Topic: recycle this topic

Camp: Agreement / Womens Issues / Abortion

Camp Statement History

Objected
Live
In Review
Old
Statement :

Abortion


Abortion.
The term stirs strong emotions.
The 1973 US Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade ruled that the Texas state law prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The effect was nullifying all laws regulating abortion but perhaps the bigger impact was further polarizing pro-life and pro-choice movements.
Supreme Court nominees and political candidates are grilled on their abortion views as all sides jockey for more or fewer abortion limits.
Is it possible to find any common ground?
Canonizer thinks there is.

Here is the Abortion topic where people can weigh in.

Every candidate and every political party who fields candidates for public office should both have and publish their position on this camp topic (Abortion) as a condition for public support, so people know how the candidate proposes to represent them, and they (the people) can hold him (shorthand for all genders) accountable for how their actual representation and votes compare to what their campaign position on this topic was.

Edit summary :
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brannock
Go live Time :
Statement :

Abortion


Abortion.
The term stirs strong emotions.
The 1973 US Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade ruled that the Texas state law prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The effect was nullifying all laws regulating abortion but perhaps the bigger impact was further polarizing pro-life and pro-choice movements.
Supreme Court nominees and political candidates are grilled on their abortion views as all sides jockey for more or fewer abortion limits.
Is it possible to find any common ground?
Canonizer thinks there is.

Here is the Abortion topic where people can weigh in.

Every candidate and every political party who fields candidates for public office should both have and publish their position on this camp topic as a condition for public support, so people know how the candidate proposes to represent them, and they (the people) can hold him (shorthand for all genders) accountable for how their actual representation and votes compare to what their campaign position on this topic was.

Edit summary :
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brannock
Go live Time :
Statement :

Abortion


Abortion.
The term stirs strong emotions.
The 1973 US Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade ruled that the Texas state law prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The effect was nullifying all laws regulating abortion but perhaps the bigger impact was further polarizing pro-life and pro-choice movements.
Supreme Court nominees and political candidates are grilled on their abortion views as all sides jockey for more or fewer abortion limits.
Is it possible to find any common ground?
Canonizer thinks there is.

Here is the Abortion topic where people can weigh in.

Edit summary :
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : KC
Go live Time :
Statement :

Abortion


Click here to weigh in.

Edit summary :
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brent_Allsop
Go live Time :
Statement :

Abortion


Here is the Abortion topic where people can weigh in.

Edit summary : restore original.
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brent_Allsop
Go live Time :
Statement :

Abortion


Here is the Abortion topic where people can weigh in.
The United States Government does not have the right to intrude into the personal choices, in the pursuit of happiness and well-being, of private citizens, unless some compelling state interest requires it.
The United States government has the delegated right and responsibility to represent and protect the legitimate interests of its citizens. It does not have the delegated right to represent and protect the interests and rights of all people, or all sentient beings, or all potential people or sentient beings that are not its citizens.
An unborn child, until born, is not a citizen of the United States. It is an appendage to the mother.
That arguments may abound as to the viability of the life of the fetus at various stages, does not overcome the reality that, even where life is assumed, presumed, or accepted, the fact remains that until born, it is not a United States Citizen.
Accordingly, government intervention into the choice of a woman, on the subject of an appendage to and dependent on her own body for survival, cannot be justified on the basis of the rights of the fetus. The government has no rational jurisdiction over such rights.
As this is the case, the only rationale that can be argued, is that the survival of unborn fetuses somehow serves a public collective interest of United States Citizens. No such public collective interest can be argued to exist, beyond the emotional and religious perceptions of those who emotionalize the subject.
The world population, given the various global emergencies upon us, can be reasonably argued to be unsustainable, as it is. It absolutely cannot be reasonably argued to be insufficient.
These are the cold facts of the matter. The business of the government is not to coddle to emotional and religious persuasions. It is to do its job and only its job within the limits of its authority.
Whether abortion should be eligible for government or private funding is a separate question. The questions should not be obfuscated by being commingled as if they were the same question.
To tell a woman whether she can have an abortion is one thing. To fund it for her is quite something else.

Edit summary : Brannock's proposed position
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brannock
Go live Time :
Statement :

Abortion


Here is the Abortion topic where people can weigh in.

Edit summary :
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brent_Allsop
Go live Time :