No. The government will exactly be forcing a woman to have a baby.

Do some google, about current cases in the last year or so: read about women who have developed problems with their pregnancies, and could not have abortions per certain conservative state laws (they had to wait for the baby to die in utero, or be delivered then die)

Women have been inducing abortions for centuries, Joey. Physically and chemically.

The point of your sentence is not agreed to by me: of course the government interfering in a woman's life, in the medical decisions she and her doctor makes, is active, aggressive, communist, ridiculous government takeover and control. Appalling overreach.

No. Your use of the deliberately misapplied and inflammatory term "murder" to a fertilized egg is ridiculous in my eyes. Sorry.

And, again: if that is your position, why are you not trying to make illegal in-vitro fertilization doctors?

If General Electric had had to pay tax on their billions in profit this year, rather than paying zero tax, and on top of that have huge tax credits, our deficit would be alot smaller. And thanks, GE, for exporting all those jobs that the GOP said, in giving you the tax credits, you'd create here on our shores. We need to close tax loopholes.

The debate always swings to talk about when life begins, murder, etc.

But the only question is: does the US government have any right to change the law, to go against what has been legally determined to be Constitutional freedoms, in order to begin controlling it's citizens lives and health, and forcing women to bear babies they do not want?

When W. Bush interfered with Terry Schiavo's death - that was appalling and disgusting. It's the same thing: what reach does the government have into it's citizens private lives? This isn't communist China.

SportyFans....don't you wish all the above were aborted?




Think of all the i-net space saved for ........anything.

Well there goes another War on Abortion thread.

Woa, that's not the only question. Of course the courts and government have the right to change with the times...I'm sure glad they reconsidered Dred Scott for example. I agree that I don't want the government in the bedroom or dictating a person's choice but I'm uneasy saying the government can't change the law. I'm not sure I agree with you on the Schiavo case either.

Sorry, I meant change this law. Not that government cannot change any law, which is obviously not true.

Doesn't the government also have an obligation to defend innocent life?

Remember, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

And of course any law can be changed so long as it doesn't breach the Constitution, which pro-lifers think the current allowance of abortion does.

An unborn child is currently the only victim legally allowed to be killed, no due process necessary, no self-defense situation necessary... it's a real standout among laws.

Again, 100 or so posts in this thread and nothing has changed (or will it), how one views abortion is a function of one and only one factor...when one believes life begins. If you believe it begins at conception, you oppose abortion; if you believe at birth, you support a woman's right to make decisions about her body. Someday, that question may be answered...until then the debate will continue as it should.

But the Supreme Court repeatedly and strongly thinks it does not. Court wins. Too bad.

Take the goal of changing our government into forcing itself into the private lives and healthcare of women elsewhere. Maybe China.

Nonsense. That's not true, and it's overly simplistic. I think life begins at conception, I'm not in favor of abortions, but I absolutely defend the right of a woman to choose for herself, without interference from other people, let alone some government forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.

As an additional aside, that statement takes the argument regarding the legality of abortion and takes it out of the legal realm, and puts it into the scientific realm. First, it does not belong in the scientific realm, because scientists have no standing - jurists do. Secondly, jurists are not scientists, thus haven't the same understandings of the discussion if one is to make it scientific. Third, there are plenty of jurists and legislators that have publicly and clearly said they don't "believe in" science - thus hardly the people to make "scientific" decisions.

Abortion is a question of constitutionality, but not based upon the presumption that a collection of undifferentiated cells has 100% of the rights of a citizen sitting across from you (which is why the anti-abortion crowd has spent decades trying to make a conceptus a "person" with 100% of those rights - see how Joey talks?)

A blastocyst is not an "unborn child"

As I've said previously, if one wants to go the inflammatory verbiage route, at least one has be consistent, and cry equally for the "unborn babies" killed when a guy masturbates - and attack in vitro fertilization clinics for being murderers.

How then can you justify "Roe"? Does that mean you think the woman's right to an abortion is more important than the life of her unborn?

:zz: Roe is based upon a woman's right to privacy under the Constitution. I agree with Roe, in that a woman's right to an abortion decreases as fetal viability outside the womb is enabled.

Yes, I think in a general way a woman's right to control her own body in all ways superceedes the rights of her unborn child, up to a certain extent, which must encompass a fetus that is viable outside the womb by definition - but it is clearly not black and white after a certain point (greatly determined by fetal viability as an independent organism) and must be assessed on an individual basis.

That's not an answer. I'm asking you where you think the majority of our tax dollars go. And again, I'm not attacking you; I'm asking. To what programs/obligations do you think the majority of our tax dollars go?

Not to be picky but aren't you saying that your view puts you in the position of judging which people will live and die, granting less rights to one life than another?

I'm not having a political conversation with you when you already pegged me as getting all my info from "right wing sources". You couldnt be farther from the truth. Shoot, I'd rather get into a Muslim debate with Riot

Well then do the independent thing and engage. Antitrust, I'm really, truly curious. If I'm incorrect about your news sources, then feel free to correct my misconception and tell me what those sources are. Where do you get your news? What sources?

The only reason I can ascertain that you would be unwilling to tell me where our tax dollars are spent is that you're afraid you'll have the wrong answer. Even were that true (and I don't know that it is, which is why I asked), isn't it better to uncover the correct information than to continue to believe the incorrect?

Here are some unbiased sources for general stats on who is getting abortions and their reasons why (note: though it doesn't say so, we can safely assume 100 % of the people choosing induced abortion are female):

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

And on pregnancy rates in young women:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf