BF2S Forums Should abortion be decided at a national or state level?

I think the woman carrying the baby should decide. The government, state and federal, have no right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion. Though, personally, I despise women that have abortions.

I nulled, cuz i believe it is up to the pregnant women do decide. I would feel sorry for a man if the woman does an abortion against his will, but hay, its not him who have to carry the baby for 9 months and then give birth to it.

RDMC(2) wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

it should be a personal decision. end of thread.

Yup..its your body and you should decide (well maybe not you, because most members here are guys..) well you girls, sounds better, are ought to be able to make your own decision.

Surely you cant have a female in calafornia simply hoping in to nevada to have her abortion can you :S?  (case your wonder why I a scotsman should say anything, Ive lived in the USA for 15 out of my 17 years).  Really needs to be a law for the whole nation.

Martyn

Stingray24 wrote:

Apparently I did not word this question effectively or something.  For the 3rd or 4th time . . . I do NOT care what the views are on abortion.  What I'm asking is WHO should address the debate if it arises again: Supreme Court judges or citizens at the ballot box.

NULL vote again.

No action would be fine... it does not need to go to the ballot box, it does not require further/future deliberation by the Supreme Court.

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Apparently I did not word this question effectively or something.  For the 3rd or 4th time . . . I do NOT care what the views are on abortion.  What I'm asking is WHO should address the debate if it arises again: Supreme Court judges or citizens at the ballot box.

NULL vote again.

No action would be fine... it does not need to go to the ballot box, it does not require further/future deliberation by the Supreme Court.

Just to be clear here, no action would mean abortion remains legal nationwide, right?

If so then I agree.

In any case a nationwide referendum is always the best way of deciding things.

Yeah it's already a women's right - guaranteed to be legal - by Supreme Court past-precedent.

I think the British political mindset is a bit different than an American mindset (you are allowed to say DUH now!). I am not sure exactly how referendums go down in Britain but a National referendum voted on by the public here is basically a non-existent thing. That's why the per state level was offered as a choice.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-01-22 10:46:32)

Stingray24 wrote:

Apparently I did not word this question effectively or something.  For the 3rd or 4th time . . . I do NOT care what the views are on abortion.  What I'm asking is WHO should address the debate if it arises again: Supreme Court judges or citizens at the ballot box.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

What about the dad who seeded the baby? Shouldn't he have the right to choose as well?

No, it takes one person, the woman, to get pregnant. Plus he doesn't have to get fat.

But anyways something like this wouldn't really make sense on the state level. If it still legal in some states and not others than it accomplishes nothing for the states that make it illegal.

Also, in addition to what you've said, it seems to me most people when they are concerned about a birth, they are a couple and they usually decide together. If a relationship is utterly strained to the breaking point, should a man have rights over a women's body (one he probably will not be in a relationship with) and force her to have his child? Seems a bit absurd to answer YES to that scenario as well... and worse should we give the Government that right to a man? Supreme Court - state level - so what - NO!

Last edited by topal63 (2007-01-22 11:51:11)

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Just to be clear here, no action would mean abortion remains legal nationwide, right?

If so then I agree.

In any case a nationwide referendum is always the best way of deciding things.

Yeah it's already a women's right - guaranteed to be legal - by Supreme Court past-precedent.

I think the British political mindset is a bit different than a American mindset (you are allowed to say DUH, now!). I am not sure how referendums go down in Britain but a National referendum voted on by the public here is basically a non-existent thing.

Same here (they have happened but it's rare - you get them occasionally in some EU nations). But I think they are the best way of getting the countrys opinion.

Perhaps in a more tightknit nation, but the US is too large and too diverse to just go along with a nationwide referendum over moral issues when it's likely to pass just barely.

Lets put it in a religion stand point same sex marriage is the i mean ''THE'' worst sin in the bible but congress and the court allows it yet they wont allow abortions. A baby is a parasite while in the womb feeding off the mother till it is out of the womb so it is not a living thing till it is detached from the mother.

UGADawgs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Yeah it's already a women's right - guaranteed to be legal - by Supreme Court past-precedent.

I think the British political mindset is a bit different than a American mindset (you are allowed to say DUH, now!). I am not sure how referendums go down in Britain but a National referendum voted on by the public here is basically a non-existent thing.

Same here (they have happened but it's rare - you get them occasionally in some EU nations). But I think they are the best way of getting the countrys opinion.

Perhaps in a more tightknit nation, but the US is too large and too diverse to just go along with a nationwide referendum over moral issues when it's likely to pass just barely.

That's the whole point. If it's not nationwide you'll get some little backward regions of the US voting against abortion and that would be very bad. Just like some backward regions of the US teaching Intelligent Design in schools (yet another point that the rest of the western world can laugh at the US for).

The#1Spot wrote:

Lets put it in a religion stand point same sex marriage is the i mean ''THE'' worst sin in the bible but congress and the court allows it yet they wont allow abortions. A baby is a parasite while in the womb feeding off the mother till it is out of the womb so it is not a living thing till it is detached from the mother.

agreed

No matter how much you want it to be, this is not a Christian country.  So the only other argument out there is "murder" but you pretty well covered that in your post.  Catholics and Christians can bitch about it all they want, and "ban" it within their religion, but unfortunately they don't get to write our laws by their point of view.  Same goes for gay marriage.

Good point UGADawgs.  I'm still looking for the first pregnant woman who calls the baby they're carrying a parasite.  Why would they throw up for 3 months, put up with terrible indigestion and acid reflux, and lastly willingly gain weight (all women gasp) for a parasite?  How about we all treat our offspring like parasites after they're born?  Oh wait, some people already do. 

And CommieChipmunk, no one in here said this is a Christian nation or that we write the laws.  I've said all along either the voters or the Supreme Court handle this subject.  If you have a problem with how people vote I'm not sure what to tell you.

Then when do you define it as as a baby? At conception? But there are no guarantees it will survive anyway, and the only thing differing it from a fertilized fish or rat egg is too small to quantify.