I think yesterday Obama came out officially supporting the right to choose.
GOOD. The Federal Government should not have a say in this issue. Sorry to you religious types that may disagree but I think this is a choice between mom and dad and her doctors if needed. I am not you and I am not "God" if you believe in one. It is your personal choice and you will have to answer for it in your way. If it ain't my kid I don't get a say.
Personally I could never support an abortion if the mothers life was not in danger but that is me and I don't have any right to make you do what is right for me. (unless you are interfering in my life or with my rights but that is different)
Pro Choice is Small Government and Government out of our personal lives as it should be.
Why do I get more and more scared every day Obama is in office? I keep thinking "He is doing the right thing. . . when will the other shoe fall?" I keep thinking I am getting set up for him to do something really stupid like attack the Bill of Right. I feel he is hiding something or trying to lull us into a false sense of security with him.
We will see
Update - He has screwed up. The pro choice thing I can live with. . . I don't want the government funding it. I am hearing on the news that he will reverse the Bush rule about the government funding abortion in and outside of the US.
This is wrong. The US government has no job paying for anyone's abortion, inside the US or in some foreign country. The government has no job being involved in it at all, so they most definitely should not be funding it.
Obama, get with it and stop wasting my tax money on this crap. Someone wants an abortion they can pay for it. I am not going to pay for it. You need to get your head back out of your ass and go back to the important stuff - The ECONOMY and the WAR. Forget the rest it is not important right now. And stop spending my money!
8 comments:
JD, I'm not sure it's that simple.
I think the extremes are simple. Would I be okay with a woman having an abortion at two weeks? Sure. Would I be okay with a woman having an abortion at eight-months-and-three-weeks? Not at all!
So the ends of the spectrum, to me, are simple. It's the middle that gets complicated.
Lissa, nothing is ever that clear cut. I am just happy that he is keeping the government out of it. I think this should be dealt with at a state level and keep the Fed out. The law as it stands now does seem to protect late term babies from abortion quite well (at least in MA if I understand it right). I see no real need for late term abortion unless for the mom's safety since you know rather quickly these days if you are pregnant and can abort early if that is your choice of birth control. . .
I support giving the choice to the parents as much as possible because I am not so special as to be able to choose what is right for others. . . only for me.
Yes personally I would avoid abortion of my baby unless mom's life was in danger but I may also look at it if I was told the kid would have some birth defect that would give him what I feel is no quality of life. Other may disagree and that is OK as long as they don't impose on me and I don't impose on them.
We need to make these kinds of choices ourselves and answer to our own "higher power" for them.
I hate to tell you this, but as of Roe vs Wade...arguably one of the most blatant cases of judicial activism on record...the federal government IS involved in this issue.
What you are advocating is the federal government STAYING involved in the issue, not staying out of it.
Re your justification for supporting the right of a mother to choose to take the life of her child...I assume that means you would vote to acquit should the mother have killed her child in, say, the fourth trimester...or at any age up to 18...I mean, it's the mother's right to choose right? None of the government's business.
The problem with the "right to choose" in my mind, is that it isn't the right of anyone to choose whether anyone else gets to live or not. What about the children's right to life? They don't count?
If the life of the mother is in jeopardy, it is justifiable homicide...i.e. self defense; otherwise, the child has as much right to life as anyone.
Killing a child for convenience is not anyone's right, no matter what stage of development the child is in.
In my humble opinion.
Salor - Personally I am against abortion except to save the mom. But that is me. I think the Fed should not have a say yes or no in abortion, it should be dealt with at a state level if at all by the government. Folks will always find a way to abort a pregnancy be it by surgery or by eating something as they did in the old days. While I am against it I think making it illegal just pushes it underground and make the situation worse for all. Every time we try to prohibit an activity it seems to get worse not better. . .
I would rather it was legal and we pushed education - Teach folks how to avoid becoming pregnant in order to reduce/eliminate abortion, just making it illegal won't work now and didn't in the past. . . . Back ally abortion is not just a made up term as I am sure you know.
this is one of those issues that both sides have good points yet there are circumstances where both sides are wrong too. . .
