Abortion ban with life/health exceptions? - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Steve · #91 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

A fair point, however a person is only taken off life support when there is no chance of recovery. Compare that to abortion (blahblahblahblahblah)...

As I said, comparing the two is retarded so, no, I won't compare them...

Tautog · #92 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog
A fair point, however a person is only taken off life support when there is no chance of recovery. Compare that to abortion (blahblahblahblahblah)...

Lol, when I got to the part where you changed my quote an image popped into my head of a child with his fingers in his ears yelling "la la la I can't hear you la la la" - I needed that laugh.

Quote:

As I said, comparing the two is retarded so, no, I won't compare them...

Well, I guess if my arguments are too "retarded" to be discussed I guess theres no point trying to have a civil conversation with you. I'm starting to understand why one of the above posters has you on ignore.

jamesrage · #93 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

My wife and I were talking earlier today, and the conversation turned to politics (as it so often does for those of us currently residing in Pennsylvania these days). Specifically, we talked about the politics of abortion. And it struck me that most abortion fights these days (and certainly the whole "partial-birth abortion" ban of not too long ago), centered on exclusions for the health of the women.

So I'm just curious, if a bill was proposed in Congress that would ban abortion in the United States, but included a prominent exception for any case in which the pregnancy presented dangers to the life or the physical health of the mother not commonly associated with normal pregnancies, would you support it or not?

I realize that such a measure might not not be anyone's ideal, with some feeling that even that exception is insufficient and others feeling that it is so broad that it would hardly stop any abortions at all. But putting aside ideals for the moment, and assuming that future legislation could be proposed (or not) to work out the details of enforcement, would you support this measure if it happened to be the one on the table at the moment? And if not, why not?

In this thread I'm really more interested in hearing opinions than in trying to change them, and I hope that participants will respect that distinction and refraining from criticizing other posters, or accusing them of wanting-babies-to-die/wanting-to-institute-a-theocracy.

Yes I would support an abortion ban with a health/life exception for the mother.I view that it is totally immoral to intentionally kill a innocent human being even if it still in the womb.Also if abortion was banned with the health/life exception for the mother then standards should be put in place in order to prevent any abuse in the system.

Steve · #94 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

Well, I guess if my arguments are too "retarded" to be discussed I guess theres no point trying to have a civil conversation with you. I'm starting to understand why one of the above posters has you on ignore.

If you want to discuss abortion and the issue of "pro-life vs. pro-choice", let's do that. It would appear, though, that you're unable to do that by relying on the merits of the "pro-life" argument. Instead, you want to equate it with a completely unrelated topic.

If that's the way you wanna' go, you're right: a civil conversation isn't possible, primarily because we'd be discussing two separate and unrelated topics.

I don't believe people should be kept on life support. Let 'em go. Keeping someone in a state that has more in common with a vegetable garden than a human life is cruel...

Steve · #95 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

Lol, when I got to the part where you changed my quote an image popped into my head of a child with his fingers in his ears yelling "la la la I can't hear you la la la" - I needed that laugh.

Well, after a while, the pro-life arguments that are presented tend to get rather droning and indistinguishable. They all end up sounding like "blahblahblahblahblah".

Eagle88 · #96 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

This is an issue that ought to be left up to the states. Though, I don't think staunch advocates of either position would be happy about that.

Well, I'm pretty staunchly pro-life and I prefer your idea to what we currently have. You'd be right if you said that your idea doesn't match what I view as the ideal but I absolutely think that your idea is better then our current set up.

pramjockey · #97 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Yeah, that's kind of my take on it. This is an issue that ought to be left up to the states. Though, I don't think staunch advocates of either position would be happy about that.

The more that I think about it, the more I have to disagree that this should be a state-level issue. I would see that as a failing under the 14th Amendment. And, the thought of regionalizing healthcare standards, to me is terrifying. It would open up way too many opportunities for abuse, especially of the poor.

Rakkasan · #98 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

I am totally against abortion and think it is a cop out for the responsibility of having sex

but i am pro choice for i am not a woman so dont really have a say in it in our society today

i said i would support a ban, for if the majority of people in the state that would want to pass this said they want a ban i would support that

i also support the current laws that allow people to not fess up to their actions, and allow them to kill a fetus for it is inconvienent to their life at that time............

Skerlnik · #99 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Not a big states' rights guy, here. To me, there's something a bit silly about allowing artificial political divisions become fragmented, disunited and inconsistent. Just seems reminiscent of the warring city-states, little fiefdoms.

Endless cat-herding is no way to run a country.

drgoodtrips · #**100** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

The more that I think about it, the more I have to disagree that this should be a state-level issue. I would see that as a failing under the 14th Amendment.

A failure to protect, equally, in all states, the constitutional right to abort fetuses?

I wouldn't see it as a failing of the 14th amendment, but rather under the logically questionable interpretation of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade that "substantive due process" ensures some kind of right to abort.

Quote:

And, the thought of regionalizing healthcare standards, to me is terrifying. It would open up way too many opportunities for abuse, especially of the poor.

Healthcare standards? It would just be a matter of some states opting not to perform abortions and some allowing it. It would certainly make red states more impoverished, but if that's what they want, let them have it.

partofme · #**101** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Healthcare standards? It would just be a matter of some states opting not to perform abortions and some allowing it. It would certainly make red states more impoverished, but if that's what they want, let them have it.

They sure do not need that. Here in Kentucky whenever a ranking on that sort of thing comes out the only optimistic thing to say is "at least we beat Mississippi".

drgoodtrips · #**102** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

They sure do not need that. Here in Kentucky whenever a ranking on that sort of thing comes out the only optimistic thing to say is "at least we beat Mississippi".

*shrug* Voting against one's own best interests is a time honored American tradition. As long as I'm not footing the skyrocketing welfare bills, it's no concern of mine.

Skerlnik · #**103** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

The way I see it, any pro-lifer who hasn't personally adopted at least eight babies, should probably remain silent.

pramjockey · #**104** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

A failure to protect, equally, in all states, the constitutional right to abort fetuses?

I wouldn't see it as a failing of the 14th amendment, but rather under the logically questionable interpretation of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade that "substantive due process" ensures some kind of right to abort.

Healthcare standards? It would just be a matter of some states opting not to perform abortions and some allowing it. It would certainly make red states more impoverished, but if that's what they want, let them have it.

Abortion is a medical procedure. To allow the states to differentiate on the standards for the providing of one healthcare procedure allows them to differentiate on all. That is what scares me.

And, since healthcare is regulated at the federal level (and rightfully so), it's clear that failure to protect right to access is a 14th Amendment issue.

Americano · #**105** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Good points.

[Emphasis mine] Yup. But, those who want that, fail to realize they are also wanting the USA to go back to the last century where women are second class. That's just fab.

That's my position on it, support of womens rights. To deny them this decision is societal regression based on personal emotion.

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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode