yes, kelly, i do believe abortions would still exist. i am not in favor of late term abortions (except for the health of the mother), but i am pro-choice. i believe there will be some reform, but the choice will basically remain intact.
people say woman in the past had babies instead of abortions. if you only knew.
my maternal grandmother (died at age 104) was, for a while the one-room school teacher (as married women were not allowed to continue teaching -- even though she had a college degree -- quite rare back in the day), the church pianist, 1/2 owner of the only town grocery store and rock quarry, a mother to 6 children ... and the local mid-wife, a trade she learned from her mother, the pastor's wife.
her cousin, was the assistant teacher, the church organist and the mother of 13 children ... though she would have had more had it not been for the trade her mother taught her ... how to give abortions with sterilized knitting needles over wash tins. she was the abortionist for quite a large area. this action kept women from doing what they used to do -- ingest posions and jump from heights trying to land on their bellys.
"don't judge what you don't understand", my grandmother told me.
once women figured out what got them pregnant and how to manage it, abortion was always an option. it will remain so. legal or not.
2007-03-16 02:11:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by ... 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, was there actually a question in there, or just partisan ranting? Also, if you're going to cite figures, put them in their proper context and provide the source. Otherwise, you do considerable damage to your side of the debate.
Second, the legal justification for Roe v. Wade was specious at best. While there may have been other Constitutional reasons for the ultimate decision in Roe v. Wade, we have to deal with the actual reasoning used, which has led to a good deal of bad law in the years since. I am pro-choice, but I think Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned for that very reason.
I'm more libertarian than conservative, and I'm a Christian from a cultural perspective only. I believe the American judicial system should stay out of most aspects of human sexuality, as long as between/among consenting, non-related human adults. That said, I think if any sexual education is taught, abstinence should be taught along with other forms of birth control. After all, abstinence is the only method of birth control with a 100% success rate, and it also prevents 100% sexually-transmitted diseases.
I don't think serial violent criminals should be cited when determining what the best course of action should be for our nation and society. Besides, while it may be true that serial rapists and serial murderers were taught the same things those who went to school with them, and in fact, in the rest of their society at large, how many of those people did NOT end up murdering or raping people? And then you ask if we should start telling our sons to be more personally responsible as well? Please, pick one. Either you support children being taught responsibility, or you think that such teaching will turn them into monsters. Or, there's another option that, were I to say it, I would lose points from the nice, friendly, people at Yahoo.
If, as you claim to believe, this is a very complicated issue with many layers, perhaps it would behoove you to treat it as such.
2007-03-16 09:07:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ivallinen Roisto 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ah, the ignorance you display daily! If Roe v. Wade is overturned, as it should be, the decision will revert to the states, where it resided before the activist court decided to create the "right" to abortion out of whole cloth.
Abortion was legal in many, if not most states at the time the liberal and activist court decided to make it national law.
I believe your 8% number for incest and rape is a fabricated number.
And stop bringing birth control, any of that other knee-jerk pop psychology into the equation, because that is not germane to the issue. We also believe that human beings were given brains so they could rise above their animal natures.
We're not legislating absinance. That's a stupid and untrue statement. We just think people should be responsible for their decisions, and should not be absolved of the consequences of their decisions, especially when a human life is involved.
2007-03-16 08:35:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Where did you get that ridiculous 8% figure??? The true number is much, MUCH lower. The overwhelming majority of abortions are procured simply as a matter of convenience, to make a "problem" go away that could have been prevented easily in the first place had the mother-to-be exersized better judgment.
Further, the argument that abortion must remain legal because women will have them anyways is specious at best. People continue to rob banks, regardless of the fact tat such action is highly illegal. Do you wish to legalize bank robbery because people do it in spite of the law?
Reversing Roe v. Wade would not, in and of itself, criminalize abortion. It would simply send the issue back to the several state legislatures where it belonged all along.
2007-03-16 08:26:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rick N 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
The conservatives have been so completely tricked by the "Conservative" politicians its laughable. The "Conservatives" had both houses of congress, the majority on the supreme court AND the executive branch.
What happened? A bunch of posturing and bull-crap! The Christian right was fooled by Regan and got the shaft by the conservatives of today.
Why? Because it was a campaign ploy to get elected. There are too many rich people (and their children) screwing their backs off and getting pregnant. They certainly will not stand for anything but a sterile hospital setting to get rid of their unwanted "babies".
A bunch of dummies tricked again by their gangster conservative leaders. I'm not to worried about Roe v Wade will be overturned anytime soon.
I'm more concerned about these righteous conservative idiots being tricked into believing Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and Islam taking over the world.
2007-03-16 08:28:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
I do not entirely think abortions should be illegal
If they do become illegal there should be a loop that if you ARE raped you need to come forward to the police, and without a police report there should be no legal abortion. That would only work in make believe land I know, but it would be even more incentive for a victim to come forward, and may get some predators off the street
2007-03-16 08:22:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by nothing 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's the problem; the people who don't believe a woman should have any choice in incubating a fetus for nine months and then giving birth to it don't realize that they're not saving any lives by banning abortion. Abortions have always happened. It's just a matter of whether or not they happened safely (for the woman AND the fetus) or not. Back alley abortions are far, far worse, bloodier and more violent for both the woman and the fetus than clinical abortions are. I guess they have no problem with that, though. Somewhere in their own minds, they're "saving lives." But they aren't. They're just fighting for their own consciences. It's all about them. As usual.
2007-03-16 08:11:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
6⤊
2⤋
Learn math. 8% of all abortions. not all pregnancys. The number is more like 2000
2007-03-16 08:33:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by bildymooner 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Criminalizing abortion will only send women to illegal clinics...perhaps terribly unsafe and unsanitary. And one day, if that happens, a Pro-Lifer's child may be forced into making this decision for herself. I'm hoping that will never happen...but if it did, I'm sure they would be singing a different tune...
2007-03-16 08:19:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Super Ruper 6
·
2⤊
1⤋