Can you give a brief summary of your position on abortion?

Question

And... do you feel that the law of the land should reflect your position. If so, what would that law basically be?

Answer 1

A easy way out of dealing with life, It is the taking of a human life. A sad fact

Answer 2

I'm pro-choice but I support a very strict interpretation of Roe v Wade .
I think that no elective non- emergency abortions should be performed beyond 13 weeks-the end of the first trimester
I think that about 2 months is more than a reasonable time frame for a woman to make a decision about having an abortion and then having the procedure performed.
Roe v Wade makes sense because it recognizes that the longer a fetus develops the greater it's possibility of survival outside of the womb will be and therefor the greater the States interests can be in protecting the civil rights of what is rapidly becoming a child.
Prior to the end of the first trimester , a fetus has absolutley no chance of surving outside the mothers womb and therefor cannot be considered a legal human being with rights to protect . Prior to the end of the first trimester ,the State only protects the mothers right to decide what to do with her body

Answer 3

Well, in brief summary, I believe the decision to abort or not lies with the parents, especially the mother. Whether or not the baby is alive and when is almost purely philosophical; the decision lies with the mother-to-be (or not to be *drumroll*) on whether she wants to risk herself, her future, the future of the father (if he's around) and/or the life her child could lead given the mother's current situation. There are too many personal factors involved for there to be one resolution that properly fits everyone.

As for the law of the land reflecting my position, I'd say make it legal and available. It's the only way women will have the freedom to make that choice. Besides, as far as I can tell, once you remove religious reasons from the issue, you see that pro-lifers have a lot less room to stand on. As one of our country's founding principles is 'separation of church and state', I find this to be of some importance.

Answer 4

Abortion is NOT about women's rights.
It is about fetal rights.

The question we should all VOTE on is:

"At what point in time does a developing human get their human rights?"

Prior to this point, a woman is free to do anything she wants. Once we consider the fetus to be human, killing it becomes murder, & women do not have the right to commit murder because birth is inconvienent.

I HATE HATE HATE Roe v. Wade. The judicial should interpret law, not write it. Abortion has remained an open sore on American politics because a handful of Judges, rather than elected representatives, decided the issue.

That said, I don't have a problem with the begining of the second trimester as the human rights point, though personally I would put it much later.

And I do mean much later. The ancient Greeks did not consider a child 'human' until two years of age. I concur with this view.

I think life is about raising fertile children. So I consider it biological murderous to prevent parents from euthanizing a child that clearly has no reproductive prospects.

Finally, I think we need to drop this 'Right to Life' / 'Right to Choose' ********. We are picking a point, there's no need to get obnoxious about it.

I find it somewhat ironic that a 'Choice' advocate who considered my 'right to euthanize' horrifically barbaric, had no concept that she was correctly viewed in precisely the same manner by the Right to Life crowd.

Answer 5

The fundamental question is: "When does life begin?" To kill a human life is, obviously, wrong.

It's not about when the life has the ability to think (for then we would be justified in killing anyone who is unconscious or severely mentally impaired) and it's not about when the life is self-sustaining (for a newborn baby is not really capable of surviving "on its own" either). It's not about whether the life is wanted, or was intentionally begun. Life itself comes with inherent rights not to have that life taken away from you without YOUR consent.

So when does life begin? What's the difference between an adult and a newborn? Time, environment, nutrition, etc. The same difference that exists between a fertilized egg (i.e. joined sperm and egg) and a newborn: time, environment, nutrition...

So really, from the time the egg and sperm join, until the time that an elderly adult dies, it's the same life existing on a continuous line. It just requires time to grow and age, a safe environment, and nutrition.

For this reason I believe life begins at conception itself. And the ideal law would reflect that: protection and respect for life. Whether that life is two days old in the womb, or 97 years old in a nursing home.

Answer 6

Religious beliefs aside, I am categorically against it for a few reasons:

1) 98% of the arguments in support of it apply to about 2% of the cases (Rape, Incest, Genetic Defects, etc...)

2) It has been turned into an issue of a person's right to do as they wish to their body. Never mind the stack of other laws that clearly say that you do not have an absolute right to do to your own body as you wish (substance abuse, prostitution, suicide, seatbelt / helmet laws, etc...)--the actual issue is at what point is an embryo / zygote / fetus a separate entity.

3) The decision on when life begins has been made not by the medical community but by the legislatures. Lawyers, accountants, and businessmen are not qualified to make complex medical decisions, but they still do.

Were the medical community to come up with an absolute postition as to what point the fetus is its own entity, I would respect that potition. Until we have that absolute position, I feel it only prudent to err on the side of caution.

Answer 7

It is a woman's choice whether she want to carry a baby to term or abort it. I also think we should recognise that those who want legalised abortion have done more to actually prevent it then those who want to ban it.

The law should reflect that and allow those who want abortions to have them.

I think one may also be able to justify it if the potential mother drunk a lot of alcohol during pregnancy or smoked given the effects those behaviours have on unborn children though whether one should coerce an abortion in those cases is a difficult moral dilemma.

Answer 8

First of all, I would say that the debate on abortion should be divorced from the idea of "women's rights" or "feminism". Although abortion is a women's issue in the sense that only women can get pregnant, abortion is not being denied to women because they are inferior to men or simply because they are women (i.e. like being told in a discriminatory sense that women can't manage a company or something). The abortion issue is about whether or not a particular medical procedure is ethical--it's in the same class as cloning, stem cells, etc.

That being clarified.... I oppose abortion. I believe that human life begins at conception; this instinct/presumption is well attested to, for example, by the fact that parents begin to think of themselves in "parental" terms (potential names, remodeling rooms, getting supplies, and most importantly, loving/caring for the child) even during pregnancy, that science books always begin a discussion of human life with conception, and that fundamentally, the only thing that can result from the combination of a human egg and sperm is another human being.

Because I believe that human life begins at conception, I feel that it is the government's right and responsibility to protect that life, irregardless of the women's "choice"--indeed, the woman's "choice" (except in the case of rape) was whether or not to have sex in the first place--the government is simply making it illegal to terminate the result of that choice (the creation of a new life). Likewise, the government is not taking away the woman's "choice" about whether or not to be a parent in the social (rather than biological) sense of the word--the woman is still free to give that child up for adoption is they wish, and they will never have to bear that "burden" again.

Likewise, I don't see that the economic status of the mother, or any disability that the child would have are good excuses for abortion--part of what makes America great is that people are given the opportunity to make the most of what they have, even against great adversity. Where would we be without people like Helen Keller in our society? The poor, the disabled--all of these people are worthwhile individuals that enrich us with their lives. Besides that, who are we to decide for a voiceless child whether or not they would be better off not being born? Abortion, far from providing "choice" denies that "choice" to a voiceless child.

If I were to construct a law on abortion, I would make only one or two exceptions. All abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, would be banned except for: 1) when the LIFE of the mother is in jeopardy and 2) possibly, I'd make the exception for rape. Exception #1 would be due to the fact that although the government has the responsibility to protect the life of the child, they also have the responsibility to protect the life of the mother--given that 2 lives are at stake in this circumstance, I think it should be up to the mother/family to decide whether or not she should risk her life for her baby's. Exception #2, which I would give only reluctantly, stems from the fact that rape does take away the initial choice of a mother to have sex, and so I think its fair that a mother should not be compelled by the government to accept the consequences of that violation; that being said, I think a mother should have to have the abortion within the first trimester in order for it to be legal.

Hope this provides some insights!
In Christ,
Christine

Answer 9

Yes, to both.

Abortion should be a choice up until birth.

It should be both a male and female choice. If the female wishes to keep the child and the male does not, she must sign a waiver releasing him from all responsibility for that child - and rights to it. In effect, he becomes an anonymous sperm donor.

If the male wants the child and she doesn't, then he can either arrange to pay her as a surrogate mother, with a similar waiver, or find a surrogate mother and have the embryo transplanted when this becomes a viable option. In no case can he force her to carry to term, excepting a valid contract entered into before implantation.

Answer 10

Personally I am anti abortion ... as a method of birth control. I do believe life begins at conception. However, my stance is less about religious belief and more about the attitude of so many that they should not have to accept consequences of actions.

I am not anti-Choice. I just believe the CHOICE was made when the couple had sex knowing the possible outcome. I believe people should take responsibility for their actions. and for that reason, and that reason ALONE, Yes, I feel the laws of the land should reflect people taking responsibility for their CHOICES.