Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
One of the other threads on this forum got off topic, so I figure that it's better to start a thread to discuss the topic of abortion.
For me personally, a politician's stance on abortion is very low on my priority list when evaluating them for a position. I'll try to explain my view on the topic.
For me personally, I am against abortion in most cases. In the case of rape or possibly the mother's health, then I could possibly see where an abortion would be an alternative. What I don't like is to see the procedure used as a form of birth control. Just my opinion, but I feel that abortion in general is wrong. That's my personal moral stance on the issue.
Regarding abortion as a political issue, I tend to side with the idea that it should not be illegal during the first trimester. However, I also don't want my tax dollars funding it. If a "woman" feels that she is old enough and "responsible" enough to have unprotected sex, then it should be up to her and her partner to deal with the consequences. I don't feel that insurance companies should be forced to cover the procedure unless it is a health situation or some other circumstance. I also don't feel that companies should be forced to provide this "service" as part of a health plan. Want an abortion? It's certainly your right to choose to do so, it's just not going to happen on my dime.
The second trimester is kind of a grey area. Again, if it comes to a woman's choice, it should be up to her and her partner to pay for it. I don't think that it should be illegal at this point, but again, it should not be funded by tax payer dollars and insurance companies should not be forced to cover the procedure.
When it comes to late term abortion (after the second trimester), I think it should be illegal for all but the most extreme cases (mother's health in jeopardy). At this point I really do consider the fetus to be a human being, and it shouldn't be an "option" for a woman. In my mind, at this stage an abortion is pretty much an execution or murder.
In summary, I put very little priority into whether a politician is "pro life" or "pro choice". There are more important traits that I use to determine whether or not a specific politician gets my vote.
It's not high on my list but it does factor into my decesion making process.
I'm against ALL abortions after the second trimester without a doubt, at that point I support legislation making a crime to abort a child after the second trimester.
I believe Roe vs Wade was an overreach of the federal government and support having it repealed. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to legislate any health or medical procedures. According to the 10th amendment these issue's should default to the state.
Regardless of what is or isn't legal I don't want my tax dollars funding ANY of it, so if a candidate is for tax payer funded abortion that can sway my vote against them.
A politician's stance on this topic has zero bearing on how this person would lead. That so many people use this topic as a basis for how they will vote nauseates me. Roe v. Wade was how long ago? Why are we still arguing this in the political arena? It's a distraction from the real issues. Google top priorities for Republicans or Democrats and you will not see this topic anywhere close to what people find is most important. You don't support a woman's right to an abortion? Don't have one. Next.
Quote:You don't support a woman's right to an abortion? Don't have one. Next.
We're still arguing this because it's the Holocaust of our generation. 56 million deaths since 1973. Warren Buffet's recent donation to PP will result in more abortions than the entire population of Chicago. I support a child's inherent and innate right life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in our Declaration. Those rights are rescinded from them without just cause and the results are heinous.
You don't support your neighbor's right to murder his child? Don't murder your child. Balderdash.
Murder. How many women are placed in jail for having an abortion? While it is horrific to think about, right or wrong, women have and will seek these out. Whether it be in a clinic or a back alley (see Dirty Dancing). Morally I can see both sides of this ugly coin. But show me the solution for these kids once they come into the world unwanted and being raised by parents who cannot afford them? The state won't provide for them. What's more disgusting to me is that so many of these kids are simply thrown into a cruel foster care system or the pedophile sex trade. What kind of life are you preserving? If you meet a woman who is planning an abortion and you intervene, telling her if she keeps it, you will raise it, care for it, pay for it, love it. That is one thing. But the argument that is made on the subject goes no further than the exit of the womb. What then? It is a moral issue that is a personal one. I wouldn't want a woman I got pregnant to have one. But as I will never be pregnant, I have very little to say on the matter. I see enough people in this world who have no business being parents.
Quote:We're still arguing this because it's the Holocaust of our generation. 56 million deaths since 1973. Warren Buffet's recent donation to PP will result in more abortions than the entire population of Chicago. I support a child's inherent and innate right life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in our Declaration. Those rights are rescinded from them without just cause and the results are heinous.
You don't support your neighbor's right to murder his child? Don't murder your child. Balderdash.
Organizations like Planned Parenthood are lauded by those on the left for providing abortive services.
Planned Parenthood is arguably a commercial genocide operation.
If lefties bothered to do even a little research about Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization, they'd discover the true purpose of this organization from it's very origin was to deal with those she deemed to be inferior by birth. Eugenics was her way of sterilizing those people when possible, and to abort children conceived of inferior breed.
She never made any effort to hide her wishes, but she's still held up as a hero to the left. Today, 80% of walk in abortion clinics are located in minority areas, and nearly 70% of abortions are performed on blacks, Hispanics, or other minorities. So, her goal of eradication of those she deemed unworthy has had a profound impact on minority populations in this country.
Quote:We're still arguing this because it's the Holocaust of our generation. 56 million deaths since 1973. Warren Buffet's recent donation to PP will result in more abortions than the entire population of Chicago. I support a child's inherent and innate right life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in our Declaration. Those rights are rescinded from them without just cause and the results are heinous.
You don't support your neighbor's right to murder his child? Don't murder your child. Balderdash.
I think America lacks the social floor needed to adequately support 56 million unwanted children, largely thanks to the conservative right.
Quote:Organizations like Planned Parenthood are lauded by those on the left for providing abortive services.
Planned Parenthood is arguably a commercial genocide operation.
If lefties bothered to do even a little research about Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization, they'd discover the true purpose of this organization from it's very origin was to deal with those she deemed to be inferior by birth. Eugenics was her way of sterilizing those people when possible, and to abort children conceived of inferior breed.
She never made any effort to hide her wishes, but she's still held up as a hero to the left. Today, 80% of walk in abortion clinics are located in minority areas, and nearly 70% of abortions are performed on blacks, Hispanics, or other minorities. So, her goal of eradication of those she deemed unworthy has had a profound impact on minority populations in this country.
Isn't it sad how those on the far left don't even know about Margaret Sanger or what she stood for?
The argument has been changed to a "woman's right to choose".
I've often suspected that the women that exercise their "right to choose" are often minority women. I also believe that the decision is based more on using abortion as a means for birth control in most cases.
If they want to do that, then it should be on their dime and not a taxpayer funded practice.
Quote:I think America lacks the social floor needed to adequately support 56 million unwanted children, largely thanks to the conservative right.
I think that's a load of bull, but whatever you need to do to justify genocide is your prerogative.
For those calling it murder, would you also consider it murder if say... someone needed bone marrow, or say a kidney transplant, and you were the ONLY MATCH, and you don't (knowing that they will die if you say no)
Quote:For those calling it murder, would you also consider it murder if say... someone needed bone marrow, or say a kidney transplant, and you were the ONLY MATCH, and you don't (knowing that they will die if you say no)
There are potentially other matches out there. There is no option for an unborn child that is aborted.
Quote:Isn't it sad how those on the far left don't even know about Margaret Sanger or what she stood for?
The argument has been changed to a "woman's right to choose".
I've often suspected that the women that exercise their "right to choose" are often minority women. I also believe that the decision is based more on using abortion as a means for birth control in most cases.
If they want to do that, then it should be on their dime and not a taxpayer funded practice.
We've come to the point where people have been trained to expect birth control for free courtesy of the US taxpayers. Expecting us to pay for abortions is just the natural progression, and one wholeheartedly supported by 0bama. The guy hasn't met an abortion opportunity he didn't endorse.
Quote:I think America lacks the social floor needed to adequately support 56 million unwanted children, largely thanks to the conservative right.
I don't think that it is America's responsibility, and specifically the U.S.'s responsibility to "support" the "unwanted children". What ever happened to personal responsibility? If a "woman" is "responsible" enough to spread her legs and have unprotected sex, then the "woman" should be responsible enough to accept the consequences.
Quote:I don't think that it is America's responsibility, and specifically the U.S.'s responsibility to "support" the "unwanted children". What ever happened to personal responsibility? If a "woman" is "responsible" enough to spread her legs and have unprotected sex, then the "woman" should be responsible enough to accept the consequences.
So it's okay if the child dies of starvation later, just so long as they're not aborted?
I mean financial concerns are one of the top reasons for abortions given by women.
Quote:So it's okay if the child dies of starvation later, just so long as they're not aborted?
How many Americans are dying of starvation again?
Quote:So it's okay if the child dies of starvation later, just so long as they're not aborted?
Nobody is saying that. If the "woman" is "responsible" enough to have unprotected sex, gets pregnant and has a child, then the "woman" should be responsible enough to provide for the child.
Quote:I don't think that it is America's responsibility, and specifically the U.S.'s responsibility to "support" the "unwanted children". What ever happened to personal responsibility? If a "woman" is "responsible" enough to spread her legs and have unprotected sex, then the "woman" should be responsible enough to accept the consequences.
Ha, Uncle Sugar will take care of it all for you precious little brain dead children. Just keep voting him in and he'll keep your cot on the plantation warm.
Quote:Ha, Uncle Sugar will take care of it all for you precious little brain dead children. Just keep voting him in and he'll keep your cot on the plantation warm.
Bingo
Quote:Nobody is saying that. If the "woman" is "responsible" enough to have unprotected sex, gets pregnant and has a child, then the "woman" should be responsible enough to provide for the child.
It takes two to create a life.
Quote:Nobody is saying that. If the "woman" is "responsible" enough to have unprotected sex, gets pregnant and has a child, then the "woman" should be responsible enough to provide for the child.
Wrong argument. The correct parties are the parents, both of them. Putting it all on the women is one of the main planks of the "War on Women" that conservatives are constantly accused of fighting.
Of course, it's not the man gets a say in whether or not she aborts, but you can sure bet the state will come after him to pay for it if she gives birth.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11