Abortion ban with life/health exceptions? - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Traveler · #61 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

That is assuming that killing is always illegal which it isn't.

True, in this case it would come down to defining it as such, for example stating that without (physical) medical hurdles can no woman in any way terminate a pregnancy.

And that is basically what the OP is asking, whether we would support a law like that.

partofme · #62 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

True, in this case it would come down to defining it as such, for example stating that without (physical) medical hurdles can no woman in any way terminate a pregnancy.

Well that is obvious what you wish for. But aside from our opinions taking it back to defining it as a crime or not is what I am arguing in the first place. Courts sticking to laws rather than defining what life is. Otherwise we may be awaiting their verdict on the meaning of life.

Traveler · #63 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Ahhh now i get it...so you think it could lead to a slippery slope of them getting too philosophical or playing God?

But in that case surely you must supprt them overturning Roe?

mudwhistle · #64 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

That's a fair point, i think the closest poll showed that 47% supported the right to abort and 47 oppossed it.

That was back in 04 though and since polling on the data has shown about a 10% swing in favor of abortion.

But we do have laws to prevent folks from committing suicide when pregnant and you can be charged with the crime of attempting to murder an unborn child if so, and it can land the woman upto 20 years in the slammer.

Its all about regulation and will become so again when Roe is overturned. For example we already have the law passed after Laci Peterson was murdered to make it a double homocide if a Pregnant woman is murdered.

But to overtun it would be a start and Congress would have to pass the law and the SC would have to fail to strike it down for it to be upheld.

I think it needs to stay out of politics for several reasons.

1. It's a wedge-issue being used by Democrats against Republicans to get women voters.

2. It's the number one reason the left hates Christians.

3. It gives the left an excuse to show outright bigotry toward Conservatives.

4. First it was abortion then homophobia....what next?

Si modo · #65 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

Well that is obvious what you wish for. But aside from our opinions taking it back to defining it as a crime or not is what I am arguing in the first place. Courts sticking to laws rather than defining what life is. Otherwise we may be awaiting their verdict on the meaning of life.

Exactly. And, ironic enough, radical righties are the ones who are most outspoken about the "activist" judges. It's legal. If the laws are changed by the correct branch of the government, so be it. However, it will not stop abortions. Those who choose to have one and have the means, will go to a country where it is legal. Those without the means, will find some butcherous hack or a wire coathanger to do it.

partofme · #66 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Ahhh now i get it...so you think it could lead to a slippery slope of them getting too philosophical or playing God?

But in that case surely you must supprt them overturning Roe?

I just think it is something outside of the purpose of the court. I do not see being a judge somehow making them authorities on everything outside of the law. You seem to want to read more into it than what is there.

Traveler · #67 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

I think it needs to stay out of politics for several reasons.

1. It's a wedge-issue being used by Democrats against Republicans.

2. It's the number one reason the left hates Christians.

3. It gives the left an excuse to show outright bigotry toward Conservatives.

4. First it was abortion then homophobia....what next?

Stem cells probably.

And even though the left does use it as an issue to bash us ultimately we have to take a stand for something which is morally important.

partofme · #68 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Exactly. And, ironic enough, radical righties are the ones who are most outspoken about the "activist" judges. It's legal. If the laws are changed by the correct branch of the government, so be it. However, it will not stop abortions. Those who choose to have one and have the means, will go to a country where it is legal. Those without the means, will find some butcherous hack or a wire coathanger to do it.

This is indeed the case in Brazil. The thing is that Roe Vs. Wade being reversed would only turn it over to the states. The best the pro-choice movement could hope for anytime soon would be people having to make longer drives to get abortions.

Si modo · #69 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Stem cells probably.

And even though the left does use it as an issue to bash us ultimately we have to take a stand for something which is morally important.

What kind of stem cellls? And what does that have to do with the OP?

Tautog · #70 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Huh?

No.

What I said was this:

It's not separate. If you could remove the umbilical support, the fetus could not survive.

It most certainly is part of a woman's body. In fact, that's all it is until it's viable on its' own.

I'm actually kinda' surprised that you didn't realize that's what I said, especially since you quoted it...

Maby I'm missing your point, but it sounds like your saying an unborn fetus is not life because it could not survive on its own. If thats indeed what you meant, then by that definition somebody on life support would'nt be considered "alive" because they could not survive on thier own, which i assume you agree is absurd. The point of this comparasin is to (hopefully) prove how your definition of life is far too limited, and how it would be a mistake to base legislation around it.

Traveler · #71 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

I just think it is something outside of the purpose of the court. I do not see being a judge somehow making them authorities on everything outside of the law.

Right....

Quote:

You seem to want to read more into it than what is there.

No, we seem to be agreeing on this, that judges shouldn't play God!

Let Congress pass laws on it, if they knock them down in the SC, what are they doing but acting as a self designated group of super-legislative gurus?

partofme · #72 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Right....

No, we seem to be agreeing on this, that judges shouldn't play God!

Let Congress pass laws on it, if they knock them down in the SC, what are they doing but acting as a self designated group of super-legislative gurus?

But we are not saying the same thing. The judiciary is needed to interpret laws when situations arise that are not clear one way or the other. I have no problem with this. Making definitions for things beyond the specific laws themselves are what I have a problem with. You are trying to push me further than I am going to go. Sorry. I'm not saying we should scrap the judicial system altogether. Interpreting the law is important when needed but that is not the same thing as defining things beyond what is either legal or illegal. Defining murder is important since there are laws against it but defining life is another matter altogether.

mudwhistle · #73 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

What kind of stem cellls? And what does that have to do with the OP?

The left wants to justify murder by saying the embryonic stem-cells are needed.....when in fact only adult stem-cells and bone-marrow transplants have proved to get results.

mudwhistle · #74 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

But we are not saying the same thing. The judiciary is needed to interpret laws when situations arise that are not clear one way or the other. I have no problem with this. Making definitions for things beyond the specific laws themselves are what I have a problem with. You are trying to push me further than I am going to go. Sorry. I'm not saying we should scrap the judicial system altogether. Interpreting the law is important when needed but that is not the same thing as defining things beyond what is either legal or illegal. Defining murder is important since there are laws against it but defining life is another matter altogether.

That is an even better way of framing my answer.

The law is the law.

Life begins at conception. The law allows the destruction of life during abortions. Until the law changes I really have no say in it.

goober · #75 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

There are over 200,000 left over frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures.
Should we have a draft and select 200,000 young women to be implanted with those embryos?

If the lives of 200,000 citizens were in danger, wouldn't that justify a draft?

If you have an objection to forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want, aren't you making the case for abortion?
The only difference between these drafted women, and a woman who consented to sex, but does not want to carry a child is that one woman consented to sex, the other didn't.
Does a woman who consents to sex, deserve to be punished ?
Does she lose her rights?

View Poll Results: Would you support an abortion ban with a health/life exception for the mother?
Yes - I would support it.	6	22.22%
No -- I would not support it.	21	77.78%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll