Abortion: Should Rowe vs Wade be Overturned?

Should Rowe vs Wade be overturned?

  • Total voters
    0
#251
#251
Also where did this "Separation of church and state" come from....did i not state Moral Standard....I was willing to leave "church" out of this debate.....but you seem to be the one who had that problem. Was this just another excuse?
 
#252
#252
Georgef said:
Also where did this "Separation of church and state" come from....did i not state Moral Standard....I was willing to leave "church" out of this debate.....but you seem to be the one who had that problem. Was this just another excuse?
Click to expand...

With your many bible quotes, I'm not sure how you are leaving church out of this.
 
#253
#253
Volbybirth:
"Oh for reasons of this debate, put aside regelious beliefs...we as humans (above all animals) have to have some standands...call moral."

That sounds contray to your post.

And i just reread my last few posts...i can see that i was trying very hard to review this concern from a moral side.....If you do read my those posts i am sure you have to agree. But what is this attack of yours on people who believe that these is a Creator greater than ourselves? That we are NOT gods..That our sons and daughters should live....if not for any reason, for moral reason... Why do you hate us....are we your consciense?
 
#254
#254
as far as the OP goes, I'd like to see the matter of abortion turned over to the states. The full faith and credit clause should keep crossing state lines in order to have an abortion from being a criminal offense. The Constitution does not provide a "right" to an abortion and as such it should be a local matter. I honestly believe that there are situations where an abortion is justified and any state laws should narrowly define the parameters.
 
#255
#255
Georgef said:
Volbybirth:
"Oh for reasons of this debate, put aside regelious beliefs...we as humans (above all animals) have to have some standands...call moral."

That sounds contray to your post.

And i just reread my last few posts...i can see that i was trying very hard to review this concern from a moral side.....If you do read my those posts i am sure you have to agree. But what is this attack of yours on people who believe that these is a Creator greater than ourselves? That we are NOT gods..That our sons and daughters should live....if not for any reason, for moral reason... Why do you hate us....are we your consciense?
Click to expand...

I'm not attacking because you believe in a Creator. I don't believe I am a God. I believe that sons and daughters should live. I also don't hate you -- I just disagree with your logic and therefore, I like the discussion.

In the end, the government should not intervene in this choice. Many conservatives want little government intervention in their business affairs, the same should stand here.
 
#257
#257
Georgef said:
Read The Declaration of Independences....and read Lincoln many speechs ...Read Jefferson....than you repeat what you said....when you look at the coin in your hand.
Click to expand...
while I think you're in left field, especially regarding TJ, I'll go along with your little game.

Now tell me again where the Bible says anything regarding abortion or gestation periods.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#259
#259
I was always against abortion, but I heard a discussion on the radio involving the book Freakenomics. It's changed my views some. Many of these babies would be brought up in welfare homes, or raised in ophanages or raised by the very poor. It's not a good life.
 
#260
#260
VolByBirth said:
I don't think I'm one to make that decision, nor is it the governments. That's really my line.

There are some Pro-Life arguments that state that many women regret having an abortion. There are also facts that show having an abortion can risk future child birthing abilities. These are natural barriers to abortion and the risks a family should decide on.
Click to expand...

I apprecate your sense of personal freedoms for others. I don't know if you understand what a partial birth abortion is. The child is birthed naturally until the doctor can reach the back of its head. The doctor then inserts a pair of scissors into the back of the head and opens them to provide an entrance for the suction tube used to remove the brain stem and kill the child. By keeping a portion of the child in the birth canal, the doctor avoids murder charges and the procedure is called an abortion.

I am sorry to be so graphic. This is the type of procedure that I cannot believe is legaly allowed in America ( or anywhere else for that matter). This is a prime example of the type of procedures that I think people on both sides of the greater abortion debate should come together to demand a change in the current law.
 
#261
#261
Headed For Home said:
I apprecate your sense of personal freedoms for others. I don't know if you understand what a partial birth abortion is. The child is birthed naturally until the doctor can reach the back of its head. The doctor then inserts a pair of scissors into the back of the head and opens them to provide an entrance for the suction tube used to remove the brain stem and kill the child. By keeping a portion of the child in the birth canal, the doctor avoids murder charges and the procedure is called an abortion.

I am sorry to be so graphic. This is the type of procedure that I cannot believe is legaly allowed in America ( or anywhere else for that matter). This is a prime example of the type of procedures that I think people on both sides of the greater abortion debate should come together to demand a change in the current law.
Click to expand...

Why would this procedure be used? I'm not entirely familiar with it, but if your description is accurate then I can see your concern and I agree with it.

Is this allowed for all types of abortion? Is it only allowed for children with serious illnesses? Just curious.
 
#262
#262
VolByBirth said:
Why would this procedure be used? I'm not entirely familiar with it, but if your description is accurate then I can see your concern and I agree with it.

Is this allowed for all types of abortion? Is it only allowed for children with serious illnesses? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I have been unable to find any medical reasoning behind it. I have not spoken to anyone who has. I did see some clips of the debate in Washington before the vote. The only reasoning that I heard for the procedure was in keeping a woman's choice ofor any medical procedure. I do not know how much truth is in it, but I have heard interviews that claimed the doctors were selling the remains to research labs. These remains being highly sought after because of the "complete" nature of the corpse.

This is not the same procedure used in all abortions. In most cases, the doctor inserts a strong vacum through the birh canal into the womb and suctions the fetus out in pieces. Some people do not believe the child suffers, however, ultrasounds of the procedures prove that the suffering is immense.

I know that many pro-choice people are against the late term abortion procedures and the partial birth abortions. This seems to be common ground among most people. The only reason that I can come up with for our politicians to allow such is their desire to appease various special interest groups and lobbyists.

If we cannot agree on all aspects of this issue, or any other, let us at least take action on the pieces of the issue that we do agree on.
 
#263
#263
Headed For Home said:
I have been unable to find any medical reasoning behind it. I have not spoken to anyone who has. I did see some clips of the debate in Washington before the vote. The only reasoning that I heard for the procedure was in keeping a woman's choice ofor any medical procedure. I do not know how much truth is in it, but I have heard interviews that claimed the doctors were selling the remains to research labs. These remains being highly sought after because of the "complete" nature of the corpse.

This is not the same procedure used in all abortions. In most cases, the doctor inserts a strong vacum through the birh canal into the womb and suctions the fetus out in pieces. Some people do not believe the child suffers, however, ultrasounds of the procedures prove that the suffering is immense.

I know that many pro-choice people are against the late term abortion procedures and the partial birth abortions. This seems to be common ground among most people. The only reason that I can come up with for our politicians to allow such is their desire to appease various special interest groups and lobbyists.

If we cannot agree on all aspects of this issue, or any other, let us at least take action on the pieces of the issue that we do agree on.
Click to expand...

Some info I found....thought you might be interested. It sounds pretty rough regardless but I wouldn't say that the "purpose" of this method is always bad.

'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin : NPR
 
#265
#265
VolByBirth said:
Why would this procedure be used? I'm not entirely familiar with it, but if your description is accurate then I can see your concern and I agree with it.

Is this allowed for all types of abortion? Is it only allowed for children with serious illnesses? Just curious.
Click to expand...
This is where my heartburn with the the abortion crowd really starts. I have twins who were born at 25 weeks who are perfectly normal with clean bills of health.

There is clearly a point at roughly 23 weeks when a fetus becomes a viable person. Anything approaching that point (and sooner IMO) should be considered a person and have the full protection of the law as such.
 
#266
#266
BigPapaVol said:
This is where my heartburn with the the abortion crowd really starts. I have twins who were born at 25 weeks who are perfectly normal with clean bills of health.

There is clearly a point at roughly 23 weeks when a fetus becomes a viable person. Anything approaching that point (and sooner IMO) should be considered a person and have the full protection of the law as such.
Click to expand...

Agree completely in cases of moms/parents deciding at this point they do not want the child. I find it scary that we even have to have this debate because I question what people think this is OK.

However, what about in cases where the 20 week ultrasound shows serious issues (meaning almost certain death in utero or within hours/days of birth)? That's really my only hesitation. I have a hard time telling a mom to carry a child for 9 months that will most surely die immediately after birth.

On the other hand, I still have issues with government involvement. They always seem to screw it up and one side gets burned or a loophole is created that makes things worse than before.
 
#267
#267
those special cases are ones in which I would expect a neonatologist to be free to make a sound and responsible decision for everyone.
 
#270
#270
VolByBirth said:
Agree completely in cases of moms/parents deciding at this point they do not want the child. I find it scary that we even have to have this debate because I question what people think this is OK.

However, what about in cases where the 20 week ultrasound shows serious issues (meaning almost certain death in utero or within hours/days of birth)? That's really my only hesitation. I have a hard time telling a mom to carry a child for 9 months that will most surely die immediately after birth.

On the other hand, I still have issues with government involvement. They always seem to screw it up and one side gets burned or a loophole is created that makes things worse than before.
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
but there's no way to avoid that becoming a bitter political dispute and that's the unfortunate truth of the matter.
Click to expand...

Yep.....
 
#272
#272
lazy4163 said:
I have always believed it should be overturned. Abortion laws should be a state decision not federal.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the state decision. What prevents someone from traveling to another state to have a procedure done. So in essence, it's only effective as the most lenient state.
 
#273
#273
VolByBirth said:
I don't understand the state decision. What prevents someone from traveling to another state to have a procedure done. So in essence, it's only effective as the most lenient state.
Click to expand...

I have always believed in a majority rule whether I agree with it or not.

Each state should have its people decide whether they want abortion or not.

I do not personally agree with abortion rights but if the majority in my state says it should be legal then the peolpe have spoken.
 
#274
#274
lazy4163 said:
I have always believed in a majority rule whether I agree with it or not.

Each state should have its people decide whether they want abortion or not.

I do not personally agree with abortion rights but if the majority in my state says it should be legal then the peolpe have spoken.
Click to expand...

the people, as a general rule, are stupid. How long would it have taken the South to desegregate without outside help?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top