For my 1000's post, I would like to bring up a controversial subject: Abortion.

I don't see abortion as a rights based issue. By allowing the feminists to frame the debate as a woman's right, people who are opposed to abortion are seen as anti. This is a mistake.

I see the issue as one of responsibility. It's a woman's right to have sex. Once a woman chooses to have sex and get pregnant, it is her moral responsibility to see that the child is born safely and healthy. However, it is not just her moral responsibility, that responsibility should be equally shared with the father of the child.

In a recent smoking thread the most of the anti-liberty smoking opponents on this board used an argument that it is OK for a person to harm themselves but since their second hand smoke caused them harm it was OK to ban public smoking. I disagreed because the concentration of public second hand is not enough to cause detrimental heal problems. What a woman does with her body is her business up until the life of another person is at risk. However, the purposeful elimination of a potential life is not an issue of a woman doing something to her body.

As I said above, as long as it is the woman's choice to have sex, abortion should not be legally permitted. In cases of rape or incest and pregnancy, I can not in good conscience deny a legal abortion. However, lets be real, the vast majority of abortions are abortions of convenience.

The liberty of abortion on demand is not sufficient to override the responsibility of the individual to the life created by their actions.

You forgot to put "Flame suit ON!" at the beginning of your thread. [:D]

I agree largely with what you wrote, but - like most people who oppose abortion - you neglect the fact that abortion will occur whether it's sanctioned or not.  Social and economic pressures (and pure freaking selfishness) provide the demand, and there will always be those willing to supply that demand.  Ignore that at your own risk.

The question boils down to one of morality, and we're really bad at legislating morality.  Is abortion equal to murder?  It is, all the time, if you believe that "life begins at conception."  It isn't if you don't.  If you DON'T believe that an embryo is a human being, you must admit that at some point it becomes one.  The question is [i]when[/i].  

The abortion-rights extremists say after delivery.  I cannot imagine how they justify that to themselves.  In my opinion, I think the Supreme Court got it right in [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] when they said that it happened sometime between the beginning of the second trimester and the beginning of the third.  Yes, I realize that "trimester" is an arbitrary term, but it works.  

So, legally, a fetus should be considered human, with the rights attendant to a child, after three months of gestation.  Prior to that, the rights of the mother are paramount - including her right to terminate the pregnancy.

Anyway, that's my position on it.

Flame suit ON!

Big ol' wiggly can of worms here...  Anyway, within a certain amount of time I think abortion is ok, but only if it's due to rape, incest or it could be fatal to the mother and child once it's born.  As a form of birth control I think it's over-used, in some cases it's fine, but when a girl's had 3, 4 in some cases 5 abortions it needs to stop and the dumb bitch and her retarded two pump chump husband need to get a brain and use a condom.  But like I said, I have many of MY OWN view points on when it's right/ok and wrong/too late.

So is it OK to abort pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, etc.?

That may have been true before abortion was legal but the social climate is much different now.  Abortion is available and still kids give birth in bathrooms or truckstops and dump the kids in the trash!  The social pressures are not what they were 30-40 years ago.  I don't believe making abortion illegal will have much of a negative impact in the 21st century.

My opinion is unless there is a grave risk to the life of the mother and/or fetus abotion should be illegal.  By every scientific and biblical definition life begins at conception.

Killing an unborn child for the transgressions of the parents is ridiculous.  Every unborn child deserves a chance to be a productive member of society even if their parents are not.  The same goes for incest or rape.  In my line of work I know people that are a result of rape or incest and live a productive and happy life.

Shok

Abortion is not a right.

That being said, let me clarify.  A right is something you do not have to buy.  We have the right to bear arms.  Outside of purchasing a rifle or handgun for ourselves, there should be nothing standing in the way for buying it.  We don't have to buy a permit in order to speak, because it is a right.

Abortion, however, is a privilege.  Just like driving.  You want an abortion?  Fine, pony up your cash.  You want to get a driver's license?  Fine, pony up your cash.

I do not have any issue with abortion.  I think everyone should be resposible for him or herself.  If one chooses to have sex, one should be prepared for the consequences.  Don't like abortions?  Don't have sex and quit your bitching.

Again, I have no problem with abortion.  But people need to get it through their heads that it is not a 'right'.  It is not free, and it shouldn't be.

the_reject

I believe that argument is a cop out. It is like saying that 12 year olds will have sex so there is no reason to try and stop them. I believe that begin consistent and firm that 12 year old sex is wrong will make a difference.

The same goes for abortion. If society consistently says that you have to live with the consequences of your actions and abortion is wrong, we will not have and epidemic of "bloody coat hangers in the alleys". Will some people break the law? But should we avoid making laws because some people might break them?

