Is the Government allowed to allow abortion? (1 Viewer)

[catholicauthor]

Americans keep asking (liberals especially) if the government allowed to mandate that a woman carry out her pregnancy. They say that this is a decision that the government cannot make, but they are dead wrong. The government has made a decision, the decision to allow abortions.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Right. I think what they are trying to argue is that the State has no moral authority to make the opposite decision.

Personally, I think that position is ridiculous; I think the "right to privacy" as applied by Roe vs. Wade doesn't exist, and certainly doesn't cover whether or not a medical procedure can be prohibited.

The State is entirely justified in subsidizing, tolerating, or prohibiting abortion as its lawmakers-- and the people themselves-- see fit.

 

[Jerry]

Americans keep asking (liberals especially) if the government allowed to mandate that a woman carry out her pregnancy. They say that this is a decision that the government cannot make, but they are dead wrong. The government has made a decision, the decision to allow abortions.

I don't read about all of this outcry regarding the government minding it's own business when the law is in favor of abortion.

 

[vergiss]

I don't read about all of this outcry regarding the government minding it's own business when the law is in favor of abortion.

...possibly because the government is minding its own business? :lol:

 

[jallman]

...possibly because the government is minding its own business? :lol:

Exactly. The government has no place imposing restrictions or privileges upon the decision to elect a medical procedure used to alleviate and unwanted medical condition. The decision rests solely with the person who has the medical condition and can pay for the procedure to alleviate said condition.

 

[Jerry]

...possibly because the government is minding its own business? :lol:

LOL
The business of the government is to govern. When the government is telling you that you can not abort, the government is "minding it's oun buisness", because it's buisness is telling you what you can and can not do.

Once again, the abortion issue boiles down to rather or not a ZEF is actualy a "person". If The People say a ZEf is a "person", then the government has "a compelling state intrest" in the health and wellfair of it's "unborn citizens". If the People say that a ZEF is not a "person", then abortion is simply a medical procedure.

It is impossable to solve the abortion issue with finality because The People can not agree on on this.

Arguing abortion, pro or con, is acidemic at best.

 

[Jerry]

Exactly. The government has no place imposing restrictions or privileges upon the decision to elect a medical procedure used to alleviate and unwanted medical condition. The decision rests solely with the person who has the medical condition and can pay for the procedure to alleviate said condition.

Then the government can not forbid late-term abortions either.
Once it does, the whole issue of *what is a "person"* comes up, and that is what The People can not agree on.

Even if one were to say "a fetus is a person at @ the 22-24 week mark because then it has a brain and can think", the government can not use that because that is a Deist/Luciferian/Humanist reasoning, and the 1st. Amend. prevents Congress from officiating that view.

It seems that abortion is an issue that the government must answer, but can not due to the first Amend......even though it must...and without violating the 1st......which is impossible no matter which way it goes.

U.S. law does not allow this issue to be put to bed. I suspect that only a global theocracy could do that.

....but that's another issue entirely.

 

[talloulou]

Then the government can not forbid late-term abortions either.
Once it does, the whole issue of *what is a "person"* comes up, and that is what The People can not agree on.

Excellent point. It is true that many who claim to be prochoice don't in fact hesitate to take choice away at a certain point. The majority of prochoicers are not in fact people who believe a women has the right to have a fetus killed at any and all stages of development. Most of them draw the line at some fetal stage. Thus, at some point they are willing to take the choice away much as I myself am willing to take it away. That's why I find prochoice to be an ODD term.

 

[Jerry]

...possibly because the government is minding its own business? :lol:

Another thing.....
If the government is to stay out of people's privet lives entirely, then this would mean the abolition of Judicial-Bypass, because the government is infringing on the parents "fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children".

 

[Jerry]

Excellent point. It is true that many who claim to be prochoice don't in fact hesitate to take choice away at a certain point. The majority of prochoicers are not in fact people who believe a women has the right to have a fetus killed at any and all stages of development. Most of them draw the line at some fetal stage. Thus, at some point they are willing to take the choice away much as I myself am willing to take it away. That's why I find prochoice to be an ODD term.

Hmmmm........
Given that, I'm pro choice. I draw the line at rape, incest, and the endangerment of the mother's life; past that, I would have the mother's ability to choose removed, because an abortion would remove ALL choices from her child.

I see the denial of one choice by the mother and saveing ALL of the choices of her child as the lesser evil. By allowing the child to live I am allowing more freedom of choice.

I am more pro choice than "pro choice" is.

 

[steen]

That's why I find prochoice to be an ODD term.

Ah, like pro-life who have no problem letting people die if they could be saved?

 

[jimmyjack]

Ah, like pro-life who have no problem letting people die if they could be saved?

Elucidate.

 

[talloulou]

Ah, like pro-life who have no problem letting people die if they could be saved?

There is a difference between not giving a kidney to your neighbor who needs one and killing a fetus.

In the first case a human may lose his life in the second case you personally order the life ended.

 

[alphamale]

Exactly. The government has no place imposing restrictions or privileges upon the decision to elect a medical procedure used to alleviate and unwanted medical condition. The decision rests solely with the person who has the medical condition and can pay for the procedure to alleviate said condition.

Geez .... the abortionists have had to come up with practically a whole new vocabulary to deal with what they advocate - a fetus, possibly a human being, is now reduced to "an unwanted medical condition", say, like acne. What has really impressed me is how they go though some amazing verbal gymnastics to avoid speaking the word abortion.

 

[talloulou]

Exactly. The government has no place imposing restrictions or privileges upon the decision to elect a medical procedure used to alleviate and unwanted medical condition. The decision rests solely with the person who has the medical condition and can pay for the procedure to alleviate said condition.

