Clinton Is the Best Choice For the Unborn:

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Chris this is total garbage. It's not about little girls wanting to have an abortion when they grow up, its about people having sex with anyone they hook up with for the night, weekend, on occasion, off and on, and not wanting to live with the inconvenient consequences.

While I agree that what you're describing does happen, I think you're painting a rather broad generalization. I know women who have had abortions and their reasons are far more varied than you're allowing for.

Essentially any pregnant woman can easily get medicare for the pregnancy, and automatically keep it for 2 years. There are PLENTY of people who will adopt, especially newborns. There's no good reason to have an abortion, but a supposed lack of coverage is simply a convenient excuse.

Actually, much of that differs from state to state. However, I have to say that it was the DFLA (Democrats for Life of America) who pushed for SCHIP funding to cover both mother and child as part of their, 95-10 Initiative. I'd also like to mention that the wording for SCHIP legislation (Kennedy and Orin Hatch) was borrowed from Hillary Clinton's initial healthcare proposal most know as Hillarycare. So, again, prochoice Democrats have done far more to expand coverage for pregnant women needing insurance for themselves and their children than prolife Republicans.

I've got to say, I'm appalled and disgusted by your stance and defense of abortion, while claiming to be pro life.

There are several prolife groups. And yes, there are several philosophies regarding being prolife. One opposes legal abortion for any reason, the death penalty, and even war. Another allows for war and the death penalty, but opposes legal abortion. Another allows for legal abortion only in specific instances such as when related to rape, incest, or to preserve the life and/or health of the mother. And another focuses on "Access". This position isn't so focused on legality, but rather is focused on shutting down abortion clinics and access points to abortion. And then there are those who accept that choice is the law of the land, and that perhaps it is best to leave the choice up to individual women, yet they admonish women to choose life.

Personally, I believe that at the end of the day, any government that can violate a woman's sovereignty over her own person and force a woman to give birth against her will.... also has the power to violate a woman's sovereignty over her own person and force a woman to abort against her will. So, I believe that legally, the choice should remain in the hands of individual women. However.... I have always counseled and admonished women to choose life.

There is a difference between admonishing women and helping women choose life... and forcing them to give birth against their will.

Not only that, but I'm shocked and disappointed, because you really are a smart guy, and I enjoy your input on a variety of threads.

Thank you for your compliment. I think my true feelings are getting lost in translation somewhere. I think that perhaps I haven't explained them well. I'm free to answer specific questions on the issue to clarify if you'd like. I honestly believe that once you truly understand my take on it, you'll not be so disappointed and see where I have sought to find a balanced position on the issue.

And its not even a political thing, its a moral thing. I can't stand Trump, and yes there are some phony, corrupt, immoral republicans (i've never seen one worse than Trump, but theres others too).....but that said, Republicans as a party HAVE attempted to do something on this issue. Democrats have only worked to make it easier, more convenient, and more legal to kill babies, and turn a blind eye to anything that might awaken their consciouses, such as the planned parenthood expose videos.

The Republicans haven't done much of anything to address abortion. The most they've done is cut public funding. Most abortion regulations are state side and many have bipartisan support at the state level.

And you DEFEND this? You defend a woman who says its ok to kill a baby full term? You defend a party that supports planned parenthood, gay marriage, and all manner of moral vice? A party that cut God out of their platform, and boo'd Him at their convention for good measure. A people who supported Wendy David in her fillibuster here in Texas than chanted "Satan,Satan" while pro life people prayed at the Texas Capitol and sung "amazing grace". That's who you cast your lot with? That's what you defend? And do so in the name of Christ?

Appalling.

There are nutcases in each party, and I'm sure we'd both not agree with either side's wackos.

I believe that liberty itself is holy.... even if men use that liberty to make immoral choices.

When it comes to gay marriage, I look at this way...

Civil government shouldn't discriminate against anyone. All citizens should have the right to love whomever they choose, as long as they aren't endangering another's life, liberty, or property. The gays aren't going to give up their fight for marriage equality, the war will never end. In my mind, our energies and resources can be better used elsewhere than engaging in a war without end over whom can marry whom. Civil marriage law in the United States isn't biblical. If marriage law were biblical and reflecting Christian values we'd only permit remarriage in circumstances wherein the previous marriage was terminated on the grounds of adultery. So, it's hard to argue that we have to protect biblical marriage.... because marriage law in America isn't biblical. And if we're going to allow adulterers to remarry (publically sanctioning adultery) we have no moral ground for denying the right to marry to any other classification of sinner. Do I believe that God recognizes gay marriages? Nope. They are just a civil arrangement. Therefore, I say grant the liberty to them that they desire. They're going to chose companions according to their love, preference, and desires anyway. At least we're sending a message that any long time committed relationship is best codified legally.

Of course, my preference would be to see the civil government get out of marriage altogether. I'd much rather marriage be returned to being a private contract.

When it comes to abortion I see it this way....

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This clearly states that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons (meaning bodies)", "shall not be violated". You have sovereign authority over your body. That extends to women also. A woman therefore has sovereign authority, for better or for worse, over her body and, by extension, fruit of her womb. Just as much as I am appalled at abortion, I'm fearful of a government that can essentially seize a woman's body and force her to give birth against her will. In my mind, this is as much a violation of personal sovereignty as it would be if the government could seize a woman's body and force her to abort against her will. Women who wish to procure an abortion have various reasons for the decision. I do not believe that the government is capable of adequately discerning every circumstance wherein a woman might wish to have an abortion. For example, my lady love is 40. When a woman is over 35 pregnancy can have a rather serious affect on her health, not to mention the health of the child. Now, we like to generalize here and emphasize prenatal care. But my lady has additional health issues that can significantly complicate matters. If she were to become pregnant and face some significant complication, ultimately whose decision should it be should she consider an abortion? Remember, this has a rather direct and serious affect on her health. Should it ultimately be some bureaucrat's decision? Or should the decision ultimately rest in her hands? While I know that some women have had abortions as though they were no big deal, the women I've known personally who have had an abortion labored over the decision a great deal. It wasn't a flippant or easy decision to make. Some feel terribly guilty over it because in retrospect, they feel they should have carried to term. Others feel that it was for the best for medical reasons. A good friend of mine was pregnant and irresponsibly avoided prenatal care. When she was finally evaluated they found that the child in her womb had not developed properly and suffered severe under development relating to the brain and respiratory system. The doctors were conclusive. They said that the child would be severely brain damaged and while they could try to preserve the child's life, the child would most likely agonize and die within a couple months from the inability to properly breathe. She chose abortion, feeling that it was the most compassionate way to prevent prolonged suffering after birth.

I was in the military. I have friends and family in law enforcement. I had to make the decision to end life saving measures after my mother's massive heart attack. The fact of life is that there are circumstances in this fallen world wherein the authority to make life and death decisions rests in the hands of individuals. The morality of those choices can often be questioned, but nevertheless, those decisions often rest in the hands of an individual. To me, abortion is one of these painful realities. I trust individual women having the authority to make life and death decisions relating to their bodies and their pregnancies more than I trust an unrelated bureaucrat having control over their bodies. After all, imagine that your wife is on the table and doctors are recommending an abortion based on some rare circumstance, and because it is an election year the local governor demands that she give birth anyway. To me, that's more horrendous than allowing your wife the right to chose what she feels is best in her circumstance.

Also, on a moral level, if the government steps aside and grants the authority to chose to individual women, the moral consequence relating to their choice rests entirely upon those individual women.

So, in my mind, abortion is always a tragedy. I pray and admonish that all women chose life. But at the end of the day, I feel the decision to chose life or abortion should ultimately rest in the hands of the individual woman involved. She's ground zero. The buck stops with her. And she alone bears the moral responsibility for her decision before God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

On AFF, the overwhelming majority of memes are used by libs.

I never noticed that. lol

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Personally, I believe that at the end of the day, any government that can violate a woman's sovereignty over her own person and force a woman to give birth against her will

See, your problem is that you're looking at it backwards.

Consider drug use in this argument, instead of abortion. By your logic, the government making drugs illegal, is forcing people to be sober against their will. Except that's not true, because people break the law all the time. People who want to do those things will do them, it doesn't mean society has to condone it or make it legal.

The same goes for abortion.

Making abortion illegal won't stop them, true, but it shows that society isn't willing to condone the butchering of babies in the womb.

[aegsm76]

A - insofar as Republicans doing nothing about abortion that is untrue.
Many state legislatures have passed laws to stem the tide, only to be overturned by liberal judges.
Some of these laws were so common sense as to subject abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical clinics.
But the "god" Moloch must be worshipped, no matter what common sense says.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

See, your problem is that you're looking at it backwards.

Consider drug use in this argument, instead of abortion. By your logic, the government making drugs illegal, is forcing people to be sober against their will. Except that's not true, because people break the law all the time. People who want to do those things will do them, it doesn't mean society has to condone it or make it legal.

I'm for the legalization of marijuana. I think our law enforcement personnel should be more focused on actual crime than busting idiots who want to smoke a weed, eat Doritos, and watch Fantasia all night. I think it should be regulated like alcohol.

The same goes for abortion.

Not necessarily. Prohibition regarding various controlled substances is predicated upon how addictive the substance is and it's over all ability to impair the user making them a threat to themselves and others.

In a pregnancy, you essentially have two lives intertwined in a manner so unique it can't be compared to any other circumstance. The unborn is essentially an extension of the mother's own body until viability. This is why I often use the phrase, "fruit of the womb". I feel that a woman should have full and sovereign authority over her own body and the fruit of her womb, at least until viability can be established.

Making abortion illegal won't stop them, true, but it shows that society isn't willing to condone the butchering of babies in the womb.

According to that logic what else would we ban? The list would be endless. At some point we have to release the individual to act according to their own conscience and allow them to bear full moral responsibility for their actions before God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - insofar as Republicans doing nothing about abortion that is untrue.
Many state legislatures have passed laws to stem the tide, only to be overturned by liberal judges.
Some of these laws were so common sense as to subject abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical clinics.
But the "god" Moloch must be worshipped, no matter what common sense says.

I think that is extreme. I'd agree with having abortion clinics have to be subject to the same health regulations as other medical clinics.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think that is extreme. I'd agree with having abortion clinics have to be subject to the same health regulations as other medical clinics.

Most sane people would.
Liberal Democrats don't.

[kenj]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Most sane people would.
Liberal Democrats don't.

"The court said there is no evidence that requiring a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital would improve women's treatment compared to the prior law, which required that doctors performing abortions make arrangements with hospital staff who could admit patients if needed. The court also said that the surgical center requirements were "generally unnecessary" in an abortion clinic, and noted that most complications from abortions occur after patients have left the centers."

http://www.livescience.com/55200-sup...explained.html

Of course, in states where abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade, women were dying regularly from back-alley abortions provided by non-professionals. Now that it's legal they don't.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

According to that logic what else would we ban? The list would be endless. At some point we have to release the individual to act according to their own conscience and allow them to bear full moral responsibility for their actions before God.

And what about the child? Doesn't he/she have a say in the matter?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by kenj

Of course, in states where abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade, women were dying regularly from back-alley abortions provided by non-professionals. Now that it's legal they don't.

Great! Now just those pesky unborn children are dying! Hallelujah!