English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Many pro-life people have already agreed that it would not reduce the number of abortions. How, then, would we prosecute? Would we press charges against any woman who had a miscarriage? There are a lot of really easy ways to get rid of a fetus, and not all of them involve a coat hanger. Self-starvation (which would affect the fetus long before it would affect the mother), a little "trip" down the steps... lots of ways. So what's the point? I ask, if we ban abortion, do we prosecute EVERY woman who has a miscarriage? What about the women not seeking prenatal care? Who even knows if they're pregnant?

2007-04-04 07:37:56 · 24 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government Politics

vampire: the courts never made a ruling about the legality of abortion. The Supreme Court ruled that the government has no Constitutional right to prevent you from getting one. The Constitution is in place to limit the authority of our government, and the Court found that the Constitution prohibits the government from invading your privacy in that way.

2007-04-04 08:09:26 · update #1

24 answers

It gives them further precedent to control the properties of even more people they disagree with... that and they're obsessed with judging others, and this is just a very convenient issue for them to judge other people with. It involves sex, medical tools, and perceived violence...

...all of the tools of a tabloid fetish obsession. They can have that and still claim to be moral, when they're anything but moral.

That's not what they'll say the benefit is, but that's the raw psychological reality of what they're getting out of it.

Edit: Half of these anti-choice people think women should be property anyway... this is just the logical extent of their bigoted and sexist nature.

2007-04-04 07:44:29 · answer #1 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 1 2

if abortion were banned, most women who gave themselves miscarraiges would not end up being prosecuted. the only people who would be prosecuted would be the doctors who continued giving abortions professionally even after it was made illegal.
i don't think most pro-lifers would actually agree that making abortion illegal wouldn't reduce the number of abortions. but in addition to reducing the numbers, pro-lifers probably want to make the point to society that abortion is wrong and immoral, and illegalizing abortion would do that.

but, don't forget that currently the decision on abortion is in the hands of the supreme court. unless a future court changes its mind on the issue, the ruling of roe v. wade will stand: that it is against the us constitution to outlaw abortion - no matter what benefits some people may see in doing so. i personally agree with that decision, but others may not... but unless the supreme court reverses its decision (which doesn't occur too often but has been predicted for this particular case) the only way now for the us to outlaw abortion is with a constitutional amendment.

2007-04-04 07:46:16 · answer #2 · answered by Blondie 3 · 1 0

This is the problem when government meddles with people's lives. The federal government should stay out of people's bedrooms. Abortion should not be illegal, but it should not be encouraged either.

I am pro-life, but I don't judge other people's choice. What other people do with their bodies is their business, not mine.

Still, partial birth abortions do involve the killing of a pre-mature infant, and it should be discouraged (not outlawed). Anyone who knows what a partial-birth abortion does to the pre-mature infant will not want to do it.

If people know more about the procedures involved in abortions, they will be less likely to do it, because it is a very messy procedure that involves the death of a fetus. It's not something I would choose.

Banning something doesn't stop it from happening. It just makes it illegal and outlawed. There is no benefit to making abortion illegal.

2007-04-04 08:10:24 · answer #3 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 1 0

There is no benefit. As I have stated hundreds of times I am for abortion under the following circumstances: Number 1. It should be in the first tri-mester. Numbers 2+3, Only in the case of rape or incest or health issues for the mother.(life threatening) The only exception to the 1st trimester rule would be life threatening issues for the mother. Any other use amounts to using abortion as a contraceptive which I find reprehensible.

2007-04-04 07:47:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I think there should be some law on woman where they have to get fixed. Like if they become involved with children serviced or if there drug addicts or alchoholics. That may cut down on some problems but not all. I constanty run this stuff through my mind. Im so anti abortion. people are just plain idiots! Not to want a living thing they created growing inside them...i cant imagine. My ex sister inlaw had to abortions behind my brothers back. it made me sick how she just acted like nothing ever happened and here I am wanting to strangle her.

2007-04-04 07:48:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I am a conservative, not a facist like most Republicans, as such I could care less about abortion EXCEPT that the federal Courts stepped outside thier authority in ruling on it at all.

Both Pro Lifers and Pro Choice are trashing our Constitution
The Courts should have ruled that this is a matter for the states.

2007-04-04 07:48:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

There should be very few advantages of creating abortion unlawful, even fewer to eliminating planned parenthood! Abortions does no longer provide up merely by technique of creating them unlawful. wealthy females ought to "spend a 12 months reading in a overseas u . s ." or "pass visit kin in yet another state" for a lengthy time period. they could get a risk-free and criminal abortion in a rustic the position the technique remains criminal. females that ought to no longer have adequate money to vacation to Europe ... a grimy knife and a coat hangar in a inn room. a lot of useless females, more advantageous with very expensive medical complications as using the surgical operation on the fingers of untrained hacks with flawed methods. get rid of planned parenthood ... counseling facilities, birth control, prenatal care, maximum cancers screenings, no longer being presented by technique of those places of artwork ... perhaps no longer available to females without well being coverage. Now, for the advantages of doing this stuff ... enable me imagine on that for a lengthy time period!

2016-12-03 06:53:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well if abortion becomes illegal we'll have a lot more poverty, more unwanted children in the world, and many women dying from back alley abortions. Do I think abortion is wrong? Yes actually I do, but I would rather see this procedure stay safe and legal.

2007-04-04 07:48:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

This is the ridiculous question that goes to the how come government always intervenes Church/ state when it is convenient for them to do so. This is a moral dilemma, an ethical question. When does the beginning of life begin ? when is a fetus a person ? What about the women who are raped and the women who are sexually abused in their family/ should they be forced to deliver an unwanted baby ? The government has no business in this what so ever. It is a women's decision.

2007-04-04 07:46:49 · answer #9 · answered by S 3 · 2 2

There is none. Especially with an executive branch whose answer for reducing abortions is preaching abstinence...

There would be dangerous illegal abortions preformed then...and where would you draw the line? Are you banning them outright, or do you make legal for rape victims, or girls whose fathers would beat the holly hell out of them if he found out. What we need to do is keep it legal and do everything we can to lower the number of them - teach safe sex, not just abstinence!! Not everyone is a Christian -- and certainly not all Christians wait til marriage for sex. Teaching kids abstinence should not be a job for your government. It's up to the parents to raise their kids how they want.

2007-04-04 07:49:48 · answer #10 · answered by shelly 4 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers