• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

POLL: A Question about people's views on the Goverment's role regarding Abortion

What do you think about abortion and the Government's role in abortion?

  • I'm Pro-Choice and I think that abortion should be legal nationwide

    Votes: 11 42.3%

  • I'm Pro-Life and I think that abortion should be illegal nationwide

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • I'm Pro-Choice, but I believe that each state should be able to decide for themselves

    Votes: 4 15.4%

  • I'm Pro-Life, but I believe that each state should be able to decide for themselves

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • Other (Please Elaborate)

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • Total voters
    26
T

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,537
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
DISCLAIMER: This is not a thread about debating the legality of Abortion, so if that is what you want to do, please do it on one of the countless other threads regarding that portion of the debate.

This thread is a Public Poll about your personal views on abortion AND the government's role regarding abortion.

It gets at the concept of a national standard vs. State-by-State regulation compared to where you stand personally on the issue.



The options are:

1. I'm Pro-Choice and I think that abortion should be legal nationwide
2. I'm Pro-Life and I think that abortion should be illegal nationwide
3. I'm Pro-Choice, but I believe that each state should be able to decide for themselves if abortion should be legal or not
4. I'm pro-life but I believe that each state should be able to decide for themselves if abortion should be legal or not.
5. Other (please elaborate)


Then after voting, please elaborate why you feel the way you do, but again, please do not convert this into a thread debating the legality of abortion, just about the government's role in abortion.
 
I'm pro life, but i believe that abortion should be legal everywhere until we solve the social issues dealing with abortion. I think abortion is a symptom of much bigger problems, and criminalizing women who would get them is not the best solution in my opinion. i don't believe that the government is capable of fixing these issues and should stay out of it...
 
I am also pro-life( or ant-choice as some of you pro-deathers are calling us ). I think states shouldn't decide because:

1. It is impractical. Women can still go to a different state to kill their fetus. Unless, we like ban them from our pro-life state or something. :shock:

2. Abortion is a grave issue. Millions of fetuses, human organisms, are killed. I think that since life is so important, it should be cherished universally.

3. I couldn't care less about states' rights. Especially on basic human rights.
 
Pro-life, Pro-states rights.

We wouldn't be in this huge mess if SCOTUS had done what it was supposed to and sent Roe-v-Wade back to Texas where it belonged.
 
But I sure as heck would back a US Constitutional amendment, if that's the only way to stop the killing.

The availability of abortion contributes to the social issues that Graffight thinks need to be solved first.
 
I don't think that the Constitution delegates the right to regulate abortion to the Federal government, so it should be up to the states. I also think that that would be better in practical terms. Roe v Wade was completely out of line
 
Felicity said:
Pro-life, Pro-states rights.

We wouldn't be in this huge mess if SCOTUS had done what it was supposed to and sent Roe-v-Wade back to Texas where it belonged.
Click to expand...

You mean those dopes on the highest court in our land didn't check in with you before they made that decision? :roll:

I think they know the constitution a tad better than anyone on this thread. It would seem that their decision reflects that understanding.
 
The Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution violates "state's rights" too.
Or, more to the point, it trumps them.

The protection of the civil and human rights of all citizens is more important than the protection of states' rights to violate the civil and human rights of some citizens.
 
ADK_Forever said:
You mean those dopes on the highest court in our land didn't check in with you before they made that decision? :roll:.
Click to expand...

Why you go personal, asshole?
 
ADK_Forever said:
You mean those dopes on the highest court in our land didn't check in with you before they made that decision? :roll:

I think they know the constitution a tad better than anyone on this thread. It would seem that their decision reflects that understanding.
Click to expand...

The fact that it's a SCOTUS decision does not make it right. Do you think that Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson were good decisions just because SCOTUS made them?

From a legal perspective the dissenting opinion was much more valid

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.
Click to expand...

I'm pro-choice and don't support abortion bans, but the Court overstepped its bounds in Roe v Wade. Abortion is not a constitutional issue
 
Kernel Sanders said:
The fact that it's a SCOTUS decision does not make it right. Do you think that Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson were good decisions just because SCOTUS made them?

From a legal perspective the dissenting opinion was much more valid



I'm pro-choice and don't support abortion bans, but the Court overstepped its bounds in Roe v Wade. Abortion is not a constitutional issue
Click to expand...

You pretty much summed up my thoughts, Kernel.
 
Felicity said:
Why you go personal, asshole?
Click to expand...

Asshole? :lol: Very nice come back. :roll: I expected no less considering your argument here.

Now who's getting personal? Can't take a valid evaluation and response to your arrogant post? Then don't post.
 
Tucker Case said:
DISCLAIMER: This is not a thread about debating the legality of Abortion, so if that is what you want to do, please do it on one of the countless other threads regarding that portion of the debate.

This thread is a Public Poll about your personal views on abortion AND the government's role regarding abortion.

It gets at the concept of a national standard vs. State-by-State regulation compared to where you stand personally on the issue.



The options are:

1. I'm Pro-Choice and I think that abortion should be legal nationwide
2. I'm Pro-Life and I think that abortion should be illegal nationwide
3. I'm Pro-Choice, but I believe that each state should be able to decide for themselves if abortion should be legal or not
4. I'm pro-life but I believe that each state should be able to decide for themselves if abortion should be legal or not.
5. Other (please elaborate)


Then after voting, please elaborate why you feel the way you do, but again, please do not convert this into a thread debating the legality of abortion, just about the government's role in abortion.
Click to expand...

If you are honestly pro-life meaning you think the pregnant woman is actually carrying a child / a living human being inside her that has a right to life why would you want the states to decide whether or not they want aborton to be legal or illegal? If you honestly are actually pro-life on the issue of abortion then you do not want abortion to be legal except for maybe in rare circumstances. Saying you are against abortion but the government shouldn't make it legal nationwide is like saying yes I am against child abuse or I am against child porn but I do not think the government should make it illegal nationwide, it should be left up to the states.
 
I think it's a federal issue due to health issues.
 
ADK_Forever said:
You mean those dopes on the highest court in our land didn't check in with you before they made that decision? :roll:

I think they know the constitution a tad better than anyone on this thread. It would seem that their decision reflects that understanding.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that there is always at least 4 of them that don't know their constitution?

We all know our constitutions, some of these judges just interpret it differently and just happened to be at the right place at the right time to get appointed the supreme court. All these justices are are idealogues. They don't care about the constitution.
 
jamesrage said:
If you are honestly pro-life meaning you think the pregnant woman is actually carrying a child / a living human being inside her that has a right to life why would you want the states to decide whether or not they want aborton to be legal or illegal?
Click to expand...


Did someone say they thought that?
I didn't hear anyone say any such thing.

:confused:

Nothing and no one has any "right" to live "inside" anyone else.
Being allowed to share someone else's body is a privilege, not a "right".
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If you are honestly pro-life meaning you think the pregnant woman is actually carrying a child / a living human being inside her that has a right to life why would you want the states to decide whether or not they want aborton to be legal or illegal? If you honestly are actually pro-life on the issue of abortion then you do not want abortion to be legal except for maybe in rare circumstances. Saying you are against abortion but the government shouldn't make it legal nationwide is like saying yes I am against child abuse or I am against child porn but I do not think the government should make it illegal nationwide, it should be left up to the states.
Click to expand...

Because that's a liberal point of view.

I'm checkign to see if pro-choicers are all really liberals and if Pro-lifers are all realy conservative, in the political sense of the words.

From what I can tell, many pro-lifers are actually liberals.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Asshole? :lol: Very nice come back. :roll: I expected no less considering your argument here.

Now who's getting personal? Can't take a valid evaluation and response to your arrogant post? Then don't post.
Click to expand...
Why was a comeback necessary? There was no reason for you to say what you did except for the reason I supplied--accurately. Get over yourself.:roll:
 
1069 said:
The Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution violates "state's rights" too.
Or, more to the point, it trumps them.
Click to expand...
First--it's a Constitutional amendment concerning a specific issue. That's the appropriate way to go about making a "law of the land."

Second--pregnancy/human reproduction, is not "slavery."

Third--making such blanket statements concerning the interpretation of the Constitution may get a certain poster by the name IDK....I mean ADK-Forever testy and call you "arrogant.":2razz:
 
I'm pro-choice, but only up to a point.

I'm in favor of abortions being allowed, but only early in the pregnancy. I'd like it if they were only legal in the first trimester (that's a little difficult as many don't even know they're pregnant until the 2nd trimester - but somewhere in that area would be best). I'd also like to see a lot more done to make it easier and more likely for mothers to put their children up for adoption.
 
KenD said:
I'm pro-choice, but only up to a point.

I'm in favor of abortions being allowed, but only early in the pregnancy. I'd like it if they were only legal in the first trimester (that's a little difficult as many don't even know they're pregnant until the 2nd trimester - but somewhere in that area would be best). I'd also like to see a lot more done to make it easier and more likely for mothers to put their children up for adoption.
Click to expand...

But do you think this should be the national standard, or different per state?
 
1069 said:
Did someone say they thought that?
I didn't hear anyone say any such thing.
Click to expand...

If you are pro-life then you think the pregnant woman is carrying a child inside her that deserves a right to life.

Due to the fact you think babies inside the womb are nothing more than expendable tissue then you might find this amusing.
YouTube - Rats on Cocaine #5 Pregnant

:confused:
Click to expand...

You are not confused,so please do not pretend to be retarded.

Nothing and no one has any "right" to live "inside" anyone else.
Being allowed to share someone else's body is a privilege, not a "right".
Click to expand...

So you think abortion should be legal all the way until the baby is ready to pop out?
 
Tucker Case said:
But do you think this should be the national standard, or different per state?
Click to expand...

Good point, and a more difficult question, indeed.

I lean, very slightly, toward the national standard idea. There are a lot of reasons why but, in general, I tend to lean toward national standards for most things of this nature. In this day and time, it is easy to move from state to state or relocate. As such, having different standards from state to state creates more regional differences in a day and time where we need to be more united as union rather than less. I do feel this applies less to abortion standards than others, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom