Abortion Poll

[jets24 6]

Let's see where we all are on the topic.

[Me_2006 14]

There's no vote against option, it won't let me vote.

[jets24 6]

There's no vote against option, it won't let me vote.

 

 

I focked it up. I will fix.

[jets24 6]

There's no vote against option, it won't let me vote.

 

 

Did you try again? I think I got it.

[Me_2006 14]

I focked it up. I will fix.

Works now.

[kpbuckeye 3]

pro choice

[jerryskids 7,083]

I voted pro-life because I was in a situation to consider it and decided to keep it. And I wasn't a teenager, not even close. But it was a life-affecting decision nonetheless. I realized at that point that until you are in that situation, philosophical ideas are pretty much worthless.

[thetxstang 0]

pro choice

 

[itsbigmoni 1]

I meant to put pro choice but i accidentally put pro life.

[GettnHuge 2]

Lean pro life, but not pro life. your poll sucks as do the polit parties who make ppl choose one extreme or another.

Abortion sucks.

Abortion as mid/late term should be banned, adoption encouraged.

Abortion very early in a pregnancy, for someone very young, rape, serious health issues...also sucks but I can accept it alright.

 

change your poll, dumbass.

 

pro life (no abortion)

leaning pro life (more restrictions, not all banned)

leaning pro death (some restrictions)

pro death (no restrictions)

dun care

[peenie 1,961]

pro-choice

[jets24 6]

I meant to put pro choice but i accidentally put pro life.

 

Divine intervention...

[jets24 6]

Lean pro life, but not pro life. your poll sucks as do the polit parties who make ppl choose one extreme or another.

Abortion sucks.

Abortion as mid/late term should be banned, adoption encouraged.

Abortion very early in a pregnancy, for someone very young, rape, serious health issues...also sucks but I can accept it alright.

 

change your poll, dumbass.

 

pro life (no abortion)

leaning pro life (more restrictions, not all banned)

leaning pro death (some restrictions)

pro death (no restrictions)

dun care

 

 

Obviously, you didn't read the intro jerkoff. Nobody cares about your "well..if she was raped" theory. Either you lean one way or the other. Stop being a focking tard and fall off the middle of the fence, Switzerland. Grow a set and pick one.

[porkbutt 897]

the poll should read "pro-life" and "pro-abortion"....let's call it what it is

 

why would anyone be for killing babies?

[NorthernVike 2,095]

If she would have acreed to take it in the ass we would not have this problem now would we.

[peenie 1,961]

pro-choice, pro-abortion, killing babies, whatever.

i know that i would like to have the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

[NorthernVike 2,095]

killing babies.

i know that i would like to have the ability to terminate an unwanted life.

[porkbutt 897]

terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

just say it..."kill my baby"

 

why do you insist on sugercoatin' it?

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

If she would have acreed to take it in the ass we would not have this problem now would we.

The man has a point.

[kpbuckeye 3]

 

[DaWeffa 0]

no govt has the right to tell someone what they can and cant do with their body...killing a "baby" or not...the person that has the abortion will have to live with that decision...and if there is a god...he will have final judgment.....or so they say at least.

 

that all being said... there HAS to be quantification...i am pro choice...in the first trimester...after that, no go...

 

 

i voted pro choice as for what the govt can say/do....personally though i am pro life....

[Rattlesnake 0]

If you say that you are pro-life........be sure to define whether you're one of those whose "pro-life" stance ends at birth, or if it's from contraception until death.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

By the way, I'm pro-choice. I absolutely abhor the practice of abortion and hope that it never happens, but it is not the government's right to tell us what we can and can't do. I'm also one of those who is actually against government intrusion in our lives......not like those who say it, but then support things like the Patriot Act, banning gay/lesbian marriages, or banning abortion.

[thetxstang 0]

If she would have acreed to take it in the ass we would not have this problem now would we.

 

Or just swallowed it down her pie hole.

[NorthernVike 2,095]

Or just swallowed it down her pie hole.

 

 

I knew sooner or later we would agree on something

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

but it is not the government's right to tell us what we can and can't do. I'm also one of those who is actually against government intrusion in our lives......not like those who say it, but then support things like the Patriot Act, banning gay/lesbian marriages, or banning abortion.

 

I agree with the concept of not allowing government intrusion, but I do think that protection of rights (life, liberty, and property) is one of few areas where the government actually can legitimately have some say. Abortion can easily fall into the category of protection of life, liberty, and property, for obvious reasons. So I'm against government intrusion but also pro-life and feel that the position is consistent. FWIW, still against the Patriot Act and feel that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

[thetxstang 0]

I knew sooner or later we would agree on something

 

Dood, I'm sure there's plenty we agree on, and that we could enjoy some together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless a political discussion emerged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thetxstang 0]

I agree with the concept of not allowing government intrusion, but I do think that protection of rights (life, liberty, and property) is one of few areas where the government actually can legitimately have some say.

 

Even though the "government" decision makers who would enact such legislation are primarily men, who will never carry a baby in their lives?

 

I'd love to see how men would handle this issue if we were the ones to carry the rug rats. I doubt this concern would ever originate. Can you imagine a women majority congress ever telling us what we could or couldn't do with our bodies?

 

Acreed on the liberty and property parts.

[Me_2006 14]

Even though the "government" decision makers who would enact such legislation are primarily men, who will never carry a baby in their lives?

 

I'd love to see how men would handle this issue if we were the ones to carry the rug rats. I doubt this concern would ever originate. Can you imagine a women majority congress ever telling us what we could or couldn't do with our bodies?

 

Acreed on the liberty and property parts.

Yes, I can. It's not about the legislators, it's about the Constitution that they're basing the rulings on. A woman can do what she wants to her body, it's the babies body that she has no right to destroy or make decisions about. If a woman isn't pregnant, she can go to the abortion clinic 50 times a day if she wants.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

Even though the "government" decision makers who would enact such legislation are primarily men, who will never carry a baby in their lives?

 

I'd love to see how men would handle this issue if we were the ones to carry the rug rats. I doubt this concern would ever originate. Can you imagine a women majority congress ever telling us what we could or couldn't do with our bodies?

 

Acreed on the liberty and property parts.

 

You don't have to experience being poor enough to resort to theft in order to pass laws against stealing. Similarly, you don't have to experience carrying a child to pass a law against killing one.

 

Obviously, there's room for debate on when the right to life starts (and I have a strong opinion on that debate), but it remains a truth that life, liberty, and property are generally regarded as basic rights.

[NorthernVike 2,095]

Dood, I sure there's plenty we agree on, and that we would enjoy some together.

Unless a political discussion emerged.

 

 

Now, now. Lets not get ahead of ourselves

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thetxstang 0]

You don't have to experience being poor enough to resort to theft in order to pass laws against stealing. Similarly, you don't have to experience carrying a child to pass a law against killing one.

 

That's certainly an analogy, but it's not a particularly effective one for me. Theft can directly affect anyone and is just plain wrong. I would assert everyone believes so, unless you enjoy things being stolen from you. Strict laws should be mandatory.

 

An abortion is a very personal matter involving a woman, and perhaps her family and the father of the child (if they even know about the pregnancy). The government should stay out of personal and "moral issues" in my estimation. It is, quite simply, none of their business. I fear if abortion laws are passed, other moral issues may eventually be fair game for legislation.

[kilroy69 1,268]

I am going to hell according to savage beast for this one.(and because I shot a man in reno just to watch him die) I am pro choice.

[thetxstang 0]

I am going to hell according to savage beast for this one.(and because I shot a man in reno just to watch him die) I am pro choice.

 

I'll be there with you...I also shot a man in Reno.

[Me_2006 14]

I'll be there with you...I also shot a man in Reno.

Nah, as long as it was just a baby, you'll be fine.

[kilroy69 1,268]

I'll be there with you...I also shot a man in Reno.

Meet up with me. Ill be in the shot a man in reno, is pro choice and never really believed in a god section. I think its level 31 E "the non believer" wing of hell.

[naomi 360]

That's certainly an analogy, but it's not a particularly effective one for me. Theft can directly affect anyone and is just plain wrong. I would assert everyone believes so, unless you enjoy things being stolen from you. Strict laws should be mandatory.

 

An abortion is a very personal matter involving a woman, and perhaps her family and the father of the child (if they even know about the pregnancy). The government should stay out of personal and "moral issues" in my estimation. It is, quite simply, none of their business. I fear if abortion laws are passed, other moral issues may eventually be fair game for legislation.

 

You don't have to be 'religious' to think that life begins at conception as opposed to at birth. One side won't consider a person alive if their body is currently dependent on another. Newborns are still dependent on nourishment and shelter from outside of themselves. There is sheer dependency before and after birth. This isn't where I would hinge an argument personally, but it shows that we often define life itself by when we think it begins. Separate from that question...what is life? Not when, but what. It can't be defined as independent bodies, because if it were to be, what is the relevance of that when a body independent of another still cannot gather its own sustenance or shelter? Is life self-awareness? Minds are active inside the womb.

 

Not laying this out so you agree it begins at conception or when the body has cognitive or emotional ability, but this should show us why someone may easily apply what they percieve is life to an individual in the womb, with or without religion. Your argument is that laws against theft are less 'moral' (in a religious sense I guess) than disallowing abortion because theft effects more people. We outlaw murder, even when it may just effect one person. No matter what we are always appealing to a morality based judgment. Using your parameters (the underlined) it's possible for someone to look at the prohibition of taking life at any age and consider it infringing on a right, usurping moral authority that all may not hold to.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

That's certainly an analogy, but it's not a particularly effective one for me. Theft can directly affect anyone and is just plain wrong. I would assert everyone believes so, unless you enjoy things being stolen from you. Strict laws should be mandatory.

 

An abortion is a very personal matter involving a woman, and perhaps her family and the father of the child (if they even know about the pregnancy). The government should stay out of personal and "moral issues" in my estimation. It is, quite simply, none of their business. I fear if abortion laws are passed, other moral issues may eventually be fair game for legislation.

 

See, I think the analogy holds because abortion can affect anybody (although for most men, the possibility of it affecting them only lasts nine months); in addition to the mother, it affects the child (or potential child, depending on how you view things).

 

Theft is a moral issue, murder is a moral issue, and abortion is a moral issue. I think anyone who denies the moral component and gravity of any of those issues isn't paying attention. I think the government has the right to be involved in any of those. Gay marriage is also a moral issue, and I don't think that the government should be involved.

 

How do I draw the line without creating the slippery slope that you fear? I think that if issue infringes on basic rights to life, liberty, and property, the the government can have a say. If it can't be framed in a rights argument, then the government ought not have a say*.

 

 

*This isn't really relevant to the discussion, but I do make exceptions for local governments. If 90% of a town decides they don't want legalized prostitution because it'll corrupt the town, that's there prerogative. If a precinct in Chicago bans liquor stores (which has happened), that's their prerogative. I just don't think the federal government should be involved in this issue.

[thetxstang 0]

You don't have to be 'religious' to think that life begins at conception as opposed to at birth. One side won't consider a person alive if their body is currently dependent on another. Newborns are still dependent on nourishment and shelter from outside of themselves. There is sheer dependency before and after birth. This isn't where I would hinge an argument personally, but it shows that we often define life itself by when we think it begins. Separate from that question...what is life? Not when, but what. It can't be defined as independent bodies, because if it were to be, what is the relevance of that when a body independent of another still cannot gather its own sustenance or shelter? Is life self-awareness? Minds are active inside the womb.

 

Not laying this out so you agree it begins at conception or when the body has cognitive or emotional ability, but this should show us why someone may easily apply what they percieve is life to an individual in the womb, with or without religion. Your argument is that laws against theft are less 'moral' (in a religious sense I guess) than disallowing abortion because theft effects more people. We outlaw murder, even when it may just effect one person. No matter what we are always appealing to a morality based judgment. Using your parameters (the underlined) it's possible for someone to look at the prohibition of taking life at any age and consider it infringing on a right, usurping moral authority that all may not hold to.

 

naomi, I appreciate your post. You've obviously presented your thoughts with great consideration. The trouble I have with your submission is twofold:

 

1) You're representing abortion as a "moral" issue. Furthermore, your tacit religious suggestions have no bearing with me, even if I "don't have to be 'religious' to think that life begins at conception as opposed to at birth." Precisely when a baby's life begins will forever be debatable.

 

2) Your approach is an emotional one, appealing to the human condition which recoils in horror at the notion of extinguishing a human life. I cannot engage if I am to remain objective (see below).

 

To better explain my view, let me first state I categorically believe abortions are a sad solution to a very difficult problem. It's hurtful to try and rationalize. I don't think for a moment anyone believes an abortion is something to be celebrated. Any individual who does has something wrong with their hamster wheel.

 

Please don't link my comments on theft and abortion as being one in the same. I never used the word "moral" in either case. My point was only that abortion is a personal matter for a woman, while theft can affect anyone. Nothing more. Therefore, my argument was never "that laws against theft are less moral."

 

The problems I have with abortion consist of the following:

 

1) As I said before, I have issues with fat cat lawmakers in Washington making abortion decisions on women's behalf. It's hypocritical. Men would be outraged if female politicians pushed legislation that would prevent us from making a decision about our bodies.

 

2) The ridiculous argument that many women use abortion as a means of birth control, frequently presented as though thousands upon thousands of women are guilty of such. This is a tired, stale response I hear repeatedly by pro-lifers. Please. No woman in her right mind is actively going to rely on abortion as a means of birth control. That's absurd. Abortions are costly, dangerous to undergo, and can leave lasting emotional scars.

 

3) And perhaps the thing I find most disturbing of all. What about after a baby is born? What if the child is unwanted or cannot be properly cared for? Babies are tremendous responsibilities, requiring constant love, care, and attention. Some women simply aren't equipped for this. It kills me to think a woman might some day be forced to keep her child and in turn, the child is resented, unloved, and as a result, neglected. There is a saying that pro-lifers give every sh!t in the world about unborn children, yet hardly care once they are born. Unfortunately, I see many truths to this statement. Pro-lifers constantly harp about the unsoundness of abortion, yet never offer concrete solutions on how to provide the love, care, attention and considerable resources babies require once they arrive.

 

Relative to my last point, some would argue a woman should be forced to place her baby up for adoption should she not want to raise it. While I think this would be a grand idea for some women, and would love to see more exploring such an option, I still don't believe laws should be enacted to force women to do so. Once again, it's a woman's body. Let her decide what to do with it, just like men should be able to make decisions about their own bodies.

 

Let me add this. If it were somehow possible for women only to vote on this matter, and the majority concluded abortion was wrong, then by all means, change the laws. You are the ones that carry the babies. It should be your decision.

 

It is for the above reasons I try to remain objective, though I understand why the abortion issue is contentious...and will remain so. I respect your point of view, however, and certainly understand where you're coming from. As I said above, abortion is a very sad thing.

[thetxstang 0]

See, I think the analogy holds because abortion can affect anybody (although for most men, the possibility of it affecting them only lasts nine months); in addition to the mother, it affects the child (or potential child, depending on how you view things).

 

Theft is a moral issue, murder is a moral issue, and abortion is a moral issue. I think anyone who denies the moral component and gravity of any of those issues isn't paying attention. I think the government has the right to be involved in any of those. Gay marriage is also a moral issue, and I don't think that the government should be involved.

 

How do I draw the line without creating the slippery slope that you fear? I think that if issue infringes on basic rights to life, liberty, and property, the the government can have a say. If it can't be framed in a rights argument, then the government ought not have a say*.

*This isn't really relevant to the discussion, but I do make exceptions for local governments. If 90% of a town decides they don't want legalized prostitution because it'll corrupt the town, that's there prerogative. If a precinct in Chicago bans liquor stores (which has happened), that's their prerogative. I just don't think the federal government should be involved in this issue.

 

You make some decent points, though I disagree with your lump assessment of "moral issues." Listen, I don't have it in me for a lengthy response after replying to naomi's post above. Please read the content and hopefully it will impart more of my thoughts as they pertain to your comments. I believe I comprehend your positions completely, and though I have conflicts with some of them, I also understand where you're coming from.

 

Theft is a moral issue, murder is a moral issue, and abortion is a moral issue. I think anyone who denies the moral component and gravity of any of those issues isn't paying attention. I think the government has the right to be involved in any of those. Gay marriage is also a moral issue, and I don't think that the government should be involved.

 

This paragraph, however, caught my attention. You're saying the government "has the right to be involved" in theft, murder and abortion matters since they are all "moral issues," yet gay marriage is also a moral issue, but you "don't think that the government should be involved"? Is it just me, or is that a tad ?

 

What's funny is, I have no respect for gay marriage, whether moral or not, and frankly would love for the government to suppress it. We'll eventually find something we agree on.

[GettnHuge 2]

Obviously, you didn't read the intro jerkoff. Nobody cares about your "well..if she was raped" theory. Either you lean one way or the other. Stop being a focking tard and fall off the middle of the fence, Switzerland. Grow a set and pick one.

 

Ok lets break down this 'intro'

 

Forget all the rhetoric about the difference between the two (what does that really mean? pretty much nothing)

 

and bring up all the definitions and what they truly mean...(So uhh...what? this poll is meaningless I guess)

 

blah blah...blah. (most intelligent text you've posted)

 

This is the poll. We all get the question. (A bold statement, this is, indeed, a poll)

 

It really is pretty black and white. (No it's not. which side is 'black' and which is 'white' by the way?)

 

Pick one and lets see where the geeks stand.(I'd guess most stand in the middle, but you didn't give that option. See: 'poll is meaningless')