Is the race really this close? Who do you think will win?

[diggitydot]

FWIW, naturally ending pregnancies (i.e. not specifically terminated with medical intervention) are not something we include in abortion statistics or believe to be an "abortion" in the same sense, though I know the term applies to both situations.

That doesn't make a difference when the terminology used is "conception". Many women conceive and have a spontaneous abortion before they ever know they were pregnant. What abortion statistics are you talking about? Where did you see that quoted because I'm frighteningly familiar with the Guttmacher website and I haven't seen anything even remotely close to that statistic or study.

It seems like the better solution to that problem is to terminate the rapist's parental rights. It blows my mind that this situation still exists.

That would be a great start. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that even if the laws were rewritten so that rapists couldn't have parental rights AND abortion was illegal, someone would still be telling a rape survivor that she HAD to have the child of her rapist whether she wanted to or not. That goes to the crux of the choice movement -- no one else should be telling a woman what she must do and must not do with her own body.

[PrincessFiona]

how does the separation of church and state come in? We dint have school prayer and yet we make some laws in this country based o the religious views of the political party in power?

[diggitydot]

how does the separation of church and state come in? We dint have school prayer and yet we make some laws in this country based o the religious views of the political party in power?

I think you probably know what side I come down on the clear separation of church and state.

[SoonerTexan]

I'm confused why you brought up early miscarriages in response to T&S, which is why I responded. Maybe I missed something. I'm just saying that there is a difference between a naturally occurring miscarriage or stillbirth vs a medically induced abortion and pro lifers certainly aren't against those. I'm also curious to see those statistics, but I highly doubt they included natural terminations. If that is even what you were trying to say? I've heard that point brought up before and I don't understand how it specifically relates.

But in general, pro choice supporters echo your argument that no one should tell a women what to do with her body and pro life supporters would say it is no longer just her body and her life anymore. There is no way to get past that. Is a fundamental difference of opinion, the crux of the issue, and the point in this thread where things can get nasty and I would hate for it to go there. We just have to agree to disagree.

[diggitydot]

I'm confused why you brought up early miscarriages in response to T&S, which is why I responded. Maybe I missed something. I'm just saying that there is a difference between a naturally occurring miscarriage or stillbirth vs a medically induced abortion and pro lifers certainly aren't against those.

Good call -- sorry, I mixed up to whom I was responding. Sorry!

But in general, pro choice supporters echo your argument that no one should tell a women what to do with her body and pro life supporters would say it is no longer just her body and her life anymore.

Ah, and therein lies the crux -- legally, a fetus is considered part of its mother's body until "viability" in most states. We seem to be discussing two very different issues; what the law says and what some would like the law to say based on their understanding of religious dogma.

I wholeheartedly agree that difference of opinion and agree-to-disagree is definitely part of this at some point.

[SoonerTexan]

Good call -- sorry, I mixed up to whom I was responding. Sorry!

Okay good, I wasn't sure what I was missing

Ah, and therein lies the crux -- legally, a fetus is considered part of its mother's body until "viability" in most states. We seem to be discussing two very different issues; what the law says and what some would like the law to say based on their understanding of religious dogma

Exactly, though I wouldn't limit it just to religious dogma. There are pro-lifers who believe for reasons not related to religion. Maybe not the majority, but some:

http://secularprolife.org/

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on constitutional law or the details behind Roe v. Wade, but I do believe it would not be stretching the Constitution or imposing values not already found in the Constitution (i.e. religious values) if abortion were banned. (Calling the lawyers? Abigail?)

[ladymoreta]

I fall somewhere in between. Overall, I would say I'm pro-life, but I am also okay with oral contraceptives and morning-after pills. Basically, my opinion is that life begins at the point where you wouldn't declare someone dead - so somewhere around 5 weeks when the heart starts beating. This is based on pretty much nothing but my own thoughts, so please don't think I'm speaking for my religion or anything. Since, based on that opinion, the baby is alive, I see it as infringing on that person's right to life to perform an abortion after that point. That said, I also support the ability to legally abort a baby in the case of rape or a health risk to the mother.

I guess, though, it really comes down to the fact that it's just my opinion, so it doesn't matter legally. I think the best thing we can do is to provide education to women on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, make sure they know how to obtain contraception and can afford it, and simplify and promote adoption.

[Sheherezade]

Laurie, I would elect you. I would probably place the age limit a little higher and might base it on lung formation but I agree with the approach you take. My son, ever the radical thinker, thinks we should just deliver a fetus from the mother whenever the mother decides she doesn't want to carry it any longer. Then, if the fetus makes it on its own with medical support, great. If not, both lives had a chance. Clearly, this problem isn't solved easily with the concrete logic of a 16 year old.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

Laurie, I would elect you. I would probably place the age limit a little higher and might base it on lung formation but I agree with the approach you take. My son, ever the radical thinker, thinks we should just deliver a fetus from the mother whenever the mother decides she doesn't want to carry it any longer. Then, if the fetus makes it on its own with medical support, great. If not, both lives had a chance. Clearly, this problem isn't solved easily with the concrete logic of a 16 year old.

Not to make light of the discussion but you'd have a LOT of babies delivered around 36 weeks when mom got really sick of being pregnant!!!!

[Liisi]

Whew, I just read through this entire 12-page thread.

I voted for Obama, but I don't particularly agree with him - I just disagree with him less than I disagree with Romney. I would have voted for Jill Stein if she actually had a chance of winning.

The most important issues to me are women's rights, protecting the Earth (we ALL have to live on it and have no other option!!), and LGBT rights. I could never vote for a candidate who wants to deny my partner and me the ability to get married, even if I agreed with the candidate on everything else (which hasn't happened - this is just theoretical).

I may not believe in contraception or gay marriage, but I also believe in free will and people can do as they want with their lives. In the case of abortion, I believe there are two lives involved and it is no longer a completely personal decision.

What does "not believing in gay marriage" mean to you? Do you mean that my partner and I should not be allowed to get married at all? There are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections that married couples have when the federal government recognizes the marriage. Are you saying that my partner and I should not be allowed to have those 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections that straight couples are allowed to have? "Free will" and "doing what we want with our lives" only goes so far - she and I have "free will" to love each other, take care of each other, live together, have a family together, etc., but there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections that we legally can not have. I don't understand. If my partner and I want to get married, it has no negative affect on anyone, it's not hurting anything, it's not taking anyone's rights away....

[diggitydot]

Thank you. That has been my point for *years* with regards to marriage equality.

[Chrisada]

Thank you. That has been my point for *years* with regards to marriage equality.

Absolutely.

[niener]

Thank you. That has been my point for *years* with regards to marriage equality.

Agreed.

And Liisi, I would have the same problem voting for someone who, while I may support their economic plan or foreign policy or whatever, seeks to deny rights to anyone based on race, gender or sexual orientation. I don't think we can be expected to thrive as a nation when big chunks of our population are still treated as second-class citizens.

[SoonerTexan]

And this is why I didn't want to go here and I'm so sorry I did. There were two subjects I would swore I would never discuss in this forum because there is no way for it end amicably.

Liisi, no I do not believe in gay marriage from a religious perspective. Yes, I believe marriage is an institution defined by God as between a man and a woman. I believe civil marriages are a separate thing and because I believe in free will I would be lying to say I'm strongly for civil gay marriage, but I cant say I'm really against it either. I agree with other posters that it might be best to separate civil and religious marriage. I also believe the semantics make this discussion more charged.

No, I do not believe all LGBT people are evil and going to hell. Yes, as a Catholic I believe that homosexuality in itself is NOT wrong, but acting upon it is. (A distinction most don't know about, not that it will matter to anyone here anyways). I also recognize that the entire world is not Catholic and believe we are called to love people as they are, even if you may not agree with their actions, and I certainly do not take into account someone's sexuality when determining whether or not I want to associate with them or be their friend. I also believe no one is perfect and everyone is a sinner, including myself. I still wish the best for you and your partner and hope you stay around this site as I think you are an awesome addition and need the support as much an anyone else on here.

That's really everything I have to say on the subject and prefer not to participate anymore lest this turn into something negative. I cant handle that in my place of support. Can we please leave this here?

[diggitydot]

ST, I vehemently disagree with you, but I still respect you and your beliefs, though I don't share them. I believe you are a kind, thoughtful, and giving person.

Personally, my biggest issue with voting based on religious dogma is that it inherently inflicts religion in highly personal matters on those who would prefer to keep religion out of the equation. No one should be made to act against their beliefs, whether religiously grounded or not. I harken this issue to how I feel about reproductive choices; if you don't want to use BC, don't. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, don't. But why try to make it illegal for those who don't believe your specific dogma?

Can you imagine if we were ever returned to a time when the Protestant and Catholic Churches were feuding and making laws against each other, depending on whichever one was in power? How would you feel if someone legislated your choice of religion away because it conflicted with THEIR dogma? This is why I firmly believe that religion and politics should never mix.