Abortion

[Person Man]

Option 1 with reservations (restrictions on 2nd trimester abortions and a near-total ban on 3rd trimester abortions)

[Person Man]

Option 1 and 1/2th.

Abortions should be legal but only have federal funding for extenuating circumstances.  Kind of like unemployment comp or something like that.

I'm not sure I would be in favor of MORE abortions, but I can say that having a state ban on abortions sets a pretty dangerous precedent.  Primarily, I'm concerned that such bans could have ramifications that give the state a blank check to control a person's body.

...perhaps if a state can mandate a person keeping a fetus to term, it can mandate abortion as well.

[Person Man]

Option 1 and 1/2th.

Abortions should be legal but only have federal funding for extenuating circumstances.  Kind of like unemployment comp or something like that.

I'm not sure I would be in favor of MORE abortions, but I can say that having a state ban on abortions sets a pretty dangerous precedent.  Primarily, I'm concerned that such bans could have ramifications that give the state a blank check to control a person's body.

...perhaps if a state can mandate a person keeping a fetus to term, it can mandate abortion as well.

Yes, very much so.

The state could get a blank check to regulate the population of certain groups if given such power.

Perhaps population control conspiracies aren't as far from the truth as they might seem and perhaps are propagated by those who are likely allied with the conspirators themselves.

[Person Man]

Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.

[Person Man]

Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.

Being 'pro-life' (a ridiculous and leading term, much like 'pro-choice') in this context would imply a deontological character to one's stance on the matter, not just a lifestyle preference. I also don't know where you're getting this idea, Steve, that being 'pro-life' and being opposed to premarital sex always coincide.

Let me put it to you this way. If you want abortion to be illegal, you should be prepared for the consequences of having casual sex without having all the options available to you. Of course there's child support. ...and if you make say, $40000 a year, that's like $400 a month for 216 months...and that's $86,400 for a lay. No random poon is worth that much..unless she's a porn star that you REALLY like...or God has come down to you and tells you that this is the hottest woman you will EVER be with. ..then again, you could be some woman who can't keep a man but can't afford $20,000 for invitro and decide just to have a kid on your own. But.. being pro-life like that is to traditional values the same way that Diet Coke is to a Super Sized Double Quarter Pounder meal....with a shake for dessert.

[Person Man]

Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.

Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.

It's probably horrible of me, I know, but I have a tendency to groan every time a teenage girl's first thought when she finds out she's preggers is not "well, off to Planned Parenthood."  I experienced this somewhat first-hand with my idiot cousin who I really don't care about at all.

I love how it's pro-lifers who are considered "condescending."

Well, I never said I'd legally mandate that all teens who get pregnant abort.

Now now, apparently pro-lifers' ideas are so great, they can't be refused, even in the cases of incest and rape.

[Person Man]

From a pure negative rights standpoint, the woman has a right to defend herself against lethal trespassers. Assuming the woman's life is not at stake, the woman is merely entitled to remove the trespassers from her property. Unfortunately, technological constraints make this a virtual death sentence for the trespassers, thus making it a highly unethical action to undertake.

From a practical standpoint, preventing a woman from marooning her fetus would be unenforceable, as it would require all women with miscarriages to prove their innocence.

I see no reason why the government should fund any abortions, and IMHO it is asinine to propose such unless the woman's life is at stake. What other elective procedures should your neighbors be forced to pay for?

I see Option 2 as the least objectionable choice.

That's actually the most objective way to look at it. If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person and the state can only commodere that property (I assume against judgement that any competent person with a human uterus is a "person") and alienate the associated property right with Eminent Domain (in this situation, if the state were to make abortion a crime, they would have to compensate all whose property rights would be alienated). Eminent Domain's requirement of a "public purpose" could be made even if a fetus cannot be proven to be a person because of some other "public purpose".  However, there could be said to be a "neccesity" to prevent another from being harmed, but generally this sort of exception is used in a tangible national emergency such as a war or a disaster, not some allegded en masse moral failing. (You can't just break into a bakery because you are starving) Therefore, a fetus, if its a person, could be considered someone who will starve if they do not burglarize the grocery store.

I probably missed some steps, but this is pretty much the jist of it. You can't just force someone to personally keep someone else alive against their will is the point...so, in a way, "personhood" laws actually elevate embryos and fetuses above a born person....then again, whether to protect the community from the "lawlessness" if aborting a fetus is killing a person, or from the mere offensiveness and psychological welfare of those who believe it is if it isn't, the state can "compensate" from women the easement for the fetuses...provided a "fair market value" can be made, otherwise forcing a preganat woman to give birth would be illegal taking or involuntary servitude or "slavery".

Then again, there is the point that abortion cannot be proven as easy as someone using or possessing illicit substances or committing some form of sodomy (illicit sexual activity).  ie you can find people who heard someone buy sex or you can find the dope residue in some guys' car...if someone is all the sudden was not pregnant, then pregnant and then not pregnant, you can't priove anything, right? Maybe it was a miscarriage, maybe someone mobster or pharmacist came to her house with coat hanger..maybe she just threw herself down the stairs..

[Person Man]

If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person

There's a few unstated assumptions there (most notably that a person can be considered property).

Not a person, but one body of a person. Are you your own? If not, you are someone else's property.

[Person Man]

If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person

There's a few unstated assumptions there (most notably that a person can be considered property).

Not a person, but one body of a person. Are you your own? If not, you are someone else's property.

I am my own in the sense that I exist as myself, but I do not own myself in the sense of being property.  To own something as property I must objectify it. Why would I want to objectify myself?
My body is not something I can separate out from myself and turn into a chattel, since it is fundamental and integral to every aspect of my existence.

Well, maybe not but someone can and wants to and may someday. Remember, what the state has given, it has the power to take away.

[Person Man]

Considering my general political paradigm, this is the one issue where I'm unconventional.  It's constantly a struggle for me.

I was, at one point, against abortion in all cases except if the mother's life is at risk (because I believe it is self defense, and that should be a right).  But I've come to a position where I consider myself pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

It seems to me that outlawing abortion won't really prevent it to any meaningful degree, but will cause many more women to die - meaning more death and suffering (if someone has studies showing otherwise, or that agree, I'm welcome to new information).  Either way, I believe the greater focus should be on contraception, and that contraception should be free and very easily available, and that sex education is critical in schools.  I feel to reduce abortion and reduce death - that is the very best approach.

And no, I'm not anti women.  Half of those killed in abortion are female, so on that I'd say I'm pro-women.  Not to mention Susan B. Anthony was strongly against abortion... and people aren't claiming she was anti-woman.

and don't forget what overturning Roe and eventually making abortion a crime would do to the prison population....I mean, you would think that would prevent most abortions, but does the War on Drugs do anything to prevent drug addiction or abuse? ...and now perhaps a large fraction of prisoners are drug offenders. At least banning abortion would end the gender gap in prisons.