Abortion and shooting store clerks...

[Toxick]

so I can lick your tears of tasty shame.

I hope my tears sustain you.

 

[Makavide]

No doubt. But, is that reason to forbid her from the CHOICE?

Freedom and liberty goes hand in hand with responsibility and consequences. The state forbidding abortion reduces freedom and liberty while also reducing the responsibilities and consequences of and to the citizen.

So with the desire to keep the state out of the decision - at what point is it no longer ok to seek an abortion, and why?

 

[Railroad]

I think what some are saying is that the abortion issue (which, by the way, involves laws) is one example of the many ways in which our society is changing and departing from the first things, things which made the brand-new nation successful. As a moral issue, abortion arguments on both sides seem unable to be anything but polarized and polarizing. As a legal issue, abortion is emblematic of the national psyche expecting government to intervene where it has no business in the first place. Another hot button being taxation, another hot button being same-sex this and that, another hot button being drugs, another being the Age of Entitlement, another being separation of church and state, etc. While none of these by themselves would destroy the nation, in aggregate they are doing so. Of particular sensitivity to people of faith are those things which the nation is beginning to condone or even promote which go against the spiritual principles and moral issues we used to take for granted. I don't think folks who are anything but outrageously optimistic would disagree that society is crumbling (not just in the U.S. but worldwide). The world seems to be heading for destruction at an ever-increasing pace. The second law of thermodynamics says that the degree of disorder in any ordered system increases with time, and I think we see how that law is chillingly applicable to global conditions. So yes, the abortion issue is among those contributors, some of us think, to the acceleration of the Decline and Fall of the American Empire (which bears unsettling resemblance to the Roman Empire precedent).

 

[Larry Gude]

So with the desire to keep the state out of the decision - at what point is it no longer ok to seek an abortion, and why?

If we proven nothing else, those most vehemently opposed to abortion on grounds that it is murder, even they make exceptions for rape and incest and birth defects. So, we know it is a subjective thing, not an absolute. A child conceive of rape and incest is every bit as innocent and helpless as one conceived of a night of drunken behavior.

To that end, in my view, it should have always been left to the states. Let Kansas prohibit it. Let California promote it. And all flavors in between. Same with gay marriage, same with drug laws. Good lord. We still have dry counties in this nation. We couldn't have abortion states and non? Gay states and non?

So, to answer your question, in my view it should be a state by state thing. I can't enter into the first trimester debate because then that leads right on to third trimester and a day. Or a week. So, it's gotta be up to the mom.

And, that said, information, pro adoption, anti abortion data, pro abortion data, all of that should be promoted, by the feds, as general public health information as part of helping her make her decision.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's quite a switch of position.

???

 

[Larry Gude]

From "it MUST be legal any time before the chord is cut cuz it's the mom's choice to murder her child in a barbaric fashion for her convenience because anything else is like the government forcing a woman to get pregnant and bear children" to "let Kansas prohibit it"

Federal is where the vast majority of my arguments center. Huge distinction, don't you think ?

 

[Larry Gude]

I actually agree. I don't see it as a federal issue. SCOTUS made it one with Roe. State laws still vary, but are still limited by Roe. Overturn that to the states, and I'm good.

Yup.

Roe is awful law. But, it's how we work as American's; as soon as we get enough people to form a mob, majority rule, we just do stuff, regardless of the constitution. Smoking laws, abortion, now gay marriage. Quite the opposite of what the constitution is there for; to limit mob rule.

All it does is guarantee rancor.

 

[GURPS]

If we proven nothing else, those most vehemently opposed to abortion on grounds that it is murder, even they make exceptions for rape and incest and birth defects. So, we know it is a subjective thing, not an absolute.

a stupid compromise, trying to limit access to Abortion .. where baby killers want NO Limitations .. otherwise partial birth abortion would never even be a medical procedure ....


Children of Rape Rally for Life

I Am a Survivor of Abortion, Here is My Story

10 Abortion Survivors - Listverse




and as far as birth defects go, there was a story I read in Readers Digest in the lat 70's about a nurse, who adopted a baby born without a face ... giving the child a loving home ...

 

[b23hqb]

I actually agree. I don't see it as a federal issue. SCOTUS made it one with Roe. State laws still vary, but are still limited by Roe. Overturn that to the states, and I'm good.

I agree as well. This is a state by state issue, not to be governed by national policy. R vs W is a glaring example of the courts making law, and not interpreting it.

I would still disagree with states that approve it, but it would be their choice, not a board of nine cloak-roomed, star-chambered individuals deciding for an entire population an issue that constitutionally belongs to the states.