Please see this before you ansir
WWW.abort73.com
2006-09-12 19:31:39 · 22 answers · asked by Glen M 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Being prolife isn't Christian propaganda. There are Christians who are prochoice. I'm an atheist and I think abortion is a disgusting practice... especially partial birth abortions. To kill a baby in the name of convenience because his/her parents were all too careless not to use birth control is just morally wrong. However, you can't legislate morality. As far as the mother's right to choose... she made her chose when she spread her legs without a condom. One of the problems in American culture is people aren't really held accountable for their actions by being required to suffer the consequences of making deliberate bad decisions. I not saying there aren't cases where the procedure may be necessary but by and large it's overly ABUSED.
2006-09-12 19:56:10 · answer #1 · answered by atheist_2_u 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First, Roe v. Wade is not the current standard. It was partially overruled by Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Second, the alternative to declaring that reproductive rights are not fundamentally protected is to allow the government to make any or all decisions regarding reproduction and pregnancy.
It's either a personal choice, or it's controlled by the government. And the government should not have the authority to determine who can be pregnant, and who cannot.
For examples of some of the things that can happen if the right to choose is lost, check out the link below.
The concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.
Why can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
2006-09-12 19:52:14 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes Roe has seen the light and she is sorry that she let herself be tricked into fighting on the wrong side and helping to make it law.
Yes It should be overturned.
It should be overturned to protect women.
A women should never have to resort to going against her very instincts and kill the baby in her womb.
Women never really get over an abortion. They might deny it but they are wounded for life. They Will always suffer. Anxiety, panic attacks, depression. Not being able to love her other children as well.
God Bless you,
2006-09-12 21:00:21 · answer #3 · answered by CHS 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is not overturned. there is not any way we are able to pass lower back to the 60's in this situation. that's no longer what McCain mentioned. All he mentioned replaced into that he's against abortions. Obama is against them too. the only difference is Obama does not hesitate to get an abortion, whilst McCain might in no way set foot in a gynecologists place of work. Why is it each time abortion limits are suggested, human beings elevate the coat hanger? Coat hangers have been in no way utilized in appearing any abortion. Abortions are no longer the only way out of a foul situation. there are various suggestions that don't convey approximately the loss of existence of harmless infants. Abortions are no longer a woman's precise. Killing little ones isn't a precise. what's precise is doing something and each little thing obtainable to grant the youngsters the comparable hazard at existence that the rest individuals have.
2016-12-15 07:12:02 · answer #4 · answered by coman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terribly difficult question to answer. Roe vs Wade involves issues of privacy, not necessarily abortions but it does NOT exclude abortions.
While so many births are aborted, it has cut down on the population of unwanted children that might otherwise be in abusive homes, or in overcrowded orphanages or other institutions or abandoned during freezing weather in parks, open fields or thrown in rivers or lakes or left to die on roof tops or thrown in incinerators, garbage cans... etc.
There is the counter argument that abortions should not be used as means of contraception (I agree) but, the same groups that are against abortions are also against giving out means of contraceptions to youths at risk... which also doesn't make sense to me.
While the birth of a child can and does affect more than just the woman (oftentimes the woman's parents are left to raise the unwanted child or the children are abandoned in streets, garbage cans, public toilets, churches, halls in buildings or abandoned buildings or left to die in a forest...), there is also the psychological impact an abortion has on the woman... which should be "punishment" enough for some but not all.
I once heard of a rape victim say that she wanted to have the child (only to give the child away for adoption afterward) and another who was badgered by Pro Life protesters and she replied, "I'll have the baby if you pay for it and if you promise to raise it" and suddenly she was told "It's YOUR responsibility!"
I, personally, do not believe in abortions (and felt this way many years before I saw photos of videos of the results of abortions, the tiny arms, legs, hands, heads, little bodies, etc) but I do NOT find it fair or just that I should impose my personal views on someone else, especially if I am not the one going through the situation (hardships, poverty, abusive environment, drug use issues, a broken home, etc).
2006-09-12 23:18:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Um, it's impossible to be overturned. The only thing that can happen is if states restrict more rights for women. And no, I don't think women dying because of coat hangers again is the answer anyway. We have way too many people in the world.
2006-09-12 19:33:59 · answer #6 · answered by Neophyte 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. A economist and statistician - Steven Levitt - found statistical correlation between the drastic decrease in crime, and the passing of Roe vs. Wade.
I agree in the education of people about abortion, but taking away the right to decide would create a wave of unwanted babies who in 20 years would reverse those declining crime statistics.
2006-09-12 19:38:47 · answer #7 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Okay, so you obviously want to spread your Christian crackpot ideas around with this... is it really necessary to phrase it in question form when what you really want to say is, "Roe vs. Wade should DEFINITELY be overturned! Join me and my coalition of drug-induced, hypocritical, anti-feminist losers...?"
2006-09-12 19:36:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Supreme Court just can't magically say "such and such henceforth is overturned." Without abortion watch crime rates and welfare rolls skyrocket. Those Conservatives won't like that.
2006-09-12 19:50:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it should be enforced. READ IT. It gives government the power to regulate abortion after the first trimester. It did not give abortion on demand. Other laws and decisions did.
2006-09-12 19:39:06 · answer #10 · answered by Isolde 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