Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 141
view profile
History
Abortion & PoliticsPage 4 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
“I feel the question is irrelevant in the US since the Supreme Court ruled it's legal but my question is:Does a candidates position on abortion effect the way you vote?”

I would first like to extend some common courtesy and address that question.

In MSG 24 Cuteguy comments affirmatively, “This ABSOLUTELY effects my vote.”

He bases his argument on some ethical points. He considers the abortion question a test to determine if this person would have the ability to disassociate themselves from their Religious moral values for the purpose of upholding the ethical moral foundations as guaranteed to each of us in the constitution.

There are many times that our elected officials will be asked and required to enter a vote, for the people, that is in direct conflict with their personal moral convictions.

I totally agree and so should everyone here. We focus so much effort in finding a representative who shares our opinions that we neglect their ability to perform the duties required of the office they seek. LOGIC must dictate to you that no one is ever going to share ALL your opinions and thus make choices you would make. That alone should send you searching for other avenues by which to determine if this person is honest, capable of ethical and critical thinking and trustworthy enough to serve as the extension of your voice when ethically applied to the matter at hand.

So, while Cuteguy responds in the affirmative, I would like to say that we might actually get a better picture of where a person stands by changing the question just a bit.

“Would you be willing to re-examine the legal issues of abortion and under what circumstances?”

This allows the person to answer in relation to an already established legal precedent, give the reasons that he would deem acceptable to pursue re-examinations, and leave the floor open to airing his/her own personal opinions.

We need to communicate more effectively if we are going to cast logical and educated votes. We can no longer simply vote for a person who holds one shared opinion, no matter how much value you give that persons opinion it is only, in the end, ethics aside, just their opinion and it counts for no more than 1 in the number of voters to be considered.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 142
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/2/2007 12:30:00 AM
Having just answered the question from the opening topic, I’d like to continue on to some issues raised in the rest of the post.

There was some discussion regarding the definition pro-life. This is not a word, phrase or idea that can possibly extend to encompass every possible event that falls under the heading of lethal harm. There are just too many possibilities that would only serve to show the contradictions of one claiming to be pro-life, without exception. One such example can be made from a recent post to this topic.

Post: MSG 167

“One who favors the death penalty is NOT pro life. NUFF SAID”

Unfortunately there is more to say. A previous statement meant to confirm this person’s conviction to being a pro-life advocate, stated

“We have jails for violent murderers. Lock them up and leave them there for the rest of their lives. ONE murder, and you are done. No more of this rapists or murderers getting off in three years. I say that we use the jails for what they are for, and if someone who is really innocent is in jail, release him. If someone was executed and then found innocent, you cannot give the man his life back. If you are really pro life, you cannot POSSIBLY support the death penalty too, because an innocent person could be murdered while using the death penalty.”

Prisons were never meant to "harbor" criminals and the punishment metered by conviction was meant to be a time of rehabilation – not a time to allow for endless repudiations of ones guilt. We have created a legal system meant to protect the innocent. It allows enough time and enough chances to warrant enough investigation and evidence to be heard.

If there are rare cases in which society believes that a person can never become socially adaptable again, then it is actually much more humane and efficient to invoke a death penalty. I find it rather obsurd that so little logic and understanding is applied by those who profess to be pro-life in these situations. Is it their suggestion that an easy life at the expense of the general public and without vindication of those this person harmed, is the best solution? Or are you suggesting punishment, a lifetime of hell, with no parole, the equivalent of cruel and unusual punishment. Both scenarios seem unworthy of a pro-life morality.

This is just one argument against using the term pro-life as an all encompassing live based morality. It can only be used in the context of a given example.

Since the abortion issue has arisen, I thought using some ethical foundations in examening the question was in order. Here are some facts related to this issue.

We do not live in a commune. We do not have socialized
medacine, we do not all share the fruits of our individual labors as an
extended family. We do not bear children with any idea that we may be
contributing the next best thing to humanity that ever existed. We do
not bear a child and then vote within a community on how to raise this
child nor is there even any personal contact between a baby and every
individual of a community. The fact is, many children do not even have
an extended family. We are a society of individuals, and it is my
choice as to whom, I divulge my bodily functions. And what I divulge to my
physician is between me and my physician and can not, should not ever be
put in front of public eyes much less up for a vote. ALL OF THAT IS FACT.
Also fact, a physician does not have to perform abortions if they feel morally unable to do so. Also fact, a man has never been known to conceive or give birth and at this point it is not medically a possibility so an individual man also has no say at all much less a vote for what an individual woman does with her body.

From the above facts logic would conclude the following.

If any conditions are placed on anyone's individual rights over their own
bodies, than the laws that were meant to uphold those rights are
erroneous, and do not give us rights at all. This is not a stand against men or any single man, it is not a stand
against religion. This is the only possible logical conclusion, at this
time, for people who expect entitlement to certain inalienable rights.
Those rights include what a person does with their own body, and under the law it is no one’s business what transpires between an individual and their physician.
Even in the case of epidemics, the tracing of infection is by subject label and not by name.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/2/2007 8:58:56 AM
I still hold fast to the belief that it is bogus to call oneself "pro-life" and be in favor of the death penalty. The death penalty is nothing more than state sanctioned murder.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/3/2007 7:58:34 PM
Good point, JT. I also feel that there are times when an abortion is a tragic necessity, particularly in the case of a rape that results in pregnancy. I don't care for the use of abortion as a form of birth control, but I understand that there are times when the circumstances make an early term abortion preferable to the traumatic reminder of the rape during the pregnancy.

Plan B should always be legal, to provide the emergency contraceptive that prevents the need for a surgical abortion and even more trauma for the rape victim.
 Republiman
Joined: 10/15/2007
Msg: 147
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/3/2007 8:17:46 PM
Abortion is the main reason I'll vote for a Candidate.....I read on an eearlier post that abortion is between a woman and her lover..Well hun I hate too say this, you and your lover should have been more responsible with your bodies and not had unprotected sex, you have free choice, wether too protect yourself or not, if you don't than don't blame the unborn child for your ignorance....Kind of amazing we have more laws protecting pets then we do the unborn....So yes if the candidate is pro life, he has gotten my vote...The only time abortion should be allowed is in cases of saving the mothers life, rape, molestation, or incest...
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:41:52 PM
I agree with uwish--I would not vote for a candidate solely on his position on the abortion issue. With that said, I could never vote for someone who calls himself "pro life" but supports the death penalty.
 Prefect42
Joined: 4/9/2007
Msg: 150
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/7/2007 12:22:53 AM
This was a question raised by my history teacher in my final year of high-school. We were studying eugenics programs of the past like mandatory sterilization to handicapped people so they could not procreate.

The situation is you know a child that is to be born of a mother with syphilis in the late 1700's and the resulting reverberations of that child is that it will eventually go deaf and blind. Basically being a drain on society, and will need special attention all of its life. Would it be prudent and humane to end the suffering of the child before it even happened?

If you answered that question "yes that would be prudent" You are responsible for killing Beethoven. Remember you never know that you might kill the child that creates cold fusion. That is a gamble no human should be willing to take. Sad part is, is that we may have already done this.
 Prefect42
Joined: 4/9/2007
Msg: 151
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/7/2007 12:49:01 AM
I admit I am Canadian, and American politics has a huge impact here. Several years ago a man in Montreal petitioned the Supreme Court of Canada because his ex was going to abort. Being of solid financial means and willing to take full responsibility to rear the child, an injunction against her to have an abortion was levied by the court. One of the more controversial decisions in Canadian Law.Within a few days she crossed the border and aborted. The basis of the injunction that the supreme court ruled is his DNA was half responsible for the creation of the child. Should men in the United States have the right to stop an abortion if they want the child?
 Prefect42
Joined: 4/9/2007
Msg: 154
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/10/2007 1:24:28 PM
Dear jdmph you saying about the increase in teenage pregnancies is way off base! See the line/disscusion on teenage pregnancies. It is percentage wise down, just a larger population makes it seem like an epidemic refer to limestonelady's list of the chart. You are right about abstinance teaching not working. I find it ironic that there is a line about human rights when this is a line about the stopping of human life. We are mammals, and the First world has a birth rate of 1.8 to the familys current. It takes a birth rate of 2.3 to maintain the status-quo. In other words the population is decreasing in North America and Western Europe. With almost 30% of the workforce retiring in the next 7-12 years we need as many children as possible to maintain our standard of life. No-body anywhere wants to pay more tax to support pension systems. We have developed a civilization based on population......
As for building more orphanages or prisons, that is society. The only way to end this debate is for the U.S. government to hold a REFERENDUM. That is what a TRUE DEMOCRACY would do. How hard would it be to create a petition in the States to get a Total of 25 million signatures to create the protocol for a vote on this issue. (Around 10% of the population)
 Boomstrike
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 158
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/12/2007 6:08:04 PM
It's a tough issue for me because a critical component is when does life actually begin. I don't think there is a clear cut answer to that question. If we do answer the question, and the issue then becomes a battle between the rights of children and the rights of women, the rights of children then wins.
 dantheman51677
Joined: 12/17/2006
Msg: 160
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/2/2008 11:46:52 PM
Bush is also Pro life. A much better option than Kerry would have been.
 Boomstrike
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 163
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 11:36:16 AM

Do anti-abortion activists actually think that if abortion becomes illegal then it will go away?

Anti drug laws don't make drug use go away.
Anti violence laws don't make violence go away.
Which laws make any problem go away?
If abortion is deemed a crime against children, a law against that crime is required.
 Boomstrike
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 165
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 12:29:20 PM

I would argue that anyone with no birth certificate is not legally alive and therefor cannot be considered murdered. Fetuses, until very late in their development, arent really people. Just like sperm and eggs arent people.

OK I'll bite.
An embryo is a living organism that
(1) has a metabolism
(2) grows
(3) can reproduce at some stage of its normal life process
(4) has a complete and unique set of DNA
(5) its DNA is human
 bob0colo
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 167
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 12:35:58 PM
Bush is also Pro life. A much better option than Kerry would have been.


Yes, because look at how Bush outlawed abortion.

No wait he didn't.
________


He did ban particle Birth.
Or did he.
This is a great issue for some political parties to keep alive...
Bush Pro-life...sure.

All the One issue voters must love it. They don't have to think about anything else.
Birth control, Child care, Unwanted pregnancies, or what to do about them. Maybe a medical procedure should not be used for birth control.
How about some real options.


No more Partial birth? Maybe now you kill the baby before the delivery.

==========

The Loophole
First, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003(1) does not mention the medical procedure known as the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" (D&X abortion). Since the Act does not use this official medical term, then the D&X procedure is not banned or outlawed by any legal means of this Act.
Second, the Act is specifically restricted by the word "living." "Living, unborn child's body," "living fetus." The words "living fetus" are used three times in the Act.(2)
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act only applies to a "living fetus" -- and there is nothing in the Act to prevent abortionists from killing viable late term babies in the womb first!
If the "fetus" is killed before being pulled out of the womb then the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" is moot!
All an abortionist has to do is kill the baby in the womb first; then using the medical D&X abortion procedure -- pull the dead baby out -- feet first -- where the baby's head is up to the cervical os, puncture a hole at the back of the neck at the base of the skull (making sure not to cut the mother's cervix), suck the baby's brains out, collapsing the skull, and then pull the head out of the birth canal.

http://www.covenantnews.com/rudd031126.htm
 Boomstrike
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 169
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 7:31:29 PM
A parasite or a human on life support? If you cease to be able to survive without medical life support, do you lose all rights as a human?
The UN convention on the rights of the child clearly states that children have human rights before birth.
The US supreme court also defined when a fetus becomes a human, and that is before birth. See Roe v Wade.
 Boomstrike
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 171
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/4/2008 9:03:58 AM

on the other hand, If i wouldnt force you (or your wife, or whoever) to have an abortion, why would you force me (my wife, whatever) to not have one?...

Forcing people to not commit murder is not wrong. The question is "is it murder?"
Issues of morality are tough. The people that believe that abortion is murder then logically conclude that it should be illegal. They feel it's their right to protect all children, and that it's not a woman's right to kill them. In Canada a fetus has no human rights whatsoever and killing a baby 2 days before birth is perfectly legal. Is this murder?
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 172
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/4/2008 6:50:28 PM
Bush is NOT pro-life in the true sense of the word. It executed 150 prisoners while governor of Texas, a few of whom may be innocent of the crimes they'd been charged with. If someone is truly pro life he should be against abortions, the death penalty and euthanasia. Bush is a mass murderer in my book, hardly what I'd call pro-life.

I am pro choice, but I also am strongly in favor of promoting the idea of adoption whenever possible. Adoption is the best option in many cases. However, if a woman is raped, I can't blame her for having an early term abortion.
 Boomstrike
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 173
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/4/2008 7:35:18 PM

You get enough femenist behind it and it will become law.


Bush is not nearly powerful enough, or stupid enough, to go up against this insidious force.
 bob0colo
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 177
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 3/6/2008 2:59:33 PM
it's hard to go against an opinion as ground into society as this one that it is evil. I don't think it is, and like seeing others who don't either.
________

What? You mean no birth control?
 digitalfever
Joined: 2/6/2008
Msg: 179
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 3/7/2008 5:14:25 PM

god proved it.


Unfortunatly for you wee live in a free society, as free people. If we made abortion illegal, we would be taking away womens right to personal freedom. Would you enjoy not having personal freedom/choice? If a woman makes the wrong choice and regrets having an abortion, then that was her wrong choice to make.

I would rather make my own choices than let the gov't make them for me. I would rather a child not come into this world unwanted or going into a possible abusive home. Adoption isn't always the best option. There are many common less than unattractive situations that could come about.

A fetus doesn't know about life. Its not like it will know what it is missing out on. It may be a life, but it isn't legal. It belongs to the woman, and she has the right to do what she wishes.

And bringing religion in on this. I completely respect your religious beliefs but I shouldn't have your religion imposed on my life. If you are against abortion, don't have one. Simple isn't it? But don't ruin other people's lives just because a few people think it is wrong. If they wish to get an abortion, they should have that option available to them.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 181
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:20:59 PM
Safe haven laws allow women who give birth outside of a hospital to bring the baby to a police or fire station without recrimination. These kinds of laws help prevent women from throwing babies out in the trash. Education about adoption and safe haven laws is very important so that women can be aware of another option to abortion. While I lean more toward pro choice, especially in the case of rape, I too find it appalling that babies are thrown away when they could be left at a police/fire station or a hospital. More public service announcements and advertising to make people aware of this type of provision can help save some babies' lives. Pro choice also means being aware of ALL options. I am more pro adoption than anything else, and like the bumper sticker that says: "Adoption: The Caring Option." The slogan says NOTHING about abortion, but does promote adoption as an alternative to abortion. Being pro-adoption and working to pass laws that facilitate the adoption process is the answer to reducing the abortion rate. As it is, I don't want to vote for screwball politicians who call themselves "pro life" but support the death penalty and other ridiculous views on the issues of the day that I cannot support in good conscience.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 185
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/14/2008 5:06:25 PM
Vote for the candidate who has plans to improve our economy, bring peace to the world, and jobs home to our people, these are the real issues confronting us today

AMEN!!! That candidate that lady from pa mentioned is Barack Obama, and I would like to add Joe Biden because he's part of the Obama team!!!!

I don't think the abortion issue belongs in politics. It has been used as a wedge issue by very evil people who call themselves "pro life" but are far from it.

Obama/Biden 2008
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 187
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/14/2008 11:43:31 PM

At election time a reporters first question to a candidate is "Are you in favor of abortion?"
I feel the question is irrelevant in the US since the Supreme Court ruled it's legal but my question is:Does a candidates position on abortion effect the way you vote?


Yes, it does have an impact on the way I vote. It isn't the only thing I take into consideration but it's one of the things that count.

Bob, Message 203:

The Loophole
First, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003(1) does not mention the medical procedure known as the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" (D&X abortion). Since the Act does not use this official medical term, then the D&X procedure is not banned or outlawed by any legal means of this Act.

Second, the Act is specifically restricted by the word "living." "Living, unborn child's body," "living fetus." The words "living fetus" are used three times in the Act.(2)

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act only applies to a "living fetus" -- and there is nothing in the Act to prevent abortionists from killing viable late term babies in the womb first!

If the "fetus" is killed before being pulled out of the womb then the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" is moot!

All an abortionist has to do is kill the baby in the womb first; then using the medical D&X abortion procedure -- pull the dead baby out -- feet first -- where the baby's head is up to the cervical os, puncture a hole at the back of the neck at the base of the skull (making sure not to cut the mother's cervix), suck the baby's brains out, collapsing the skull, and then pull the head out of the birth canal.

http://www.covenantnews.com/rudd031126.htm

All an abortionist has to do is kill the baby in the womb first; then using the medical D&X abortion procedure -- pull the dead baby out -- feet first -- where the baby's head is up to the cervical os, puncture a hole at the back of the neck at the base of the skull (making sure not to cut the mother's cervix), suck the baby's brains out, collapsing the skull, and then pull the head out of the birth canal.


When I read the above, I am sick to my stomach. I continue to hope and believe that at some point, our civilization will rise above the level of savages. If there are other beings out there in the universe, they must truly see us as the barbarians we so often are.
 laxref41
Joined: 7/20/2008
Msg: 189
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/22/2008 5:51:31 AM
I think the issue goes far beyond abortion...

McCain / Palin would nominate and endorse religious and conservative Supreme Court justices whose beliefs would not only lean toward overturning roe v. wade but ALSO support the integration of religion into government such as the teaching of creationism (Palin's "Intelligent Design"), prayer in public school, and the continued use of "In God we Trust" on money and "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance.
Some folks seem to be apathetic about the latter two examples but perhaps they don't realize that they were adopted only as recently as 1954 and 1957... during the height of McCarthyism and intended to separate us from the "God-less Communists." Yet McCarthyism was one of the most flagrant violations of our rights in our history.

While we live by the motto "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", these are not your rights. Your rights are written into the Bill of Rights and the first amendment begins with "The government shall make no law which respects an establishment of religion"

A vote for McCain / Palin not only threatens pro-choice... it threatens your constitutional rights... this is far more important than the "abortion issue"... and once you lose your rights, it will become nearly impossible to get them back for generations to come.
A vote for McCain / Palin means you should be able to walk up to your buddhist, hindu, taoist, agnostic, atheist neighbors and tell them, to their face, that you support their children be required to learn the Judeo-Christian version of creation in public school and that they should be required, in public school, to pray to and respect the Judeo-Christian God.
 cosmopolitician
Joined: 7/19/2008
Msg: 190
view profile
History
Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/22/2008 2:27:40 PM
That is a very poorly worded question. It's a pet peeve of mine, I think conservatives use to criminalize the pro-lifers. There is a big difference between being "pro-choice" & "pro abortion."

I am not "pro-abortion," I don't think anyone would really say they are "pro-abortion." It's unfortunate, that for whatever reason, rape, incest, irresponsibility of American youth today, etc that this has to happen. On the flip side, you know we have many children in oprhanages & adoption centers around the country, who is going to provide them with a family, education, health care & all around safe environment to grow & develop in, when so many babies are being brought into this world? That being said, I am still not "pro-abortion" put in that situation, I'm honestly not entirely sure what I'd decide to do, but I think it's the woman's choice...therefore I am "pro-choice."
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >