dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Not your decision????? Come on little hiawatha, you are a voter, are you not? You have input to your state's political decisions, do you not? Isn't your state a representative government as is all American states? Of course it is your decision. Regulations/laws of all types are pursuant to the decisions of ALL voters, are they not?

Examples are every state who does ALLOW abortions with the only difference, to me at least, being the time frame with which to get an abortion. That is the proof is it not? I am not positive but don't ALL states allow abortions depending on the time frame? Perhaps you recall when NO states allowed abortions and so they were done in back alleys by people who often did much damage to the pregnant mother.

Dennis

Tinker

This reader continues to note the harsh, emotional back and forth between left and right on many subjects. It is such a shame in this greatest of all nations that we cannot engage in civil discourse over important issues, or which there are many. Regarding the current hotly contested subject of abortion, the left generally seems to see the right, specifically the GOP portion of Congress as the villain, with those roughly half of us who are mostly directly affected by the practice, generally wanting - what? Termination at a specific point, at any point, even after birth has occurred? Those are very heavy and very personal choices to make, and we debate over who should make them. The left harangues against the right in Congress, apparently of the opinion that the SITE of the problem is there, yet they don't seem to CITE how that is the case. I recommend that all concerned review Amendment X of the Bill of Rights for clarification. For those not knowing where to look, here is the quote:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, respectively, or to the people."

Many states have taken action of one sort of another to address the issue, and others are in the process of addressing it now. Perhaps it will make at least some people happy.

For those so concerned, the above quote is a CITE. The SITE which is the location of the quote within this reply on UHH. Maybe that will help someone with their English going forward.

Perhaps all would do well to regard others as fellow countrymen and not enemies. We seem to have enough of those already.

dlwhawaii Loc: Sunny Wailuku, Hawaii

Denise, when was the last time YOU voted for or against abortion?

btbg

Neither a sperm cell nor an egg meet the traditional biology definition of alive. A zygot does. If those who favor allowing abortion to continue would at least be honest and acknowledge that it takes a human life we might get somewhere in the discussion of if and under what circumstances an abortion should be legal. Because I doubt if even you believes that an abortion should be allowed up to birth, which is currently legal in some states.

You are nit picking, and it is not really constructive. Neither a sperm nor an egg by itself will make a human life. The two combined during conception will. It is only after that combination that the discussion is even relevant. Without an egg the sperm will die in a matter of hours. Likewise without sperm the egg will never develop. I realize that there are a few zealots who consider even birth control as taking a life, but that is not the norm. However, once conception has occurred in nine months outside of human intervention or some issue that causes a miscarriage a human being will be born, and that zygote, embryo, and fetus is clearly human.

Thus an abortion takes a human life. That is just a fact. You can parse words all you like, but that is the truth.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I don't disagree with anything you have said relevant to abortion, and the decision to allow abortions under the various circumstances are a challenge.

My ONLY argument with you is your definition of "alive," and I disagree with you discounting sperm or eggs as not meeting a biological definition of "alive." My graduate studies were in cryobiology and cell preservation by freezing. I can assure you that a biological definition of "alive" applies to single cells as much as it does to a fetus. It even applies to bacteria. I have frozen many "live" cells in liquid nitrogen, at which time "life" was in "suspended animation" if you like. And upon thawing some of those cells came back "alive' while others were "dead." As a side note, no one has ever frozen a "dead" cell and brought it back "alive."

Brining a biological definition of "life" into the abortion issue is a red herring and not germane to the moral and religious discussion, which are the ONLY debatable points of the issue.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

…and as long as any political entity labels/views anyone with an opposing view as “deplorable” expect the continuation of divisiveness and gridlock.

btbg

I acknowledge that sperm and eggs are alive. I disagree with you about the rest of your statement. The constitution protects life first and foremost. Thus a definition of life is vitally important to the discussion.

Abortion takes a life. Life is the first of tje rigjts mentjoned in the Declaration of Independance strongly suggesting that life is the most important of all rights.

Thus a definition of life is all that is relevant regarding when or if abortion should be allowed. It is not a religious issue. It is a constitutional issue

btbg

You are right that with name calling there is devisiveness. What you are quoting from Art is why there is name calling. He seems to acknowledge that abortion is killing babies. Last i heard killing babies by definition is deplorable.

If you are pro life what other stance can you possibly take?

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Personally, I don’t disagree with you stance (biologically/morally) but I totally agree with Democrats view that it is and will be a winning issue for them. You said it shouldn’t be a legislative issue and I believe when compared to national security, the border, inflation, the economy, divisiveness that spawn’s gridlock, social justice attitudes that turn a blind eye to victims and promote crime and generally the ideology that government should be all things to all people are issues far more important than losing on a single issue.

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

Now who is the snowflake victim?

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

How’s that comment relative to divisiveness. Do you conflate reality with sensitivities? Guess that is the product of acting on feelings rather than facts.

btbg

If people in our country have sunk to such a moral low that they will vote in favor of abortion over sound policy then our nation is doomed and deservedly so. If Art and you are correct we deserve whatever happens to our nation. To me it is far more important to stand for what is right than to cpromise and lose any moral standing we migjt still have to win an election. I would like to think that people have a better moral compas than that, although I suspect you are correct in your analysis.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Does your “Constitutional” right to life extend to rejecting the death penalty? Or to killing an enemy in war? How about self defence?

btbg

Self defense absolutely. Death penalty is decided by a jury of peers but I have no problem if we outlaw it as long as those convicts can never get out of jail.

As to war it happens and people die during war. As usual you pick and chose what part of tje text you read. I was very clear innocent life must be protected. That already answers your question.

I answered your question so when should abortion be banned?

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

In case you missed it ... no one denies who Sanger is.

" ... Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
certain people unfit to have children.

Her beliefs opened the door for people opposed to reproductive freedom, including safe
and legal abortion, to make false and unfounded claims that Planned Parenthood today has
a racist agenda. ..."