Abortion - remember no religious content...

Should the be regulated, allowed and why? And the use of public funds...

Why should a legal operation be regulated? By whom? Should knee/back/kidney/heart operations also be regulated? I thought conservatives didn't want somebody in the federal government in Washington telling them what they could and could not do? I guess I was wrong.

Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure in this country. Until it becomes illegal, why should it be any different than any other procedure?

Two reasons I can think of.

"A government health insurance program that provides abortion procedures is promoting abortion." True. It is promoting it just as much as any other legal procedure. Excluding abortion is then the government promoting that abortion is morally wrong.

"Using public funds on abortion would unfairly force people to pay for something that they morally object." True, and this one is a real humdinger. The following may be equivocal fallacies but I can't help myself. I always think about war. People who morally object to killing still have to pay taxes. I "pay" for religious institutions because they are tax-exempt, even though I "morally" object to religion. That said I really can understand where people are coming from when they make this argument. Tricky tricky...

Okay, abortion is legal at this time but there are limits based on the age of the unborn child. There ways around the restrictions like going to Kansas or getting a doctor to sign off that the mother's life is in danger is she has the child. I believe abortion is wrong because the lack of due process for the baby. Even before birth a baby is a baby. Kill a baby and you should face the death penalty. Kidnap a baby (before birth) and it is still kidnapping. It is certain that unborn children have some rights in most states and foremost of those rights should be the right to live. A right is something that you can excercise without violating someone else's right. Yes, I believe a woman's right to not have the child is overridden by the rights of the child to live. Most abortions are performed on women who were not victims of sexual abuse or rape so that argument is moot. That is my legal argument...
Some years ago I heard an activist arguing against clear cutting of forests. Her primary argument was the possibility of a plant (tree, bush, etc) could be destroyed that held the cure to cancer. Her advise was to stop all foresting in order to save this mythical plant. Okay, suppose the child that you seek to abort may one day become the researcher who finds that cure. Wouldn't it make sense to tread lightly because you don't know who you are killing.
To conclude, abortion will have to stay with us for the rare occassion when a child is not and will never be viable outside the womb or the woman is completely incapable of physically carrying a child safely. Rape? sexual abuse? I leave that up to the woman, her doctor, and any one that she may ask advise of.
One question; why is a black child four times more likely to be aborted than a white child. Look up Margaret Sanger's 1906 "Negro Project" online and find the answer.

From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

From Amendment V:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the process of law;..."

Opinion:

AFAIAC, Roe v. Wade is bad law. It's basis was an unspecified right in the Constitution - the right to privacy. This is never explicitly defined in the Consitituion. This ruling was handed down by judicial fiat, rather than by the representatives of the state or states.

Abortion should be regulated at the state level, as the Roe v. Wade case was originally argued. Each state should be able to determine for itself whether or not this procedure should be allowed, with the requisite fallout coming to the legislators that enact such legislation. Or, decided upon by general election by the residents of a state. How and when life begins or when life is sustainable outside the womb is subject to discussions between philosophers, theologians and scientists. Not to the whims of elected officials.

This is a really poor choice of subject matter and it will turn ugly before its done. You should specify which type of abortion. Early term or late term. Although I disagree with abortion in principle, they are times when it is necessary and in those cases there should be no objection to it, and in those cases I have no objection to the use of public funds. If the baby is able to live outside the womb such as late term abortions then i belive it is murder to abort the baby.

From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." Originally Posted by fritz3552

Does the pursuit of Happiness statement mean I can do whatever I want as long as it makes me happy?

This is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so its bears no meaning on the laws.

I can't understand one thing - why are a lot of people who are against abortion also against birth control - or at least the education of it? And if you are "Pro-Life" how can you support the death penalty?

DD - this was on someones list as an important topic. I would have to go back and see who originated the list. If it does, turn and people just cannot behave, I will use the self distruct button on it. Sofar opinions have be stated well and respect has been observed. But thanks for caring....and sharing.

Should it be regulated? Yes, why not? Other medical procedures are 'regulated'. I don't see many doctors giving 15 year olds boob jobs without parental consent, so why on earth would he give a 15 y/o an abortion without parental consent, for example.

Publically funded? I really don't like abortion; but, I don't know why it stands out as being any different than other issues. If I don't like the death penalty, should I have to pay for it? Same goes for war, aid to foreign countries, etc. Its a slippery slope, so yes I think abortion could be funded publically as long as its legal...

..but here's the rub. If the federal government is mandating that I have to buy health insurance (we are in unchartered waters here), and demanding that these insurance plans pay for abortions, I think that is completely different. This isn't the same as using tax money to pay for abortions for somebody on medicaid for example. This is forcing me to contribute to an insurance plan that pays for procedures I don't want.

State governments already do this with other procedures, which is just wrong. The states demand that insurance companies cover almost everything (it would be akin to my car insurance company pay for a brake job), and drive up the price. I don't want the government forcing me into any insurance that provides procedures I don't want - to include abortion.

I can't understand one thing - why are a lot of people who are against abortion also against birth control - or at least the education of it? And if you are "Pro-Life" how can you support the death penalty? Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

I did not state whether I was pro-life or pro-abortion. The statement I made was on the legality of the law and how I believe abortion should be enabled in the states - if a state decides to allow the procedure through the vote or through their representatives, then it should be law.

I am pro-choice - I just choose life. I am also for birth control and contraception. I am also for the death penalty, precisely because of Amendment V - "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the process of law;...". If a person is convicted of a capital crime through the judicial process and the law of a state allows for capital punishment, then it should be used with swiftness and decisiveness.

I did not state whether I was pro-life or pro-abortion. The statement I made was on the legality of the law and how I believe abortion should be enabled in the states - if a state decides to allow the procedure through the vote or through their representatives, then it should be law.

I am pro-choice - I just choose life. I am also for birth control and contraception. I am also for the death penalty, precisely because of Amendment V - "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the process of law;...". If a person is convicted of a capital crime through the judicial process and the law of a state allows for capital punishment, then it should be used with swiftness and decisiveness. Originally Posted by fritz3552

Fritz - the second part of my comment was not directed at you. It was a musing in general. Sorry that you thought I was pointing fingers.

I have a long trail of thought on capital punishment, but if I go there it would hijack the thread.

Based on some of the people I met throughout my life, I am convinced there should have been more abortions and some of them mandatory.

From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Originally Posted by fritz3552

...so men shouldn't be aborted? Fetuses=babies=men? Men=fetuses?

original post removed by me because I took a cheap shot at monger.

Based on some of the people I met throughout my life, I am convinced there should have been more abortions and some of them mandatory. Originally Posted by cpi3000

I'm pleased to see that my position is covered well with this.

Bottom line, I can't bear children, therefore, it's none of my business.