Abortion Ban - Your vote

[barfbag]

This is already the law I believe. Abortions should only be legal in the cases of incest, rape, damaged fetuses, or hazards to the mother's life. One parent must also be notified in the cases of minors.

[cheesepizza]

Hell yes!

[politicallefty]

No (D). I think abortion should be available as a right until viability of the fetus, which I think is somewhere around 24-25 weeks for the most part right now. I could certainly support outlawing very late 2nd-trimester and all 3rd-trimester abortions, provided there are at least the usual accepted exceptions (life/health of the mother, rape, and incest).

[PJ]

Hells naw

[Person Man]

Yes (D)
The process of a late term abortion in itself is exceptionally gruesome

..for the (almost viable) child as well as for the mother.

Personally, I am fine with the 3-month (13 weeks) rule that exists in Germany. Gives the potential mother (parents) sufficient time to reflect on the situation and possible options (including offering the baby for adoption) - also in cases of rape or incest.

If in the course of the pregnancy serious risks for the life of the mother become apparent, I would not consider it abortion. In that case, we are talking about a medical decision geared as protecting livelihood to the extent possible - even during birth, there may be situations where a decision has to be taken between saving the mother's or the child's life. Such medical decisions should not be justiciable, to the extent they are taken in accordance with standard medical practice.

With the "deformed foetuses" argument people are getting dangerously close to euthanasia. IMO, from the moment in-utero diagnostics of the child become possible, abortions should be banned. [Again, if the foetus turns out to be obviously not liveable, and keeping it could endanger the mother's health, I would not consider it abortion, but taking a medical decision geared at protecting health and livelihood to the extent possible.]

I am beginning to think "slippery slopes" aren't really that slippery. Personally, that didn't cross my mind until you brought that up. It was really, in my mind, based on disease prevention and trying again to have a kid, not at all the mercy killing  of the Down Syndrome boy across the street. And for 40 years, though much of that time, we weren't exactly sophisticated enough to know for sure which fetus was damaged or not, we have done more, not less, to affirm the lives of the intellectually and physically  handicapped and the severely health impaired.

I think there are several discrete types of abortion (though people can lie about why when it is generally tolerated) and apparently approving of one type, doesn't mean you will approve of any other. Then again, it would eventually come down to an all or nothing situation because I don't think it would be practical to have an abortion clinic just doing an abortion for a specific criteria of cases. If we did go down such a road where we tolerated or criminalized abortion based on the reason, I'd imagine each county or state would have its own administrative abortion panel with a doctor willing to do the abortion, a Divorce or Misdemeanor Domestic Violence judge and maybe the District Attorney or the local parish priest. If approved, the doctor would have a suite at the hospital to abort, and if not, the panel can order mandatory pregnancy tests at x intervals until birth. If the woman refuses, the panel can find her in contempt of court and if the pregnancy test comes up negative, the case can be referred to the District Attorney's and/or Sheriff's Office for whatever type of crime that abortion is considered (it strattles the line  between various degrees of homicide, other crimes against persons, drug, family and sex offenses)

This is why I find abortion to be one of the most fascinating human issues. What other issue is so complex but through the centuries and cultures has created so many conflicting "all or nothing" attitudes?

[barfbag]

It's interesting to see polls on abortion because they always depend on how the question is asked. If the question is "Are you pro-life?" Then the majority will say yes. If the question is worded as "Do you support a woman's right to choose?" The majority still says yes. Most Americans' position on abortion is that it should be legal, but it's morally wrong. When we look at presidents and most presidential candidates, this is the stance they take. Romney claimed to be pro-life but promised no new abortion legislation. Bill Clinton took a similar stance but was pro-choice. Other than Bush, I can't think of any presidents who have moved to ban abortion. I only support abortion in cases of incest, rape, a damaged fetus, or if the mother's life is in danger. Parents of minors and guardians of the incompetent should be required to provide written consent at the time.

[Franknburger]

Apologies in advance if I should be hijacking this thread. Abortion is indeed one of the most fascinating and complex human issues. Since it is not being discussed anymore in Germany since the 1980s, I use this opportunity to present my general perspective:

1.) Unplanned pregnancy is fundamentally affecting a woman's plans for life, and she must be given adequate opportunity to consider all available options and their consequences. These options include abortion (legal or not, it has always been and will most likely be in future an available option). Ideally, her family and her partner will assist her in decision making. In reality, however, the family may revert to moralistic attitudes, while the partner refuses to assume responsibility. Hence, society and politics need to provide opportunities for adequate counselling. Criminalisation does not help in this respect.

2.) I myself have in three cases (including my sister) been asked for advice, and I am convinced that no woman is taking an abortion decision lightly. To the opposite, they are probably more torn inside by that decision than most men can imagine [One of the three women asking me for advice committed suicide on the day of the planned abortion, after not showing up in the abortion clinic]. As such, life experience has convinced me that the decision for or against abortion is best placed with the prospective mother, and not with government.

3.) An abortion means substantial psychological and physiological stress. Returning again to personal experience, the two other women that asked me for advice each carried out abortion once, but ruled it out as an option afterwards. They are both proud parents of now already grown-up children, and will probably transmit their experience (in the case of my sister, a doctor herself, I am especially sure). Instead of discussing legal issues, people from both sides of the aisle would IMO be better advised to recognise and communicate the fact that abortion is not the convenient solution it appears to be.

4.)  Ultimately, we are talking about the moral conflict between an unborn's right to life, and  the mother's right to determine her own future. A difficult decision, which, as I said above, I see best placed with the mother. That decision has to be taken sooner or later. In the interest of the mother (and father), and of the unborn, I want to see it being taken as soon as possible. It may take a while to recognise the pregnancy, maybe more than eight weeks (two cycles). Discussion and decision-taking also need some time. but four to six weeks should be sufficient. As such, a time frame anywhere between nine and fifteen weeks from inception seems both necessary and adequate to me. Anything beyond that, however, would only extend the mother's moral conflict, and/or expose her to additional family or partner pressure. Does not help the mother, does not help the child (that is linked hormone-wise to the mother)!  

5.)  I am probably getting moralist here, but I believe that once you have decided to reproduce, you should embrace your child unconditionally. We did not even want to know the sex of our children. even though it could easily be determined during ultrasonic diagnostics (why take away some of the surprise?). If there are risks of deformation, consider them before you mate, or during the first months of pregnancy, but don't get into genetical engineering. The mother's future may be a legitimate reason for abortion, the child's properties are definitely not!

6.) On a side note: If this hasn't become obvious already - I believe every abortion is one too many. I just don't think government / the judiciary is the right instance to deal with the many questions involved. However, I also oppose any action that provides positive incentives for abortion, e.g. embryonic stem cell research, which creates a market for (and a revenue on) aborted foetuses.

[CatoMinor]

In my opinion the 20 week mark does not go far enough, but moving in the right direction. When there is an abortion takes away more than just a life, it takes away the potential for a future, good or bad. People like to talk about how the women would be robbed of choice and forced into a certain future, but what of the potential future for the unborn?

I know because I am male I clearly cannot go through the same things as women and see 100% the same as them, but as a human I just cannot see the justification in robbing a life of its future and potential.

[barfbag]

In my opinion the 20 week mark does not go far enough, but moving in the right direction. When there is an abortion takes away more than just a life, it takes away the potential for a future, good or bad. People like to talk about how the women would be robbed of choice and forced into a certain future, but what of the potential future for the unborn?

I know because I am male I clearly cannot go through the same things as women and see 100% the same as them, but as a human I just cannot see the justification in robbing a life of its future and potential.

Women being robbed of choice? Well we can sacrifice a life for that. After all keeping women happy keeps more Democrats than Republicans happy as women tend to vote more in the direction of Democrats. If women began voting Republican, then the Democratic Party would become more pro-life. In most cases, abortion is a very difficult decision from what I'm told. At what point do we start taking responsibility for our actions though? Besides if abortion does get banned, adoptions would go up and the Democrats would have another issue to fight for with gay adoptions. See, the Democrats will still be able to take up a liberal cause.

[Gass3268]

As someone who believes that life begins at birth, no effing way.

[Ebowed]

No, I can't really say that I would support any restrictions on abortion.

[CatoMinor]

As someone who believes that life begins at birth, no effing way.

you do not call the collection of cells reproducing and growing with DNA distinct from the mother around it life?

[Antonio the Sixth]

In my opinion the 20 week mark does not go far enough, but moving in the right direction. When there is an abortion takes away more than just a life, it takes away the potential for a future, good or bad. People like to talk about how the women would be robbed of choice and forced into a certain future, but what of the potential future for the unborn?

I know because I am male I clearly cannot go through the same things as women and see 100% the same as them, but as a human I just cannot see the justification in robbing a life of its future and potential.

If you're concerned with potential future, then condoms and birth control pills are just as much of a problem as abortion. LOL, even sexual abstinence deprives potential lifes of their future.

[Person Man]

In my opinion the 20 week mark does not go far enough, but moving in the right direction. When there is an abortion takes away more than just a life, it takes away the potential for a future, good or bad. People like to talk about how the women would be robbed of choice and forced into a certain future, but what of the potential future for the unborn?

I know because I am male I clearly cannot go through the same things as women and see 100% the same as them, but as a human I just cannot see the justification in robbing a life of its future and potential.

