's rights issue.

[LexiKD]

I do think it isn't right but I would rather it be legal and safe then illegal and unsafe. But, I would like to think that our population would be smart enough not to use it as BC.
My objection is we all know how babies are made and should be responsible for our own actions, legality aside there are cases where they are needed.

It will remain legal and the disagreements will countiune, life you don't support them and don't have them there should be no issue.