What if a law was passed that UPHELD REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS but, at the same time, included a formal disapproval of abortion from the legislators and president, describing abortion as an UNNATURAL OBSTRUCTION TO THE STATUS QUO OF HUMANITY, would you go for it?
It would be like smoking cigarrettes. Legal, but the govenment still pays non-profit organizations to help reduce it.
2006-10-25 14:04:46 · 14 answers · asked by Tofu Jesus 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Almost there! As long as the "formal disapproval" meant programs to reduce unwanted pregnancy without moralizing and promoting a religious agenda, it could be a good first step. I applaud your openness to the possibility of a compromise!
2006-10-25 14:33:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A formal "disapproval" from the government isn't enough. There need to be tough laws to eliminate the usage of abortion as birth control. Furthermore, minors can't legally enter into ANY kind of contract, so why they should be able to obtain an abortion is completely beyond comprehension.
And I'll be cursing the government when I'm dieing of lung cancer because they never did ANYTHING to force the tobacco companies to eliminate the addictive substances in my cigarettes so I could just throw them away and quit, as could EVERYONE else who smokes.
2006-10-25 21:23:04 · answer #2 · answered by fearslady 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Sounds good, both are a persons choice, smoking and abortions. We have age limits for smokers, it is harmful to the body, yet it is legal. So, I would assume it would be a compromise. Then again, i'm a male and cannot get pregnant, it will not affect me directly. Maybe it is not a good idea to regulated as such, but to produce alternatives in a wide range as oppose to abortion.
2006-10-25 21:09:56 · answer #3 · answered by Enterrador 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That's already being done.
The impact on teens? See for yourself.
Teens are going to have sex, providing free BC on EVERY corner, no questions asked, would be the only way to radically reduce abortion.
2006-10-25 21:12:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No.
A compromise I could go for would be a law against abortion with exceptions carved out... You know, the usual red herrings: Incest, rape, life of the mother documented by her physician...
No exceptions allowing abortions after viability. PERIOD.
2006-10-25 21:12:01 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Maybe but the reason I am against abortions is when it is used soley as a form of birth control
2006-10-25 21:13:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
compromise?? no! reproductive rights? no! personal choice???? no!!!
NEVER, under any circumstances does anyone have a RIGHT to murder their children!
How could any rational person compare cigarette smoking and abortion ?!!?!?!??
Though there should be serious penalties for those who endanger the health and well being of their children by smoking around them and in enclosed areas with them- it should be considered child abuse and endangerment. But really, a compromise on abortion? you cannot compromise on the sanctity of human life- especially the life of an innocent child because of personal inconvenience - PERIOD!
2006-10-25 21:19:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
No. While I don't think it should be completely illegalized (because of the fact that I think women need a sterile environment to have it done), it does need to be more heavily restricted.
That, I will not compromise on. And I don't think anyone else should, either.
2006-10-25 21:08:40 · answer #8 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Ah... :: hmmhm?
You k?now...
I'm going to say that that one actually makes quite a bit of sense.
The problem is its just not intensely religious enough for today's flavor of "Good Govenment".
2006-10-25 21:15:32 · answer #9 · answered by roostershine 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I could go for that, as long as the same law prohibits the government from restricting or denying access to contraception.
2006-10-25 21:19:55 · answer #10 · answered by notme 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