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 ...
You're on the wrong website then, because the owner frowns on abortion.
Even I lean libertarian and still think abortion is flat-out wrong.
Rudy's nominated = 3rd party
You are spouting nonsense. Of course the government forces people to do what is noble: The woman whose husband is a paraplegic is not permitted to poison or shoot her husband, is she? And if she refuses to be noble, and kills him, the authorities come after her! What do you know about that!
It is the government's job to prevent and/or punish the murder of children. Thus, it is the government's job to prevent and/or punish abortion.
You are clearly not a careful thinker, or you wouldn't spout these ad hoc excuses for killing babies. The feeblest of such arguments are those along the lines of "it isn't the government's business"--because all such arguments are reducible to arguments against all murder, all stealing, all fraud, etc. And reductio ad absurdum, btw, is a valid argument.
I'm not aware of any in the mainstream pro-life movement who even call for such a thing. Just as it was in the days before Roe, it is the abortionists and abortion providers who would face jail, not the abortive mothers.
I disagree. If we see the unborn child as a person, then a woman seeking an abortion is little different from someone hiring someone else to commit a murder that he or she doesn't have the will to commit. In these circumstances, the person who hires the killer should be punished along with the killer. The women who ask for abortions should be in jail as well as the abortionists. In the case of rape, I don't think the rape victim or her doctor should be put in jail.
The problem with the gray area is that one side will chip away, little by little until it's either black or white.
The problem is that our society is allowing gray areas to be attacked by both sides. We as a society need to understand that a criminal justice system is not a good tool for making fine distinctions. We need to be willing to stand against the absolutists who continually chip at the gray areas on either side. We need to stop seeing these people as heroes and statesmen and learn to see them as selfish demagogues who are a threat to our freedoms and to the success of representative government.
Nature gives us one chance a month but now moms are implanted with multiple embryos with the thought that if they all take then some can be killed. All this didn't happen over night but has developed over time since abortions were made legal. Where does it stop?
I don't know where it stops, but we'd be more likely to find a reasonable answer if people didn't look at these issues and think that they would ultimately stop at one extreme or the other.
Middle school kids are being told sex is ok.
Part of the problem in the abortion issue is that many people see opposition to abortion as just another ploy to harass people who want to enjoy sex outside marriage. They think that the whole idea of an unborn child being a person is just a rhetorical ploy to make sex have more negative consequences for those who don't want children. I felt that way for many years. While we can never separate the abortion issue from sex, the emphasis on abstinence outside marriage is part of what many people don't trust the pro-life movement.
I disagree with the assertion that our society is endorsing sex for kids in middle school. Even people who do not see a problem with sex outside marriage are beginning to realize that waiting until the late teens or twenties to begin having sex is healthier for most of us. There are still those who want to insist that sex is "Okay" at these young ages while trying to say that waiting is better, and a few complete idiots are still advocating that middle school kids should be experimenting with sex. However, this view is falling further and further into a minority. As a whole, I think our society is trying to say that waiting is good without coming resorting to fire and brimstone judgementalism.
Bill
Several years ago I was where you are now on some issues. I was against abortion but it was an individual choice. Every day though grey got uglier and uglier.
“the owner frowns?”
I think for myself no matter who frowns.
I'm not saying that I advocate abortion in the case of rape. Over the years, I've given thousands of dollars to crisis pregnancy centers. I expect them to try to help rape victims carry their children to term just as they would try to help any other woman facing a crisis pregnancy. However, I will not send a woman to jail because she refuses to carry that child.
By saying that the situation is beyond what the criminal justice system should address, I'm not inducing anyone to make a choice in either direction. That attitude is a big problem with this country. We've fallen into the trap of believing that the criminal justice system should force people into "peace and healing." That attitude is going to destroy this country and the freedoms that our Founding Fathers tried to give us. Saying that we're not going to punish a particular decision is not the same as saying that the decision is right. Saying that we will not punish a decision is not the same as trying to induce someone to make that decision.
Bill
You're dismissed.
Bill
If we're going to have laws against abortion because we see the unborn child as a person, then we should put the women in jail. If anyone else hired someone to kill a child, a spouse, a business rival, or any other citizen, we'd jail both the person who performed the killing and the person who hired the killer. Just as putting a rape victim in jail for refusing to carry the child forced on her is unjust, so is putting her doctor in jail.
Bill
Several years ago, I was closer to where you are now. I'm not at the point where I see abortion as simply an individual choice, and I'm not likely to reach that point. I believe that the child becomes a person very early in the pregnancy, and in most cases, killing children at this point should be illegal. However, I think the black and white on each side is getting uglier and uglier. I see more and more "pro-lifers" who act as if they'd be happy to see a mother and a baby die rather than for the mother to have an abortion that saves her life. These people disgust me. The results of this poll suggest that there might be a gray area that could work, and I'm going to continue advocating for that gray area to the exclusion of the ugliness on each extreme.
Bill
I’m not attacking you. I’m pointing out that murdering an innocent baby does nothing to make anybody’s life better.
If the mother is a murderer, as you say (and that would be first degree, one would assume, since if it is murder, it is premeditated), would you want to imprison her like every other murderer. Or would you impose the death penalty on the mother?
If not, could you please explain why not?
Those are stock retorts employed by pro-abortion people, supposed to put pro-lifers on the defensive. Are you aware of that?
Actually, I have no obligation to answer, since it’s irrelevant to the question: Is abortion an injustice to the baby?—which, of course, it is.
But I will answer your question.
The state does not have an obligation to punish abortion exactly as it does other murders. It has the obligation only to punish it sufficiently so as to deter it. Under current law, hired assassins are punished more severely than other murderers, for instance.
Women seeking abortions respond very well to the mere offering of alternatives that deal with the issue of anxiety about their future. It is primarily fear that drives them to abortion. There should be penalties in the law primarily so that the authorities could more easily get information about abortionists from their customers. The motivations that drive women to abortion are overcome relatively easily, because abortion goes against their natural love of their baby.
Abortionists, on the other hand, are motivated by greed and the sense of godlike power they derive from killing with impunity. Abortionists could justly be put to death, certainly imprisoned for life.
People (parents, husbands, boyfriends) who beat women or otherwise pressure them to have an abortion could justly face some kind of penalty under the law.
Kevmo: What is the middle ground on this issue? I don’t understand how someone can look at a living pre-born human and say that it’s just a mass of tissue that should have no rights in our society.
WFTR: There are many sets of policies that could constitute a middle ground. A middle ground doesn’t mean that we look at the unborn child and say that the child has no rights in our society. However, a middle ground can accept that the rights of the unborn child are not absolute.
***OK, I think I’m following you on this. And I also think that there is biblical evidence for what you say as well.
At the very least, a middle ground starts by saying that if the pregnancy represents a real, physical, medical threat to the mother’s life, abortion should be legal. Allowing abortion in these circumstances doesn’t mean that we recommend abortion. The “mother’s life” exception would simply mean that in a case where there is a realistic probability that the situation can’t end in both patients surviving, the criminal justice system will not influence the decisions that a woman must make.
***There is already legal precedence here in terms of self-defense.
A middle ground might also start with some acceptance that legal rights don’t necessarily follow biological life. I understand that biological life begins at conception, but I really don’t see the early embryo as a person who deserves the full rights of any other citizen.
***Why not? It becomes a person. A condor egg has more rights than that embryo due to this basis.
I think we can have some restrictions on doctors playing Frankenstein with embryonic stem cell research without outlawing birth control pills that discourage implantation.
***My interest is in stopping abortion as a form of birth control. I would also be against such birth control pills, but I would not lump them together in this discussion because it becomes too complicated. That is, unless there is some concept that is being brought to the forefront, but I don’t see that here.
That same middle ground would also help with the rape exception by ensuring that rape victims are not denied “morning after” or “emergency contraception” pills. That policy would allow other women to use these pills, but this middle ground may represent where many Americans stand on the issue.
***I see. This takes into account the fact that there was or was not a “choice” engaged when the person enacted in such a way as to create that life. Now, here is where I agree with you and also where I tend to depart from my pro-life brethren. It isn’t because I value that preborn child’s life any less, but it is a straightforward numerical compromise that I would be willing to extend in order to knock out the millions of other baby killings that take place. At this point I do not see a better way but my instinct tells me that there will be some bright pro-lifers who can point out some better ways, so I’ll let them.
We could be a long way from people seeing the very early stages of fetal development as representing a person with full rights.
***So, a person with partial rights would be a better description. It may be that we as a society do not have the means to extend that person the protection of full rights and in the interest of saving lives, we need to draw the line somewhere.
If we defined rights as beginning at the fetal heartbeat (~21 days) or brain waves (~40 days), we might find enough people willing to outlaw later abortions that the number of abortions would decrease substantially. I’m not entirely comfortable with setting the limit at that late a date, but those dates might represent a middle ground that would reduce the number of abortions.
***This is the heart of your proposal. It’s also the heart of mine. Read it below. I think any kind of rights extension should be on the basis of medical ability to find evidence of life, as well as our ability to extend resources to that person (such as doing in utero surgeries, which were not possible at the time of Roe v. Wade). As our medical abilities increase, so does our capabilities at extending protection to these unborn persons.
Right now, I’d be happy with a middle ground that outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. I believe that the record for a premature baby surviving is around 20 (maybe 22) weeks. If we set the limit at that stage, we’d stop some abortions. Furthermore, we’d introduce more people to the idea that a person can be a person with rights even while in the womb.
***Got it. I agree. Note that you’re using the terms of viability, which weighed heavily in the original supreme court decision as well as earlier decisions. For instance, the age of viability in Common Law England was 5 years old. Prior to that age, it was not a crime to destroy that life — they did not extend protection to those children at that time. As the age of viability shrinks, so should our extension of protection of rights to those children proportionally expand.
Here’s my proposal that I introduced on a different thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1911183/posts?page=88#88
To: CheyennePress
but at that point, if you declare a fetus a living human, a fetus is entitled to the protections granted under the US Constitution.
***Isn’t there a biblical approach to a possible compromise? For instance, my oblique understanding of the old testament law is that if a pregnant woman gets injured, it’s an eye for an eye to repay her. But if her unborn baby gets killed or injured, the payment is less.
Perhaps it is time to start considering extending the rights of protection to unborn babies who are at least viable, and a plan to extend societal resources to those unborn who are not yet viable.
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. That unborn human deserves protection extended by the state.
Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 tiered system of protection.
Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. 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.
With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.
88 posted on 10/14/2007 10:36:52 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq— via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.))
By saying that the situation is beyond what the criminal justice system should address, I’m not inducing anyone to make a choice in either direction.
***I think it is more accurate to suggest that it is a situation beyond what the criminal justice system CAN address. If we get to the point where we CAN address it, then we should.
.... Saying that we’re not going to punish a particular decision is not the same as saying that the decision is right. Saying that we will not punish a decision is not the same as trying to induce someone to make that decision.
***And as a matter of fact I would hope to set things up in our society such that a woman in that situation would have access to even more resources than any other woman facing a crisis pregnancy. Such resources would include Ultrasounds, classes on fetal care, prioritization in adoptions, training, counseling, etc.
Nor do you change the biological fact that an abortion takes a human life by accusing others of preaching and namecalling. Not to mention that a majority of babies killed by abortion worldwide are girls.
Of course, ultimately this will be decided by God.....with extreme prejudice against the advocates of abortion.....on judgment day.
It’s not a matter of you thinking for yourself or not. It’s a matter of simple politeness. This is a pro-life website and it is “not a liberal debating society”, to quote JimRob.
As long as you’re up front about your disposition, you probably will have no quarrels with most freepers or JimRob. But pushing a pro-death candidate on this website is one example where it’s considered crossing the line, impolite.
So, to save you time, here’s the post on the bugzapper thread that I nominated as “best of the thread”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=17484#17446
To: ansel12; Iwo Jima
Thanks! I was actually looking for that very post, more than once. I could not find it because this thread is so unwieldy.
I’m copying it here again so I don’t have to remember who wrote it (which was one reason I couldn’t find it last time).
Good Post, Iwo Jima.
To: RobFromGa
I think that where this is leading is that those who have used FreeRepublic to push something fundamentally contrary to the concept of conservatism have lost their springboard for pushing their views. They will have to go to some other forum to advocate their positions.
I am a libertarian who votes Republican most of the time and identifies with conservatism most of the time. Posting on FreeRepublic has never been a problem for me because, to the extent that there is any divergence between my libertarian views and the prevailing conservative views of this website, I do not use this forum to advance any contradictory positions.
That’s really not so hard to absorb, is it?
9,728 posted on 04/25/2007 4:59:17 PM PDT by Iwo Jima (”Close the border. Then we’ll talk.”)
17,446 posted on 05/01/2007 3:10:28 PM PDT by Kevmo (Duncan Hunter just needs one Rudy G Campaign Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM)
When you think about it, only the lowest scum of the earth would ever work in the abortion industry. People motivated by absolutely nothing but greed and the psychotic thrill of destroying a human life and degrading women.
When you think about it, only the lowest scum of the earth would ever work in the abortion industry. People motivated by absolutely nothing but greed and the psychotic thrill of destroying a human life and degrading women.
***Your post to me is the perfect answer to that.
“Of course, ultimately this will be decided by God.....with extreme prejudice against the advocates of abortion.....on judgment day.”
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.