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

Oh yeah(!) - & sure(?) - every man in every government position/post - should be up a strangers vagina.
Oh yeah(!) - & sure(?) - every evangelical idiot should also be up a strangers vagina.

If it can't live/survive outside the womb (unassisted) - then it is part of a woman - until it can. And I/you/anyone do not possess the right to impose a weak moral-belief upon another's body/being (a woman). No state should be able to impose a religious belief upon anyone.

And by the way - many of the same - are against all abortions (not just those after the third trimester) - even when it is clearly just a glob of cells. They are often against birth control, premarital-sex, sex education, the abortion-pill, masturbation, condoms to prevent HIV transmission, etc.

It is a personal belief - if they don't believe in it (abortion) - then they don't have to do it - simple. I Clearly think it is matter of choice - the objections are usually based upon unreasoned, untenable beliefs.

Also there is a whole-life - not just pro-life. There is plenty to be concerned about in a pro-life stance in this world - because there is such a thing as LIFE after the WOMB! That's the whole life - start getting concerned about those born - and not just the unborn. There are billions of pro-life whole-life reasons walking the Earth already - to be concerned about - there is no-shortage of people coming into the world as of yet.

Although considering you, whoever you are, a girl/woman might actually regret it and consider it a personal-loss - the alternative should not be discounted (giving it up for adoption) over the easy (abortion).

If you are for sex education - then you are considering education ethically and if so - the ethical alternative (adoption) should be taught as part of that education.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

As with all important moral questions, I think they should be decided at the most local governmental level possible.  There is no way that people here (in OC) have the same morals or even lifestyle of someone in Northwest Minnesota.

If we as citizens of the United States want to continue as one nation, we need to start legislating from a local (state, city, county) level.

As with ALL MORAL questions, which are usually suspect and untenable nonesense, it should not be decided by the Government at ANY LEVEL.

It is already LEGAL to NOT have an  ABORTION, no one is forcing anyone... so their beliefs are already intact up-there in Ol' Northwest Minnesota.

Stingray24 wrote:

Most of you aren't answering my question.  I don't care what you think about abortion.  Focus people . . . focus.

I voted NULL.  It is already legal... and should remain so. It does not need any political action taken. NO-ACTION is fine. Focus gufus focus...

iNeedUrFace4Soup wrote:

The person choosing, between the clinic or the wire hanger because there is no clinic, should decide.

What he said...

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

The Woman...

And what he said...

cospengle wrote:

Neither. The mother should decide.

And what he said...

Mackaronen wrote:

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.

Also what he said...

Last edited by topal63 (2007-01-22 08:47:58)

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

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-22 08:21:18)

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.

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.

Ideally citizens at the ballot box in a nation wide referendum. But since that won't happen it should be decided on a national level.

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.

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

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 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.

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.

Null vote, should be decided by the parents(mother)

my onmw opinion is SOME abortions should be legalsied. ehll, why not model it on the UK system? needs 2 doctors  i believe) to agree to it, and not aftre 22 weeks unless there is a VERY good reason for it. socila abortions abnned. note- i don'tknow the law about rapists getting people pregnant, i assuem emergency contraception would be the only option.

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.

To say that a fetus magically becomes alive the second it comes out of the womb is completely ridiculous.

*sigh* Perhaps I should break down and have a mod change this thread to the "Official Abortion Debate Thread".

CommieChipmunk wrote:

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.

I know I'm only helping to derail this thread but you really have to be ignorant of biology to think that his post has any scientific merit. How can you be dumb enough to first declare that a fetus feeds off of the mother and then declare it dead until it is born?

Bertster7 wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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).

I don't know. Defending fetus's right to life doesn't sound very backwards. I think I was at that point sometime in my life, but I could be wrong because I don't remember it. What sounds really backwards is pinning a time in a fetus's life when it's no longer acceptable to kill it, such as second or third trimesters. It's like saying "ok, you are resembling a baby now, you are no longer expendable."

I really didn't want to post a response as this topic is really upsetting but damn, statements like that are just offensive and unneccessary.