If you're concerned with potential future, then condoms and birth control pills are just as much of a problem as abortion. LOL, even sexual abstinence deprives potential lifes of their future.

Indeed. This is a bad argument.

[TDAS04]

No.

Abortion is a bad thing, especially late-term abortion.  However, for government to outlaw it or even to regulate it is counterproductive.  Even during late pregnancy, there may be times when abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.  If that exception was made for this particular law, I would still have to vote no, because I do not trust government bureaucrats to make the decision whether or not the woman's life is in danger.  I trust the woman herself and her doctor more. 

[barfbag]

No.

Abortion is a bad thing, especially late-term abortion.  However, for government to outlaw it or even to regulate it is counterproductive.  Even during late pregnancy, there may be times when abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.  If that exception was made for this particular law, I would still have to vote no, because I do not trust government bureaucrats to make the decision whether or not the woman's life is in danger.  I trust the woman herself and her doctor more. 

Doctors, not bureaucrats should be making decisions as to whether or not a mother's life is in danger. I don't know anyone who supports the government making this decision though or anyone who thinks a woman should be required to carry a pregnancy to term if her life is in danger.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I support banning abortion past the point of viability, with the exception of severe birth defects and risk to the mother's heath. But 20 weeks is too early, so NAY (RD).

More or less.

[barfbag]

I support banning abortion past the point of viability, with the exception of severe birth defects and risk to the mother's heath. But 20 weeks is too early, so NAY (RD).

More or less.

Did you change your party?

[Person Man]

I support banning abortion past the point of viability, with the exception of severe birth defects and risk to the mother's heath. But 20 weeks is too early, so NAY (RD).

More or less.

Did you change your party?

He's using a quote from another person who is a pro-choice Republican but he himself is a Democrat.

[barfbag]

I support banning abortion past the point of viability, with the exception of severe birth defects and risk to the mother's heath. But 20 weeks is too early, so NAY (RD).

More or less.

Did you change your party?

He's using a quote from another person who is a pro-choice Republican but he himself is a Democrat.

I thought Snowstalker was a Democrat.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In my opinion the 20 week mark does not go far enough, but moving in the right direction. When there is an abortion takes away more than just a life, it takes away the potential for a future, good or bad. People like to talk about how the women would be robbed of choice and forced into a certain future, but what of the potential future for the unborn?

I know because I am male I clearly cannot go through the same things as women and see 100% the same as them, but as a human I just cannot see the justification in robbing a life of its future and potential.

If you're concerned with potential future, then condoms and birth control pills are just as much of a problem as abortion. LOL, even sexual abstinence deprives potential lifes of their future.

Indeed. This is a bad argument.

There's a difference between the potential for a future in an entity that exists and in an entity that does not exist.

[Napoleon]

As someone who believes that life begins at birth, no effing way.

you do not call the collection of cells reproducing and growing with DNA distinct from the mother around it life?

Sorry, jbrase, I;m with Gass on this one. I suppose the semantics suggest its "life", as its living, but its not an independent life with human rights until birth.

And you would probably agree, the best way to eliminate problems associated with poverty isn't to just give people enough money to live comfortably, its to eliminate and reduce the root causes. With abortion, you need to focus on reducing and eliminating the socioeconomic factors that so often lead to abortions, not getting rid of a procedure that might be necessary.

[Gass3268]

As someone who believes that life begins at birth, no effing way.

you do not call the collection of cells reproducing and growing with DNA distinct from the mother around it life?

Its more of a hybrid between life and an additional body part that mother has for 9 months.   

[TJ in Oregon]

As someone who believes that life begins at birth, no effing way.

you do not call the collection of cells reproducing and growing with DNA distinct from the mother around it life?

Its more of a hybrid between life and an additional body part that mother has for 9 months.   

I can see how someone would say this for earlier in a pregnancy, but once you've passed the point of viability, how can anyone really argue in favor of abortion? Why not have a c-section by the time we've reached the last trimester at least?

[Person Man]

In my opinion the 20 week mark does not go far enough, but moving in the right direction. When there is an abortion takes away more than just a life, it takes away the potential for a future, good or bad. People like to talk about how the women would be robbed of choice and forced into a certain future, but what of the potential future for the unborn?

I know because I am male I clearly cannot go through the same things as women and see 100% the same as them, but as a human I just cannot see the justification in robbing a life of its future and potential.

If you're concerned with potential future, then condoms and birth control pills are just as much of a problem as abortion. LOL, even sexual abstinence deprives potential lifes of their future.

Indeed. This is a bad argument.

There's a difference between the potential for a future in an entity that exists and in an entity that does not exist.

However, there is no one definition that divides what exists from what does not exist and when there is a consensus, it is always arbitrary or offensive in one way or another.