Posted on 10/26/2007 5:10:37 PM PDT by WFTR
NEW YORK — Even though few Americans say abortion will be the most important issue for them in the upcoming election, nearly half say they need to know a candidate’s position on abortion before deciding their vote for president.
A FOX News poll released Friday shows that 45 percent of Americans need to know a candidate’s position on abortion before they vote, while 53 percent say it is not something they need to know.
...
The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal if the baby has a fatal birth defect, including 26 percent of those identified as pro-life, and 30 percent think it should be illegal.
The highest number — 73 percent — say abortion should be legal if the pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, and a sizable 70 percent majority thinks it should be allowed in the case of rape or incest. A smaller 56 percent majority of Americans says the procedure should be legal when the mother's mental health is at stake.
About 4 in 10 (39 percent) think that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is simply unwanted, while half (50 percent) say it should be illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Right on!
“You and I are done here”
Long before you even realized.
Why don’t you just go ahead and state flat out, that you support FORCING RAPE VICTIMS that become pregnant TO CARRY THEIR RAPISTS CHILD TO TERM.
I am not trying to trap you, just discuss the natural consequences of the abortion is murder stance. And the problem with that.
“the woman may not know what she was doing” is hard to contend when she gives consent.
Then you weren't aborted, otherwise you wouldn't have lived those 70 years.
THere was no uproar when women died. It was kept very quiet.
So quiet, apparently, that no one noticed the massive numbers until about 1966, and even then they forgot the documentation.
But if abortion is criminalized and people who perform them are made felons as some suggest, some suggest murder charges, I say it is irrational to think that a woman who consents is not complicit in the very same crime and deserves the very same penalty. If that is the wish of the prolifers, then there will be an uproar.
You're assuming that the purpose of pro-life legislation is to harm women, and it isn't. It's to help both women and children. It's to create an atmosphere where men can't railroad women into abortions, because the law will no longer be on the side of the abortionist. It's to create a civilized society where women know that their capacity as the bearers of new life is respected and honored, and those who would degrade it are regarded as monstrous criminals.
I have never read NRal propaganda. I do not listen to the media.
Then it's just a wild coincidence that you repeat their position on this issue.
Do you deny that women are complicit in abortion?Do you think abortion providers should be felons? Why would you excuse women. If they hire a hit man to kill their husbands, would you excuse them? Of course not.
Again, the purpose of pro-life legislation is to restore the sense of dignity women have largely had taken from them by the culture wars, including legal abortion. What is the best way to reduce abortions and lessen the harm it does to women and babies? Is it to send women to prison? No. It's to prosecute the abortionist, and give women a sense of their own worth, and to give men a sense of responsibility. It does less good to paint women and abortionists as cohorts than to correctly categorize abortionists as exploiters of women. It's a question of tactics. One works better than the other.
This is the way this kind of criminalizing leads,,I am pointing that out to you.
It didn't lead there before.
Most of those females are pretty stupid and I doubt that they had much impact on policy.
That girl was told in no uncertain terms that she was no longer welcome in my home. She was told that by my daughter. I was so proud that day.
You should be! The young pro-life people I encounter tend to be the best and the brightest, and your daughter certainly fits the profile!
“The young pro-life people I encounter tend to be the best and the brightest, and your daughter certainly fits the profile!”
In a “health” class in high school (which preceded yanking her out and home schooling) her indoctrination specialist...er, teacher, tried giving what amounted to a pro-NARAL speech to the young skulls full of mush. The captive audience.
When the “teacher” was finished she asked for any questions.
My daughter raised her hand and asked “Isn’t it true that you can get the babies’ heart beat at 18 weeks or sooner?”
The teacher turned about three shades of red when my little angel followed that up with, “I could never murder my baby just because I was too stupid and too much of a whore to keep my thighs shut.”
That was her final week in public school. Two years ago. She will graduate the homeschool program this year, on time. She’s thinking about the Navy or the Air Force in a year or two.
What a kid.
Some don’t becuase instead of this being a (”Black-and-White”) issuse (which it is) when it is MURDER vs. Life, has been muddied by your side by “emotional issues”-selfishness, and the 40 years of indoctrination that Abortion is ok: After-all what do you call yourself: “Pro Choice”? Not “Pro-Death”..which I don’t call you, By the way out of respect!.
It is a black-and-white issue: ABORTION is Murder, Period.
She should be consoled, helped to keep the baby to term, give it up for adoption (if unwanted), then instead of being condemned (she already knows the consequences), be taught the right way: Sex in Marriage.
First, I don’t believe in protecting anything because of what it “might” become. If a mass of cells might become a person but isn’t a person, then that mass of egg cells does not have the rights of a person. The condor egg argument is irrelevant in most cases.
***That’s not true. If you break a Condor Egg, you go to jail. That Condor Egg has more rights to protection in our society than the preborn human. There are legal considerations which led to this development and since we’re talking about extending legal rights of protection to some creature on the basis of its potential, it is a strong consideration regardless of how one “feels” about it.
No individual is going to have his or her life disrupted for nearly a year over most condor eggs.
***But if an individual kills that egg, there will be legal consequences because that egg has rights in this society.
If a condor laid its eggs on private property in such a way that the property owner lost use of his home for a year, I’d advocate letting the owner dump the eggs and get back to his life.
***So would I, but the law itself may not have such a provision.
The fact that we don’t do this for [these?] property owners doesn’t mean that we should put the same imposition on rape victims. These two wrongs would not make a right.
***This is not about rape victims. It’s about the condor egg’s rights. That Condor egg has rights in this society regardless of how it was conceived.
You said that you don’t want to lump the argument around birth control pills with the argument around very early abortions and don’t see why that connection is necessary. However, if we pass a human life amendment and define life as beginning at the moment of conception, then those birth control pills may be considered illegal.
***Yes, and I think that would be wonderful. However, I don’t see that we would have enough support to get the human life amendment passed, so that’s why I even bother with the 3 tiered compromise in the first place. The analogy I’ve used before is that it’s as if we were in the civil war and we didn’t have the resources to end it triumphantly, both sides were stuck. If one side is making tons of progress, they won’t be negotiating for an end to hostilities.
The argument will become complicated, but we can’t avoid that complication if we’re going to take a “legal rights begin at conception” approach to abortion.
***But you need to look back on your own writing and see where you were talking about “full” legal rights being extended, “a middle ground can accept that the rights of the unborn child are not absolute.” We as a society can extend protection to all unborn children if we decide to, but it may not be doable and it may not be biblical. The middle ground I’m exploring is that we do extend rights to the unborn, but not “absolute” rights to 3rd tier babies. Yet.
Your approach to what you call “Tier 3” babies is a problem because you’ve put the responsibility for people’s bad choices back on society and not on the people making those choices. If every woman who wanted an abortion could go live somewhere clean and safe for eight months and then not have to take care of the child, many people wouldn’t bother to exercise any caution at all.
***I doubt that. Having 8 months of your life disrupted due to lack of consideration of the choices one makes and how that affects other humans will cause most women to start taking things seriously. And as a society, we can do something about serial abusers of the system, putting more of the burden of responsibility onto them.
If there is no cost to the people who made the bad choices that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, then there will be no incentive for them to change behavior.
***Well, that’s an exaggeration — there is a cost and we as a society can increase that cost as we see fit.
In that case, our society would be swamped by these abandoned babies, and we’d have to spend every resource available to compensate for the irresponsibility of these people.
***You didn’t read what I wrote. “If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.”
For the rape victim, pregnant through no fault of her own, I support giving her as much help as possible to get through that time and carry the baby if that’s what she chooses.
***Rape victims constitute far less than 1% of abortions today, so I’m willing to consider many different scenarios for these rare exceptions.
For others, we must make them face the consequences of their own decisions.
***I agree. We as a society can decide what those consequences should be.
That’s a kid to be proud of. We need more people like that in our society.
You’re assuming that the purpose of pro-life legislation is to harm women, and it isn’t. It’s to help both women and children. It’s to create an atmosphere where men can’t railroad women into abortions, because the law will no longer be on the side of the abortionist. It’s to create a civilized society where women know that their capacity as the bearers of new life is respected and honored, and those who would degrade it are regarded as monstrous criminals.
***Excellent point, good writing.
You assume women are passive sheep controlled by society and men. Thus while you call abortion murder, you would “protect” the women who consent, seek and get abortions.
That seems very irrational to me.
When you call those who perform abortions murders, it is inescapable that the women who consent and seek are at the very least accessories.
Pro-abortion women generally are easily manipulated by men. One of the great myths of post-sixties society is that feminist women are independent and strong. In fact, they're easily manipulated and readily degrade themselves for the benefit of powerful men, even men who are abusive and openly misogynistic.
Recall how feminists looked the other way when Clinton abused women, including the very credible charge of forcible rape. Nina Burleigh, a feminist journalist, said she would gladly fall to her knees and perform oral sex on Clinton because of his pro-abortion stance. Feminists have likewise looked the other way regarding Ted Kennedy's behavior. Remember Robert Packwood? He was a liberal Republican who was a pro-abortion fanatic. He had to resign from the Senate after it was learned he had groped and sexually mistreated numerous women. During the investigation, it came out that NARAL members had been aware of his conduct for years, but continued to support him and even praise him as a "pro-woman" leader.
Feminists aren't independent. They lead lives in which they're used as political prostitutes by leftist male politicians.
You'd never see a pro-life woman journalist such as Michelle Malkin demean herself the way Nina Burleigh did. You'd never see a woman member of a pro-life group allow herself to be groped or mistreated by a male politician. But pro-abortion women really have low self-esteem. They try to cover this up by proclaiming that they're independent and don't need men, and all that nonsense, but it's all show. Just like Hillary Clinton, who'd be teaching women's studies at some small college somewhere, or practicing law at some small firm, if she hadn't hooked up prostitute-like with a rising male politician, and used his charisma and undeserved popularity to get her name out before the public, something she never could have done on her own. Her arrogance and her constant claims that many men are intimidated by "strong women" such as herself is designed to divert attention from the fact that she got where she is by looking the other way when her husband cheated on her.
When you call those who perform abortions murders, it is inescapable that the women who consent and seek are at the very least accessories.
You can repeat that until you're blue in the face but the fact remains that abortion was banned pre-Roe and women weren't prosecuted.
It's interesting how many pro-abortion young women have esteem issues. It's almost as if they're punishing themselves by submitting to abortion.
That's even true in non-Western cultures. There's a Japanese film called Tokyo Twilight by the great director Yasujiro Ozu. One of the plot lines is about a young woman who starts running around with a bad crowd. A guy gets her pregnant, and when she tells him (expecting him to marry her) he does the disappearing act. She panics and gets an abortion. The abortionist is a sleazy looking woman who automatically assumes the girl is a stripper or a prostitute the moment she walks in the door. In fact, the girl is from a good family. After the abortion, she goes home and breaks down in tears when she sees her older sister's baby daughter. She tells acquaintances she'll never be a mother because she isn't good enough, and ends up throwing herself in front of a train.
Really grim stuff, but that's what abortion is like, and everyone knows it. That's why pro-aborts insist on being called "pro-choice", to distance themselves from the stigma.
There have been some feminist complaints recently about how abortion is treated like an ugly thing even in liberal Hollywood films, including raunchy films like Knocked Up. The thing is, abortion is such a lowly and degrading thing, that even Hollyweird can't think of a way to depict it as anything other than the abomination it is. Imagine trying to write a script in which a woman has an abortion, is comfortable with it, and is still sympathetic or a heroine.
Thanks! You’re doing a great job in this debate!
While were at it......let's stop the "law" from regulating all murders.
The thing is, abortion is such a lowly and degrading thing, that even Hollyweird can’t think of a way to depict it as anything other than the abomination it is. Imagine trying to write a script in which a woman has an abortion, is comfortable with it, and is still sympathetic or a heroine.
I think even the most hardened Hollywood hack would have to look the NARAL babe in the eye (if that’s possible w/out turning to stone) and tell her, “How am I supposed to make a woman murdering her child look positive on screen?”
And thank you for your kind words on my daughter. I am a proud Daddy.
How many times have you heard someone say, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I'm pro-choice"? You hear it all the time. You almost never hear anyone say they actually approve of abortion. Well, if these people personally disapprove of abortion, what is the reason for their disapproval? Either abortion takes a human life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, why oppose it on any kind of level, personal or otherwise?
So-called pro-choicers must know full well that abortion is killing a human being. Yet they're willing to permit such killing at one point in the life continuum, and not at another. You can kill a baby one minute before birth but not a minute afterward. You can kill a baby before viability, but not afterward. Oh, and they're not saying that they approve of these abortions, mind you....they're merely "pro-choice".
Any inconsistency we allegedly exhibit for wanting to punish abortionists, and not women, pales compared to the inconsistency of someone saying they're personally opposed to abortion but favor permitting it.
Also what do they have the “Choice” to do in this circumstance?
To ignore the life of another “inconvenient” human life?
IT’S A PRETTY SERIOUS (Grave) state to take on the persona to claim they have the authority to KILL another innocent human being!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.