I don't think we will ever have a good answer for this one. The government never should have opened up regulation of this one way or the other in the first place.
Folks will always find a way to abort a pregnancy be it by surgery or by eating something as they did in the old days. While I am against it I think making it illegal just pushes it underground and make the situation worse for all.
I agree, that's why murder should be decriminalized...I mean, murder being a crime doesn't prevent it...it just pushes it underground and makes the situation worse for all.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I apologize...sometimes I can't help myself.
Seriously though. Even though it is impossible to point to any single factor (or any multitude of factors for that matter) and say "that is responsible for the decline of our society", I think the abortion issue is one that significantly impacts our societal mores.
By declaring it a right, the government, through the Supreme Court, basically declared that the life of the child is less important than the convenience of the Mother.
That it is perfectly acceptable to act irresponsibly, and then avoid your responsibilities to the point of even murdering your own child.
Life and the responsibilities of parenthood have been cheapened...especially within the societal subgroup that makes up the vast majority of the "customers" of abortion clinics...to the point where the responsibilities of parenthood are viewed as nothing more than an inconvenience to be avoided by virtually any means.
Yes, the lives of people who obtain abortions would be greatly complicated were it illegal. Some would be injured or die from improperly performed procedures and abortions would still go on regardless.
But at least we, as a society, would no longer be sending the message that our children are expendable. That killing ones child is a morally acceptable and proper avenue of avoiding the responsibility and consequences of ones own acts. That life is more important than convenience.
Life is a natural right which may only be abridged through due process of law. I'll withdraw my opposition to abortion on the day that each individual unborn child is granted their day in court before arbitrarily losing their right to life at the whim of another.
Salor - Personally I agree with most of what you say. I admire your convictions. As I said, I am against it myself.
Where I have a problem (personally) is I feel that if I sanction the state getting into this and making it illegal then I feel like I have set myself up as better than some who may be ok with abortion. I just don't think my judgment is that superior to theirs (or yours). I would rather see us focused on reducing and eliminating Abortion by teaching folks to use contraceptives and family planning and adoption services. I guess I want a way to end it without getting the law involved. I realize that is probably unrealistic as it would mean a change in the harts and minds of people but if we are going to turn this country around on all fronts we are going to have to win the hearts and minds over to thinking of better ways to deal with all the issues and to think about the effects that each of our actions has. If we all took responsibility for our actions, I am not sure this would be an issue any more. . . .
I also think that if I was female I may have stronger feeling about keeping the government out of it. . .
This is an issue that won't be solved by me, I think it needs much better/smarter philosophers than I to figure out.
I absolutely respect your reluctance to force your opinion on anyone else. I feel the same way about most things...the difference in this issue is that it affects the rights of another.
I don't believe that it is the role of government to determine what substances we are allowed to ingest or how much gas mileage our cars should get or how many guns we can own or of what types...
But it IS the role of government to protect the rights of its people and that is my point.
What it all comes down to is the question of when does a child become a human being and at what point does it attain rights.
I believe that life begins at conception and, therefore, that the unborn child has all the rights that any child has...including the right to life.
Some will argue that the child is not really a person until some arbitrary point in their development. That has never, to my mind, been adequately established. Until it is, I say we should err on the side of caution and protect the life from the earliest stages.
At any rate...I don't expect I'll change anyone's mind about it and I know that this comment thread is not going to determine governmental policy...I'm just trying to explain my outlook. I'm just as capable of being wrong as anyone else.
BTW: I don't feel I'm "better" than anyone else because of my convictions. I don't look down on those who've chosen to have abortions, even though I firmly believe that the decision was a mistake. It was legal and socially acceptable for them to do so at the time and, so, it was a legitimate decision for them to make. It is not up to me to pass judgment on them.
But that doesn't mean that I think the legality and social acceptability of the practice should continue.
Good discussion. Thank you.
Sailor - hey, thanks for a good debate. You made me think and that is good. BTW I see Obama wants the feds to pay for them and that I am against 100% because our tax money not only can be used better but I don't think folks should be forced to support it with their tax money when they are against it.
Good debate - thanks - it is fun to have an intelligent debate that makes me think and see the other side!
Post a Comment