Flame Suit On  (just in case)

As a form of birth control, definitely not.  If there is a danger from the pregnancy to the mother or if the baby is found to not to be developing properly, yes.  also in the case of rape or incest, yes.  

Pro choice here!  No need to debate the issue, as debate is at tactic used only when views of those involved can be swayed.

Abortion is a repulsive thing, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I think the most repulsive thing about abortion is the fact that the people of each state can not vote and decide the issue for themselves.

Roe v. Wade is the worst kind of constitutional "law."

I didn't say that. I said that I can not in good conscience say that a raped woman must give birth to the child when she did not consent to the intercourse that caused the pregnancy. It is a difficult issue, but realistically only encompasses a small percentage of the abortions performed today.

oops, you fell into that trap David, namely, your use of terminology.

You stated that Abortion is murder, while, infact, it is not murder.  And as the abortion laws are presently written, it can not be murder.  Murder is legally defined as "The unlawful taking of another human life".  And as abortion is a legal medical procedure, abortion can not be defined as murder.

Clear?

Murder by any other name is still murder. Some of you sound like the democraps and their inability to understand the part of the 2nd amendment that says " shall not be infringed.

Murder is murder.


imposter said:


Yes, that is sickening as well

No, you are fundamentally mistaken.

The 2nd amendment is the supreme law of the land, it is a law which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms.  The democrats pervert that law to mean what they want it to.

Abortion right is also a law of the land, your trying to twist a basic legal precept, namely "Murder by any other name is still murder" is *exactly* like a democrat.  Abortion *can not* be murder as it is LEGAL.  This isn't that hard to comprehend...is it?

Abortion: The American Holocaust.

"A fetus is not a full 'human' so it doesn't have the same rights as we do."

"Ein Jude ist nicht ein kompletter ' Mensch ', also hat es nicht die gleichen Rechte, die wir."

hielo, you are either a woman or a lawyer,maybe both. Just because some ass made it legal means nothing in the end.

Of course it does, either the rule of law stands, or your second amendment means nothing also.

Being legal does mean something.  That your belief structure views it differntly means nothing in the legal argument, you are stating that abortion is murder, no matter what the law states, but the term murder itself is a legal term, defined by the law(s) it is structured around.  You can not use the term any way you wish, otherwise it has no meaning, other than the emotional one you place on it at the time of argument.

The problem is that the rule of law does not stand.  The right to keep and bear arms is clearly set out in the constitution.  But do I have a right to keep and bear a shiny new M16A2 or M4A1?  Of course not.  Every single circuit court except one has held that I do not have the RKBA, and in dicta the Supreme Court has agreed.

Now how about that "right" to an abortion?  That is clearly set out in the constitution too, right?  Well, actually, it is not.  The Supreme Court made it up.  They simply pretend like there is a right to an abortion, and claim that said right is a "penumbra "or an "emanation" derived from the text.  When you start deviating from the text, you can make up anything you want.  And that is exactly what they do.

When words have no meaning, the rule of law is dead.  We no longer have the rule of law.  We have the rule of judges.

It surprises me to see this much hypocrisy on this board.  People here always post on how stupid democrats are because the attempt to legislate issues and create laws to solve problems.  Yet this is exactly what people here are saying.  I don't like (fill in the blank), I think (fill in the blank) is wrong, I don't care what you think because I'm certain that I am correct in my moral judgement, so there should be a law banning (fill in the blank).

People are making a moral judgement here.  It is obviously not a universal held belief or else we wouldn't be having this debate.  How dare you all attempt to legislate your morality on others.  That makes you just as stupid as the anti gunners who plea with pure emotional arguments.  "Oh it's so terrible, it's so wrong, we need a law against it"

You make think it is wrong, and I agree with you completely, but you step over the line when you want to create a law mandating your moral/religious beliefs.

[size=3][b]Can I get an [size=4]AMEN![/size=4][/b][/size=3][/center]

hielo, I have a 22 year old son that debates in a very similar fashion as your own, So out of respect for him I will descend back into the old school of thought. To watch on as the younger fools take over and run what we older fools have left behind. Try not to let the powers that be turn our land upside down. Because there are younger fools than yourself coming right behind.

Of course you have a right to an M16, what part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand .

Reasonable restrictions is as bogus as anything that has been foisted off on us.

But to try to tell me that abortion is murder, when it clearly can not be murder, as murder is a legal term which states "The unlawful taking of a human life", and as abortion is a legal medical procedure, you can not use the term murder to describe a lawful procedure.

Simple.

I would, but unfortunately AMEN is described as...oh, forget it ....

Debate is valid in that is makes us re-evaluate the premises that we used to draw our initial conclusions. This type of introspection is the surest way to consider if we are correct or not.

If you are not willing to re-evaluate the premises that lead you to your original conclusion, then you are not debating.

If you make correct logical arguments to come to a correct logical conclusion, then hopefully other will evaluate your premises the same way and perhaps re-evaluate their own personal conclusions.

I was raised as a pro-choice moderate in the PRNJ. I have completely re-evaluated the values I was raised with. I am now opposed to abortion in nearly all cases.

Uh...Ok Mom.

Why not pick on my argument, (as simplistic as it is), instead of me personally?

It is quite simple, legal terms are defined a certain way, with certain meanings to facilitate our society.  Hop on over to Blacks law dictionary and look up the term "murder", then get back to me with your pithy, in depth insight as to how wrong it is.

The circuit courts have not just said that reasonable restrictions are OK.  They have said there is not right whatsoever, or more accurately, that the right belongs to the states not to individuals.

You really gave the two best examples showing that the rule of law is dead.  The 2nd Amendment is erased by the judges, while they add a new amendment protecting abortion.  It almost seems like they are illiterate.


Now this is not my issue, I do not care what you call it.  Murder is defined by the law.  In many states, murder includes the killing of a fetus - as long as the mother is not the killer.  Clearly, if the Supreme Court got out of the abortion business, abortion would immediately become murder in many states.  Whether it is murder or not is just a whim of the legal system.  If it it offends you to be imprecise, whenever you see folks in this post say murder, just substitute "unjustifiable killing" if you like.

hielo, you are losing your sense of humor, I know that this is a serious debate but we need to be able to laugh at our own mistakes and learn from them. I meant nothing personal, and I respect your opinion and the others that hang out here also. I would not ever attempt to stop someone from stating their opinion. Some of us are old men, but we are the ones that sat on our asses when the highest court in the land made killing babies legal. We will always have to carry that with us. Please don't sit back when the next big ruling sends some other innocent people to their graves.

In my original post, I made no mention of my religious beliefs.

To your point, I agree and disagree. We can and do legislate morality. In fact those are the laws that should be on the books:
1. It is wrong to steal something from somebody.
2. It is wrong to murder somebody.

I agree that there should be few laws, and those laws be simple and based on right and wrong. Those laws should be vigorously enforced and wrong doers arrested and punished by the state. I disagree with most of what passes as legislation today.

Liberty and right/wrong should be the litmus test for each new law.

IMO the following laws would not pass the test:
1. Motor cycle riders need to wear helmets (individual liberty).
2. Children need to wear helmets when riding bicycles (parental decision).
3. Smoking ban (individual liberty).
4. Banning aluminum baseball bats (hogwash).
5. Firearms bans, ammo bans, mag bans, registration(unconstitutional).
6. Etc.

I do however feel that a law banning abortion is valid. As I said in my original post, "The liberty of abortion on demand is not sufficient to override the responsibility of the individual to the life created by their actions."

I would not equate abortion with murder. I would consider the "intentional termination of a viable fetus" to be a crime. By what punishment? I don't know.

Who decides right/wrong? Well, that is what democracy is all about. I am writing this to convince you to make a meaningful contribution to the debate. From the debate I can re-evaluate my premises that led me to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. I am asking you to do the same with your own premises.

This is an intersting argument.  You should not be able to legistlate morality.  I would say that all law is the codification of the society's morality.  For example, the "Ten Comandments" were both morality and law.  The decisions that people should not murder eachother, or that they should not steal from eachother, or that they should not beat eachother are just moral decisions.  Codified into law.  In some states, they make the decision that women can not get married until they are 18.  In other states, it is 14.  In other countries, girls can get married at 6.  That is just a moral decision.  We have made a moral decision in this country that slavery is bad.  Was it wrong to impose this moral decision on the South?

The great genuis of this country is that states could make these kind of moral decisions, but the federal government would stay out of such stuff.  Happily, if you did not like the law in California, you could move to Texas.  But the constitution has broken down, and Congress and the Courts are now making these "moral" laws.  There is nowhere to escape to.

Ok, you've got a point.  It was not my intention to say "people will do it anyway, so outlawing it is useless" and I admit that's exactly how it reads.  My bad.  Granted, prior to the legalization of abortion women were a LOT more careful about getting pregnant, but there was another component involved - out of wedlock birth was a stigma.  Now it seems to be a badge of honor.  Severely restricting abortion probably would not result in a reduction of pregnancies.  It would reduce the number of abortions, but I think it would probably result in a large number of births.  I happen to think that's not a desireable thing.

I too find the use of abortion as "primary birth control" repulsive, but again [b]for me[/b] it's a moral question.  We live in a representative republic, not a theocracy.  The basis of the United States, however Christian its founders, is the recognition of the rights of individuals.  Instead of a government based on "revealed truth," we're left to puzzle out ourselves when our rights infringe on the rights of others.  That's why I see the abortion issue as a question of the rights of the woman versus the right of the fetus.

If you [i]at any time[/i] can justify abortion for non-medical reasons (e.g.:  rape, incest,) then you too must agree that the woman has some right to decide whether she [b]must[/b] bear a child.  As far as I'm concerned she does have that right, but it must be limited by the corresponding rights of the child.  The question then, as I pointed out, becomes "when does the embryo become a human being?"  And that is a [i]moral[/i] question.  

If you are scrupulously religious in a Christian faith, the answer to that question is "at conception."  If you are not, it may not be.  For somewhere near 50% of the population, the answer is "not at conception, and not for some (undetermined) period of time."

(The following is not directed at you, MrP:)

You may find abortion repulsive.  You may find abortion morally appalling.  That is your right.  You may work to get it outlawed.  That too is your right.  But this is America.  You must live with the fact that others do not hold your opinions, and they get to vote too.  Abortion is legal.  It was legal in some states prior to [i]Roe v. Wade[/i], and the Supreme Court merely declared it a "right" under, I believe, the 4th Amendment right to privacy - in other words "it's none of your business if a woman chooses to have an abortion."

I personally think that if we're going to have a bunch of new laws, ones that tell other people to butt out are good ones.

dosnt the states already have certain laws for abortion? for EX: i think some states wont do an abortion after 4 months some will go 6 ETC ETC. i dont agree with the later one because the baby is already formed. but early stages i agree with. i sure wouldnt want to be a women carrying a baby from a rape. i see nothing wrong with the early state abortions thou.

Well, some of us live in a theorcracy.[;)]

Actually, this may be America, but you do not get to vote on this issue.

There are only nine oligarchs to get to vote on this issue.

I can't find that "right" in the text either.

Butt out of consensual child sexual abuse for instance.  Butt out of consensual polygamy?  Butt out of fraud?  Butt out of murder?

Where do you draw your line?  You can't really draw it at the old "at my nose" line, because with abortion we are [i]arguably[/i] talking about two people - the mother and the child.

My line would be federal/state; none of this should be the federal government's business.  As you suggested above, lets vote on it.

We can go off topic and argue the destructive consequences of the welfare state. But instead, I will just say that I can not support a destructive or wrong practice because its outcome could be positive. In addition, I think that in the long run, population is a strength not a weakness.



IMO the potential life of the fetus takes president over the convience of the mother.



I have tried to structure my arguments to be void of any religious overtones. I hope I have been successful. If right/wrong is in fact based in religious conviction then that can't be done. However, that would lead to the conclusion that an atheist can not distinguish between right and wrong. I don't believe that is the case.



My intention was not to get more laws passed, but to challenge AR15.com's members to evaluate their notions on abortion.

How do you fit 40 dead babies into a drawer?


With a blender.
How do you get them back out?


Nachos!

I was being sarcastic.  No real effective argument can be made, as religion is to often brought into the debate.  Guess what, people have differing religious views.  Therefore, people view the facts from different positions.  Thus the facts exist, but the conclusions developed from their analysis can be quite different based on ones ideals.  

As evidence, I submit the statement by one of the above posters bringing the "motivation" of the mothers pregnancy into the picture.  He said that a rape is unintentional, so it's ok to abort, but if the pregnancy was an accident resulting from her being horny, no abortion is allowed.  That takes the argument into yet another direction.  Sheesh!

If abortion becomes heavily restricted, you will see an increase in self mutilation (with the intent to abort) in young girls.  Perhaps some of you guys subconciously want to that to happen as divine punishment.  

This is and always will be an ugly issue.

Not completely true.  There are provisions for amending the Constitution.  If enough people feel strongly enough about it, then the Constitution can be amended to outlaw abortion, and the Supreme Court would not have the power to overturn."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." has been [i]interpreted[/i] as a "right to privacy."  But then, you knew that.No, children cannot "consent," being minors.  They have certain inalienable rights as human beings, though.Yes, I'd say so.Nope.  No one has a right to defraud another.Nope, no one has a right to murder another.Reread what I wrote - [b][i]the question is when does a FETUS become a CHILD?[/b][/i]  It's a simple as that.  When do the rights of a CHILD affect the rights of the WOMAN?I don't draw the line between Federal and State as blithely as you do.  Federal IS "the State," just on a larger scale.  Would you support county-by-county abortion laws?

