Realistic Conservative Abortion Policy

I'd be interested in how you deduced this, especially from the quote you posted. Others use the term "right", although the legitimacy of even using that word is rarely questioned.

I really don't think there is a "right" side, only opinions on the type of country someone would like to live in.



I'm not for or against it, mainly because I'd have to actually research it and form an opinion based on it's merit. I'm not a static individual (which I believe you used to know, but it's been a while since I was really super active around these parts), which means I am not adverse to hearing sound reasoning and discussing based on logic and intellectual merit.



Actually, I agree with you, aside from the fact that I do live very much in the real world. I have been in situations when others would have opted for abortion and have went the other way. Me, my wife, and my 3 kids live a hard, yet happy life in the very real world because of the choices I made, which I am pleased with.



I would have to be really hard pressed to vote Democrat, or have a gun to my head. I am pretty much against the vast majority of their platform, let alone their actions on the whole, so even if this one 95/10 initiative was valid, I would probably seek to educate candidates on my side on it's merit rather than throw all my eggs into the Democrat basket for one initiative.

Honestly, I'm not Christian by any stretch, nor am I any great fan of the "religious right", so anything to do with them really has no relevance to me.



Probably. Their general puritanical views (sometimes known as the fear of pleasure) are a far cry from me.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by KrazyJethro]

The Religious Right uses what you might term family first argument to bash gays and unwed mothers. I am Pro choice and interested in finding ways of reducing the number of abortions. Realistically if anyone is serious about the kind of comprise put forward at the start of the thread or reducing the number of Abortions in the US the Religious Right have to be defeated once and for all.

Bear in mind that by time a women's right to vote comes under threat it will to be to late to defend women's. Quiet frankly I would rather burn in eternal hell if such a place actually existed rather then take a pro life stance , bash gays , oppose contraception , oppose sex education in school and other retarded stances.

Please do not apply those "stances" to all on the Pro-Life side.

Some of us remember that the movement started out of love for children and life rather than the venom and foulness that resides in much of the debate now.

Honestly, in a weird anaonymous way, this is the only quote that concerned me KJ. I'm really happy for you.

I'm living the dream buddy...lol

I am concerned about the amount of abortions, however, like many problems, it is far easier to handle on the state level.

Overturning Roe v Wade would be step 1 in reducing abortions beacuse some states would get rid of it. The others can address to more specific problems in their own state that is causing abortions far more effectively than the federal government can.

I know the image pro-lifers have. I'm not that type, however I do think the abortion/child support dynamic is something that is rarely spoken of, unless you are me.

If you ARE me (which I think there is only 1 of me, outside my head at least), then you get called all sorts of awesome names for trying to engage such a discussion...

Good to see ya after so long. Glad to be back. I had to take a serious break from politics. It was giving me bouts of vomiting (kinda like mainstream news).

I'm concerned too. Many advocates I think take some crazy position like "I <3 Abortion" just to get a rise out of people. It's really not fun for anybody.

But I don't know that state's banning is the answer. Actually I mean I know it's not. I do <3 the Constitution. I love privacy. I think it's real.

So if a teen girl can go to her Dentist and get caps, I guess she can go to an abortionist, or whatever. And it's not the state of whatever's business.

BUT, that said, as a Constituionalist, I'd really like that girl to floss and brush so she doesn't need caps. And the same applies to abortion. Know what I mean?

Not trying to be an idealist, just realistic.

I was applying those stances to the Religious Right so unless your apart of that nut job movement the stance doesn't apply to you .



Gee that must have been a long time ago .......
It simple if you want the abortion debate to become about compassion for children the Religious Right has to be defeated once and for all and the threat to women's rights removed.

I don't carry my pro choice stance on my sleeve but I will always stand up for my beliefs.

Let me try and say this is simply as possible... its none of anybody else's damned business what a woman does with her body or when she choses to breed. It is her individual life and it is supremely arrogant for someone else to say what she has to do with it.

Grover while I don't disagree you what is wrong with looking and debating measures that involve reducing the number of unwanted pregnancy's and thus the number of abortions ?
I think that djohnsto77 put forward a very reasonable idea that at least deserves some debate based on its merit.

Actually, I don't think addressing the trimester system would reduce the amount of abortions.

What could be addressed, like many social issues, is economics. That would go further, in my estimation, in reducing abortions provided it was done within reason.

Also, I again suggest that this all be addressed at least at the state level, rather than the federal one, because I really don't think this is the purview of the federal government.

I have been more than anything responding to krazyjethro... djhohnst77 proposal seems reasonable enough but really the debate shouldn't be between men about women's bodies and lives... the discussion should be between women and their doctors and leave both religion and politics out of it because for every stage of djjohnst77 plan there would always be an exception. Personally I am not a big fan of abortion and often find myself conflicted about it but then I am a single man, and unless I am the father and the woman wants me in her life, it really is none of my business, and even if I am and she does, the final decision is and should always be hers.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by grover]

That's the 95/10 Dems for Life initiative. Good man. Look into it.

What a wonderful, albit controversal, topic. Apologies letting this one slip thru the cracks for about 5 months (no pun intended)

This topic is inherntly a difficult one, one that pits the rights of an individual, against what is moral.

It is my opinion that an individual should have the right to chose what to do with them selves. I held the opinion that it should always be the choice of the individual. That is until i heard of George Tiller the Baby Killer (www.dr-tiller.com... for those that have never heard of him), and the term, Late Term Abortions. I won't go into the gory details, but lets just say it made me think a little.

So i said to myself, what are we to do here, one one hand i want to give the choice to the individual, and on the other, i didn't want needles sucking the brains out of newborns. So, i had to imagine some of my worst nightmare, Goverment involdment in the lives of its citizens.

After some careful thought, and a spark provied by a storey about a baby beeing born at 23 weeks into the term, i came to my answer. And combined with the orignal posters comments on what to do if the baby is deformed or would put the mothers life in danger, a much better system then the one we have comes to light. I try to keep it as simple as can be, and leave room for further medical advances.


Idea, One should be able to have an abortion if they choose, so long the fetus is younger then the youngest fetus to survive after leaving the womb (23 weeks) by ten calender days. (Why ten, becuase its a nice number).


This IMHO, is the best comprimise i can think of, the purpose of the cut off is to set were the baby actualy becomes "alive". This would leave plenty of time for a woman to decide what to do.

This also leaves open the amendeum that if a baby could be taken from the womb, within 10 days of insemination, and succelfuly matured through the process, this would make all abortions illigal, unless the baby had genetic defects, or the mother would be harmed.

Sorry i missed the boat on this topic for about 5 months. (OH the unintended Iorny!)