Reproductive Rights

The implementation of this would require that Roe v. Wade be overturned, which would do more harm than good in the long run.

Also, the last sentence in this position reads thus: "We support all policies giving couples additional options beyond abortion, making this practice even more rare."

I think it should be changed by removing the final segment leaving only this: "We support all policies giving couples additional options beyond abortion."

The current wording implies a condemnation of abortion, which is counter to what we are actually saying.

@jim,
I don't think that very many people think that abortion is the best choice. Even most of those supporting it support it as a choice, not a real solution. So I don't see any problem with saying "making this practice even more rare".

Be wary of leaving the issue of abortion up to the states. Even in our current system, where the Federal government mandates that abortion be legal, there are states that are using building codes as a weapon against abortion providers. Kansas, for example, mandated that all healthcare facilities that provide abortions must have a certain number of janitors' closest, which must be of specific dimensions. The regulation was utterly arbitrary, and none of the abortion providers met the new code. They were given 10 days to comply. In the end, one clinic was exempted from the new regulation. One provider in the entire state.

It is important to note that those inclined to abort a pregnancy will do so regardless of its legality. This leads to medical procedures being performed in dangerous and unsanitary conditions, by untrained and unlicensed physicians. The victims of these dangerous procedures face permanent sterility or life-threatening infections, forcing them into emergency rooms, where taxpayers end up paying more to repair the damage that has been done.

Do not allow any single state to force a religious morality upon its residents in this matter of life, death and public safety.

I am adamantly pro choice. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. This is an individual choice. It is not up to the government to legislate morality and personal choice.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that it's not really about "morality". It's about murder.

There are, basically, two definitions of murder, one legal and one (actually many) moral. Since abortion is legal, and therefore not legally murder, you must be using a moral definition. That makes it entirely about "morality".

To you, dvdkrz, it may be murder, but what about to the raped woman, or the woman who can't survive through pregnancy? In the latter case, which life is worth saving? The mother's who can easily be saved by abortion or the child who will grow up without a mother? It's not for any one of us to decide and imposing our view on them IS a "morality" issue.

Roe v Wade is the law of the land and a pro-choice solution is the only viable option and it does need to be imposed throughout the country. A pro-life option eliminates the possibility of abortion even on those who don't feel it is a moral problem and on those who have been raped or who cannot carry to viability. Pro-choice solutions leave it up to the woman to be pro-life or not. If the woman's morals dictate that she must not have an abortion then she has the CHOICE to carry the child to term. If she would rather give up the child through abortion she has the CHOICE to do that as well. Living in a pluralistic society means we allow for someone to have a difference of opinion.

Additionally, the Whig response to let this be a state issue is flawed. By letting this be a state issue we would run into the same problems we had prior to the Civil War (and we know what happened to the Whigs then). Instead of the Underground Railroad marshalling escaped slaves to Canada, it would marshal our pregnant daughters to California and New York and Canada too. We'd have NGO's sponsoring young pregnant women to leave Topeka and shuttling them to Boston, or Seattle, or Portland for the procedure. Although this is setting up a new market and I'm all for that, this is a human trafficking market which is abominable.

We have to take a stand on this. We say we are not held hostage by the extreme left or the extreme right but by not taking a stand we are being held hostage by both. Reason and logic dictate that the option which leaves the most choices available and does not impose a moral will onto any citizen is the correct choice...and that is pro-choice. We need to vocally and ardently distinguish between pro-choice (a middle path) and pro-abortion (extreme...and I do mean EXTREME left), that is the middle ground, pro-choice and Roe v Wade already are the middle ground. Pro-Choice means options and each individual maintains their personal rights. Pro-Life means no choice.

I do agree that more focus should be placed on sex education and reproduction as well as abortion alternatives. By teaching about sex, children learn about safe sex. Teaching about sex does not increase the likelihood of young people having sex, it increases the likelihood of young people having sex safely. By providing alternative options such as adoption we can also reduce abortions.

But Whigs, I believe our current stance on reproductive rights is weak. Just because the left champions pro-choice does not mean they are wrong.

Wow, Why does Pro-choice mean Pro-Abortion? I truly believe that Choice means each person has the right to decide for themselves which path they choose. Why should I give my right to make the decision to others? If it is based upon religion, which religion? Now I have to give up my right to choose how I believe? Finally someone have the guts to be honest and not just avoid issue for the “best political choice”.

Each state to decide on the issue is not the answer either. It is a personal and or medical choice not a governmental one.

"Each state can determine its course of action... The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items..."

I have to agree with the statement as is. I'm anti-abortion, but recognize that it's a divisive and borderline medical issue. Therefore, I say repeal Roe v Wade and leave it to the states. Yes, complications would arise, but would Kansas with zero abortion providers be that different from Kansas with one?

Leaving reproductive freedom to the states to legislate is a cop-out and will result the the restriction of free choice, and more unwanted children, in many parts of the country. This position is contrary to the Whig value of encouraging independent thought. You say there should be "less involvement by the government in our private lives". By that logic, birth control and abortion should be legal and available everywhere. Those who oppose it can exercise their right not to use it. Those who need and want it can also exercise their rights.

This position is also unrealistic. Anyone who has had a child knows how attached a parent, especially the mother, becomes by the time the child is born. I believe it must take almost super-human strength of will to give up one's child for adoption, even under the most compelling circumstances. This policy is not likely to make an appreciable difference in the availability of babies for adoption, but it will produce more children in households that can't take care of them.

I absolutely agree with you here lcarter. Political compromise, in this case, allowing the states to decide abortion regs, is what has led to problems in the past. (DODT is another one of those political 'compromises' which have not served us well as a nation.)

I'd like to point out that some states, like Georgia, are currently moving to criminalize abortions based on the legal status of the fetus as a protected person, which is leading to the criminal investigation of miscarriages. This is one of those little known complications of moving towards the criminalization of reproductive rights.

Why should a woman (who may be a rape victim) have to further endure state intrusion on an already traumatic event? Not to mention the added burden on the medical system to conduct these extraneous investigations?

I don't personally like the fact that abortions occur. However, I would never support the criminalization of a woman's right to choose this procedure for herself. The alternatives to our existing law are much more horrible for the individual women and for society in my opinion.

So, I agree with lcarter (and others who share this opinion within the MWP).

Eric Hill

And again, we literally did ask ourselves, "what would the Founding Fathers do?" with this "hot potato" to try and frame it differently than in the current debate.

Clearly that is simply a heuristic, but we felt, and still feel, that such a deeply moral issue can only divide the Nation. The Founding Fathers, we felt, would have pushed the issue to the most local level practical to avoid the division, and to allow citizens more direct influence on the choice.

To see how heart felt the issue is, one need not look any farther than Sharon's post. Like many personal beliefs ( i.e. religion) there is nothing there I should allow myself to take exception to. This IS part of the compromise we ALL need to share to ensure a healthy Republic.

It is a cop out Sharon, a very conscious and deliberate one for the good of the Republic. And we stand by it firmly, yet we respect your opinion. Modern Whigs are indeed "absolute" or "resolute" on divisive moral issues. What I feel morally is not of consequence here ma'am, it is what is in the best interest of our Republic. Before anyone again labels us Whigs "immoral", I can invoke a pretty hard core code of ethics to guide my public behavior, and mitigate "moral" judgement calls. And this is what should be required of us.

You all should know that we have had church elders on the Executive Committee. They understand the distinction of politics and religion, and the razor's edge that issues like abortion place one on.

The government should encourage and support alternatives to abortion. I also believe the government can set standards for safe medical procedures and access to same.

I don't support in any way government at any level prohibiting a woman or a couple from determining what is best for them in reproductive issues.

This is a personal decision. Those who oppose abortion or other medical procedures have the right to abstain from them, and those who have no personal objections can make their own decisions.

