Do you support Roe v. Wade on this historic anniversarry of the decision?

Question

I personally believe that a woman deserves the right to choose, because it isn't right for a man in Washington to tell a woman somwhere else that she can't get an abortion because he doesn't like it, that isn't America, it isn't murder, and if we didn't regulate it it would be nothing but a dangerous back alley abortion for these women. So, as you christian right folks read this question, just think, if you were raped, would you keep the child? or would you raise that child forever? You probably can't answer it becasue you've never been in that situation you nobody can judge until they have. PRO-CHOICE (P.S. how can you be pro-life and support the stupid war in Iraq? or do muslim babies not matter as much as christian babies?)

Answer 1

Absolutely 100%

This is not a "woman's" issue. It is a religious freedom issue, as the anti-choice minority is trying to force their religion on all Americans.

Answer 2

There's actually a lot of really interesting information on the case. Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) is currently a pro-life activist, so that has a bit of power in my opinion. Of course, there's also information that as the availability of abortion increased, the crime rate across America decreased. This is a proven fact, the result of a number of studies (take a look at the book Freakonomics, it has a bit more info on it). In the book, Levitt and Dubner make a pretty convincing case for the "pro-life" side of things (despite the abortion/crime link). For example, a pro-life activist sees a fetus as the equivalent to one life. A pro-choice activist would argue that the fetus is in fact not a life at all. Now, if you took a middle road... even if you were to say that a fetus is only 1/100th of a newborn or grown person, at a rate of 1.5 million abortions per year, abortions would equate to 15,000 homicides per year. Rape is a rare occurrence (aproximately 1/8th of women will be sexually assaulted at some point in life, and a very small amount are actually raped) and attributes a small percentage to the abortion rate (though I personally firmly believe that in the case of rape, it's up to the woman if she desires an abortion). I'm a Christian, and I do have a strong belief that a child, even if not out of the womb, is still a life. However, I also have a firm grip on reality, and understand that a mass of cells is not necessarily the same as a full grown human. Overall, I feel that abortion should only be allowed during the first 40 days of pregnancy, before the neurons in the embryo begin to fire. Afterall, if what Descartes said was true, one cannot be without thought, and one cannot think without functioning neurons.

Answer 3

It is murder of an unborn human pure and simple and there is no candy coating it. Why can I not crush the egg of a bald eagle without being fined or prisoned? Because eagles are protected. Is human life that cheep that a woman can just kill it without any regard for the life she is taking? What about the simple economics of abortion? How many people, workers, tax payers, social security payees, potential doctors who could have found the cure for cancer ALS Aids or even perfected birth control have been killed by abortion? The Roe vs wade decision did not legalize abortion READ IT! It said the court could not determine when life began, that was /is the job of the legislature. So the blood for every abortion is on congress' hands! The rape issue is a red hearing because first that represents such a small percentage of pregnancy's that it is infinitesimal, and second rape and mothers life being in physical danger abortion has always been legal. We are talking about abortion as birth control, that is it. Last, you say because I am pro life I shouldn't support the war in Iraq, so that means that as a pro choice person you should support the war in Iraq? Convoluted logic you have! Yes, abortion is wrong. The Lord has said, "You shall not murder," (Exodus 20:13). The life that is growing within the mother is a child, a baby. The Bible looks at the life in the womb as a child.: Exodus 21:22 says, "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide,"(1) (NASB).
The main concern of the "Pro-Choicers" is not the guarded protection of the life in the womb. Instead, the main concern is the "rights" of the mother over and against the rights of the child growing in her. The child, who cannot exercise its own will, is killed. And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases the conscience. But, for those who say the baby isn't 'viable', have you ever seen a sonogram of an abortion? You can see the 'non-viable fetus' retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self preservation. It wants to live. Some would respond by saying that even a rodent wants to live. But what is in the womb of the mother is human.
The Bible says for people to protect the weak and down trodden. But with abortionists, the rights of the baby are sacrificed to the rights of the mother -- and the father doesn't even have any rights. The mother cries out that the life in here is part of her body and that she has the right to do with her body as she wills.
True love does not seeks its own, but is other centered. It gives. "For God so loved the world he GAVE his only begotten son..." (John 3:16). Abortion is the ultimate in selfishness. It puts the mother's convenience and desires above the life of her own baby. To kill the baby in the womb means to consider oneself more important than anyone else.
Even in nature, as far as I understand, animals don't kill what is in their own wombs. People are the only ones who kill their young while still unborn. In this society of "self esteem," "personal accomplishments," and "empowerment," true love is losing out and death is winning.
However, there is hope in Jesus. If you've had an abortion, you can be forgiven by the Lord. All you need to do is confess it to the Lord Jesus and ask Him to forgive you. Nevertheless, the unbeliever is not convicted by the words of God. So, I've presented what I consider a logical argument against abortion.

A rational Case against Abortion

What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one celled creature.
The nature of the life is human.
It is the product of human DNA, therefore it's nature is human.
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a human baby.
Humans are humans not because they have a feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. They are humans because of their nature.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is human.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her.
Objections Answered

The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed.
What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature?
At what point does it become human and by what criteria do you make this judgment?
If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person.
The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned.
Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
Then when does the child become stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
It is animals who are owned, not people -- unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
If the tissue is not human, but just an organ like the stomach, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
But, the stomach is meant to be a stomach. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature.
They are different in nature, because the stomach does not have the ability to become a human.
But a human has the ability to produce a stomach.
Therefore, being human encompasses its own body but is not defined by it.
The life in the womb is really part of the woman and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
If it is part of the woman then does the woman has four arms, four legs, and 2 heads? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life.
The life growing in the womb can even have a different blood type than the mother. It is, therefore, an independent life with human DNA.
Not so. The Law says the woman (and man) do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
The reason is that it supports illegal drug trafficking and...
It harms others who the user seeks to support his/her habit as well as the harm that can come to another because of the actions of the one under the influence of drugs.
In abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.
This is simply begging the question. You assume it isn't human, even though it is alive and has human DNA, and then pass judgment that it is not a person.
The fetus is alive and death injures it.
The fetus has the nature of a human and is injured by killing it by scraping, ripping, and/or sucking its brains out as late term abortions are sometimes done.
Then that means the mother has no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb, that wonderful place that only a woman in her nature has.
Does this really leave the woman uninjured? Countless women are psychologically harmed when they kill the child in their womb.
Rape is a condition that justifies abortion.
Rape is horrible. But why should the child pay for the sins (wrong doing) of another? The baby is innocent of the offense and his life need not be taken because of the act of another.
If what is in the womb is human, then killing it because of the act of another would be wrong.
To restrict a woman's right to choose is to deny her rights as a woman.
This is a self-centered reason. It ignores:
That the life in the womb is human in nature.
That the woman has a responsibility to protect and guard life.
That it puts the woman's personal interests and comfort above the value of life of the baby.
That it is not denying a woman's rights anymore than she does not have the right to murder, steal, or lie.
Rights come with responsibilities. Choosing to kill another is a great responsibility that needs to be taken seriously. This is why we have trials.
However, in the womb, no trial is necessary, just the desire of the mother.
There are too many people in the world.
Since when does the value of human life depend upon how many people there are? Besides, if the number of people is the issue, maybe they should start getting rid of the sick and old. Maybe they should get rid of those who aren't intelligent or good looking. Where will it stop?
A question for those who believe in abortion and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay, to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?
If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?
If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.
If you say it is alright, why is okay?

Answer 4

I said in another post that I am pro-choice. I also said that I wouldn't get an abortion, UNLESS I found out that my child had a severe disability. That's my choice though. Most may not agree with it, a lot may agree with it.

Answer 5

i am pro-choice. i do not approve of abortions for two reasons:
1. because they can have psychological repercussions later on in life.

2. it is against my religion. i believe in God and i believe that having an abortion is killing a life.

however, i do not believe that you can tell me what to do with my body or my future. having an unwanted child would only hurt the child because it would cause anguish having a responsibility that i do not want. giving it up for adoption would hurt both of us because i would always wonder about that child and if i made the right decision. if it's an open adoption i think it would be even harder. and it would be hard on the child because he/she would wonder why he/she was not wanted. i will face the consequences of my actions, were i to have an abortion, with God when i get to the pearly gates.

but i also do not believe in abortion as birth control. take a pill or have a tubal, but don't be killing babies again and again.

Answer 6

Why is the lady, that this case is actually based upon, now against abortion? I could give a flying f*ck if you have one. You just will not use my tax dollars to have it done, period. I am against this practice and I am non religious.

Answer 7

i do not support abortion on its anniversary. i dont believe in murder and when they come for you because in the beginning we have failed to protect the defenseless, i hope there is someone there to stand up for your right to live.

its a good thing your mother believed in life else you wouldnt be here to ask your stupid question in such a stupid fashion. report me, typically, your kind does not tolerate anyone elses opinion.

Answer 8

Yes I do, I'm pro-choice.

Answer 9

nope i hope it gets overturned