It is my take that the country is pretty divided on this so I would like to see what the forum members choose. My choice is the last one.
Would you care to define abortion? Do you consider an IUD that dislodges a fertilized egg as an abortion that is killing an actual human being?
I'm going to vote "Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances", since it is the only option that is not insane and it best reflects my personal beliefs.
Last option. Abortion, like most everything, is none of the government's business and it should NEVER, EVER be taxpayer funded, in any way, shape, or form. You want it, go get it. Leave me and my money out of it.
I voted but option 1 and option 4 are essentially the same. One says abortion would be legal, period. That would be abortion-at-will as we have now. Option 4 says abortion would be legal because there would be no law and abortion-at-will would be the norm. The only difference is public funding.
I was appreciate for the option. I want legal abortion, but no government support. Very rarely is it a bad idea to add more options to a poll
Legal as long as it is not late-term or if it is required to protect the health of the mother. So option 2, but those circumstances under which it is legal should be pretty wide.
"Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances".... was my choice which is probably different than I would have answered this poll five years ago. I recently concluded that when a woman decides to have an abortion..... she is to some degree in a mind set similar to the 900 plus rebels at Masada who chose suicide over being tortured to death by Romans or becoming a Roman slave. Our economy and society is actually more so like Rome than we would wish to admit so I cannot really condemn a woman for feeling that she and her baby are in a difficult situation that may require a drastic response?! Here is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to M. P. Peter Mackay back in 2007 that I am considering writing an apology for. http://tate4centralnova.yuku.com/topic/368/MP-Peter-Mackay-Did-proChoice-based-misleading-statisti MP Peter Mackay. Did you become pro-Choice based on misleading statistics? MP Peter Mackay http://www.petermackay.ca/ Dear Mr. Minister Mackay: When I heard you speak at the 2006 federal debate held at Pictou Campus of NSCC I was certainly impressed. I was in basic agreement with perhaps seventy percent of the statements that you made. Honorable Minister, one important position on which I vehemently disagree with you Sir is that you stated that you were pro-Choice on the issue of abortion. I plan to run against you as an independent candidate in the upcoming federal election. Winning would of course be the best possible outcome but a close second would be to see you Mr. Mackay reconsider all the new information available and adopt a strong pro-Life stance. I suspect that you may have decided to be pro-Choice based on thoroughly misleading but impressive statistics that abortion advocates casually spout. "How many women died from illegal abortions? The head of one of the major pro-abortion organizations in the U.S. said: The example of what has happened in Poland between the years 1990 to 1994 is of and by itself sufficient reason to abandon your pro-Choice stance! http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp At this site if you will click on link 14 - "Fetal Pain" you will certain see another good reason to become an anti-abortion candidate. Powerful evidence suggests that unborn babies experience pain AT ONLY EIGHT WEEKS! Thank you for your consideration of this matter and I look forward to the honor of discussing this question further with you at the debate. Kind regards. Dennis Tate
The questions are too vague....take the first- "Abortion should be legal under any circumstances"....say "Yes", you get "Oh, so you'd approve of an abortion one second before delivery at nine months, if the woman said 'Naw, I don't want it', huh?".....to which the counter response would be "What if delivery would kill the mother....would you oppose it?" Too many variables. So do we ask if a "pro-lifer" if they would say "No, let her die if it saves the baby"....is that a fair question? How about "Would you oppose an abortion one SECOND after fertilization, if the woman was gang-raped by her father and her brothers?" Again...."any circumstances"? So there's no accurate way to answer that except, "B".
Health? Would that be physical health, mental health, emotional health, psychic health, Karmic health?
In my opinion (which should in no way matter)...Abortion is not something I should have a part in at all, unless being considered by my partner. The only input I am entitled to would be the attempt to convince her not to have one, yet should she decide to anyway that would be her choice and it must be respected. I would not accept someone forcing me to do what they want with my body....and do not expect her to feel any different.
We do not currently have "abortion at will," as there is a 16 to 20 weeks limit unless there is a danger to the mother's life or the fetus is seriously damaged. I believe option #1 is correct. . .within the legal limitations CURRENTLY in place.
I would say gov should add a plan B pill in all rape kits, and only fund abortion through medicaid, ect... when the mothers life is at risk (like we treat other elective surgery) I am for legal up to 3rd term unless the health of the potential mother is at risk .
Karmic health could be a much more important aspect of this question than we tend to imagine. http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ambach-ph-d-research-ndes-issue-abortion.html The Helen Wambach Ph. D. research, NDE's and the issue of ABORTION??!! Helen Wambach Ph. D. did a fascinating study on volunteers who were hypnotized in which they reported having some sort of higher dimensional consciousness that existed before birth. This consciousness came into the foetus at or near birth!!!!!! http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/helenwambach.html
I take this occasion to express my stance about abortion. Being Christian I have to say that abortion is a wrong behavior to avoid, anyway [and this was my choice in the poll] I have to put the matter on the political layer of the social cohabitation of different persuasions, beliefs, opinions ... and so, from a political perspective I have to follow the principal, the lay principal of the lowest damage. First of all, I would endorse policies of contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancies [and this would avoid a lot of abortions, overall among teens], then, coming to the core of the problem, when a woman decides to have abortion, it's not about killing a person, but about crossing over a very high emotional stress. We cannot force a woman to have a baby [are we going to put a woman in chains until the end of the pregnancy? Mah ...] and we cannot allow that she tries something. In Italy when abortion was still illegal, many teens went to older women to make "handmade" abortions with the result that it happened that the teens became unable to get pregnant again. So, the principal of the lowest damage suggests me to accept abortion if there is no other way to solve the stress condition of the potential mother [otherwise there could be the risk not only to lose a baby, but to have a woman no more able to get pregnant, if she makes the choice of "private" solutions].
Sorry, but that isn't correct. Not even close. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0 And I couldn't find a state that restricted late abortions to the life of the mother being at risk or the baby seriously damaged. Emotional health and psychological well-being are often the issue. In other words, at-will abortion. I suppose in some states you actually have to hire a Doctor Kermit Gosnell for your late abortion.
I don't like abortion myself. But tyrants are usually pro life and China has the one child per family rule and they actually force women to get abortions to enforce it. I don't view it as murder. Most people don't truly value human life, they only value certain people's life, and that's usually their family. I see nothing good about this issue. But my default position is that it should e legal under any circumstances. You make it illegal, a desperate woman will put her own life in danger to get rid of an unwanted child. It's equally monstrous, at least to me, to force her to have the child and give it up for adoption. Some of the reasons women get an abortion for are equally monstrous. And how would you prosecute the woman? Do you prosecute the woman or the doctor or both? And the economic side is that there would be millions more women in jail, and lots of doctors in jail. That means there would be an incredible shortage of doctors. And that means billions more being spent. Currently America has 2.3 million people in prison and $74 billion dollars is being spent each year on prison. Which is a slippery slope of more taxes, building more prisons to house the new population of inmates, and the politics of facing people who don't want these prisons near their town out of fear of criminals escaping. In comparison NASA has a budget of $16.6 billion dollars for this year. And i'm sure people don't want to foot the increased bill on new prison population. As for me I'm pretty much pro choice because I believe in an adult's right to choose and that it's wrong to impose one's morality on to others, even if I don't' like abortion.
Tram Law: "But my default position is that it should e legal under any circumstances. You make it illegal, a desperate woman will put her own life in danger to get rid of an unwanted child." Your position makes perfectly good sense if you take the position that the unborn child has no right to live. In some cases it's the recently born child that's killed. I don't believe a fertilized egg has a right to live. At some point, the unborn child does.
Some demand that the state take control of the womb from the instant of conception as if a person suddenly appears when a sperm enters an egg. Others insist that it is none of the government's business until birth. I agree with most that recognize that an individual, entitled to societal protection, develops during the gestative process, and so eschew both extremes. A mindless, microscopic zygote is human life (as is a sperm or an egg - or an epidermal cell) but is not a person; nor does that person suddenly come into being at the moment of delivery. Any female who becomes pregnant has a right to control her body free of state coercion (either to proscribe or prescribe abortion) until a sentient, viable stage is attained, and the temporal specifics of that point is subject to debate within narrow scientific parameters. Her own beliefs, circumstances, and counsel of those she trusts for medical, ethical, and practical advice should never be violated by the State, nor zealots of any stripe be empowered to dictate to her.
Natty Bumpo.... may I quote you on this all over the internet? Is it OK to quote you as Natty Bumpo or would you like to be known perhaps by two certain initials? For example if you became on of my Facebook friends... and you searched my list of friends for somebody with the initials D. S. you might just figure out who I am quoting here on this page: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...rencies-finance-films-address-problems-6.html New age Communities can print local currencies finance films that address problems..... ...(for example a young woman who is considering having an abortion can be hired as an actress to play the role of herself...… and her earnings could potentially alter her decision regarding whether or not to have an abortion)?
"Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances"..... I personally could live with this one partly because it is subject to my own interpretation.
Yea, absolutes are obvious traps because nothing is correct in "every" circumstance. I really wonder at people who think they prove something by having someone say something is always this or always that, and then hammering them with the most ridiculous or extreme examples. Whoo hoo, you win!! (the idiotic jerk prize anyway) But phrasing like "only" implies that the person will describe the circumstances themself. Or what might be reasonable circumstances to one person obviously could be completely unacceptable to the next.
