Should the government formulate anti-abortion laws?

[ribozyme]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

After all, many members on this forum are extremely querulous regarding the intrusion of the government and argue that government based solutions doesn’t work. If the government shouldn’t intervene in the abortion issue, do you

Do you think it is best to leave abortion up to the unregulated free market?

I suppose expectant parents can pay for diagnostic tests for diseases such as trisomy 21 and if an undesirable genotype is found (defined by the parents), they can pay for an abortion. I suppose it is ok to allow the free market to support a “culture of death” because normally a government would be otiose to stop this.

 

[Brendan]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

The government has the Authority to conform Civil Law to the Natural Law. In fact, it has the obligation to do so.,

Legislating to prohibit abortion is not different that regulating against other types of murder, or theft, rape or chattle slavery.

If a government has the authority to prohibit rape, is has the authority to prohibit abortion.

 

[ribozyme]

The government has the Authority to conform Civil Law to the Natural Law. In fact, it has the obligation to do so.,

Legislating to prohibit abortion is not different that regulating against other types of murder, or theft, rape or chattle slavery.

If a government has the authority to prohibit rape, is has the authority to prohibit abortion.

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

Government produces failures, more failures…

Wouldn’t people who cannot afford abortion (by flying to another country) try to get it through the black market, the soi-disant “back alley abortions.”

 

[Newbie2]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

After all, many members on this forum are extremely querlous regarding the intrusion of the government in private life and economy and argue that government based solutions doesn’t work. If the government shouldn’t intervene in the abortion issue, do you think it would still be a “mortal sin” to vote for a candidate that supports abortion?

Do you think it is best to leave abortion up to the unregulated free market?

More than one question here.

First, I’d disagree that we cannot legislate morality. Murdering another person (abortion aside for the moment) is illegal. You cannot steal, legally. Both are moral issues that we as a people have deemed illegal.

So, yes, to the first question.

Second, no, it is not a mortal sin to vote for a candidate that supports abortion, unless perhaps it is one’s goal to support abortion. There are many issues to consider when voting for a candidate, abortion being one of them, albeit arguable the or one of the most important. One may also be faced with two abortion-supporting candidates. This has been hashed out ad nauseum in other threads.

Abortion is pretty much left up to the unregulated market now, isn’t it?

 

[ribozyme]

More than one question here.

First, I’d disagree that we cannot legislate morality. Murdering another person (abortion aside for the moment) is illegal. You cannot steal, legally. Both are moral issues that we as a people have deemed illegal.

So, yes, to the first question.

Second, no, it is not a mortal sin to vote for a candidate that supports abortion, unless perhaps it is one’s goal to support abortion. There are many issues to consider when voting for a candidate, abortion being one of them, albeit arguable the or one of the most important. One may also be faced with two abortion-supporting candidates. This has been hashed out ad nauseum in other threads.

Abortion is pretty much left up to the unregulated market now, isn’t it?

But what about the scenario where one candidate things abortion is acceptable, while another (at least publically) loathes it.

 

[Holly3278]

If the government cannot legislate morality then why does it forbid stealing and murder? I say that the government can and should legislate morality. Abortion should be banned.

 

[Brendan]

[

Wouldn’t people who cannot afford abortion (by flying to another country) try to get it through the black market, the soi-disant “back alley abortions.”]()

Does that fact that people still commit rape and murder somehow invalid those laws? Does it mean that a government should not outlaw murder?

Plenty of rapes and murders occur in backalleys too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One of the most brilliant and succinct treatises on political science says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Government was created to protect the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A government which fails to enact and enforce laws to those ends has no legitimacy.

Therefore the government must formulate anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-robbery and anti-abortion laws – or forfeit its reason for existance.

 

[ribozyme]

One of the most brilliant and succinct treatises on political science says:

Government was created to protect the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A government which fails to enact and enforce laws to those ends has no legitimacy.

Therefore the government must formulate anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-robbery and anti-abortion laws – or forfeit its reason for existance.

Well, do you think the government should pay for the treatment of Gaucher’s disease if a couple concieves a child that has Gaucher’s disease?

Or do you think we should let the couple deal with that problem in the free market? You have to remember that resources are limited. What if they cannot afford such a treatment and the burden of having that child is too much for them as they do not have to means to alleivate the child’s suffering through the free market? Should the couple pursue an abortion via the free market?

 

[mozart-250]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

First of all the abortion issue should be totally out of the hands of the federal government.

Unfortunately with Roe v. Wade, that is not the case. So Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

At that point the abortion issue goes back to the states. That is where it should be decided. For example if the people in the state of Mississippi want to ban abortion, what is the federal government that it should deny the people of the state of Mississippi their wishes.

So sure, if the people of Mississippi want abortion to be illegal in their state, they should have the right to pass legislation to that effect. Why not?

Of course as a pro-life person I would like life to be protected in every state. I am just saying the domain of this issue should be at the state level.

 

[hasikelee]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

After all, many members on this forum are extremely querulous regarding the intrusion of the government and argue that government based solutions doesn’t work. If the government shouldn’t intervene in the abortion issue, do you

Do you think it is best to leave abortion up to the unregulated free market?

I suppose expectant parents can pay for diagnostic tests for diseases such as trisomy 21 and if an undesirable genotype is found (defined by the parents), they can pay for an abortion. I suppose it is ok to allow the free market to support a “culture of death” because normally a government would be otiose to stop this.

Hey, I oppose Roe v Wade, too! It’s cool to meet someone with like interests.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Absolutely.

The preamble to our Constitution says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

It doesn’t say born equal, or equal if they’re healthy or wanted…

it says “created” equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life

Discrimination against children in the womb is not the first time the US has failed to live up to the rights put forth in The Declaration of Independence. In fact, both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King cited these very words of the Preamble in their struggle for equality and justice for all:

“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” (Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address)

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal’.” (Martin Luther King, Jr. in his famous I Have a Dream speech)

It’s not a matter of legislating ‘anti-abortion’ laws as it is a matter of living up to the Constitution

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Rape, murder, and other crimes violate the civil rights of a citizen; i.e. someone with civil rights.

As long as a person is not a citizen until they are born, an argument could be made that the government does not have to protect non-citizens from murder. (Maybe citizen isn’t the right grouping here, because then we could also argue that we could kill illegal aliens or visitors.)

Then again, when a pregnant woman is murdered or killed by negligence (such as drunk driver) it is often charged as two murders. Whether it’s a person or not depends on the circumstances and who’s doing the killing.

Alan

 

[ribozyme]

Absolutely.

The preamble to our Constitution says:

It doesn’t say born equal, or equal if they’re healthy or wanted…

it says “created” equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life

Discrimination against children in the womb is not the first time the US has failed to live up to the rights put forth in The Declaration of Independence. In fact, both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King cited these very words of the Preamble in their struggle for equality and justice for all:

It’s not a matter of legislating ‘anti-abortion’ laws as it is a matter of living up to the Constitution

What about discrimination when people are actually alive and out of the womb. Isn’t that worse?

 

[rlg94086]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

**After all, you cannot legislate morality. **

After all, many members on this forum are extremely querulous regarding the intrusion of the government and argue that government based solutions doesn’t work. If the government shouldn’t intervene in the abortion issue, do you

Do you think it is best to leave abortion up to the unregulated free market?

I suppose expectant parents can pay for diagnostic tests for diseases such as trisomy 21 and if an undesirable genotype is found (defined by the parents), they can pay for an abortion. I suppose it is ok to allow the free market to support a “culture of death” because normally a government would be otiose to stop this.

Since you have formulated your question on a false assumption, it is a meaningless question.

If you asked “should the government formulate anti-murder laws” because “after all, you can’t legislate morality,” you would look equally foolish.

 

[ribozyme]

Since you have formulated your question on a false assumption, it is a meaningless question.

If you asked “should the government formulate anti-murder laws” because “after all, you can’t legislate morality,” you would look equally foolish.

Ok, if abortion is considered murder, how do you deal with couples who cannot pay to raise a disable child (in my posts I have mentioned Down syndrome and Gaucher’s disease) that was discovered during a test such as chorionic villus sampling. What if the parent’s do not have the resources for this financially onerous task (especially considering the latter disease).

You have to remember that the world cannot provide for the needs of some children. Some parents do not even have the resources.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

What about discrimination when people are actually alive and out of the womb. Isn’t that worse?

A person in the womb is alive!

And I think it’s much worse to kill a defenseless, innocent, child residing in the sanctuary of it’s mother’s womb than it is to discriminate against a person residing outside their mother’s womb.

The child is currently viewed by some as the mother’s property, much the same way slaves were once viewed as property rather than persons. The mother is allowed to make life & death decisions about her property. No criteria involved. She can simply decide the life of the child because it’s inconvenient to her.

If we take our Declaration of Independence seriously, then we should protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all from the moment of their creation.

 

[rlg94086]

Ok, if abortion is considered murder, how do you deal with couples who cannot pay to raise a disable child (in my posts I have mentioned Down syndrome and Gaucher’s disease) that was discovered during a test such as chorionic villus sampling. What if the parent’s do not have the resources for this financially onerous task (especially considering the latter disease).

There are resources and groups to help them, and there are adoptive families willing to take on that responsibility. My brother was born with a very serious, physical birth defect and required several surgeries throughout his growing years. I’m glad that our mom didn’t choose to abort him (he is too btw). We were poor, but thankfully, groups like Shriner’s Hospital were around to provide the free hospital care.

You have to remember that the world cannot provide for the needs of some children. Some parents do not even have the resources.

So death is better? You are sick. Besides your statement is false. The world can provide for the needs of children.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Ok, if abortion is considered murder, how do you deal with couples who cannot pay to raise a disable child (in my posts I have mentioned Down syndrome and Gaucher’s disease) that was discovered during a test such as chorionic villus sampling. What if the parent’s do not have the resources for this financially onerous task (especially considering the latter disease).

You have to remember that the world cannot provide for the needs of some children. Some parents do not even have the resources.

If we took just a small portion of the Billions we spend on abortions we could easily channel this into aid to families with exceptional children. A quick google search shows pages & pages & pages of support groups.

I have yet to see a parent of a child with Down’s syndrome wish they had chosen to kill them. Most see their DS child as their greatest blessing.

http://www.babble.com/CS/photos/strollerderbyjul2007/images/32787/original.aspx

Those who travel the path of having a baby with Down syndrome discover rich, unexpected rewards along the way. In this candid and poignant collection of personal stories, sixty-three mothers describe the gifts of respect, strength, delight, perspective, and love, which their child with Down syndrome has brought into their lives.

The contributors to this collection have diverse personalities and perspectives, and draw from a wide spectrum of ethnicity, world views, and religious beliefs. Some are parenting within a traditional family structure; some are not. Some never considered terminating their pregnancy; some struggled with the decision. Some were calm at the time of diagnosis; some were traumatized. Some write about their pregnancy and the months after giving birth; some reflect on years of experience with their child.

Their diverse experiences point to a common truth: The life of a child with Down syndrome is something to celebrate. These women have something to say–not just to other mothers but to all of us.

 

[ribozyme]

Gaucher’s disease costs about $200,000 dollars to treat and there doesn’t seem be any regulatory pathway that will lower the cost of that treatment.