And yet many many prochoicers do advocate the "choice" being taken away at some point in pregnancy. Most don't agree that the mother should have the right to kill her unborn right up till the end minutes before it would be born. We all draw the line in the sand in different places. Some at viability, some later, some earlier, and some like me at the beginning.

So to me it is quite amusing that prochoicers use the argument that it is the womans body and therefore she must be able to say what happens to her body and her resources thus the government must not regulate this. When clearly MANY MANY of you find that actually there is a point or a time in fetal develoment when the government should be allowed to ban abortion.

Doesn't that then turn around and crush the CRUX of your very own argument? If the main reason for choice is cause the women must have control over her body and bodily resources then how can you take that choice away ever at any stage in pregnancy?! Yet many of you would. Interesting. It's almost like you don't even buy your own argument yet you expect me to.

 

[vergiss]

Excellent point. It is true that many who claim to be prochoice don't in fact hesitate to take choice away at a certain point. The majority of prochoicers are not in fact people who believe a women has the right to have a fetus killed at any and all stages of development. Most of them draw the line at some fetal stage. Thus, at some point they are willing to take the choice away much as I myself am willing to take it away. That's why I find prochoice to be an ODD term.

I daresay that the first 3 or 4 months is enough time to choose.

 

[talloulou]

I daresay that the first 3 or 4 months is enough time to choose.

Yeah me too but I go even further and say they should have chose by using birth control, condoms, and perhaps even the morning after pill.

 

[vergiss]

Yeah me too but I go even further and say they should have chose by using birth control, condoms, and perhaps even the morning after pill.

What if they did and it failed?

The contaceptive pill is about 97 - 99% effective, depending on the type. Regarding the sort that's 99% effective, this means that in a year of usage, 99 out of 100 women will not conceive. What about that 1 who does, though? When it's 1 million women using the pill, annually there will be 10, 000 accidental pregnancies, etc.

 

[talloulou]

What if they did and it failed?

You know I believe you do your best but in life there are no guarantees so at some point you just have to deal with consequences and pay the pied piper so to speak.

 

[vergiss]

You know I believe you do your best but in life there are no guarantees so at some point you just have to deal with consequences and pay the pied piper so to speak.

So if a doctor is only mortal and accidentally misdiagnoses someone, resulting in the patient needing an emergency amputation, he just has to deal with the consequences, accept his career is over and he'll have to pay a huge settlement?

If I drive a car with my friend in the passenger seat and take every possible precaution to be safe, I just have to accept that I still ran the risk of some speeding and/or drunken twat colliding into my car and killing my friend, and take the blame?

What about all those victims of asbestos-related diseases, who didn't realise at the time that exposure could be deadly? Should they just have to accept responsibility for their bad luck, rather than sueing the pants off of the building companies responsible?

No one but fate should have to be responsible for misfortune.

 

[jallman]

Geez .... the abortionists have had to come up with practically a whole new vocabulary to deal with what they advocate - a fetus, possibly a human being, is now reduced to "an unwanted medical condition", say, like acne. What has really impressed me is how they go though some amazing verbal gymnastics to avoid speaking the word abortion.

Why would I use the word abortion when giving a description of the procedure. That makes no sense: An abortion is an abortion.

Were you trying to make a point or something?

 

[jallman]

And yet many many prochoicers do advocate the "choice" being taken away at some point in pregnancy. Most don't agree that the mother should have the right to kill her unborn right up till the end minutes before it would be born. We all draw the line in the sand in different places. Some at viability, some later, some earlier, and some like me at the beginning.

So to me it is quite amusing that prochoicers use the argument that it is the womans body and therefore she must be able to say what happens to her body and her resources thus the government must not regulate this. When clearly MANY MANY of you find that actually there is a point or a time in fetal develoment when the government should be allowed to ban abortion.

Doesn't that then turn around and crush the CRUX of your very own argument? If the main reason for choice is cause the women must have control over her body and bodily resources then how can you take that choice away ever at any stage in pregnancy?! Yet many of you would. Interesting. It's almost like you don't even buy your own argument yet you expect me to.

Whatever...you can make whatever irrelevant twists you need to in order to keep your own argument going. It is all very simple really...abortion is perfectly acceptable when the pregnancy is simply a medical condition resulting in a biological mass developing over time. When that mass has been allowed to develop, whether by inaction or proactive choice on the part of the woman, then she let her own choice go once the fetus reaches the developmental stages which allow for personhood. I am not sure how else you want me to explain this.

 

[steen]

There is a difference between not giving a kidney to your neighbor who needs one and killing a fetus.

So one life is less than the other? One has less right to life than the other?

In the first case a human may lose his life in the second case you personally order the life ended.

In the first case, you personally decided to let him die.

 

[afr0byte]

Yeah me too but I go even further and say they should have chose by using birth control, condoms, and perhaps even the morning after pill.

Well, as far as the morning after pill, the woman shouldn't have to take that risk. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/mos_31pillcankill.html

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, as far as the morning after pill, the woman shouldn't have to take that risk. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/mos_31pillcankill.html

RU-486 is not the morning after pill. :doh

RU-486 is sold by Danco Laboratories and is approved to terminate pregnancy up to 49 days after the beginning of the latest menstrual cycle. It blocks a hormone required to sustain a pregnancy. When followed two days later by another medicine, misoprostol, to induce contractions, the pregnancy is terminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU-486

the morning after pill refers to several different medications that can prevent a pregnancy from occuring even if taken after sex. its most effective if taken within 3 days, but can be taken as many as 5 days after. "Plan B" is one brand of emergancy contraception. some types of birth control pills can also be used by taking a high dosage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception