...  It shouldn't matter what the President believes about abortion.  It should matter if the President will abide by the will of the people on what *they* believe about abortion

A fairly big problem with this (actually it's more a flaw with the method proposed, the majority rule) - it can lead to minorities and those without a voice/vote being hurt at the majorities expense. For example a law that taxes all African immigrants at 50% and gives their money to everyone born in the US could in theory be popular with the majority (who benefit) while being deeply unfair to the minority. It's an extreme example, but is there to illustrate the point that the mob, or majority, decision is not always the best one. You also have problems in some cases of poor information and judgement, with the population often proving fickle on issues and changing their views frequently. In the case of abortion and whether people are in favour or against it, the very phrasing of the question asked can have a big impact (e.g. ask whether it's ok to abort a foetus and I expect you'd find more people saying yes than if you ask whether it's ok to kill an unborn child). Not to say that having just 1 person making the decision is any better of course, more that neither is perfect.

 Mob rule is not good.  Enligntened decision making is.  Are we children needing the government to tell us right from wrong?  Most people can understand the topic and the implecations as long as it isn't debated with 8 second sound bytes or screaming from the extremes on either side.  But these days it seems that 8 seconds of the extremes is all we get, so people either pick a side and become invested in it, or give up and look for someone else to make the decision for them.

Why on earth should we be selecting the Commander in Chief and Chief Diplomat for the country based on this one issue that we should decide for ourselves, that he can't decide for us anyway, and that the most he can do is nominate (and appoint, but not without confirmation) a couple of the nine people that must decide it for us because we refuse to do it for ourselves?

Kudos to Genghis for this lucid and succinct summation.

Guess what.  You're socially pro-choice, personally pro-life as you would not get an abortion but you see that there are conditions where abortion should be allowed and therefore you are pro-choice.

Excellent points and I couldn't agree more.

ok, since when did we ever vote on this?  I don't recall once going to the polls and having a say in this issue.  Do you?  The abortion issue is HUGE and not once did we have a say on this as a nation of individuals.

So I can decide for myself to abort or not abort.  Ok good, that's true.  But what about our daughters?  Right now they can get an abortion at say....12 or 13 or 14 or 15 and we have no say as their parents?   What about the say of the unborn?  Doesn't the constitution apply to them as well?  Where is their decision on this? 

But again, I guess that depends on the answer, when does life really begin? 

It depends on what state you live in.  Some states require parental notification, some even require parental consent for a girl at 12-15 to get an abortion.  If your state doesn't require parental notification/consent and you want it talk to your state representatives.

As for the "say of the unborn" or if the constitution applies to "the unborn" you correct it depnds on when life begins.  I don't think the fetus is a life until it is able to live outside the womb (with or without life support).  I think that if a child can be birthed (even if it's early) rather than be aborted it should be given the shot at life.  Until that point it is only a potential life and not an actual life because it could just as easily miscarry.

Yikes.  That's not what I meant, I don't think.  The only time I believe a person should get an abortion is if the life of the mother is in severe jeopardy.  That's it.  But I know that people will do it whether or not it is legal, so might as well save at least one life by doing it the legal way.  But I do think abortion is murder, a sin.  That may or may not be clear, but I know what I mean.  Meh.

This is all most pro-choicer's want as well, you are pro-choice.  You think that abortion is murder and a sin therefore you are personally pro-life, but you also recognize that abortions are going to happen whether it is legal or not and so it is better to have them be safe and legal, like it or not that's pro-choice.

El'D's right CB.  You are coming across as pro-choice even if you abhor that title. 

Think about this.  You're advocating killing hundreds,thousands or millions of babies legally just to save "at least one life?" 

Does that make sense? 

Don't misconstrue what is being said here.  CB, and I, are NOT advocating killing hundreds, thousands, millions of babies to save "at least one life".  From CB's comments, and I, are advocating saving hundreds, thousands, millions of women's lives (people already living their lives) by aborting fetuses (not babies) in a safe and legal manor.

Think of it this way, if abortion were illegal there are women out there who do whatever it took to abort the fetus including back alley coathanger abortions.  In those cases it is likely that the woman will hemorage to death after the abortion.  So if you define life as beginning at conception would you rather two lives be taken from this world, or one?  Keep in mind that the one remaining could very likely go on to have children later in life, something she can't do if she's dead, and even if she survives the coathanger abortion it usually leaves the woman unable to get pregnant ever again due to excessive scaring.

The problem with that view, taken to its logical conclusion, is why outlaw murder?  Some are done in the heat of passion, and the murderer will normally not kill again, and so making it illegal will only make the person do stupid stuff and in the end, cost more than one life (their own at least).

Sorry, it is that kind of ethics that I cannot tolerate.  If you see the child as a living human being (after all, even a post partum child is totally dependant upon others), and you support abortion, then you support murder.

Because in the case of murder your are dealing with at least two self aware, already born humans.  In the case of abortion you are dealing with a fetus that is NOT self aware and is unable to live outside the womb (with or without life support systems).  It isn't the same. 

I do see a child as a living human being but I do NOT see a developing fetus as a living human being because it cannot live outside the womb and therefore is one misstep away from miscarriage anyway.  I see a fetus as a potential life, but not yet a life.  And for the record I support first trimester abortions for any reason and second trimester abortions only in the case where the woman's life is at risk.  If the fetus can be delivered and given a shot at life it should be rather than late term abortions.

Neither has been proven (and indeed evidence exists to support the opposite claim).  PBA is a birth, followed by a killing.  Others have been aborted just to live, even if for a short time.

YOu can state you do not "believe" they are self aware, and others can argue the opposite with their opinions.  The opinions of those that matter most are never consulted.

I will agree that the fetus not being self aware hasn't been "proven" but I ask how can anything without a developed brain be self aware?

As for the part about not being able to live outside the womb, that most certainly has been proven.  The earliest that doctors have been able to deliver a child is at 22 weeks of gestation, and the survival rate at that point is very, very slim.  I am NOT advocating partial birth abortions at all.  If the fetus has had enough gestation time to be delivered and put on life support than it should be but like I said at the moment the earliest that can be done with todays technology is 22 weeks.  From weeks 0-12 (first trimester) the fetus cannot live outside the womb and the abortion is done by a relatively simple D&C procedure (aka vaccum asperation).  From weeks 0-12 the fetus has very little form to it, if any at all.  So what is so wrong with a woman who was raped, a victim of incest, whose health is at risk, or who has already taken medications that are listed as fatal to a developing fetus getting an abortion in those early weeks?

If life doesn't begin at conception then will someone PLEASE tell me what's the point of birthcontrol pills condoms, diaphragms, etc????

Okay, I see your point, Duderino.  If it ever comes to a vote again I will vote against it.  I am vehemently opposed to abortion.  But I can see both sides of the argument, at least.

Now I'm all confused.  I mean, I see why you tell me I'm pro-choice, but honestly, if I thought that outlawing all abortion would make it impossible to get one I would definitely vote against it and argue against it with every fighting breath. But people are going to do it whether or not it's legal.  So maybe I'm just a realist.  I don't know.  I'm adopted, so with me it was a choice, I guess.  And I lucked out.  I wasn't aborted.  I don't think anyone should do it just because they don't want a baby.  There are other options.  Honestly, I firmly believe that the ONLY time a woman should abort is if her life is in question because of the pregnancy.  I would support legislation making that a law.  However, I'll still be sad for the women who do the 'coathanger' abortions and either die or ruin their organs so that they can't have any more children.  Huh.  Oh well, I'm not in the mood to argue whether or not I'm pro-choice because that's not what I think I am.

Bye.