Abortion can be a pretty gruesome procedure. It's not like they dissolve a deliciously flavored tic-tac in thier mouth or anything. This is a method of birth control that any SANE woman would place dead last on her list. Condoms however, don't always work. Spermacide however, doesn't always work. Birth control pills however, don't always work. Abortion ALWAYS works. This is meant to be the absolute last resort method of birth control. I doubt any woman would have this as first on her list of ways to avoid pregnancy. Rarely is abortion used as a routine form of birth control, and if any woman "wouldn't care" about getting one, they have much bigger problems on thier hands than abusing the system.
I posted this at another forum, so I'll just quote myself. I'm adding this prelude because it reads bizarrely out of context, as it was addressed to a specific person.
Abortion is an act of aggression against another human being. However, it's actually the lesser of two evils until we reform the adoption system. So I begrudgingly support the state's rights view of abortion. Allowing the federal government to have a monopoly on it, as with anything, is just deplorable.
Sorry I didn't post my thoughts at first, I was in a hurry and wanted to see some other opinions when I got back to GC. I am pro choice. There you go.
I think a decision like pro-life or pro-choice needs to be made without a religious view. Although religion plays an important part in the majority of the population's lives, it remains an unproven school of thought. A medical definition of when "life" begins needs to be made based strictly on medical research. Off the top of my head, the first time a heart beat is detected is a good starter. Abortions should then be legal before that point, and illegal after. Simple open and shut, logical decision.
By that rationale, an infant child would have to be considered more dependant and "parasitic" than a child in the womb. Not the same thing. Sperm is not human. After conception, there is a living human being in the mother. Living in the womb is part of it's life process. A child is no more alive or developed the day it's born than the day before. We can't just view a baby fetus as a parasite with no rights. It's something more than that. It's something more to the woman making the decision. It's more to the parents awaiting the birth of their child.
At 15, I was raped by a married man. I am very glad to have been able to abort that rapist's progeny. I felt the weight of his disgusting act lifted off my being the day I aborted his filth from my body. My life could only get better after that, and it did! Pro-choice!!!!
So what, Roe V Wade was simply the federal government trying to gain power by making a social issue federal policy? Because that's very wrong. Roe V. Wade was not part of some plan to centralize government. It was determined that abortion is a constitutional issue, and as such, needed to be interpreted by the supreme court. Whether or not it is a constitutional issue is extremely hard to determine, because you're balancing both woman's rights and the fetus' life. Those rights are, arguably, a constitutional matter. I would love for all issues to be determined state by state. I am definitely a proponent of decentralizing government. But you have to also look at the constitution. And I think on this issue, you chose to ignore that part.
Well I'm in favor of euthanasia too. I mean I put as much of an arbitrary value on the process of birth as the next chump; it's just recognizing that abortion has a lot of benefits. Especially when it's systematic and promoted in the proper way.
Find in the Constitution where anybody has the right to an abortion. Its blatantly unconstitutional for the Federal government to determine social policy, if you've ever read the Constitution, or the Federalist papers. The supreme court has been overrun by activist judges, a betrayal to the system of constitutional law. If people want to amend the Constitution to allow 2nd and 3rd generation rights they can do so. Good luck with that.
Um the right to privacy, for one. The right to personal liberty. Jesus, I'm pretty surprised that's what you chose to bicker about.
Come on dude, you need to be schooled. I'm not bickering. There is no right to privacy or right to personal liberty in the constitution. The Constitution is ONLY to bound the powers of government, not to establish the rights among individuals. For example, Free speech is ONLY protected against Congress and State legislatures, not private individuals.
I know the constitution is meant to protect individual rights from government. That's why abortion becoming a state issue would be unconstitutional. Right to privacy: 9th amendment. It has been commonly held as such, although no, the word privacy does not appear in the constitution. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. Right to personal liberty: 14th amendment.
Yes, it has been commonly held as such, and "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" does not propose unconditional liberties to commit prenatal murder. I know what Roe v Wade asserted, it still held no Constitutional validity. The Constitution is meant to protect individuals rights from government, but abortion is not easily classified under privacy or liberty. The least Constitutional thing to do would be to undemocratically enforce morality.