Personally, I would not do it, but I also understand the various reasons why someone would make such a choice.

In reality, this is more a religion based issue and the government should stay out of it on that basis alone, even if there are other reasons.

If there is government involvement, it addresses only the concerns of a specific segment of the populous and is discriminatory.

The government cannot prohibit on one hand and take on the other without hypocrisy entering into the issues.

Killing human babies before they are born is murder. You are murdering a human being. You were once at various stages of growth within your mother's womb. Aren't you glad your mother did not murder you? The mother's womb should be the safest place in the world for a baby to grow up. That's the way God designed it.

Abortion should only be allowed in cases where the mother's physical death is expected. Further, even in cases of rape and incest, the mother should go ahead and give birth to the child and then turn it over for adoption. After all, it's not the baby's fault that the rape or incest occurred. There are many rape and incest people alive today that are very thankful that their mothers' allowed them to be born.

The Government should never make laws that allow or encourage immorality. Our government should only make laws that encourage moral behavior and punishes immoral behavior; and all political parties should do the same.

I'm convinced that there will come a day when we only allow abortions in order to save the physical life of the mother, and we will look back upon these times in amazement; and say "How could we have been so barbaric as to allow and even make it legal for mothers' to murder their babies?”

Richard, You say, "that's the way God designed it," and you are correct. God designed that a woman and not a man shall have the power to create life.

So if God didn't give you the power to create life, why do you feel it's your right to regulate the power he designated to women?

Furthermore, since we live in a capitalistic society, what gives you the right to tell the creator of a product, the baby, that she has to turn it over for adoption and doesn't have the right to sell it? What do you think the job of creating life is worth?

Think about this, I'm going to make you change everything about your life so that you bring a healthy and viable person into this world. I will go to you local Children's shelter or Dept. of family services and show up with a child who has been abandoned and/or abused and you take care of him/her for 9 months, then will find another man who believes he has the right to tell women what they can or can not do with their bodies, then he can take over for another 9 months and we can keep the cycle going until he/she is a viable part of society!

You know, if every man who spouted off like you just did would take care of the kids they have and those who have already been born, this might not be an issue. Or use modern science to remove the embryo and raise it till it is humanly viable. Not that smart yet eh?

Finally, what's barbaric is that women are still considered to be second class citizens in this country...but hey, that's way God designed it!

As I said before: There are, basically, two definitions of murder, one legal and one (actually many) moral. Since abortion is legal, and therefore not legally murder, you must be using a moral definition. That makes it entirely about "morality".

And morality is not an absolute. What's moral to some is immoral to others. Unless you can back up your "morality" with something besides your personal religious beliefs, it's none of the government's business.

Oh, and a baby doesn't "grow up" in the womb. It only grows up after leaving the womb. Many believe that it doesn't actually become a baby until after it leaves the womb.

Being the master of the obvious here, but as we can clearly see, once we invoke personal beliefs, and the name of God, our political discussions go to hell in a handbasket and cannot be compromised well.

To repeat, MWP has adopted a deliberate, highly ratiocinated, cop out. We are kicking the can down to the states after much soul searching and introspection, not because it is in our best interest to do so, or represents our personal beliefs, but because we believe it is the proper role of governance in a diverse Republic such as ours. Pure democracies deal in tyranny of the minority/majority, ( imposition of others political will) and they are inherently unstable political structures.

If our Republic fails, you wont beleive the "baby count".

Plus, and this is a subtle and oft missed point, you all do indeed realize that by letting our elected reps speak to these "unsolvables" they are giving themselves de facto leadership status, as in moral leadership. It is false leadership, and should be recognized as such.

Citizens should not be electing their next priest or rabbi. They should be electing their next representative for the peoples' work. No more, and no less. All this chatter about morality, and our elected representatives have lost the ability to craft effective legislation. What is their job again?

They should not speak to morality. We should only judge them on their personal ethics. They have deluded the public into us accpeting a greater role for elected reps as moral guides, while they fail miserably at what they are supposed to be doing. MWP calls BULLSHIRT!

