I am looking for intelligent and substantive arguments from both sides. Pro-life, pro-choice. No fourth-grade insults, attacks on opponents, or one-liners. This is not a poll, it is a discussion.
I will rate the best response, and mention which answer I think is the best counter-argument.
2006-06-21
01:33:36
·
20 answers
·
asked by
askthepizzaguy
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
Again... this is not a poll. Please provide more than one line responses. Explain why you support this viewpoint. Otherwise, your response will not be considered.
2006-06-21
01:49:23 ·
update #1
Getting better responses... and still within the realm of intellectual discourse. This is how political discussion is supposed to play out. Kudos, all!
2006-06-21
02:10:44 ·
update #2
I don’t agree it’s a “woman’s choice”. First because a man is involved as well, second because a new human is involved, third because a doctor is forced to do the operation which is perhaps against his/her ethics.
As for snakeman’s idea, the problem is that quite a few people are viable before their teens. Kids in the womb have reaction to outside effects at quite an early time.
Amhark is right, however, that it may lead to underground activites, as it was in previous centuries. I guess more and far better youth institutes are needed without encouraging mothers to leave their babies there.
I’m against abortion, except for special cases, like when a woman is raped or when the baby would risk her health. If you don’t want a baby, use protection.
2006-06-21 02:23:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The real "legal" issue with abortion is not whether or not it is right or wroing, but rather whether the states (or federal government for that matter) has the authority to forbid it. To answer this question, you first have to decide what kind of right the right to an abortion is. Certainly, no where in the Constitution will you find the word abortion. In fact you will not find the word privacy either. To the extent Americans have the right to an abortion or to privacy, it comes out of the "penumbra of rights" that are invoked in the name of substantive due process. Our courts have long held that there are rights so fundamental to our existence as human beings that they need not be explicitly written down - they are natural law. This is essentialy where we have developed out privacy rights. That being the case the Supreme Court has held that only where there is a compelling government interest, and only where the law is so narrowly tailored will laws that restrict fundamental rights be upheld. Therefore any laws which restrict our fundamental rights will be viewed with skepticism by the court and made to face this strictest of judicial scrutiny. The real question then becomes, what rights are fundamental and is abortion one of them? The Court has answered this question by saying that fundamental rights are those rights that are so a part of the American fabric and so ingrained in our society as to be considered fundamental. They reflect the evolving standards of a maturing society. Now, with all that said, I will answer the question. In Roe v. Wade and again in Casey v. Planned Parenthood the Supreme Court stated that the right to an abortion was a fundamental right and applied strict scrutiny and held that a state could not outright prohibit abortion. I think this is flawed logic. By the Court's own defintion of fundamental rights, Abortion does not classify - with 50% of american society against it and 50% for it, how can we say that it "is so ingrained in our society as to be considered fundamental"? I would argue that there is a right to an abortion, but that it is not a fundamental right. As such, instead of having to show a compelling reason to justify its prohibition, a state must only show a legitimate one. Now, all that being said, that is the legal answer and if I were a jurist that would be how I would rule on the legal aspect - the government may prohibit abortions. However, if I were voting on whether the government should prohibit abortions, I would vote no. I don't believe its the place of the government to intrude upon a woman's privacy - even though I don't think it is unconstitutional to do so. The power of the government should be held in the people - not by 9 ivy league educated lawyers who have life tenure. If the american people want abortion to be legal, pass a law allowing it in your state. If you want it to be illegal - pass a lw forbidding it. The Supreme Court does not decide right from wrong or moral from immoral - they simply decide the law. In the case of abortion, they have taken the case from the American people by decrying that the right to an abortion, a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, is a fundamental right. I believe a woman should be able to have an abortion, not because the Supreme Court said states can't forbid it, but because the people of the state have not passed a law forbidding it (and they shouldn't).
2006-06-21 04:43:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Touchy subject matter i love it.
I really feel that us as men have no say on what a woman chooses to do with her body. Although my sister in-law has had 2 or more abortions and i often wonder what my niece and nephew would be like now. Some friends of mine as well have had this done.
I still don't think i need to get involved. I will never know what it's like to have something growing inside of me nor will i experience the burden of barring a child for reasons which no one should have to bear a child. i.e (Rape, Incest, or just a broken condom)
In short there are many different variables as to why you would have an abortion. I for one have no say in the matter. I have been asked many times by my friend's who at the time were thinking about going through with the abortion. "What should i do" or "What do you think" and every time i respond with "I love you and what ever decision YOU make i will support you. But i can't offer my opinion it's clearly not my life nor is it my child you are carrying."
Men who are not the fathers should really just be a sound board and nothing else in these difficult times.
Bottom line it really isn't my life!
~nevah82
2006-06-21 02:11:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a man , i dont think my opinion really matters but here it is.
I believe its a womans right to choose
Only someone whos pregnant can decide whats best for them.
I dont believe that life starts at conception because the fetus would not live outside the womans womb.
By the time the fetus is viable, it is illegal and immoral to abort it.
I also believe that there should be better planning on a couples part when they decide that theyre going to play.
Abortion should never be a form of contraception.
A real man will take an active part in preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of leaving it up to his partner.
And an adult woman will understand the risks and consequences of getting pregnant beforehand.
2006-06-21 01:46:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by snakeman11426 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not against abortions. It's a womans choice not societies. I think they should get off abortion and get on the issues of stem cell. These women who do go through the hard choice should be able to sign a consent form to give the right to have their unborn fetus used in stem cell reaserch. Then every one could be happy. What's the point of forcing a women to keep a child that they can't afford and that's the reason they are choosing abortion then us the tax payers would have to pay for that child for the duration of it's life. I would rather pay for one abortion the feed a mouth of a child that isn't even mine
2006-06-21 01:39:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by sexzbich 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am against abortion. Unless the girl has been raped. If you are old enough to open your legs and have sex. Then you should be old enough to take responsabilities. When you have sex you dont only have the chance to get pregnant but you also can contract sexual transmitted diseases. What about that. Its human life the child did not ask to come to this world and even less get killed because Oh i did not want a baby. If you dont want a baby then take precautions have him wear a condom not only for pregnancy purposes but to protect yourself from any diseases. and you get some pills or something cause there is always that 1% chance that the condom will break and or it can come off but at least you are on the pill. If you dont want a baby take precautions period.someone said on here that taxpayers will be paying for the children that women dont want and cant afford. Well what about all those criminals in jail taxpayers money is what keeps them fed and with gyms and A/c in their cells. I guess she is willing to do this but not a child that did not ask his mom to open her legs for him to be brought to this life
2006-06-21 01:42:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am pro-life. I don't understand the rational when people say it's their body, so their choice. What about the baby's body, and it's choice? It makes no sence to me. The baby has rights too, as it is a person.. not a lump of cells as some may believe. No one has the choice to take a life, and that's what abortion is. How can people say that it's not a person yet. It absolutely is, just a small one and a very helpless one at that. The only FAIR "choice" to mother and baby, is adoption.
2006-06-21 13:12:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Abortion = Murder ( unless the mother's life is in immediate peril )
It has become almost a major industry in our nation, fed by greed, and not as they claim, being there to provide a choice. If "choice" was the actual thing provided, more women would opt for live birth and giving their child up for adoption. Abortion is promoted, not "choice". The word "choice" has been used as a political smokescreen to buffer the negatives of the word "abortion".
Whatever ever happened to the concept of person responsibility? Actions have consequences.
2006-06-21 02:05:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by aBranch@60-WA ,<>< 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I think that abortition should be allowed because of the that fact that you might have been raped or of the such and you would have to live with that misery for at least 9 months if not more because you don't want to give the child up
And the fact that if we don't have a safe facility to go to aborition are going to happen, but in a very dangerous way.
And the fact that they could have the baby and then do something horrible to it because they were not looking to have it and it will grow up with a mother and father who hate it.
And the fact that we have enough foster childern these days and not enough people to adopt.
2006-06-21 01:41:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Tim 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe in a womans right to her own body.However,personally,I don't believe in abortion for me.My baby is mine,however little it is inside of me.That little seed is an imprint of ME,no matter who fathered it.Thats why women go to sperm banks--the baby will be apart of them.There are so many families that want desperately to have a child and cannot.Why not give them the chance if you feel you can't raise a child?Some would pay for a child,no matter what physical or mental problems it may be born with.I'm not going to judge a woman for whatever her decision may be,she alone will have to deal with it.But I personally could never kill my baby.In the case of rape,I still think adoption would work better than abortion.Hope my opinion helps.
2006-06-21 03:28:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Fluttery 3
·
0⤊
0⤋