If you want to vote on it, start a movement for an anti-abortion amendment.  More power to you.

Ahhh the old abortion arguement.  Sure way to start a pissing match and a several page thread.

Usually most people are so emotional and convinced about their stance on the issue that debating about it is almost pointless.

I'm pro-life.

Thank you for your contribution to the debate. It is really interesting. [:o)][V]

Me too!



No. Just the EXCESSIVE use of legislation to solve problems.



Yes. Now I'm starting to see the hypocrisy.


There are NO "universally held" beliefs.

Is THAT your criteria for creating laws, that they be "universally held"?



Like this?
* Animal cruelty - moral belief (that animals deserve humane treatment) translated into law.

* Child abuse - moral belief (that parents have limits on how to punish their children) translated into law.

And of course the very foundation of our nation is simply a "moral belief":




And your argument about "you can't legislate moral beliefs" makes you just as irrational as the slaveholders who didn't want society to 'force' them to accept that blacks are humans with unalienable rights and not simply property.



WHO brought religion into this?

Opposition to abortion has NOTHING to do with religion.

That was me. Actually what I said was that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. However, I could not in good conscience say that someone who was raped should be required to carry the child to term.



Again do we not make a law to correct an injustice and abhorrent practice because some people may not abide it?



I have put my views on the table with constant arguments, I would like to hear yours.

However, your "destructive or wrong practice" is a MORAL decision.  Others disagree with you.  What makes you more "right" than they?(Not to flame, but the word is "precedence.")  Again, that's your moral opinion.  But the physical act of literally millions of women says that they disagree with you.  Pardon me if I hold their opinion in higher esteem than yours.Nor do I.  I'm an agnostic who believes that a fetus doesn't become a human being with all attendant rights at conception, that it happens sometime during gestation, and that past that point there must be a compelling [i]medical[/i] reason to abort.  I think late-term abortion is [b]WRONG[/b], but that early-term abortion should be left to the choice of the woman.  I believe there must be a line drawn at some point, and for me that point is the end of the first trimester.Well, that's great, but we've been through this [i]ad nauseam[/i] and it almost always devolves into a religious argument.  People have pretty much made up their minds on this.  What you're going to get is statements of position, and little to no movement.

But it's always fun (until somebody gets hurt.  Then it's hilarious!)

What was the purpose of this?  Do you like the idea of innocent human life being prepared as a snack?

That's a moral belief that "we" (the adults who make the laws) impose on "them" (children who are subject to the laws but have no say in those laws).


That's a moral belief that some people (those who DO commit fraud) obviously don't follow.



And the slaveowners used the EXACT SAME logic in their arguments!!

A black man is not a "freeman" because we SAY he's not a "freeman"!

It's as simple as that!

Don't be so sure.  They can always ignore or "interpret" the text.  For example, should we pass the 2nd Amendment again but include "We really mean it!"

Sure, but note that abortion or sex or privacy are not even mentioned.  Actually, I think the right to an abortion comes from the right to "due process."  Which is totally inane, getting a substantial right from a procedural protection.
So we must protect the rights of those who can not protect themselves?  And murder is always wrong?  This sounds like a prescription for eliminating abortion.  Come on, admit it is arguable.  And if it is arguable, we should vote on it as it is not specifically protected by the constitution.

It is a good question, what is the answer?  

There is no absolute answer, short of that laid down by the oligarchs.

That is absolutely not true.  The federal government is supposed to be a government of limited powers.  The states are not.  They have the general police power to decide what is murder and what is not, what is the minimum age to have sex with a girl before it is a crime, and whether fraud is a crime - subscribed only by the rights which are [b]specifically[/b]guaranteed to the people in the constitution.

You guys who are arguing that "it is wrong to force your beliefs on other" have it all on its head.

What happened with Roe v. Wade is that the Supreme Court forced its moral opinion on everyone, disguised as protecting a (non-existant) right.
I could care less about abortion.  And an amendment would do nothing as long as the judges feel free to interpret the meaning out of the text.  Further, an amendment should not be necessary; read the text.  It is not protected.  If you want to make abortion legal nationwide, [b]you[/b] pass an amendment.

As your sig line indicates, a republic is not a spectator sport.  On this issue, we are all spectators.  My concern is the rape of the constitution, not abortion.

Baby...  the other OTHER white meat...





What screams and makes a 'tink, tink, tink' noise?
A baby with forks in its eyes.