While many may find this illogical, some of the officers here at MWP are deeply religious and actively invovled in their churches. Yet, to have the phrase, "it is the way God intended it" in a political commentary is, from a modern Whig perspective, just wrong. Politics ought be the realm of logic, numbers, facts and observed ethics. Once we start invoking deep personal beliefs, we wander off the playing field. (one reason we arent "gaining yardage")

Lets start worrying about the things we are suppsosed to be in politics, money, accountibility, ETHICS. The effect of speaking to MORAL issues is only division, short changing the real issues government should be working out and aiding the further entrenchment of the status quo system, the duopoly, which is clearly broken.

Gene, I have one simple question for you and the leadership about "kicking the can down to the states...because we believe it is the proper role of governance in a diverse Republic such as ours."; Are you stating that women's rights should not be dealt with on a federal level?

I was waiting for someone to ask Gene about that. :)

We tend to kick anything that is a states' responsibility issue down if possible, but I think civil rights must be dealt with at the Federal level. So the real debate now would be this: do reproductive rights fall under civil rights, and if so, to what extent?

Speaking for myself as a male, it's hard for me to say I have much of a voice in the decision to begin with, although I can see arguments for a father's rights.

It really is a dicey issue even when the water isn't muddied with religious thought.

hello everyone.

First I must say that I agree with much of the Whig platform, however in the issue of abortion, I must speak as an African American. As an African American with the inclusion of Abortion into all that contributes to my communities mortality rate, we have had a NEGATIVE birth rate. Since Roe V. Wade up to 2004 over 15million African American Children have been aborted. You call it personal choice, I call it self-inflicted genocide, because people call for rights (which we would expect in a democracy). Yet America is not simply a democracy it is a Republic and for republics to work properly we must not just call for personal rights but also personal responsibility. There is a responsibility for a nation to protect both the mother's and father's right to reproduce and the child's right to live so they can fulfill the future responsibility of citizenship (for any race). Also the vast majority of abortions are NOT because of molestation, incest, or rape-but simply "cosmetic" in that people do not want to take the responsibility that comes with the right to have sexual relations.

Also the discussions that take place about abortion must not come to simplistic concepts such as "Women create life" that is actually not true. Women cannot create life without Men and since women cannot create life without men, then the decision to end life should not be theirs alone-because it infringes upon not just the right of the fetus (which within the first weeks of the first trimester can respond to outside stimuli (such as sunlight and music) and produces its own blood), but also on the right of the man to preserve the life he has helped create. In fact, one could say that abortion does not even help women, but instead aids sexually irresponsible men. Just my thoughts.

Fredrick, with the advent of sperm banks women no longer need a man to create life, but there is no way that a man can create life without a woman. The father who wants to have a child must PAY someone to do the job of carrying a fetus to term; so how much is that job worth? If the man can't pay, then what right does he have? Does he have to change his lifestyle to ensure that a healthy baby is born? NO!

Your point of being black is one that I will play upon right now, so please forgive the racist overtones...White men thought it was a good idea to have slaves because it was their right to decide what an individual should do with their time, how is your comment any different? Men want to decide what a woman can or can't do with her body, it's exactly the same thing! Slave owners deciding who should breed with who and if I want a kid then I'll breed with you...it's no different.

Did you ever think that the reduction in your ethnicity's birth rate is because your people are realizing that raising children properly takes money and since the welfare reform act it's not as advantageous to get pregnant any more in America?

Your statement, "You call it personal choice, I call it self-inflicted genocide," absolutely sickens me! What if I started promoting the fact that the vast majority of crime that is committed in your neighborhoods was all because we allowed your people to be free...We knew all along the black man can't be trusted!

Want proof, the vast percentage of single mothers, (based on per capita & not total numbers) are black, where's your personal responsibility now? I know too many deadbeat dads who work cash jobs and give their kids nothing, but on the other hand I also know several women who have so much animosity towards their kid's father that they do everything in their power to ruin him.

You say:
There is a responsibility for a nation to protect both the mother's and father's right to reproduce and the child's right to live so they can fulfill the future responsibility of citizenship (for any race).
I say: Look at our childcare system, it's overburden, understaffed and underfunded, so much for a nation protecting the unwanted! It's all about the power men want to have over women, period!

Okay, I usually take a free wheeling approach to discussions, but I want to head off a problem right now.

When approaching senisitive subjects it is wise to not make them personal by using the words "you" or "your" or any other personal pronoun. I can understand the point being made in the above post, but rather than saying "your people" or using similar phrases it might have been better to say it in an impersonal way.

That said, I do not believe the author of the above comment meant it to be personal.

Our discussions will often present different views and it is vital that we always maintain respect for individuals while disagreeing with opinions. That is part of what being a Whig is all about.

If I was too vehement in my post apologize, I have no desire nor intention to personally attack anyone's character as a human being, only the issue at hand.

John,
Dear sir, In response to your comment that "women don't need men to create life" because of sperm banks, I would like to ask you where does the sperm come from lol. Women are not asexual, in that they do not produce eggs and sperm and since they cannot produce both, women cannot be said to produce life. Also how many women are going to sperm banks seriously. Also lets prove your point right now, do you have a close woman in your life (like a mother, or a sister, or a wife, girlfriend whatever) right now ask her to create life at this moment right now without a man or his sperm. Ill wait. Lets not be foolish in our discussions of serious issues. At the end of the day men and women need each other to create life. Because men and women need each other to create life, the creation of life necessitates a conversation between the two and the respect of BOTH persons rights to reproduce.

Also with regards to your racist overtones, ill forgive you. Because of your ignorance. Especially with the fact that African Americans are still at the bottom as a whole economically. And with the fact that while African Americans are only 12% of the population, we are 35% of the abortions in states that even record such statistics and that was in 2004. Also in 2004 it was proposed that with the statistics from states that report it 15million black babies have been aborted since Roe V. Wade. That included with Heart disease, High Blood pressure, cancer, drug use, violence etc, is what produces the negative birth rate. In addition to my comment on self inflicted genocide, why are most abortion clinics in low income Black, Hispanic, and white neighborhoods? Why was the founder of Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger) a proponent of Nazi Eugenics and was bankrolled by the wealthy White american elite? Perhaps you should educate yourself on this issue, the documentary Maafa21 is a good start. Once you educate yourself then you can be sickened for the right reasons and not because of a kneejerk reaction to what I typed, which may have offended your sensibilities.

Also with regards to the lack of responsibility with black fathers, I recommend you read the Moyihan Report from 1965 that dealt with the beginings of this issue as was ignored by the Johnson Administration and decried by a few in black academia that called it "blaming the victim"-same party line your expousing. I thought the Modern Whig party was about providing common sense solutions to our nations problems. I would also ask have you seen or experienced the emotional and physical trauma that comes from abortion on the woman? Trust me with abortion the only person who gets away is a sexual irresponsible man, who has been conditioned now in a society that for the last 30+ years has consistently and legally told him that the child is not his problem, unless she decides to have it. But the flip side is if she decides to have it, then he is a deadbeat dad if he does not take care of it. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS John. Either its his responsiblity or it its not, and if it is then he needs to be responsible at the very beginning, which necessitates that we understand that the creation of life is a two person thing (even if its from the sperm bank). Plus, to be honest most men don't give a damn enough about women to have power over them, and the abortion laws as they are written right now federally and in the states really robs the man who wants to be responsible because he has no say, and if a person has no say why should they even give a damn.

Now with regards to our nations system of providing for children, I would wager that much of our system actually places the family on shaky footing. I would say that the family must be strengthened, and that should not be just the governments Job, work with the faith community, work with families, hear their issues and empower families to work out their own issues and stop empowering the social worker to get into their business.

