Author Topic: Is Abortion Legal? (Read 2174 times)

Dano Bofano · « **on:** January 23, 2006, 04:21:04 PM »

If it is, what makes it so? :?

Sourdough · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2006, 07:57:34 PM »

That's strictly a religious issue, where some religious zelots are trying to force their views on other folks with entirely differant views. I don't feel that it should be discussed here.

nomosendero · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2006, 08:05:12 PM »

No, not just religious

Life, Liberty & The Persuit Of Happiness.

Brett · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2006, 01:40:21 AM »

Legal... perhaps. There are no governmental laws stricktly forbiding it in this country as far as I know.

Is it moral or contrary to God's law? ... Thats another story.

Sourdough, what's the difference between premeditated murder and abortian?... The age of the victom? The 'usefulness' of the victom?... If that is the case what is the next step? Terminating the lives of the elderly or infermed? I see it as more than just a political issue or a religious issue. It's a question that defines who we are and the respect we hold for human life.

Graybeard · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2006, 01:47:38 AM »

This forum being a kinda general catch all forum is an acceptable place to hold such a discussion. Just be sure that all site rules are followed in it as it is a real hot button issue for a lot of folks on both sides of the issue.

Mikey · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2006, 02:24:27 AM »

I'm not so sure it is either legal or illegal. Some states have laws, I believe, defining when a fetus becomes a living human and beyond that point they believe it illegal to terminate a pregnancy - like 3rd term pregnancies. I do not believe the federal government can establish a law to the same effect - all the federal government can do is not pay for it or not fund it under different health programs.

I know that federal medicaid will not pay for abortions - I believe their belief is that to fund abortions it would give some who exercise the right to become pregnant to then have that pregnanacy terminated whenever they don't feel like being pregnant anymore.

It is ironic that if a President approves funding for abortions, the anti-abortion people call him a murderer. If he doesn't fund it then he isn't pro-women's rights. I do not believe any of these groups actually speak for those who might benefit from public funding for abortions, just like al gore's running mate sued for the rights of some disabled patients with the object of making $ for himself - the patients didn't have a thing to do with it. JMHO. Mikey.

FWiedner · « **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:01:14 AM »

Legal.

Law is usually just the rules as laid down by whomever happens to have political advantage. Seems like law, justice and morality are mutually exclusive areas of concern these days.

I see abortion as a reprehensible and barbaric practice, no different than any other form of child abuse.

Personally, I believe that life begins at conception.

At that moment, there is a human life in process. while that embryo might not be able to survive on it's own outside the womb, neither can a full term infant without considerable assistance.

Abortion is homicide. It is killing humans, and it is between you and your conscience, and likely your God, whether or not you oppose it, accept it, participate in or perform it.

It is an issue of convienience, or an issue of dire need. There are surrounding issues of privacy, health, and free will.

Should victims of rape and women whose lives are are at stake be permitted to kill their children? Justice. Health. Morality.

Should willing participants in premarital and or consentual adult relations be permitted to kill their children? Privacy. Convienience. Morality.

Should an unwed teenager resorting to prostitution to live, barely to feed herself, and perhaps with a lingering drug additiion be permitted to kill her children? Convienience. Dire need. Morality.

Should a married woman, unhappy and unfulfilled in her life, dancng on the edge of psychosis be excused for killing her children? By abortion? By drowning them in the bathtub? What's the difference?

Justice, convienience, and morality. Some yes, some no.

I struggle with those issues of whether some people should have children, or whether an unwanted child will result. It's not difficult to find sad news of children who have been horribly tortured and abused unto death, or of those who have gone unsupervised and uncared for, who grow up only to add numbers to our swelling prison populations.

Morality is the core issue, and as they say, you can't legislate that.

:cry:

Nightrain52 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:06:31 AM »

This is more of a religous and morality issue. I can only give my feelings on the subject. In my eyes, yes it is murder but I am sure that some other members believe differently. I am not going to debate whether it is right or wrong, this is just the way I feel about it.

FWiedner · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:08:39 AM »

Sorry - couldn't see that the first one went through...

:oops:

dukkillr · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:39:00 AM »

Legal. There is no debate about that.

NYH1 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2006, 06:52:08 AM »

I don't think abortion should be used as a method of birth control, but there are circumstances where it should or can be used. Teenage pregnancies, rape, medical circumstances, ect. I personally don't think any laws should be made because of religious issues. Just because someone believes in something doesn't mean that everyone else does or has too. IMHO!

Dano Bofano · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:21:18 AM »

Dukkilr,
I don't care if there's no debate about it. What makes it legal?

Dano Bofano · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:37:05 AM »

Dukkilr,
I don't really care if there's no debate about it. What makes it legal?

dukkillr · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2006, 09:55:01 AM »

Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Constitution. How indepth do you want the answer to be?

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2006, 12:42:37 PM »

Legal now...could be illegal next year..as FW said it varies by who is in the driver's seat !

The more appropriate question is .."is it moral?".

We would argue that here for a long time..and still not agree..

Why ?..Because we each operate with different "moral compass".

...And some folks don't have a compass..shucks; they can't even see where the needle is pointing..LOL

mjbgalt · « **Reply #15 on:** January 24, 2006, 02:23:54 PM »

To me, in my own humble little opinion...

Life must start at conception. If no sperm entered the woman, there will never be an embryo, fetus, or child. So the place it starts has to be conception.

I am a Libertarian yet I disagree with them on this one. I take it as an affront to human rights. THEY say human rights begins when someone IS a human. OK....but....

If a dictator wanted to keep blacks out of his country, he could simply force all black women who are pregnant to have abortions. Thus it would eliminate a segment of the population. Each segment tends to vote a certain way and to behave differently and are raised and taight differently.

Think Hitler here...no Christian women are to have babies and thus less "Christian" voting base.

You're eliminating human rights by keeping those humans from existing.

THAT is a rights violation.

And, to me, even if it is not murder in your opinion, human rights are being bypassed.

And if it is just a medical procedure, why do women have such a hard time afterward and need psychological assistance? I bet they don't feel the same about their gallbladders. wonder why.

Legal? Sure. And it used to be legal to make blacks and other minorities drink from different fountains and face different outcomes in court. And as for Constitutional, well, they used to be 3/5ths of a person. So i would rather not base my opinion on what's legal, because "legal" sure as heck isnt the same as "right."

Let's not play games with terms and look at it straight up:

Is abortion keeping a human from living, when it otherwise would have had a chance? Yes.

What do we call that in any other setting?

-Matt

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #16 on:** January 24, 2006, 02:33:09 PM »

The very essence of innocents the human fetus some want to kill and the very essence of evil the convicted Murderer some want to save from death.With the IIWW if is black and white right and wrong and there is no discussion and it is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION---P E R I O D!!!!!!!!!!!

mjbgalt · « **Reply #17 on:** January 24, 2006, 03:15:06 PM »

Intrepid-

He isn't saying it's literally mentioned. He is saying that the right to be secure in your person and property is the heading it is covered under. I disagree, because that child has that right going for him/her too and he/she doesn't get a say in it.

It's got its own heartbeat, that makes it NOT a part of a woman's body.

-Matt

rockbilly · « **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2006, 03:16:53 PM »

:cry: I can't say I am for, or against it, but I think there are times when it is justifyed. For example, a young college student in our community was taken from a shoppiung mall by a group, they took her to an appartment, drugged her and gang raped her. She was held for 9 days before a postman came to her rescue.

I realize it is a moral and legal question, but would YOU assume the responsibility to tell her she has to live with the pain for another nine months, or would you allow her to quitely abort and pick up the pieces of her life? The young lady will carry a scar for the rest of her life, she no longer trust men, avoids crowds, and public places, she dropped out of school, and one of her parents had to watch her 24/7. The young lady is a very dear friend's daughter.

And to make matters even worst, each of the five boys involved got less than six months in jail, even tho they pleaded guilty.

I wouldn't stand up and tell any woman not to have an aboution untill I walked in her shoes. I don't know the circumstances surrounding her request, so I will not judge her or attempot to prevent her request. Someday she will stand in judgement by a higher power. JMHO :cry:

rifleman61 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:18:39 PM »

There is no question but that "abortion" has been ruled as a woman's right, in Roe.v.Wade 1973 Supreme Court. The problem is that the decision that was written for the majority of the court by William O. Douglas has as its foundation absolutely nothing in the Constitution that is Provenance [source]. Douglass created a judicial tour de "farce" by drawing from the "IVth", "Vth", "Ist" and "IXth" amendments a lazy susan of rationalizations for the supposed right of abortion on the part of the woman. What the Court did was in effect[short story] to say that a woman had a "Constitutional" right to privacy created by the "emanations" and "shadings" [his words not mine] such right being older than the right of "the marriage bed" [again his words not mine] that gave her the right to an abortion. No where in the Constitution is the "right to privacy" mentioned; in short there is no right to privacy. Privacy is a condition of being secure. The people generally have privacy because the people are constitutionally "secure". The plain language wording of the "IVth" goes to security:"...the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...", NOT PRIVACY. The problem with "Roe" is that it is bad law, because the Court did not draw upon the Constitution for its decision. Like "Brown .v. Board of Education" this is an outright abuse of the Constitution and as such in a conscionable society would lead to the proper impeachment of the justices. In "Roe" the court substituted its personal preferences for the law. We live in a constitutionally directed Republic in which the people for the purposes convened, Congress, are the sole makers of law subject only to the strictures of a written Constitution. Besides this all else pales by comparison. The sole function of the judiciary is to determine what is lawful "solely" by the Constitution as it comes to that worthy body from the hands of others, and nothing else. Madison and the Framers intended this to be so, because the first Article of Constitution is the longest of all of the Articles, longer than the "IInd" [Executive] and the "IIIrd" [Judiciary] combined.
Where the Court erred was that it did not remand back to the People the question of abortion. Put another way, if Ccongress in session wrote a resolution reading "...Congress shall make no law respecting..." and left the rest of the resolution blank and that this was the only copy available would it then be the role of the Court to tell the American people what the rest of the resolve meant or would it be proper to send it back to Congress for completion?
What many people do not understand is that even should the President get his choices on the Court this does not mean that the Court will overturn "abortion" as an issue. They may very well overturn [and I hope they do] Roe, not because abortion is a moral evil which it is, but because "Roe" is bad law and creates disrespect for the Law and the rule of Law,k and ultimately our Constitution. Abortion to be properly decided should be decided by the "People" in Congress and lacking their courage in that worthy assembly [which we all well know is legendary] then the question of "abortion" is then most properly settled in the legislatures of the "various" states, which is in mine own estimation the only way to do it respectably. "States rights" whuile be a whipping boy for some Establishment Eastern Lliberals is a cornerstone of Federalism, and that is where the question of the "legality" of abortion properly rests. Abortion is widely practiced in England and has never come up as a question to Q/B
[Queen's Bench] because the English people decided for themselves in Commons in Parliament, this question.
I am a Constitutional Scholar [without portfolio--that means boys and girls that I don't have a fancy college degree "Thank God" after my name] and have written on it and studied it for years since Sept.11/2001
Keep the faith and keep questioning, that is what our fom of government and our culture of a Constitutionally directed Republic wants of us as Americans.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

nomosendero · « **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2006, 05:20:19 PM »

rockbilly
That is a terrible situation, no doubt & I would not want to beat her over the head about it, but there is adoption. I am not very high on situation ethics, realizing we can come up with a justification for stealing or virtually
anything, but we still have right & wrong to deal with sooner or later, better sooner.

Not in this situation that you described, but in a culture that is heading downhill, what we will be dealing with later perhaps is eliminating the unwanted. Now we see it with those who are ill, & some want to destroy the very old & "unproductive" in our world. Later, we may want to kill the young who are going to be short, retarded or anything we think is not condusive to a super race. We are not there yet, but if you keep up with these things, you can see some the signs coming about & we know that
it has happened before, like in Hitler's Germany for example. Let's hope
that we can choose the right of Life, Liberty & the Persuit Of Happiness for all.

Dano Bofano · « **Reply #21 on:** January 25, 2006, 04:29:13 AM »

I understand that the legality of a practice can change often but what I am asking is, right now in the US, is it legal? Let's remember that the Supreme Court does not make law! Also, that the Constitution is an express powers document, which means that whatever it sais nothing about, the government has no power in that area. :!: Example: :!: the Constitution sais nothing about public education; therefore, even if it does not say the government can not control education, the government still should not!

NYH1 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2006, 06:53:49 AM »

Quote from: rockbilly

:cry: I can't say I am for, or against it, but I think there are times when it is justifyed. For example, a young college student in our community was taken from a shoppiung mall by a group, they took her to an appartment, drugged her and gang raped her. She was held for 9 days before a postman came to her rescue.

I realize it is a moral and legal question, but would YOU assume the responsibility to tell her she has to live with the pain for another nine months, or would you allow her to quitely abort and pick up the pieces of her life? The young lady will carry a scar for the rest of her life, she no longer trust men, avoids crowds, and public places, she dropped out of school, and one of her parents had to watch her 24/7. The young lady is a very dear friend's daughter.

And to make matters even worst, each of the five boys involved got less than six months in jail, even tho they pleaded guilty.

I wouldn't stand up and tell any woman not to have an aboution untill I walked in her shoes. I don't know the circumstances surrounding her request, so I will not judge her or attempot to prevent her request. Someday she will stand in judgement by a higher power. JMHO :cry:

I would "allow her to quitely abort and pick up the pieces of her life"! Under the circumstances you describe, I personally think that the young lady has every right to do what ever she feels is the right thing to do. It's nobody's business but hers!

DakotaElkSlayer · « **Reply #23 on:** January 25, 2006, 12:08:40 PM »

Abortion, like gay marriage, really doesn't affect me so I don't get so worked up about it. There are some things about it that does make me think...

Lets say abortion is murder for the sake of argument. If that is true, would not a miscarriage be a potential murder or manslaughter?? So every miscarriage should be thoroughly investigated by the police, right?

Ever notice that the ones who scream to outlaw abortion are the same ones who want to cut welfare programs? Hmmm...I smell a big rise in the crime rate!

Jim

Sourdough · « **Reply #24 on:** January 25, 2006, 02:00:08 PM »

I keep hearing this thing about "adoption, that's the answer" OK then why it there so many kids out there that need to be adopted? Why is there so many kids in the Foster Care program?

Lets use the example of where the young woman was gang raped. Some people want to force her to carry that child for nine months, then put is up for adoption. That's absurd. First the whold time she is carrying the child she is reliving that experience every day. Second after she carries the baby to full term, there is no way most women will then give it up. Something in their physiology will not let them, not after carrying it that long. It's part of being a woman. But then she will be reminded of her bad experience everyday by the child. Then the mental strain comes in, the mental anguish, guilt, all feelings that are real to her. Talk about a recipe for someone going over the edge, that is what would be created. Then throw in the fact that the baby could be of a differant ethnic background than the young woman. Now she is living with even more guilt. Even though the people around her accept her baby, people outside her circle of friends will give her strange looks and the feelings of guilt will be intensified. All this is possiably leading to child neglect, abuse, or who nows what else.

And it all can be prevented with a simple little pill, or a surgical procedure following the rape. No one has the right to tell a woman what she can ro cannot do in this requard. No matter how many laws get passed to prevent abortion, it will still be practised just like it was before it was legalized.

I've even heard the argument that every egg that a woman has is a potential life. And that everytime she lets one pass with getting fertilised she is killing a potentiol human. So how many of us are going to accept the acusations that our wives and daughters are commiting murder each time they don't get pregnant every month, instead of letting the egg go to waste and losing that potential human life? Think about it!

swiftman · « **Reply #25 on:** January 25, 2006, 02:52:32 PM »

IF a woman decides to have her unborn child killed by a doctor it is legal, but if someone kills her while she is pregnant then it is double homocide, for her death and the unborn babys death. HMMMMM You have the right of life ,liberty and the presuit of happines under the constitusoin as long as your mother does not have you killed first.
This country is starting down another slippery slope an assited suicide now. How long will it be before it is ok to kill your parents because they are a hinderence to you.

dukkillr · « **Reply #26 on:** January 25, 2006, 05:19:23 PM »

Dano I don't understand what you're getting at, but it seems like you asked this question with a specific debate theory in mind. Rest assured that by any rational means of debate abortion is legal in the United States today. It's legal because you can get an abortion and the government can't stop you. It's also legal because the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution to protect our right to privacy. That right to privacy was interpreted in a whole line of cases to extend to the decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

What ever your theory is, it doesn't operate in the world we live in. I suppose if you believe you're right you should bring suit on behalf of yourself against Planned Parenthood and see where you end up. I bet I can predict the result.

rockbilly · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2006, 04:21:36 PM »

:cry: In my opinion, as long as there are pregnant women, there will be some that seek an abortion for whatever reason. I don't think all the laws in the world can stop it, if it is not in a medical facility, then it will be performed in a motel room by a butcher. I remember the 50s-60s in Bossier City, LA, there was a woman from England that used a flashlight housing with both ends remover and a knitting needle. A large numberr of those she worked on were found in an alley dead. With the number of young folks engaged in sexual activity today, how many would be lost? A friend who teaches school at a local middle school (7-8th grades) said she estimated that over 70% of these "children" ar actively engaged in sexual activity with several partners. It makes me wonder, how many abortions are being performed that we don't know about?

nomosendero · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2006, 06:53:14 PM »

Probably alot rockbilly,& the slippage of morality causes a host of problems.

I see good arguments on both sides here & I have already given my view
& neither side is likely to change their mind.

The main point of the pro-abortion side is that this is the Court Ruling & how they "interpret" the Constitution. So to be consistant with your view,
then if the "Court" Rules that the 2nd Amendment means only the Nat.
Guard/Militia/Mil. can be armed, you will to be consistant have to say
this is how the Court interprets the Constitution, it is the law & live with it!

Well gentlemen, not for me, sorry!!!

Ocsamschainsaw · « **Reply #29 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:56:15 AM »

I think the underlying question often forgotten is:
regardless of legality, are people, for reasons "right" or "wrong", going to do it anyways?
If so, what means will they use, and what are the impacts of such means?
I don't agree with willy nilly abortions for absolutely any reason myself, but these realities must be considered-before roe v wade, how many people were horribly mangled with coathangers, and how many children were murdered anyways, even though it was illegal, and the mothers either severely injured or killed needlessly? Does this mean that abortion is right or wrong? No. It's an observation of a reality that occurs that is often forgotten in an objective view of what to do with this problem that faces our society.
Like gun control, banning something does NOT mean that it disappears, and hefty fines and imprisonment do not always deter folks who may simply be in need of offered alternatives, such as a well funded and well taken care of foster care system.