New Movement REALLY about Freedom?? Or just certain kinds?

Vulchor

Im watching MSNBC last night, yes I am aware they are the left's FoxNews, and I see my new best friend Christine O'Donnell. She along with Sarah and some of the other newbies to the political spectrum, generally on board the TeaPartyExpress, favor a TOTAL ban on abortion. COMPLETE BAN. That includes acts of incest and rape. That could include acts of incestuous rape on a child in fact. However, she and at least 5 other new Senate candidates agree with this stance

I have a problem with this on a lot of levels. First, I will say I am generally pro life. I do not believe abortion should be a birth control method or a way of skirting personal responsibility. I do however have a hard time thinking that first trimester abortions in cases of incest, rape, genetic abnormalities, ect. should not be guarenteed. I also infact do not favor any real change in abortion laws...because I feel they are not any business of the govt. to get involved in and another issue that is about heart strings and emotions instead of what govt. should actually be in place for.

The condundrum to me is how someone who espouses govt. getting out of peoples lives and stop with so much interfernence could also back a new law to ban these abortions. That sounds like new regulations and more big govt. to me. Also, what would the punishments be for having this abortion? Who would enforce the law? Seems the govt. would need more people to work on this and thus increase the scope and size of govt. in peoples lives, exactly what these "patriots" seem to be against.......I am trying to understand, but its difficult.

bigjohn125

I really hate getting into the abortion arguement here. But, since you brought it up... A human life is a human life. Abortion is murder. Sorry if that hurts anyones feelings, but thats the truth. The reason that most conservatives are pro death penalty and anti abortion is this: the child/ fetus/ baby is inocent whereas the person on death row has been convicted of a terrible crime and his peers have sentinced him to death. Making abortion illegal is no more intrusive than making murder illegal. I fail to see how anyone who has children could be pro abortion on any level. I also realize that trying to change someone's mind on this is about as effective as trying to change someone's mind about gun laws. People will change their minds if/ when they hear their 6 week old fetus heart beat.

Vulchor

We are discussing a fetus here vs a living human...as definition already decided by our higest courts. Also, this seems more like a religious or moral matter---and I did not think our govt job was to regulate these...as they already seem to regulate enough of our lives. The fetus is in the womans body..which she is free to do with as she wants. A person who is murdered is their own being and sufficient to meet own needs....and in most cases of abortion, not more than a nearly microscopic grouping of cells. Also, the 6 weak heart beat is another emotional issue, not one that deals with the law or a persons freedom. I cannot say that destroying a small group of cells should be a crime when the cells is the result of incest and/or rape---there seems to be only one crime there. Unless we begin advocating that rape victim to be arrested for aborting her rape fetus...I think most people would have a hard time sentencing that person.

fla-gypsy

Vulchor I am not going to get into a big debate about whether it should be legal or not but I am going to state my positon on this and it is most assuredly driven by my religious convictions. Life begins at conception for me. It is that simple. I don't have to create timelines on when it is just cells or human life. I find it interesting that if you injure a pregnant woman and the "fetus" (as the pro abortion crowd call it) dies, muder charges can be forthcoming, but a doctor who does late term abortions can literally kill a child he is removing and we call it a medical issue/decision. There is a great disconnect in those extremes that each of us must come to terms with somehow. There is no congress that can outlaw abortion completely because there is already legal precedent allowing it so this really is not an issue. Also, I do believe Govt interferes in all of our lives too much already. Additionally this issue as all issues not specifically appointed in the US Constitution to the Federal Govt should be left to the states to decide. The Federal Govt has absolutely no stake or mandate to act in this case. This is clearly a 10th amendment issue in my opinion.

Vulchor

Fair enough gypsy and I agree with a great deal of what you said.....But you are saying you believe that a woman should (at least morally) keep the child...no matter what? What if it was to be gentically found to have terrible issues, or even more so if it were a 13 year old girl raped by her father? Not trying to be a smart@ss or rude, I am just trying to understand if thats how you feel and moreso the mentality behind that. I respect your view, just curious.

laker1963

Vulchor:

Fair enough gypsy and I agree with a great deal of what you said.....But you are saying you believe that a woman should (at least morally) keep the child...no matter what? What if it was to be gentically found to have terrible issues, or even more so if it were a 13 year old girl raped by her father? Not trying to be a smart@ss or rude, I am just trying to understand if thats how you feel and moreso the mentality behind that. I respect your view, just curious.

I won't get into this one either except to state my position as I do not want to argue with anyone over their views on this issue.

To me it is a personal issue for a woman to deal with. It should never be used for contraceptive needs, but there are several reasons for a woman to want to have an abortion.

If this woman can not be given a safe abortion in a hospital she may turn to other much more dangerous methods.

Certainly no man anywhere should be telling any woman what they should do with their bodies. THEIR bodies... not a churches body, not a government body, not the body of some well intentioned man somewhere, it is her body. If this is a moral issue for some... guess what? It is still the woman's moral issue not YOUR's. Seems that a lot of people who feel that the government should be staying out of people lives and not determining eveything for everyone are only too happy to have them step in an inforce their views on a pregnant woman.

It is always advisable to think things all the way thru before asking for someone else's rights to be tampered with. Some day, someone may be making a similar case about something you feel is your exclusive right.

Krieg

Vulchor:

Im watching MSNBC last night, yes I am aware they are the left's FoxNews, and I see my new best friend Christine O'Donnell. She along with Sarah and some of the other newbies to the political spectrum, generally on board the TeaPartyExpress, favor a TOTAL ban on abortion. COMPLETE BAN. That includes acts of incest and rape. That could include acts of incestuous rape on a child in fact. However, she and at least 5 other new Senate candidates agree with this stance

I have a problem with this on a lot of levels. First, I will say I am generally pro life. I do not believe abortion should be a birth control method or a way of skirting personal responsibility. I do however have a hard time thinking that first trimester abortions in cases of incest, rape, genetic abnormalities, ect. should not be guarenteed. I also infact do not favor any real change in abortion laws...because I feel they are not any business of the govt. to get involved in and another issue that is about heart strings and emotions instead of what govt. should actually be in place for.

The condundrum to me is how someone who espouses govt. getting out of peoples lives and stop with so much interfernence could also back a new law to ban these abortions. That sounds like new regulations and more big govt. to me. Also, what would the punishments be for having this abortion? Who would enforce the law? Seems the govt. would need more people to work on this and thus increase the scope and size of govt. in peoples lives, exactly what these "patriots" seem to be against.......I am trying to understand, but its difficult.

banning abortion completely would just lead to more crime, IMO. It will not stop women from having them, it just would drive them underground, and potentially having unscruplous doctors, unsafe and unsanitary operating enviroments..etc.

pnaylon

My dad always told me he believed in abortion up to age 12. Im definitely telling my kids that! haha

fla-gypsy

Vulchor:

Fair enough gypsy and I agree with a great deal of what you said.....But you are saying you believe that a woman should (at least morally) keep the child...no matter what? What if it was to be gentically found to have terrible issues, or even more so if it were a 13 year old girl raped by her father? Not trying to be a smart@ss or rude, I am just trying to understand if thats how you feel and moreso the mentality behind that. I respect your view, just curious.

I only stated my unambigious position on when life begins based on my religious convictions, that the Federal Govt has no jurisdiction in a state issue, and that the taking of life is much too easy in some circumstances when we call it a medical procedure. I have not offered any position on what exceptions should exist if there was a hypothetical prohibition on abortion, which will never happen due to legal precedent.

Hays

This is an issue that I've spent a lot of time developing my opinion on, and it's one that generally tends to rile whomever hears it... I believe abortion should be legal for reasons of crime - i.e. rape, incest, etc - and severely discouraged otherwise. I also strongly disagree with the current status of a father's rights in the decision to abort - which amount to none. Again, I recognize that my view is extreme, and I've yet to find a single other person that really agrees with me, but there it is:

I fully understand and acknowledge that a woman has an incomparable burden in carrying a fetus and bringing it to term, and this process takes a solid chunk of time. Raising and parenting that child, however, takes an infinitely longer time, and that should be equally acknowledged. Considering that, in the normal circumstance, it takes both a man and woman to create a fetus, I believe that there should be a right of the father to his child. We already have legal recompense formulas created for alimony, child support, etc - I am of the opinion that there should be one for this process if the mother does not wish to keep her child, but the father does, in which the mother will carry the child, waive all parental rights, and receive a certain sum for the process.

Of course, our nation will never adopt a process like this, and enforcing it would be next to impossible, but it is at least a fairly logical method of improving father's rights in this regard.

fla-gypsy

Hays:

This is an issue that I've spent a lot of time developing my opinion on, and it's one that generally tends to rile whomever hears it... I believe abortion should be legal for reasons of crime - i.e. rape, incest, etc - and severely discouraged otherwise. I also strongly disagree with the current status of a father's rights in the decision to abort - which amount to none. Again, I recognize that my view is extreme, and I've yet to find a single other person that really agrees with me, but there it is:

I fully understand and acknowledge that a woman has an incomparable burden in carrying a fetus and bringing it to term, and this process takes a solid chunk of time. Raising and parenting that child, however, takes an infinitely longer time, and that should be equally acknowledged. Considering that, in the normal circumstance, it takes both a man and woman to create a fetus, I believe that there should be a right of the father to his child. We already have legal recompense formulas created for alimony, child support, etc - I am of the opinion that there should be one for this process if the mother does not wish to keep her child, but the father does, in which the mother will carry the child, waive all parental rights, and receive a certain sum for the process.

