Why do pro-choice people even bring this up? An exception for the health of the mother == abortion on demand, because it has been recognized to include the mental health of the mother. When a woman can say that she wants an abortion because she is stressing over how to pay for the baby, that is abortion on demand. The compromise was false and the Republicans were right to reject it. There is no reason to allow the pro-choice side to act like they are making a big sacrifice when there is no actual change in policy.
I believe the health exemption deals with physical health more than mental health. Either way its a crazy ethical dilemma that I am all too happy to not deal with.
This is seriously the first I've heard of this argument. I wish the GOP had offered a counter exemption that did not include mental health to see how it would have been received. I would support a late term abortion ban that exempted the woman's physical health only.
I do not support a federal law banning any type of abortion. Let's the states decide for themselves and let the USSC keep it real. I think both sides are guilty of finding the right language for the federal bill, which would guarantee failure but also guarantee fodder for fund raising.
Precisely. I spoke to one of the lawyers who spoke before the court during Roe v. Wade who basically flat out said that in the long term, it has become somewhat of a disaster for liberalism and abortion rights. First the legal reasoning was twisted and confusing. It ended up citing an already slightly controversial case in Griswold v. Connecticut as legal reasoning for a zone of privacy for the mother that justified a ban on intrusion by the government on the mother's body. In addition, the trimester system laid out by the court led further credence to the idea that this was more activism than solid legal reasoning. Secondly, it's the gift that keeps on giving for politicians. By having the court steal the issue from the states and Congress, both sides have effectively used it to make outlandish and ideological claims because there's no way they'll have to actually backup their outlandish claims since the court usurped Congressional and state authority on the matter. And finally, she said that overturning abortion would absolutely crush conservative politics. The majority of the nation supports abortion rights and to overturn Roe would absolutely blow up in the face of Conservative politicians who would be forced to defend their position in Congress and in state governments. It probably could be the basis of an electoral flip-flop in this country and certainly with the problems of our foreign policy, that could be very likely.
There's an obvious difference in the legality of the act. Such acts should be treated as murder by both the mother and the abortionist.
No problem. Thanks for the debate. Okay, but haven't these numbers been in favor of the democrats for the last three elections? The fact is even with a 5-8% lead in the popular vote, the republicans win. Gerrymandering has made sure of that. I will look at your thoughts. At the six month mark, the fetus is argueably able to survive on its own. During the procedure, the life of the fetus is terminated. If a woman is facing true life threatening health issues, I'm okay with ending the pregnancy, but every effort should be made to save the baby. There's never an excuse to do otherwise. BTW, for this to be legitamate, some sort of legal review would have to be performed on each occurence to ensure the rights of the fetus were protected. If these points could somehow be included in the compromise, then I would do it in a heartbeat.
on death row. Abortion if murder is premeditated, first degree murder. This is something I think a lot Americans can get behind, versus actually teaching sex-ed in high school and handing out free condoms.
Democrats Pull Ahead of Republicans in Major Senate Races. National Polling Shows Voters Ready for Change There's less than 100 days until the November midterm elections, and the Democrats, who need six seats to regain control of the Senate, are beginning to sense that victory could be right around the corner. New polls show that Democratic challengers in several key states have pulled ahead of their Republican opponents in what could foreshadow the sort of voter backlash not seen since New Gingrich and the Republican Revolution swept the GOP into power in 1994. Here's how it looks in several hotly contested races: According to Rasmussen, in Missouri, Claire McCaskill now leads Sen. Jim Talent 45%-42%. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown leads Sen. Mike DeWine 44%-42%. In Tennessee's race for the retiring Bill Frist's seat, Zogby has Democrat Harold Ford Jr. leading Bob Corker 43.6% to 42.5%. Rhode Island's Sen. Lincoln Chafee has fallen behind Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse 46%-41%. In Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Jr. continues to hold a solid double-digit lead over Sen. Rick Santorum. In Montana, Sen. Conrad Burns trails Jon Tester 50%-43%. And what was once in Washington looking like a vulnerable Democratic seat, Sen. Maria Cantwell now holds a commanding 11-point lead over Mike McGavick, 48% - 37%. Additionally, poll numbers have dropped appreciably for Senate Republicans Jon Kyl (AZ) George Allen (VA), who are facing tougher challenges than anyone expected six months ago. On the national front, voters are continuing to voice strong opposition to the current GOP leadership:........ http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/2006/08/democrats-pull-ahead-of-republicans-in.html
Latest Polls Race Pollster Released Candidates SD-AL Keloland Aug 3 Herseth (D) 60%, Whalen (R) 26% OR-GOV Rasmussen Aug 3 Kulongoski (D) 45%, Saxton (R) 35% IA-GOV Rasmussen Aug 3 Culver (D) 41, Nussle (R) 38% PA-GOV Rasmussen Aug 3 Rendell (D) 50%, Swann (R) 40% PA-SEN Rasmussen Aug 3 Casey (D) 50%, Santorum (R) 39% Bush LA Times Aug 3 60% Disapprove, 40% Approve CT-GOV Quinnipiac Aug 3 DeStefano (D) 48%, Malloy (D) 38% CT-SEN Quinnipiac Aug 3 Lamont (D) 54%, Lieberman (D) 41% TN-SEN SurveyUSA Aug 2 GOP Primary: Corker 45%, Bryant 31% NV-SEN Rasmussen Aug 2 Ensign (R) 46%, Carter (D) 39% GA-12 POS (R) Aug 2 Barrow (D) 44%, Burns (R) 43% AZ-SEN Rasmussen Aug 2 Kyl (R) 53%, Pederson (D) 34% AZ-GOV Rasmussen Aug 2 Napolitano (D) 52%, Goldwater (R) 37% ME-GOV Rasmussen Aug 2 Baldacci (D) 43%, Woodcock (R) 37% MI-GOV Rasmussen Aug 1 DeVos (R) 48%, Granholm (D) 42% CO-07 SurveyUSA Aug 1 Dem Primary: Perlmutter 51%, Lamm 31% NH-02 UNH Aug 1 Bass (R) 53%, Hodes (D) 25% NH-01 UNH Aug 1 Bradley (R) 55%, Craig (D) 27% SD-GOV Keloland Aug 1 Rounds (R) 56%, Billion (D) 27% GA-04 Insider Adv Aug 1 Johnson (D) 49%, McKinney 34% CA-GOV Rasmussen Aug 1 Schwarzenegger (R) 47%, Angelides (D) 41% Bush Cook Aug 1 51% Disapprove, 39% Approve Bush Gallup Aug 1 56% Disapprove, 40% Approve http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/
I guess that also makes me pro illegal bank robbery, pro illegal money counterfieting, etc. Your arguement is silly.
As many as would break the law. It's amazing to me that we find it unreasonable to hold people accountable for their own decision to have sex. I undertand there are exceptions to the rule, but people choose to be pregnant. Let them be responsible for that choice.
This goes to show conservatives are not so much anti-abortion as anti non marital -sex. They want unmarried sex to be punished by VD, aids or unwanted pregnancies. Having healthy non-marital sex just drives them bananas.
Is not. Social conservatives set the abortion agenda by defining themselves( "pro live") and defining their opponents ('pro abortions"). You indicated that the "pro choice" position is a thinly vieled "pro abortions" position. I took the same liberty to redefine your "pro live" position to what it represents in reality which is "pro illegal, back alley, medically unsafe abortions". If we make abortions illegal, all we have to do is look to our not so distant past to see what will happen. It is clear in your mind that making abortions legal will causes many humans to be killed. It is very clear in my mind that making abortions illegal will causes many back alley deaths. Pro life, my ass.
