Who thinks the abortion issue should be put to the vote of all the people?
Edg1 asked:
so we crapper eventually be finished with it erst and for all?
It was banned before those pinheads in the Supreme suite took it upon themselves to attain it legal.
so we crapper eventually be finished with it erst and for all?
It was banned before those pinheads in the Supreme suite took it upon themselves to attain it legal.
Categories: Law & Ethics Tags: Abortion Issue, Pinheads, Vote
The problem with abortion is that illegality is moot. Abortion was legalized because of the dangers women faced when getting back alley procedures. (Look to Romania under Ceausescu to see how both mother and infant mortality skyrocketed under newly restrictive abortion laws. Or look to Africa, where women died of ruptured uteruses after too many children and abortion would be a relief.) From this particular angle, I don’t believe a vote would change anything. It would only drive the procedure underground again.
A better position would be for the pro-life movement to accept realistic preventative and assistance strategies, instead of opposing the very things that would make abortion unnecessary or undesirable like contraceptives, sex education, gay adoption, universal health care, childcare subsidies, etc. It’s a fact the countries with the highest rates of abortion have the most restrictive laws and less access to contraceptives and health services.
Nope. The Supreme Court deemed it Constitutional. We cannot afford for the ignorant American populous to infringe upon its own right of determination.
Safety of the mother is paramount.
**************************
Gatsby… Ya lets equate Jim Crow laws to abortion. Please, get a real analogy. The courts change over time. Their interpretations change w/ each new Justice. That is why discrimination based on race is now illegal. However, chances are the court will never again hear a case on constitutionality of abortion. But it is their, and only their, ruling.
your vote is what you choose. don’t have one if you have a problem with it.
I tink abortion shuld be over it is sin to kill yu own baby
I don’t have a problem with abortion being legal. I am against it personally, but I don’t see any reason to push for it, it’s not so important and it could cause conflicts that I don’t really want to deal with.
Yep, it would be great, but that would be called democracy, and we live in the US, that won’t happen
That sounds like a great idea to me. We should do it.
So many people in this country have strong opinions on it, we SHOULD just put it to a vote.
To Angryman: The Supreme Court also deemed Jim Crow laws Constitutional at one time. Do you think they should have kept THAT around?
Tam, with your anger management issues, I will agree that you should just abort any babies in your uterus as you see fit. There’s no sense in introducing a poor helpless infant to those types of rants.
Again, to Angryidiot: you’re the one who said the Supreme Court deemed it Constitutional…implying that if the Supreme Court deems it Constitutional then it is permanent. It is not. And I can use any analogy I darn well please. But that is beside the point. I was proving that your point was WRONG by using Jim Crow as an example. Obviously it can’t be used as an analogy with Roe v. Wade.
I have always believed that the people or at least their democratically elected representatives should define the laws they live under so yes
@ poster below.. I guess you haven’t looked at planned parenthood v casey… one vote from being overturned
There is no abortion issue. Abortion is legal. Roe vs. Wade is in place and will not be overturned. Were it to be put to a vote, yes all WOMEN should vote…..however that would not stop abortions as anyone who could afford them would be able to get them.
Abortion should be legal.
You want to get one, then good, if you’re against it, nobody is forcing you.
I am so sick of hearing that aborting a small fleshy thing is murder. it is MY body. *I* created this thing. If it is inside of me, I have the right to do what I want to it. Once it is born and is in the outside world, then yes, that is murder.
I should have 100% control over what I wish to do with something I do not want. Is giving up a baby for adoption better? Is abusing it better? Is giving it an awful and an unhappy life better?
No. All you pro-life losers need to get a life and mind your own business. If you get raped by a stranger or a family member and chose to have a deformed, retarded baby that’s is fine, by all means, enjoy ruining you life.
Yes, I do, however the issue won’t go away.
It will always be a hot button issue because it involves murder. What it all comes down to is, if the child is “wanted” then it’s conveniently termed a baby. If the child is “not wanted” then it becomes a mass of tissue. We have found the morals to outlaw dogfighting but can’t do the same to protect our own species.
As an “educated society” we murder our own babies by the thousands. This barbaric immoral act crosses all lines of gender and race. Even female babies are slaughtered in the womb, never to experience ” pro-choice”.
Why? Every other issue that has been put to the voters ends up in court by the liberal nut jobs & sometimes over turned by liberal nut job appeals courts. Since when do voters have any input in policy?
The Supreme Court has already ruled on it. Any vote conducted now would only force the issue back into the court system to determine which outcome is law. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that the Supreme Court is going to vote against itself.
Besides, it won’t matter what the outcome of a populous vote is, there will be people on both sides ready to take up picket signs regardless.
Abortion is one of those things that government or mandates is not going to be able to solve. It will have to come from the resolve of the people to look past this issue and focus on things that can be changed.
this is a very hot topic but let me break it down for you according to my interpretation.