Of course, our nation will never adopt a process like this, and enforcing it would be next to impossible, but it is at least a fairly logical method of improving father's rights in this regard.

It doesn't rile me at all Hays, it is an interesting take on parental rights.

Vulchor

pnaylon:

My dad always told me he believed in abortion up to age 12. Im definitely telling my kids that! haha

Lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.......classic

Vulchor

I have thought of that side too Hays and pondered it many times. I agree with you I do believe, the man should have some right it most circumstances. That said, I do understand the difficulty with that and under what circumstances the man has the right to say. Not to mention how to ensure the female doesnt do anything to deliberately jeopardize the unborn. Very deep issue to thimk about.

mrpillow

Pro choice, 100%.

phobicsquirrel

Vulchor:

pnaylon:

My dad always told me he believed in abortion up to age 12. Im definitely telling my kids that! haha

Lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.......classic

hehe, yeah I have heard that one a few times. Oh and for the record I am for woman's rights, as it's them that have to deal with the burden of carrying a kid. A guy just squeezes out the goo and leaves. He's done. I bet if men had to carry something around for 9 months they'd probably change their minds. Though I don't see pro lifer's **** about whacking off into a towel or sock. That's killing babies right? And for a group that seems to be or less against pwr of the govt, wouldn't this just show that they are Hippocrates? I mean saying that it should be law to outlaw abortion mean govt intervention in our lives? I would. besides, if a fetus is a life, then why doesn't it talk, or why doesn't a person fill out on their taxes as a child? Sort of funny if you think of it.

sightunseen

phobicsquirrel:

Vulchor:

pnaylon:

My dad always told me he believed in abortion up to age 12. Im definitely telling my kids that! haha

Lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.......classic

... And for a group that seems to be or less against pwr of the govt, wouldn't this just show that they are Hippocrates?

Not sure if they should be compared to the father of western medicine. Sorry, couldn't avoid it.

cabinetmaker

I think its a state's rights issue, not federal.

kuzi16

cabinetmaker:

I think its a state's rights issue, not federal.

+1

on that note.... any pure ban on abortion i am against. no abortion for rape or other forms of abuse is going way to far. that isnt freedom at all. not in my mind. I am against abortion in general, but there is a time and place for it. a father raping a 12 year old daughter is the time and place.

Vulchor

Agreed totally Kuz...and a little "Death Wish" style justice may be in order as well.

TatuajeVI

Can you find me their statements saying they would support a total ban on abortion, including rape/incest/etc. In general, MOST Conservatives would agree with my position: that rape/incest are pretty the only reasons abortion should be allowed.

Also, Vulchor: do you have children? I only ask because of the "collection of cells" comment. My guess is you've either never had children, or if you have had children you never saw an ultrasound before they were born. Really - ultrasounds are truly incredible, and anyone in their right mind who saw their child moving around would not be able to call it "a collection of cells"

Vulchor

Tats...I have 2 kids and ultras with both.....even one 3D one. My wife said the same thing, asking how I could say what I do based on seeing this. My answer for her and here I guess is simple and that is the life I saw was one our love together and something we wanted----not something that was done by force, misery, anger, or control. I dont think the rape victim should have to have any ultrasound if she chooses not and while I agree it is very moving and touching to see----may not feel the same to a woman who knows that is genetically 50% of the man who abused her.

TatuajeVI

Right, no I agree with you. I can definitely see rape/incest being exceptions for a legal abortion. I was just referring to the language of "a collection of cells" when you've clearly seen the obvious - that it is not just a collection of cells, lol. Terms like "a collection of cells" are meant as diversion tactics to take away from the seriousness of abortion, and in my mind, a term like that could only be used by:
1. hard core pro-choice political leadership with no emotional attachment whatsoever to human life
or
2. One who has not had children and witnessed an ultrasound.

Don't get me wrong, we all deliberately use specific language to enhance our own arguments or take away from our opponents arguments in a debate. I just find this one, since it is referring to an unborn baby, especially... troubling? Crass? I don't know, I just find it odd. Do you see where I'm coming from?

TatuajeVI

Also, still would love to see the statements/etc where Palin/etc specifically state they want abortion banned in the instance of rape/incest.