Since it would not be right to legislate morality (laws are based on the protection of other's rights not morality) and yet many people are morally opposed to it. In the middle most oppose abortion but support a woman's right to choose. SO.... What if we kept a woman's rights but denied federal funding of abortions. That way pro-lifers wouldn't be forced to pay for something they are so much against and a woman still has the right to choose.
End result is those who support choice have to put their money where there mouth is and those that are pro-life can sleep with a clear conscience.
2006-11-12 05:03:01 · 23 answers · asked by mymadsky 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sounds reasonable, It's nice to hear the voice of reason in this electronic cesspool, LOL! Seriously great idea.
2006-11-12 05:48:56 · answer #1 · answered by Elusive 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your idea isn't bad, but I think most "reasonable" pro-lifers would be a lot more comfortable if the legislation would just take us back to the original definition of an abortion, i.e., terminating the life of fetus only in the first trimester. Only the most radical pro-lifers are outraged by abortions in the early stages, but the later into the pregnancy "abortions" are allowed to be performed the more horrendous the act. Obviously, there would be some on both sides of the issue who would not be happy with that kind of law, but the majority I think could embrace it.
2006-11-12 05:16:34 · answer #2 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are correct, a function of law is protecting the rights of others. Therefore, we have laws against rape, child molestation, and murder, because no one has the right to harm or kill another innocent human being. Unfortunately, abortion does just that. It is not a matter of "choice," it is a matter of killing. If you support laws against the murder of born children, aren't you "legislating morality" as well? Murder is wrong, because it takes away other people's right to life. If you doubt that abortion is murder, you need to open your mind and take a look at the facts:
Photos of Abortions, Including 1st Trimester Abortions:
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html
A Four-Minute, Must-See Video on Abortion:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html
Information on All Aspects of Abortion:
http://Abort73.com
Photos and Facts About Prenatal Development:
http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-2-prenatal.html
http://www.studentsforlife.uct.ac.za/foetal%20dev%20photos.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
http://www.lifeissues.org/ultrasound/11weeks.htm
Pain Perception in the Unborn:
http://www.advocatesfortheinnocent.com/fetalpain.html
2006-11-13 04:53:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Demonizing Planned Parenthood and fighting over sex education in schools results in two things: unwed mothers and abortions. The two parties should work together to make sure that anyone who wants birth control can get it and that they are educated about how to use it.
I agree with the federal funding limitation to a point. I don't know if a woman stationed on a military base can see a civilian doctor. IF she can't and winds up pregnant and wants an abortion either the military doctor should be able to provide it or the woman should be able to a civilian. Again, I don't know if this is a big issue but I think you get my point.
2006-11-12 05:15:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think Dubya should be the one to decide just like he decides about violating our civil rights thru spying on us...I'm sure he knows best.
It's not really the funding of abortion to the poor, it's the fact that the radical anti-abortion crowd can't stand one cent going toward it. Their position is to outlaw it completely...one step at a time...I am not pro-abortion, but I am smart enough to know that I can't be on either side...it won't go away if you outlaw it. I also believe that some demanding no abortion are also desiring no birth control at all for everyone out of a religious belief. This puts me into a Libertarian position of wanting to protect everyone's freedoms from a state religion and being a pro-abortionist (in their eyes)
2006-11-12 05:11:53 · answer #5 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nice try ... but it won't satisfy either side.
From the pro-choice side, it just means that rich women have access to a right that poor women do not. From the pro-life side, it's still legalized baby killing.
In other words, the reason it is such a heated issue is that both sides are defending something that they consider to be *absolute* ... either a women's right of determination of her own body, or the sanctity of a human life. I can't blame either side for considering those two things absolute.
2006-11-12 05:15:26 · answer #6 · answered by c_sense_101 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That will be okay. But you know those pro-lifers still will be bitching about how many abortions are taking place even if they're not paying for it.
2006-11-12 05:52:51 · answer #7 · answered by cynical 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Without the pro-life movement, this compromise would not be possible.
The two extremes operate to keep the status quo, which is what you are suggesting as a compromise. It's what we've got.
I tend to agree with Tofu, at least for now.
2006-11-12 05:23:13 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
All laws have a moral basis. They are based upon what we should or should not do. Even traffic laws are based on the moral belief that we should maintain order on the roads so that accidents are prevented.
How about this we will allow parents to kill their unwanted newborn as long as they don't use government funds to carrry out the act. And people can kill their terminally ill grandmothers as long as the person who administers the medication is not working for the government.
Abortion is murder at least to us pro-lifers who think that human life is human life and worthy to live regardless of the stage of development.
2006-11-12 05:12:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
That's pretty good...but there is no happy medium I think. I am on both sides, and I'm torn between them, so I usually let them fight it out.........and feel sorry that they waste their time supporting their idea of what is right when they could be putting their collected time and effort into a cause that they can influence and have an impact upon.
2006-11-12 05:08:52 · answer #10 · answered by Krissy 3 · 7⤊ 0⤋