posted
abortion seems to have been a major issue in this election, yet it was given very little air time, at least in the debates. given the outcome of the election and the number of peole i've talked to who've said that they could never vote for Kerry because he was pro-life (even though many people agreed with the rest of Kerry's platform more than Bush's), i'm curious to ask those pro-life posters out there what degree of restrictions on abortion a candidate would have to support for other issues to become significant in your decision-making process.
would a candidate have to support a complete ban on any type of abortion, or would a first or second trimester ban be sufficient. where do you draw the line across which you would feel enough abortions are being stopped to justify considering issues other than abortion? is there middle ground which could be conceded in a constructive manner or is this a matter or completely irreconcilable views of the world in which both sides refuse to budge at all?
i'm a guy, and i suppose i'm fairly liberal (just for context), and i would be willing to support a candidate in support of banning 3rd trimester abortions provided the procedure was not medically necessary.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just the fear that abortion will be made illegal. Considerin that birth control and abortions are one of the cornerstones of women's rights... the ability for them to choose how their bodies work... to become a career person or go into government...and not be tied down for 20 years or longer with kids.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is acceptable if the mothers life is in danger. In that case the abortion should take place at an early stage in development. I still think it is a very terrible thing for a life to be lost, but if it is a choice between loosing the mother and the child and loosing just the child, it is better to at least preserve the mother's life.
as for the choice of how her body works, the time to make the choice is before sex. Once there is another life, it is no longer about the choice of one person...it is the lives of two individuals. A doctor's job is to save lives, not end them.
If someone does not want a child, birth control can be used before pregnancy, and adoption can be used after.
posted
Well, unless we have two candidates with identical views on abortion, one of them is always going to be closer to my values than the other.
If Kerry supported abortion on demand, and Bush supported only first trimester, well then I'd have to still give the nod to Bush because his policy, while not exactly what I'd like and not my beliefs, is closer in line with my ideals than is Kerry's.
In other words, the candidates would have to be pretty much even before I'd be able to lay the issue aside. It's a pretty important issue for me - in my mind it's an issue of life and death.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considerin that birth control and abortions are one of the cornerstones of women's rights...
This statement just makes me sad. We sure haven't come very far toward equality between the sexes if we view the willful killing of another human life as a "cornerstone" of women's rights. A cornerstone to me means something that a structure is built upon. I don't feel that my rights as a career woman, rights to a workplace and pay equal to men are threatened by possible legislation limiting abortion. (Pregnancy, btw, is a temporary condition even without outside interference. It's not like we're pregnant forever.) The connection is a bit obscure for me. This is particularly difficult to see, I guess, since abortion was abhorant to early feminists.
edited to add that I agree about birthcontrol, though. That really does open up our choices as women.
posted
"Considerin that birth control and abortions are one of the cornerstones of women's rights...."
Telp, I've got to admit that I find the conflation of birth control with abortion to be more than a little reprehensible. It's like saying "sex and rape are both fun ways to spend an evening."
I would submit that the one can be divorced quite easily from the other. I would further submit that any perceived right which is built upon sanctioned mass murder is something that should send us walking pretty quickly from Omelas.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, the candidates would have to be pretty much even before I'd be able to lay the issue aside. It's a pretty important issue for me - in my mind it's an issue of life and death.
While abortion is one part of life and death, what about all of the other situations that cause death either directly or indirectly to people? Shouldn't these be taken into account as well if the subject is the main factor in determining who you vote for?
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