What you do with your body should be up to you and only you. The government should have no authority over what type of medical procedures you with to have, even an abortion. If we give the government this power then where would it end? where do we the people draw the line? I personally do not agree with it but i should not force my beliefs or ideals on others because it is not my place to say what you should do with YOUR body. this is a civil rights issue and nothing more, the reason it has become a hot item is because of the religious right wingers imposing conservatism and christianity (as they interpret it) onto the rest of us. ultimately it is religion that defines the utter wrongness of an abortion not to mention moral issues but i believe that the moral dilemna should be suffered by the person getting the procedure and not the voters. there are other things our government needs to focus on.
Abortion was not illegal before the USSC made the Roe V Wade decision.
Before that, it was up to the state, to determine what the state law was.
You can blame republicans Justices for Roe V Wade.
Republicans voted 4 -2
Democrats voted 2 -1
For Row V Wade decision.
Neither side will ever agree to put the issue up for a vote.
Both are afraid they would lose.
My personal opinion, is that if voted on, it would pass to be allowed.
EDIT:
The USSC will not vote against itself by changing its mind ?
Care to explain how the death penalty was made illegal, then made legal again by the USSC if they don’t change thier rulings ?
It already has been put to the vote of all the people. The people voted for the president who appointed the judge who made abortion legal.
If every single issue went up to vote of all the people nothing would get done. That’s why we have congressmen you idiot.
Edg1, I agree with you 100% … and 86% of American citizens agree with you.
In my opinion, the abortion issue parallels the slavery issue. Neither pre-born babies nor slaves had any voice in regard to their future and those in authority thought they had every personal right to decide about their own property without interference from outside.
The Dred Scott Supreme Court case said that slaves or their descendants were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States. Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’” The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman’s health, which simply means that pre-born infants have no right to life.
at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother’s appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.
Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.
The best legal argument against abortion can be seen in the case of Roe v. Wade. It violated standard legal reasoning. The Supreme Court decided not to decide when life begins and then turned around and overturned the laws of 50 different states.
The burden of proof should lie with the life-taker, and the benefit of the doubt should be with the life-saver. Put another way: “when in doubt, don’t.” A hunter who hears rustling in the bushes shouldn’t fire until he knows what is in the bushes. Likewise, a Court which doesn’t know when life begins, should not declare open season on the unborn.
The burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. The benefit of doubt is with the defense. This is also known as a presumption of innocence. The defendant is assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Again the burden of proof is on the entity that would take away life or liberty. The benefit of the doubt lies with the defense.
The Supreme Court’s cleavage of personhood and humanity made the ethical slide down society’s slippery slope inevitable. Once the Court allowed people to start drawing lines, some drew them in unexpected ways and effectively opened the door for infanticide and euthanasia.
Of course I agree with you, but it will never happen. Our country has indoctrinated two generations of children into believing that human life is disposable, promiscuity and irresponsibility are basic human rights, and unborn babies are only living beings if you want them to be born. Our children also believe that people who are against abortion don’t care about them and want them to be harmed and possibly die. This sickness has permeated our society and become such a part of it that it will never go away. Based on the number of reported abortions performed in the U.S. each year, the most dangerous place on earth for a child to live is his/her own mother’s womb.
Yes.
I do like the idea of restricting abortions. Also, I like the restrictions to be uniform across the country. I want abortion clinics provide detail records to be inspected. The current systems had too many abuses from Planned Parenthood.
Not me.
Didn’t you hear about our ‘youth’ turning out to vote pro-Obama?
They’d make it mandatory!
(times have ‘changed’)
The problem is that it has been voted on by the people- every democrat who voted for Obama knew that he was going to fund abortions over seas, take the ban off late term abortions. I don’t understand, when it is so easy to use contraceptives why anyone would need an abortion, except in cases of incest/rape.
you are right there should be a vote of the people..
I think that the abortion issue should be put to the vote of all the people. In the past when a political figure has tried to change things, the Liberals put out a bunch of false propaganda. I think that the majority of citizens are against abortion. The government should just put it on the ballot and shut up. Let the people decide.
i think it would be a good thing, but first you would have to educate all those morons who think it was legalized to save lives, and that there is any excuse for claiming that it isn’t a living human being until it is delivered. Even the biased medical professionals admit that a fetus is viable at six months, and independently viable at seven. Witness that the retiring chairman of NARAL, which spearheaded the drive for its legalization, admitted that they just flat made up statistics, and that most of their sob stories were pure fabrication. Let alone that those ‘life threatening’ situations are, given present medical knowledge and technology, far from common; perhaps one in a million pregnancies pose an actual threat to the mother, but the media has suppressed this fact, along with most of the actual news, for the past fifty years or so.
Thus, if you cannot first educate the voter, you’ll probably get the same stupid ratification as the libs already won the first go-round.