What Say You Guido?

[rwarn17588]

I think the recent commenters are onto something here.

The Republican party has had numerous chances in the past few decades to actually get some sort of constitutional amendment or federal law passed to outlaw many or all abortions. After all, from 2000 to 2006, the GOP ruled the House, Senate and presidency. But, for some reason, they declined to take up the effort.

Maybe it's because, deep down, they know there'd be consequences to such laws that the American people wouldn't tolerate, such as thousands of women or doctors in jail. Or rape and incest victims carrying babies to term. Or an explosion of back-alley abortions. Or orphanages becoming quickly overcrowded and straining states' budgets.

I think the Schiavo case probably killed for good (no pun intended) the chance of pro-lifers getting abortion outlawed. The pro-lifers wrongly thought they had a slam-dunk case to appeal to the American public. Instead, the American public was nearly 80 percent against the government interfering in the case, and it torpedoed one potential presidential candidate's chances. That case was a cautionary tale about assuming too much that the public would be on your side.

Ultimately, if you're really concerned about this issue and don't want abortions to occur, appeal to someone's morality instead of using a sledgehammer law.

[TeeDub]

I still have yet to figure out why such a niche issue draws so much conversation.

While I don't support abortion, I would rather someone get one that have an unwanted child that, most likely, my tax dollars will raise and support.

I think the mother is the only one to make the decision as to her body and her life.

[cannon_fodder]

Since this is a religious issue for most people on one side, the debate interests me.  The polling numbers on it are equally interesting:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx (details on method/findings)

Just by listening to rhetoric and conversations in the media one would think the nation was split 50/50.  In reality, the "total ban" group is a small minority.  About the same percentage of Americans are satisfied with the current state of the Nation, or want to support Palestine over Israel, or approved of G.W.'s job in the office.  

From a public opinion stand point only (as a religious issue, debate is next to impossible... I've been over this), it is a vocal minority.  Most are content with the status quo.

[Gaspar]

Here's how I see it.  

We kill people all the time.  We always have good reasons to terminate a life.  Usually self preservation, or the preservation of an ideology.  Sometimes we simply kill for convenience, or because we judge the quality of one life as less important as the quality of another (a totally subjective judgement).  We also kill to protect the quality of our own lives.

It seems that the only person who has a right to choose weather a baby is a life or simply a fetus is the mother.  Mothers make this judgement all the time.  What a powerful position to be in.  When my wife was pregnant she referred to our unborn children as, well, children.  We talked to them, played them music, called them by name, and felt them kick and roll.  I guess my wife is pro-choice, because she chose to allow our kids to live.  We were stable with a nice house and good jobs so we chose not to kill our children.  I'm glad, I love them.

Some women opt to kill their fetuses and that IS their choice (no matter what anyone thinks).  The birth of that child would simply not fit into their plan, or it would threaten their quality of life.  Perhaps they feel that they wouldn't be able to offer the child the quality of life that they feel that child deserves.  Or perhaps the pregnancy is just embarrassing.  So death is a far better choice than life.  

Why should we limit a woman's right to make that choice?  I don't think we can.  

As I mentioned before, there are other instances where we kill for the same reasons and we find it totally acceptable.  In war we kill other people.  We kill people for self preservation, or because they threaten our way of life, our ideology, or they are an inconvenience.  The really strange part is how a person can be Pro-Abortion, but Anti-War?  . . .Or how a person could be Pro-Life but support a war, even fight in it.

You can play with definitions all day long but you change nothing.  Choice still exists, and it's a personal choice to kill.  Wether you are at war with soldiers or babies.  The justification is the same.  

All the "definition of life" does is help you to feel better about your choice, and allow you to obtain the legal services of an abortionist.  It does not limit your choice.