I agree! It should be overturned ASAP!
2007-03-16 04:21:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
8⤋
Where was your poll taken an ANTI ABORTION RALLY?
There are arguments for both sides but government should stay out of it. Religion should stay out of it. The choice to or not to abort is a personal and usually difficult one. The circumstances that lead each woman to this decision are the same in the most basic sense... she had intercourse. However, if it were that simple, the solution would be simple... don't have intercourse. Unfortunately, life is not very simple and the choices we have to make in life can be incredibly difficult. For the most part the decision to keep, give up or abort is the most difficult a woman will ever have to make. Once the deed is done, it can't be undone. These women will carry the burden of their choice (no matter what it was) for the rest of their lives, they do not need legislation or sermons. The decision to abort is usually the last resort because the other options did not seem feasible.
It is not enough to argue whether something is right or wrong. After everything is evaluated, there may be only one real choice. When you find yourself standing at the edge of a cliff with a pack of wild animals in rabid chase there is nowhere to turn. You know the consequence of staying is to become a victim of the predators but believe you might survive the landing if you jump, what do you do? The right to life groups would have you wait, help may come, the animals might become distracted or any other unlikely thing might happen. Until you are actually devoured there is still a chance of survival, but at what emotional cost? If you jump and die, it would be suicide, a crime of the state and a sin against God.
If church and state feel the need to be involved they need to redirect their efforts. They have to make the other options more appealing. If you want to force your ideals on someone who is ill equipped to perform in a certain way, teach him or her to succeed. Offer affordable, responsible childcare to single mothers. Create programs to allow school aged mothers to stay in school. Educate the public; a woman does not (usually) become pregnant on her own. Initiate enforceable legislation making the fathers responsible. Withdraw scholarships from fathers if they fail to participate in the care of the child. Anyone who wants to ask, “Where is the money supposed to come from?” should answer this, “Where has the money been coming from? How much money has been spent debating an issue that has already been resolved?”
I have walked next to my daughter with about 50 to 75,000 others in Washington DC declaring that I am pro choice. Pro Choice is not wishy washy, I believe that every situation needs to be considered on its own. I believe that women have to be responsible for their bodies. She must respect and protect herself. If she feels she is ready to be sexually active, she needs to be prepared. She needs to make sure her partner is participating in the prevention of pregnancy and disease. She needs to be taught that her body belongs to her alone. Then, if despite all the preparation and precaution she still conceives, she needs to know she has choices.
2007-03-16 08:28:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lady E 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Once again, someone is using half a statistic to prove something. The fact tht a majority of americans want some type of restriction on abortion does not mean that they are in favor of banning it. The country is evenly split on the question of weather the Government has the power to deny the woman a right to choose. YOu can sugar-coat it all you want, but thats what it is; its a question of weather or not the Governemnt can forcibly prevent a woman from making a decision regarding her own body.
But the anti-abortion people dont play it that way, becuase that would be unpopular, so they focus on the emotion, saying "its a baby, its murder". I dont know about you, but I dont think a cluster of cells you can only see with a microscope is a baby.
The restrictions alot of people favor are things like using abortion as a form of birth control, women having multiple abortions, the so called "partial birth" abortions, and later-trimester abortions. Those things are offensive to many people who otherwise would support a womans right to choose. But lets face it, the country is still about evenly divided on the whole issue.
2007-03-16 04:52:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rich F 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
You have to remember the "restricted" bunch within that statistic. Restricting abortion would not involve overturning Roe.
2007-03-16 04:21:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
67% of Americans, huh? I was never polled on this subject. I'm guessing a lot of people weren't polled on this subject. It's a sampling of the population, but by no means should this be taken as gospel. No, Roe v. Wade should NOT be overturned.
2007-03-16 04:27:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sunidaze 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
67% ? I don't think so ! Poll the right people and you'll always get the results you want ! 75% of Americans are stupid. Maybe we should outlaw stupidity too ? You're not posting a question, it's an opinion. And it's been posted more times than "How do I lose weight ?" BTW, how many unwanted children have you adopted ? None ? I thought so.
2007-03-16 04:28:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Smelly Cat 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
I don't know where you are getting your polling data, because according to every one of the polls on this site, a majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
62 percent say Roe should not be overturned. That was a CNN poll in January 2007.
2007-03-16 04:23:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by parrotjohn2001 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it is a constitutionally unsound decision. Abortion laws existed state-by-state before it.
I fail to understand how a woman's right to "choose" (to end the life of her child) can supersede her child's right to life. If you deny certain people a right to continue living, you deny them every human right. Government exists to protect rights, not deny them.
2007-03-16 04:28:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Biz Iz 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
definitely. The eating place proprietor ought to have the only right suited to serve the marketplace he choses. I even have the only right suited to no longer patronize that eating place. What Rand Paul stated grow to be that he could have marched with Martin Luther King against institutional racism. What he additionally stated is that he would not trust the vendors of a business enterprise who practiced discrimination. yet he effective would not patronize them. attempt going to a fashionable nightclub and stepping into in case you do no longer meet their standards for gown (or weight). yet you do no longer care approximately protecting fat human beings, using fact it would not tournament your specific time table. STFU
2016-10-01 00:31:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by elzey 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes it should, and anyone who wants to bark about constitutional rights needs to think about the rights of the unborn child that is being murdered by their irresposible parents. EVERYONE has the right to live, and no one should have the right to take life away. Its easier for the pro choice side to say it isnt murder because they dont have to actually see the child being brutally murdered. 67% of Americans may feel that abortion is wrong but the people who dont feel that way are using it to the max. There are something like 1 in every 3 babies aborted these days. How very sad.
2007-03-16 04:24:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by ♥♫♥ Crystal ♥♫♥ 4
·
1⤊
4⤋
I find your statistic specious.
Rights shouldn't be a matter of public opinion. Perhaps we should make Fundamentlism and Catholocism a crime - I mean, the majority are not fundamentalist or Catholic. You are talking about popular opinion driving rights, correct? Why not just chunk the freedom of religion.
2007-03-16 04:24:53
·
answer #11
·
answered by Radagast97 6
·
2⤊
1⤋