It seems strangely conveinent timing for conservatives to reignite this issue. There has been steady progress towards the annihilation of abortion rights throughout the country. Why is the pro-life camp choosing to bring this to the supreme court?
123512
It's a way for them to extend religion into government.  Most denominations of Christianity, but especially Catholicism, do not allow ANY type of birth control, but especially not abortion.  The belief is that if you are going to have sex, God will make you have a baby if He wants you to have one.\n\nThey're brining it to make sure that no one can "play God" by killing a baby.\n\nThe saddest part is though, they want to make it so that abortion is only legal if the mother's life is in danger, not if she is pregnant from rape or incest.  I think that a girl who was raped or impregnated by incest does have her life in danger though, many commit suicide.  No women should EVER be asked to bring her attacker's baby into the world.  She'll walk around and get the stigma that she's a little slut, and that is just who the Conservatives believe that she is, so she gets more pain and humiliation on top of what she suffers already.\n\nIt's sad, isn't it?\n\nAnd no, it's not the baby's fault, but would you rather be hated and scorned or never born?
82173
Rewrite:\n\nArgument still stands for all to read.\n\n#1 The brain and heart don't start beating until way after the time for an abortion.  So technically, it's not a life yet.\n\n#2 60% of all children within the system never get adopted.  I'm sure if the number was much better a lot of people might consider it a real alternative.\n\nThey prolifers do it because it's an ideology thing.  They don't actually want to adopt the kids or help out the poor/underprivileged people.  It's much easier for them to jus preach about what they believe is right.  That way, on Sunday then can think back on all the times they've tried to spread the word of God - and not on how many times they've actually tried to live by it.\n\nYou show me a good person who gives himself honestly to his fellow man for the good of everyone but himself, and I'll show you someone who wouldn't call himself a religious person.
450254
The thing about the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing entirely unrelated issues. Pro-life people say "abortion is bad". Pro-choice advocates say "The government not should be making personal decisions that like". It's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions.\n\nFace it -- someone is going to choose.  It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority (through enacted laws). If the majority gets to choose, then they are effectively imposing their belief system -- which is almost always religiously-based -- on everyone.\n\nRight now, the conservatives happen to be in the majority, so many of them seem to have no objection to imposing their religious and moral views on others.  But allowing the government to choose doesn't resolve the question. It just means that the decision on whether abortion is justified is being made by those in power, rather than those personally affected.\n\nDo you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians? Do people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must? Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nThe concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
365364
I like it....a great thought experiment!\nWhich is more important to the people who are, for instance, willing to vote for a *constitutional amendment* for godsake to restrict freedoms in this country by saying we as a nation claim that the pursuit of domestic happiness must occur only between people with the appropriately different genitals.  The kinds of genitals that can together make babies. sometimes unwanted babies. Those folks want to make pursuit of happiness restricted.  Okay.  I'd love to see the poll numbers on how many of them would also like to have "the right to life" of the fetus trump the "right to liberty" of the adult female.  It's doubtlessly true that if gay marriage were legal everywhere and rights and equal status were conveyed to gay couples, then there would be more newly 'appropriate' homes for kids saved from being aborted by those heterosexual breeding pairs conservatives would like to limit marriage rights to.\nBut of course, the folks who tend to vehemently oppose abortion likely wouldn't be too pleased with gay couples getting babies to raise.  \nWhat's interesting, really, is how many non-conservative types are against gay marriage but against limiting abortion rights.  So, the right of someone to end a pregnancy falls under her rights to privacy and control over her body, but the right of someone to fall in love with and pledge to be partner to another person is subject to government approval.  I understand all the 'get the government off my body" stuff in the abortion wars, but the anti-gay-marriage thing for non-conservatives seems to me mostly about an 'eww' factor.
629172
The answer here is very easy. When you talk about the legalisation of abortion in a country, you are not talking about whether or not abortion (or life) is a good thing or a bad thing. That is a question of ethics and/or religious belief. It is not a question of law.\n\nWhether or not to have an abortion is a choice. People who believe that abortion should be legal believe that women should have that choice. People who believe it should be a crime thus want to take away that element of choice. By defiition then, they are anti-choice.\n\nI have heard a lot of 'pro-life' people call the opposition 'anti-life'. They are specifically trying to bring the legal question back into the religious agenda, and they are overgeneralising.\n\nIt is possible to be pro-life, ethically, and pro-choice, legally.
333032
Because they haven't thought through it properly. Just like the rest of us (including, no doubt, you), many of their opinions are a mix of other peoples opinions. The result is an inconsistent view (also note opinions on the death penalty). It is almost impossible to think through EVERY issue for yourself because there are so many.\n\nIn many cases it could be conservatism is masquarading as pro-life. They are not the same thing. Conservatism says whatever we used to do is right. Pro-life says that every human life is worth more than anything.\n\nOn the other hand, pro-choice could be called inconsistent. Just as an a parent may believe their life would be better if the foetus didn't exist, the U.S. may feel it more convenient if the nation of Iraq is a bloody mess.\n\nEvery unheard voice of every oppressed person, whether in Iraq or in the womb, is worth defending.
522433
If they wanted you to have health care, they would give it to you in some way that was affordable and effective.  The fact is, in their paradigm, if you cannot afford it, you shouldn't have it.  It is difficult to accept this as reality, but it is true.  They say they are pro-life, but as you show here, when it comes to supporting life, they are nowhere to be found.  That is their health care plan.
363680
The privacy laws are a thinly disguised method of hiding abortion statistics, so nobody will know the true scale of all the death and destruction that's going on in this country.\n\nYour issue is simply another example of a way this wrong headed law injures society.
532260
this is something I never could understand, I think if anyone did 5 minutes research they would see it was a republican Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion for Roe VS Wade in the Supreme Court, It was also a republican Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time also, Mrs Bush has even said on national TV (The Today Show) she does not believe the Roe VS Wade should be over turned and thought here husband agreed with her. The Roe VS Wade ruling was about not letting the Government control to make the decision for whats  right for a individual, the same with gun control, when the biggest gun control bill in recent history has been the Brady bill,( a Conservative backed bill) yes, both issues had allot of liberal support, but as in both things, but there is allot of gray area, that they misinform people with
368417
Because the basic principle behind making abortion illegal is anti-choice -- the fact that individuals do not have control over what happens to their own bodies, and that the govt can make such decisions regardless of what the individual agrees to.\n\nThe death penalty, assisted suicide, abortion -- all of these are debates regarding the government's authority to control life and death, and to take those choices away from the individual.\n\nIt makes perfect sense, under that model, that the state has the sole control over life and death, from conception to sentencing.
516106
Oh Firestorm, your childish understanding of our legal system, and in particular the concept of judicial review - is adorable. Yeah, abortion is legal? Why? Because the Supreme Court says so. And it looks like even our new Justices are going to choose to uphold abortion as a woman's right...because they understand the constitution. That is, after all, their job.
285177
Liberals falsely believe that the right to an abortion gives a woman more rights.  This is incorrect, it only allows women to become irresponsible with having sex.  Look at it this way, if a man gets a woman pregnant, regardless of his wish to terminate the child, he is held responsible by society to take care of that child.  Ask any liberal why men are not held to the same standard as women, they won't be able to come up with any reasons that make sense.  God forbid a woman be held responsible for having sex, just like we hold men to be.\n\n(rape accounts for much less than 1% of all abortions. The solution is to punish men for raping women, not making abortions legal)\n\nUltimately I believe it's a state's right to decide if abortion should be legal.  Roe vs Wade is very unconstitutional, for all powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states and the people.  You can thank our out of control supreme court for this mess.
140620
GOOD BYE "LAUNCH".  I believe that same sex marriages should be outlawed by the Supreme Court.  And since Conservatives now have a majority on the bench I believe it will happen.
219505
They believe the life begins at conception and no reason is good enough to murder a child. I always found it funny that those same conservative people are the same ones who are all for the death penalty. It OK to murder a grown person if they are found guilty in the court of law weather they are truly guilty or not but it is not OK to destroy a cluster of cells the will eventually turn into a human.
471901
Everyone I personally know who is pro-choice disapproves of abortion. But it's not an issue of whether they think abortion is good or not.\n\nIt's an issue of whether the majority has the right to force the decision as a matter of law, and take that decision away from the individual. The whole debate is about WHO gets to make the choice.\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterilizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right. Abortion is legal in the US because the Supreme Court has determined that reproductive rights are fundamental, and thus constitutionally protected. \n\nIf the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and that the government gets to choose regardless of what the individual wants, then the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to govt control.\n\nNew York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer protected. \n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. \n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians? Do people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must? Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nThe concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
136282
Is there ANY way in which that is NOT a violation of the first amendment?  That judge managed to destroy BOTH freedom of religion AND freedom of speech in one sentence!  It's perfectly legal to refuse medical treatment for a dying child because it goes against your religious beliefs, but God forbid you make fun of Christianity when your kid's not even there.  Has Bush tried to appoint this guy to the Supreme Court yet?  And why is it that they don't take away people who teach their children to racism and homophobia (or creationism for that matter) but parents who's religion goes against Christianity can lose their kids?  Or maybe it was the sex toy thing.  Perhaps we should take away the kids of everyone who has had sex.  But wait a second, that might not work so well.
659279
Loathe as I am to defend ANY Republican, I think that there is more going on here than a small group of John Birch Society-style conservatives 'going off the reservation' and ttrying to turn back the hands of time all by themselves.\nIt may be possible that there were numerous parts stuffed into the renewal of the act (in political jargon, its called pork-barrel politics) that the small group took exception to. This practive is not at all uncommon, where something unpopular is packaged within something that is extremely popular (or time-critical) so it will pass into law as well.\nWhile I am not at all sure of what was contained within the renewal, it might have been something about the wording that would allow for contentious debate in the future (such as granting the right to gay marriage to those subject to the Act in the chance that it became federal law), or contravened the authority of individual states' right (it has happened many times before, and took forever to fix). As well, it might have been a provision in the renewal calling for the closure or heavy regulation of a corporation in the Republican's state of constituency.\nSo, it might not have had anything to do with the Act itself, and the Democrats (who can play dirty pool almost as good as the Republicans) retaliating for not being yes men.\nObviously, more research should be done before assigning blame.