Pro Choice?????

[Veiled Princess 1]

So why was Scott Peterson charged for the murder of his unborn child, ok he murdered his wife, his childs "abortion" was incidental. While I do feel for this woman who thought she had no other choice, I do believe she has to be somewhat accountable for her actions, if not by jail then by mandatory hospitalization, her charges were dropped!!! She did wrong....simple. It's an ethically impossible argument for either side, but do we really want to set up a premise for this. "I didn't know what else to do, so I dropped my minutes old baby in a dumpster." Sad story follows....case dismissed!

[Karen_L 1]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

No, this hypothetical woman chose to have sex which carries a rish of pregnancies... the govt would choose not to allow her to commit murder... much in the same way it would if I had a gun to your head right now.

The primary difference in these two examples -- a woman having an abortion and your shooting me -- is this: I am not living and growing inside of your abdomen.

[irishgirl73 0]

I never said you said you wouldn't adopt. Will you adopt?

Yes, and what of children who aren't adopted as babies and languish for years in the system?

I would most deffinately adopt if I thought for a moment that I could give that child a life better than the one it's in for.

It is very rare that children are not adopted if they are given up as newborns... unless they are handicapped in some way. It's the children who are abandoned later or taken away from their parents or orphaned who are hard to find homes for.

With newborns this is not an issue.... many people wait in line to pay lots of money to adopt newborns.

I think it is admirable that you would adopt-but the fact is not many people would do it-or it may not be an otion for someone to carry a child for 9 months. In fact I am sure that many women who decide to have abortions feel that is the best thing they can do at that time. I would hope if they thought for one second that they could raise that baby-they would.

The post was originally about some psycho who shot her baby right before it was about to be born-she CLEARLY needs help of some kind. I just feel that what she did does not compare with having an abortion 4 weeks into a pregnancy.

Thanks everyone for the debate-you have made my afternoon fly by

[Veiled Princess 1]

The logic behind Roe v Wade is this is a privacy issue. The Court never ruled on the issue of life, but rather to what extent a woman has a right to privacy without interference from the state.

Overturning Roe will not only allow bans on abortion but challenge the idea that privacy exists at all in the Constitution.

Don't be so dramatic... the right to privacy has it's limits like any other right.

Killing an innocent person is reason enough to lose that right.

[Traviesa 0]

living and growing

Ok, you said it...baby is living and growing! So I guess we can accept now that it really IS killing-taking the life of a "living and growing" thing.

[Veiled Princess 1]

The logic behind Roe v Wade is this is a privacy issue. The Court never ruled on the issue of life, but rather to what extent a woman has a right to privacy without interference from the state.

Overturning Roe will not only allow bans on abortion but challenge the idea that privacy exists at all in the Constitution.

So can I kill you as long as I do it in private?

P.S. I'm just kidding. I wanted to beat VP to the punch!

Good Q though

[Carol&Marc 0]

Karen L said: The primary difference in these two examples -- a woman having an abortion and your shooting me -- is this: I am not LIVING and GROWING inside of your abdomen

LIVING and GROWING=life lol

[garya505 2]

There is nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to kill an innocent person.

Foetuses are not persons. Unborn = not a person.

By that logic then it would be OK to kill a fetus moments before birth.

...which was the logic used for Roe v Wade in the first place, as well as that behind BillyBubba's refusal to sign the Partial-birth-abortion Ban!

The logic behind Roe v Wade is this is a privacy issue. The Court never ruled on the issue of life, but rather to what extent a woman has a right to privacy without interference from the state.

Overturning Roe will not only allow bans on abortion but challenge the idea that privacy exists at all in the Constitution.

Not really, it would only mean that the right to privacy doesn't override the unborn child's right to live.

[Veiled Princess 1]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

No, this hypothetical woman chose to have sex which carries a rish of pregnancies... the govt would choose not to allow her to commit murder... much in the same way it would if I had a gun to your head right now.

The primary difference in these two examples -- a woman having an abortion and your shooting me -- is this: I am not living and growing inside of your abdomen.

It does not matter. The fact that you're living and I ended that life for no good reason makes it murder.

living and growing

Ok, you said it...baby is living and growing! So I guess we can accept now that it really IS killing-taking the life of a "living and growing" thing.

[Karen_L 1]

living and growing

Ok, you said it...baby is living and growing! So I guess we can accept now that it really IS killing-taking the life of a "living and growing" thing.

I never said it wasn't living and growing -- in fact, I directly said "a fetus is living" a few posts back. All's I said is that the government shouldn't force someone to have a child when they don't want to have.

[garya505 2]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

No, this hypothetical woman chose to have sex which carries a rish of pregnancies... the govt would choose not to allow her to commit murder... much in the same way it would if I had a gun to your head right now.

The primary difference in these two examples -- a woman having an abortion and your shooting me -- is this: I am not living and growing inside of your abdomen.

So then by that logic you could say that it's ok to kill a fetus moments before it's born, while it's still living and growing inside your abdomen.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Not really, it would only mean that the right to privacy doesn't override the unborn child's right to live.

Exactly

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The logic behind Roe v Wade is this is a privacy issue. The Court never ruled on the issue of life, but rather to what extent a woman has a right to privacy without interference from the state.

Overturning Roe will not only allow bans on abortion but challenge the idea that privacy exists at all in the Constitution.

Don't be so dramatic... the right to privacy has it's limits like any other right.

Killing an innocent person is reason enough to lose that right.

In the case of Roe v. Wade, there is truth in that the issue was argued on "privacy"--but it did lead to the logic that it was ok to kill a even a viable unborn foetus.

While it was previously stated that the "majority" of abortions were done before 12 weeks, the sheer number makes a horrific scale. A SINGLE "clinic" in NJ performed 1500 partial-birth abortions each year (FOUR PER DAY averaged on 7/24/365 basis)--binning BillyBubba's claim that it was "rare".

And, in fact, abortions were regulated by each state--and this decision was an infringement on states' rights which was also in the constitution (which mybackpages obfuscates on!)

[Jenn! 918]

I believe abortion is murder. But I am still pro-choice.

I don't see how this issue is as cut and dried as many of you present it.

[Veiled Princess 1]

living and growing

Ok, you said it...baby is living and growing! So I guess we can accept now that it really IS killing-taking the life of a "living and growing" thing.

I never said it wasn't living and growing -- in fact, I directly said "a fetus is living" a few posts back. All's I said is that the government shouldn't force someone to have a child when they don't want to have.

Again... who's forcing? All the govt should be doing is preventing the crime of murder.... it is up to the woman whether or not she'll put herself at risk of being in a situation that could possibly cause her to become pregnant.

Ladies!!!! If you don't want babies don't have sex!!!! You know this is a possible effect of having sex. It's no one's fault but your own if it happens.

The mere act of being a woman does NOT give you the right to murder an innocent human being!