Which is how laws are formed, or should. public opinion shifts to favor an action. How women got the right to vote, how the constitution came to be. However killing on demand was forced upon us by 7 judges when a majority clearly were against it and used their right to interpret the constitution to force their will on the people. Their interpretation is unconstitutional, because there is no grounds to interpret it the way they have, other then using liberty and if they do that they might as well have said all laws are unconstitutional, as liberty means allowed to do what we want. The founding fathers did not want the judicial branch to be this powerful, now did they want people to be allowed to do whatever they wanted
I'm sorry but you are wrong, the Roe decision was in fact following a number of state level decisions that had already started to overturn abortion laws or were due to be heard at state supreme court level .. the tide against illegal abortion started to turn a number of years before Roe .. public opinion was not on the side of the anti-abortionist and it has never been since. A national Women's Strike for Equality was called for August 26, 1970, the demands included equal pay, free abortion on demand and free child care. Some 50,000 men and women turned out to protests called in cities across the country. Since 1975 when polls were first taken, there has never been a point where there has been a pro-life majority concerning the Roe vs Wade decision.
explain how your comment is relevant to the assertion you made that "a majority were clearly against it", which as shown is incorrect.
against abortion, majority are. The fact that people are so contradicting that they can be against something but allow it to happen is silly. Oh rights of the woman? Yea anyone should have the right to kill on demand because of a risk, not a reality right? So if you simply have a loaded gun around me I can kill you, because my life is at risk, because that gun can go off and kill me. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States heres a poll that in one minutes says 56% support abortion under most cases, whatever that means then the very next say only 37% want in generally available and 40% want strict limits, whatever that means. legal in all cases 20%.. also after 20 weeks a clear minority support abortion. This goes against roe V Wades 28 weeks doesn't it? yet 70% want to keep Roe V Wade? Yea makes sense. and support and opposition 48-44 with 8 unsure, then another poll says 52% are only rape/incest/danger to the mother(40%) or not at all(12%). and 45% want free reign of the woman, or mostly free reign. 52-45 against on demand abortion. My conclusion from this pol is only 25% roughly want abortion on demand with no restrictions, or current ones and 75% want stricter restrictions then we have now. And roughly 50/50 on support. So ok It is not clearly wrong, but there is a possibility I am wrong on abortion on demand being a majority opposition. And perhaps when Roe V Wade we were more pro-choice, but could find no stats for this, only words
A person can be against abortion but still think women should have reproductive freedom....it's an "I mind my business and you mind yours" attitude. Some also have the attitude that they think abortion is wrong but realize that having it legal makes it safer for women, THEY aren't interested in punishing women for having consensual sex.
The support for abortion, at least in the first trimester, is a lot higher than you are stating. Gallup have the most accurate polls taken. As of Dec 2012 61% feel that abortion should be legal in the 1st Trimester (12 weeks) All the polls say to me is that abortion is a very complex issue that covers a wide range of opinions. The problem I have with most pro-lifers is that they are not prepared to compromise, for them it is either illegal at all times or not. Even you are prepared to make compromises in some circumstances (though the argument for those compromises seems arbitrary to me)
I don't claim to be pro-life 100% either. Thats a label pro-choice puts on me. Never have supported 100% ban on abortion
i'm having a rethink on abortion… i posted this in the religion section..but the link shows how when forced to have too many children a woman's body is ruined…the photos are shocking… they are censored but still shocking… a total rethink on my part … http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...otests-religious-enforces-strict-modesty.html
Fair enough, now can you explain why you think abortion should be restricted at all? I can you chapter and verse on comparisons with Canada where there is no restriction on abortion at all and the rates for them are lower than the USA ,, why do you think that is?
Not wishing to diss your source but you do realize that the Daily Mail is seen as a right-wing (almost) extremist paper in the UK.
the thought that contraception is illegal in some countries is frightening. Ireland now sells condoms in 1980..wow we already had been to the moon almost 20 years earlier women were allowed to use a condom legally in ireland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland but no one is here at PF saying contraception is wrong fugazi!!!! so why are you going on about it!!!!! only a total throw back neanderthal would not want women to be able to have contraception!!!!!! give it a rest…. abortion should not be a contraceptive device .. i've lightened up on abortion… hell the world we live in views human life as cheap..look at the wars , even republican americans rally to go to inane wars…so they can wave the flag and sing about the rockets red glare in the sky and all that tommy rot. i mean life is cheap , right..so at least we can kill things that don;t have a fully developed brain and the woman is happy..and some of the guys too….we live in a society where we all got to accept human life is of little value ..anyone who cannot see this is blind to reality...
yeah well so is fox news…but at least they are running a decent article about the Mormons being a hell religion.and oppressive to women ..so hey…who gives a rat's toss
All I was trying to do was to show that a source such as the Daily Mail would be treated with a very large dose of skepticism, if that offends you then I shall say no more.
At all? Because under normal circumstances the woman consents to the pregnancy and had choice in the sex and in those cases I will protect the unborn. I consider it a human being. People get on me for exceptions to rape/incest. I would have them because there is no consent, the woman had no choice. The conversations we have had don't make think about the stance I have on abortion on demand, all it does it make me question myself as to why do I even have an exception for rape/incest. Because you are right the unborn had nothing to do with it and is a human being. Canada is a completely different country, but I'd assume it's the same as America where they don't have to report abortions, so the rates can actually be higher then reports say. We can't make our laws based off other countries, the cultures and societies are different.
Oh please! Canadians are not exactly a world away....they are humans just like us and right smack dab on the same continent and right next door to me. Why would Canada not report abortions? They're a perfectly legal medical procedure...they have no reason to hide the numbers. And no one said we should base our laws on other countries (although we do and have done). Just because we have the same fair, humane laws another country has doesn't mean we copied them...
Glad to know you think killing unborn human beings is fair and humane. Why wouldn't America? Yet a lot do not get reported. Mexico is right next to us too, would you say we are the same as them too?
OK, P R O V E that legal abortions, legal medical procedures are not reported....oh, wait! Are all colonoscopies reported ? Maybe you better check on that. I think having safe legal abortions available for ALL women who want them is fair and humane....you can get all dramatic and pretend you care about all those "babies" that are being MURRRRDERRRED but that's so silly....and not many people fall for that crap anymore...
Problem is you haven't provided a single thing to substantiate your opinion that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, until you do I will see it as nothing more than your opinion, and that is fine for you on a personal level .. but not when you enter a debate and are trying to change the law. Good, I'm glad it does make you question your stance on that, because the one you hold now is inconsistent with the idea of 'person at conception', no matter if you change it to not include rape/incest as reasons for abortion, it would make your stance seem less hypocritical. Erm, pretty much all of your common laws are based from English Common Law that originated in the UK, though as more cases happened it has diverged quite a lot. Comparisons with other countries that have less or more stricter restrictions on abortion are a good benchmark to see where the US would go if restrictions were lifted or more imposed. Regardless of the cultural or society differences a woman who is desperate enough will find a way to have an abortion, that does not change no matter what country is involved.
Um where have you been the past 41 years? Doctors are not required and also are prohibited from making medical records public without consent. Yes you think saving 200 lives is more humane then saving 1 million. Just because I accept exceptions does not mean a damn thing about me caring or not caring. NOBODY falls for your stupid comments about controlling women and blabbering on and on about wars on women anymore. This is why more and more people are waking up to the reality of what abortion on demand is and trends are trending more and more towards restricting abortions. Don't take my word for it, numbers speak for them self.
are the 61% who think it should be illegal after first trimester also hypocritical? and the 40% that agree with me on exceptions for rape/incest and danger to the mother, another 20% say only danger to the mother. 20% believe in no restrictions. and 20% for complete restrictions. Roughly on the numbers. what about the half of the 57% who believe it is murder, but should still be allowed? This is not about me.
when you give consent you are also giving consent to the possible consequences that can follow if you are informed of those consequences If I ask to borrow your car and I inform you that im driving it to my friends house and he lives on a dirt road and if it rains your car might get muddy and you say yes you can use my car. are you not also giving consent for it to get muddy?
If they believe in 'person at conception' then yes they are, same as they are hypocritical for allowing unused IVF embryos to be destroyed, same as they are for allowing for the termination of a submissive chimera twin. and BTW I have never mentioned or said the exception of life threat to the female is a hypocritical position.
