Who supports Roe vs. Wade?

[Cyclonepride]

I know, another hot button issue, but I am curious what the percentages are. I believe abortion is wrong, and a society that supports or condones it has started the slide towards losing it's moral fabric. If forced to come up with a solution on my own, from all the ideas I have heard and read, here's what I would suggest:

1. Outlaw abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and when it endangers the health of the mother.

2. Keep the "morning after" pill legal.

3. Adoption. I read somewhere recently that there is now a "don't ask, don't tell" policy where a baby can be left at a hospital with no questions asked. Continue this policy.

With those options, along with the fact that you would have to be living in a cave somewhere not to understand that contraception is available, I really see no excuse to continue this practice. I don't see why, with these options available, there would have to "back alley" abortions. If you can counter this logic, go right ahead.

I would also be very curious to see what the percentages of people would be, if you were to ask this question to people who have had children, versus people who have not. As a father, it is hard to imagine that people who have children, could look at those kids, realize that they wouldn't be here if another "choice" had been made, and still support abortion.

 

[cybsball20]

I support it for a couple of reasons... I don't expect anyone to tell me what to do with my body so I certainly have no business telling a woman what to do with hers... Alot of people just think of if the mother is fit to care for the baby after it is born but many of the women having abortions aren't fit to care for the baby DURING PREGNANCY, thus causing the child a life of misery and pain... and don't even get me started on Stem Celll research...

 

[Cyclone62]

I know, another hot button issue, but I am curious what the percentages are. I believe abortion is wrong, and a society that supports or condones it has started the slide towards losing it's moral fabric. If forced to come up with a solution on my own, from all the ideas I have heard and read, here's what I would suggest:

1. Outlaw abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and when it endangers the health of the mother.

2. Keep the "morning after" pill legal.

3. Adoption. I read somewhere recently that there is now a "don't ask, don't tell" policy where a baby can be left at a hospital with no questions asked. Continue this policy.

With those options, along with the fact that you would have to be living in a cave somewhere not to understand that contraception is available, I really see no excuse to continue this practice. I don't see why, with these options available, there would have to "back alley" abortions. If you can counter this logic, go right ahead.

I would also be very curious to see what the percentages of people would be, if you were to ask this question to people who have had children, versus people who have not. As a father, it is hard to imagine that people who have children, could look at those kids, realize that they wouldn't be here if another "choice" had been made, and still support abortion.

Now, I support Roe V Wade, but I really can't ever imagine myself being involved with an abortion.

Just a question about your first "suggestion" pride. Are the women going to have to prove that they were raped? That seems unfair to me.

I still think there needs to be a better form of contraception before we would re-ban abortions.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Now, I support Roe V Wade, but I really can't ever imagine myself being involved with an abortion.

Just a question about your first "suggestion" pride. Are the women going to have to prove that they were raped? That seems unfair to me.

I still think there needs to be a better form of contraception before we would re-ban abortions.

That is a good question. I would say only that there would need to be a report of the incident filed with police.

I'm not sure what better form of contraception would need to be available. There are several options for birth control pills. There are all the physical forms of contraception. And there would be the morning after pill to catch any mistakes. What more do you need?

As to the first comment on the thread, the "telling me what I can do with my body" cop-out is a joke. Once a child is conceived, it is no longer a body part, it is a distinct, individual human life. And to assume that the child will undergo a lifetime of misery, I guess I don't share your pessimistic world view. I believe that life doesn't just happen to you, and that your situation controls the quality of your life.

 

[Cyclone62]

I would say only that there would need to be a report of the incident filed with police.

What happens if she's threatened to not report the incident, or if she was raped by a family member or acquaintance who would be able to know about her reporting it?

 

[bluehooper]

I am just wondering why killing a baby would ever be okay? People want to talk about the "rights" of the mother, well what about the "rights" of the baby? It is not about telling a mother what to do with her body, it is protecting the life of the person inside her body. I understand there are some difficult circumtances that take place, but why would that make killing an innocent baby right?

 

[Cyclonepride]

What happens if she's threatened to not report the incident, or if she was raped by a family member or acquaintance who would be able to know about her reporting it?

So be it? If it really was a rape, then the issue needs to be turned over to law enforcement. DNA testing can prove it. That person needs to be punished for their crime, and the victim hiding from it is likely to only make her a repeat victim, who lives in fear either way. And such arguments just muddy the waters. We can always come with a one in ten scenario that counters even the most obvious and needed solutions.

 

[Cyclone62]

I am just wondering why killing a baby would ever be okay? People want to talk about the "rights" of the mother, well what about the "rights" of the baby? It is not about telling a mother what to do with her body, it is protecting the life of the person inside her body. I understand there are some difficult circumtances that take place, but why would that make killing an innocent baby right?

When does life start, exactly? Conception? When the act of making love begins? When pregnancy begins to show? Birth?

 

[cybsball20]

If the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb then I would not consider it a 'baby'.

"And to assume that the child will undergo a lifetime of misery, I guess I don't share your pessimistic world view. I believe that life doesn't just happen to you, and that your situation controls the quality of your life."

Have you ever seen a meth or crack baby? or better yet held one?

 

[Cyclone62]

So be it? If it really was a rape, then the issue needs to be turned over to law enforcement. DNA testing can prove it. That person needs to be punished for their crime, and the victim hiding from it is likely to only make her a repeat victim, who lives in fear either way. And such arguments just muddy the waters. We can always come with a one in ten scenario that counters even the most obvious and needed solutions.

I think that scenario is more frequent than a "one in ten scenario," which is why I used it. I remember reading an article a couple years ago that said, I think, only about 30% of rapes are reported. The rest go unreported because the woman knows the person that raped them, and they would know if it was reported.

 

[Cyclonepride]

If the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb then I would not consider it a 'baby'.

"And to assume that the child will undergo a lifetime of misery, I guess I don't share your pessimistic world view. I believe that life doesn't just happen to you, and that your situation controls the quality of your life."

Have you ever seen a meth or crack baby? or better yet held one?

I cannot argue against a self serving argument such as your first point. As to your second point, many wonderful, productive lives have come from horrible circumstances. Would you deny their right to live their lives? I am sure you would argue against the death penalty, because 1 in 100 are possibly innocent. With that same argument, I could say that 100 out of 100 are innocent, and who are we to take the life away from those who could overcome their circumstances.

Also, you evidently would deny that having a child is a potentially life changing experience. One that can uniquely and powerfully change the direction of the lives of the parents. Have you seen some of the inside the womb documentaries on the Discovery channel? Have you seen these "non-babies" smile, and in the case of twins, interacting with each other?

 

[Cyclonepride]

I think that scenario is more frequent than a "one in ten scenario," which is why I used it. I remember reading an article a couple years ago that said, I think, only about 30% of rapes are reported. The rest go unreported because the woman knows the person that raped them, and they would know if it was reported.

So there are tough choices to make. Is this any tougher than arbitrarily denying life to a child? I think not.

 

[Cyclone62]

So there are tough choices to make. Is this any tougher than arbitrarily denying life to a child? I think not.

I never said it was a "tougher choice," just pointing out some grey areas. Question: Where does the abortion "time-line" stand now? I know third trimester, and partial birth abortions are illegal, but are second trimesters? I wouldn't be too opposed to putting the kabosh on those. If we allow the morning after pill, why not just first term abortions as well?

 

[erikbj]

For one, I do not like it when any government tells an individual what they can and can not do with their own body. If a woman gets pregnant and for what ever circumstances are, she should have the option if she would like to keep or terminate. Personally I would like her to keep the child, but that is NOT my decision to make.

If a woman gets pregnant and realizes she can not afford to raise a child or she can not raise a child in a healty environment and decides to terminate - more power to her. At least she is not going to take government hand-outs to raise that child. Nothing better than our tax dollars used to raise the kids of a woman that gets pregnant for a living.

Need smaller government, this is not the way to get to a smaller government.

 

[BigBake]

If the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb then I would not consider it a 'baby'.

Nice...a baby can't survive outside it's mother without proper care either. I guess we could let mother's kill their children up to what age then? 6 months? 1 year?

 

[Cyclonepride]

I never said it was a "tougher choice," just pointing out some grey areas. Question: Where does the abortion "time-line" stand now? I know third trimester, and partial birth abortions are illegal, but are second trimesters? I wouldn't be too opposed to putting the kabosh on those. If we allow the morning after pill, why not just first term abortions as well?

I just can't see why the morning after pill wouldn't solve the need for abortions in the first place. Most women probably know when they have had sex without contraceptives, right?

 

[Cyclonepride]

For one, I do not like it when any government tells an individual what they can and can not do with their own body. If a woman gets pregnant and for what ever circumstances are, she should have the option if she would like to keep or terminate. Personally I would like her to keep the child, but that is NOT my decision to make.

If a woman gets pregnant and realizes she can not afford to raise a child or she can not raise a child in a healty environment and decides to terminate - more power to her. At least she is not going to take government hand-outs to raise that child. Nothing better than our tax dollars used to raise the kids of a woman that gets pregnant for a living.

Need smaller government, this is not the way to get to a smaller government.

I agree with your sentiments on smaller government. I also agree that we need to watch closely the involvement of government in personal lives. However, the government does outlaw murder. I suppose that could be seen as an infringement on what you choose to do with your personal life. Your personal rights end where another person's life begins.

 

[BigBake]

For one, I do not like it when any government tells an individual what they can and can not do with their own body. If a woman gets pregnant and for what ever circumstances are, she should have the option if she would like to keep or terminate. Personally I would like her to keep the child, but that is NOT my decision to make.

A mother has no right to take the life of a child.

Seriously people take a step back and look at what you (pro abortion) are saying? "terminate"

How's is a mother killing her unborn child any different than killing her child at 1 year.

If the mother's life is in danger (and this is in about what....less than 1% of the current abortions happening) then it's up to the Dr to do everything possible to save both lives.

 

[Cyclone62]

Most women probably know when they have had sex without contraceptives, right?

What about when the contraceptives fail. I think the most effective one now still has a ten percent failure rate when used "expertly." This is when it all gets fuzzy. I just think the choice should be there, even though I don't agree with it.

 

[BigBake]

What about when the contraceptives fail. I think the most effective one now still has a ten percent failure rate when used "expertly." This is when it all gets fuzzy. I just think the choice should be there, even though I don't agree with it.

Well then if the contraceptive fails maybe they should take responsibility for their actions. There is a novel idea for our generation.

The pill is like around 98% effective.

Abstinence is around 100% effective.