But John, I appreciate your candor and the discussion.
F.D

Frederick Douglas,
Until you change the culture, you're not going to accomplish much. And I'm not speaking of a strictly black culture, but the culture of the entire segment of society that was raised with a dependence on welfare. You can hear much of it in rap lyrics, if you bother to listen.

From personal experience, it appears that many in this culture don't believe in education, don't believe in personal responsibility, in fact, don't believe in much but "me". If you try to teach them, they expect 'A's for no effort. If you try to help them, they'll complain that you aren't doing enough. And if they do show promise, their 'friends' will tear them down, for trying.

And most abortion clinics are in poor neighborhoods because that's where the greatest demand is.

That isn't to say that there isn't valuable human capital to be found among the multi-generational poor. But the difficulties are such that the best thing to do would be to remove them to a different environment as soon as you can identify them. A negative population growth rate is the most humane way to handle those that won't, or can't, be helped.

I agree that realistically, this is probably the most we can hope for now. Personally, I can say that I was on the pro choice side for awhile. I'm pro life now, because I found that using "self awareness" or "consciousness" was a pretty problematic standard for personhood (see: Peter Singer's defense of infanticide). That isn't to say I'm a single issue voter on this. I can name other things like ending the wars that I consider as important if not more so. But I do think as a society, we should err on the side of life.

I'm all for individual rights, responsibilities and freedoms. I'm also for less government into our private lives. But, I also believe that this is not a "women's issue" or a "religious issue" or a ridiculously simplistic notion of "choice." This boils down to one question: is a fetus a life or not? I say it is and thus deserves the same level of constitutional protection as men, women, black, white, the young, the old, the disabled, or anyone else. I also believe that the Constitution clearly, unmistakably endows everyone with the right to life, as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have to wonder if the founding fathers would have been able to see an ultrasound, to hear a fetal heartbeat, and if abortion was a viable practice in their time, what they would have done? I believe they would have decided it is a life, as well. The only exceptions I would be in favor of are for rape, incest and life of the mother, as each of these are fairly rare, and this issue is far from being able to receive a perfect, mess-free, one-size-fits-all solution. I'd also remind those on the opposite side that abortion for sex selection already occurs, and as medical technology continues to outpace our ability to absorb and adequately handle all of the ethical ramifications, it's not out of the realm of possibility that abortion based on genetic factors is not far off in the distance. And to Glaucus, I ask a question: as a gay male, how would you feel if the "gay gene" is discovered and can be detected in utero, and people began aborting on this basis? Don't think it can't happen . . .

All this said, I am in strong favor of expanded sex education and access to contraceptives. I'm also for making welfare recipients choose between sterilization or contraception like Norplant and reduced/no more benefits for continuing to produce children they have no business having. After all, the decision to use contraception is also a choice, right?

"Killing human babies before they are born is murder."

Only after 5 months

"You were once at various stages of growth within your mother's womb."

And if I died before then, I wouldn't care.

"Aren't you glad your mother did not murder you?"

Aren't you glad your parents had unprotected sex in an airplane bathroom (or wherever)? If they didn't you never would have been born the way you were!

"The mother's womb should be the safest place in the world for a baby to grow up."

Yeah, well, it doesn't belong to the baby.

"Abortion should only be allowed in cases where the mother's physical death is expected."

I agree, extending this to partial birth abortions as disgusting as they are.

"Further, even in cases of rape and incest, the mother should go ahead and give birth to the child and then turn it over for adoption."

Adoption is a messy process and will cause the child to live a crappy life.

"After all, it's not the baby's fault that the rape or incest occurred. There are many rape and incest people alive today that are very thankful that their mothers' allowed them to be born."

And if they don't have a brain why should I care about their opinion.

"The Government should never make laws that allow or encourage immorality."

Eating pie is immoral. God said so. Government should ban pie.

"I'm convinced that there will come a day when we only allow abortions in order to save the physical life of the mother, and we will look back upon these times in amazement"

And I'm convinced that there will be a day when babies come from test tubes and nobody has icky, icky sex anymore. And there will be no unwanted children, because everyone who wants a baby will plan for it. And we'll all look back and say "How did we have sex to make children? It's so icky!!!!!"

But I'm probably wrong.

I was looking to see if there was another party I MIGHT join. I am republican currently. I would just like to ask main how would you know that most abortions are cosmetic? Have you had one for that reason?

I have supported victims of rape, incest, domestic violence, but male and female. I have been raped. I have have birth control fail. I have had miscarriages. I am high risk. A baby could kill me. Even in a healthy pregnancy there is a chance for a woman to end up dying. I also work with survivors of both abortions and adoptions. Neither is easy and a mother usually will include the father if he is an active part of her life. It's hard but most due at least inform the father or the seed that they are pregnant before researching choices.

Now for all the pro-life... Abortion not a choice will equal a LOT more suicides or dangerous attempts to abort. We then have failed not only the unborn child but the mother and father as well.

It is not an easy choice. It tears one up before they even get near the point of going into that room the first time, the second time... some go back and forth. Many due it to protect the child. Have you even been in a relationship where you are in court every few months to stand against someone who keeps breaking a restraining order? It can be difficult. If they father is involved, they should have a right to be involved in the choice. But if the mother decides she does not want it. The father should be willing to take full custody and release her of any obligation to it. Most states don't allow adoptions if the other parent does not consent.

If my mother aborted me. I would have know she did it for the best choice that she could offer me. I wish NO ONE ever to need that choice but it happens. I think if a woman can be held for murder of a unborn, the father should be found guilty too. He should not have given a child to someone who had a violent path in her ideas. My father was pro-life in his life. He was a faithful catholic but he also believed that we were not to sit in judgement of another. That was between that person and god.

If it is about morality, then I would say I could support it IF the deciding factors where men/women of the cloth. Otherwise we are all casting stones when we have sinned ourselves.

At this time, I choose not to get pregnant. Not because of the risk but I would want to know what freedoms my child would have... it abortion was illegal. I would gladly end the idea of having a child. I would support a law to make sure only approved non-religious, mentally well, law-biding citizens to ave a child. And NO ONE who has not served in military service. I would also NOT want one cent of my tax money going to care for any form of welfare or medial care for children at that point. I would simply make sure I did not make enough to worry my taxes would aid it.

I am not against PRO-LIFE. I believe that a baby is a living being.. but so is a tree.. still created by god, but we tear it down when we get in the way, no one who has an abortion can be so cold to the life that MIGHT happen.

If the party moves to limiting to doctors approval and even suggestion (patient's clergy) spiritual counseling to be part of the counseling then so be it. That I could support. Legal or not it will not slow abortions or attempts that can damage the mother, father and child for life.

My own personal belief is if one does not believe in it, one should not act on it. If one can not 'experience' it then one should not be the one to decide. Or we could ask the local Avon woman to plan the next rotation and events in a military forces.... or the kid who just finished his English paper. It takes experience to some degree to understand that Murder is there when one must ignore her own morals for that of someone she never met. IMO only.

The government needs to a) stay out of our private lives and b) keep other people out of our private lives. Framing this as "protecting the fetus" provides an excuse to invade women's privacy and to control women. It is none of anybody's business but that woman's. The fetus is a part of a woman's body until it is viable without her.

And logically, if you are going to call a fetus a person, you may as well call each sperm and egg a person. So you may as well pass a law against men masturbating and wasting sperm. It is absurd.

If men were effected by pregnancy this would not even be up for discussion. Pregnancy is debilitating and dangerous. The idea of forcing a woman who becomes pregnant into either staying the course and bearing the incapacitation and danger and career destruction, or having a back alley abortion, is just barbaric. And applying this to a woman who was raped is sickening. Not something men would put up with - not for a heartbeat.

Slavery needed to be debated on a national level.

Very disappointed in the Whig stance. Spineless and sexist.