Are there any pro-choice conservatives here?

[James]

I hate abortion, but do any of y'all like the "right" to decide whether your child lives or not?

[OberonDOtherseid]

No because in my opinion you made the choice for your child to live when you dropped your drawers.

[The Analog Kid]

I do know a few pro choice republicans.

I am not one of them.

[VXerick]

I'm not a republican but I'm a conservative and I'm against abortion on demand.

I approve of the medical procedure sometimes referred to as abortion, when the mother's life is threatened and in some rare cases of severe problems with the fetus.

But I'm totally against abortion clinics and abortions used as birth control or as a convenience for women who want the right to destroy a mistake. They should think of the consequences before they copulate.

[castille]

Well I'm pro-choice, and kind of conservative.

However I would prefer if people try to prevent pregnancies first.

[trixmix]

There is such a thing as a pro-choice conservative??

[rcne]

I would say that in some instances abortion is necessary, but they are few and far between.

I appreciate the scare tactics presented whenever the true pro-choicers are cornered. Even when such a thing as parental notification for a minor is thrown in the air as outrageous.

And yet the minors can't buy alcohol or cigarettes until they are 21. They can't even drive a car without a parent signing for them. So a little thing like an abortion isn't as serious as driving a car?

[Dieval]

Personally, I am more pro-choice in the beginning of the pregnancy(Castille is right, it should be prevented though) but as it gets closer and closer to the time of birth I am more and more pro-life..

[Doug]

I'm technically a pro-choice conservative, inasmuch as I wouldn't put someone in jail for having an abortion. But I am for surrounding the subject of abortion with as much reality as possible: that it is taking a life, that it is a tragedy. As a conservative I know that tragedy is an inescapable part of the human condition and cannot be avoided. But we should be aware of it. I would make abortion a solemn, serious, and sad occasion.

[Pale RIder]

I believe all women should have the choice to have sex or not to have sex. If they choose to have sex and become pregnant however...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Doug I'm technically a pro-choice conservative, inasmuch as I wouldn't put someone in jail for having an abortion. But I am for surrounding the subject of abortion with as much reality as possible: that it is taking a life, that it is a tragedy. As a conservative I know that tragedy is an inescapable part of the human condition and cannot be avoided. But we should be aware of it. I would make abortion a solemn, serious, and sad occasion.

If it is a tragedy, why would you stand idly by while it happens. 40 million times and counting?

[caspian88]

I'm pro-choice. I just don't feel that a fetus has any legal rights until birth, according to the definition of a citizen in the 14th Amendment. "born or naturalized." I also do not feel that there are any natural rights, nor any moral rights.

There are some times when I'm no longer pro-choice, but rather supportive of mandatory abortions, but that's just after a long hard day on the forums.

[James]

Quote by: caspian88 I'm pro-choice. I just don't feel that a fetus has any legal rights until birth, according to the definition of a citizen in the 14th Amendment. "born or naturalized." I also do not feel that there are any natural rights, nor any moral rights. There are some times when I'm no longer pro-choice, but rather supportive of mandatory abortions, but that's just after a long hard day on the forums.

Why not until birth? What makes you say that a person's legal rights start at birth?
Seriously.

[caspian88]

Why do you?

EDIT: That makes no sense. I'll restate it: Why do you think that legal rights should be extended to the unborn?

[Agent007]

My friend trixmix, unless you are being verbally ironic, you should acknowledge that people should not (at least in a democratized world) and usually do not flock to two different extremes on issues. When one is conservative, he or she may be a strong one, a mediocre one, or a weak one.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: caspian88 I'm pro-choice. I just don't feel that a fetus has any legal rights until birth, according to the definition of a citizen in the 14th Amendment. "born or naturalized." I also do not feel that there are any natural rights, nor any moral rights. There are some times when I'm no longer pro-choice, but rather supportive of mandatory abortions, but that's just after a long hard day on the forums.

Don't believe there are natural rights, or don't accept that there are natural rights. I don't want to enter a debate over abortion but I would like to give you my argument for the existence of an unborn human being's inalienable right to life if I may.

"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,"

It was, and is a legal document, and it does indeed have real bearing on this legal matter, and others. Allow me to explain.

The Declaration was, without a doubt, the constitutional law of this nation for certain purposes. It freed the people from their loyalty to the king of England for example. In fact, it was declared so by the judicial tribunals of this country. No American during the Revolutionary war, or since could be legally tried on this soil for treason to the king. It stands to reason that if the Declaration were the constitutional law of the nation for that purpose, then it was also the constitutional law for the purpose of recognizing and establishing, as law, the inalienable right of all Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does it not?

The lawfulness of the people disavowing their loyalty to the king was agreed upon by the people of this nation and that act was made legal by the instrument that declared that the rebellion; and it’s authority rested squarely upon, and was, in itself a consequence of the right that all men had to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the act of rebellion against the king was determined to be lawful, then it becomes very difficult to argue that the principles that legalized the act did not become the law. Furthermore, when the country ratified the act of freeing themselves from the crown, did they not also, by definition, ratify and acknowledge the principles that they declared made the revolution legal?

I need to stop for a moment to ask if you agree that for a time, the declaration was in principle, the law of the land for that time (1776)? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I am going to guess that you agreed because you seem to be an individual who grasps concepts and ideas and isn’t prone to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So, whether the Declaration was the law for a year, or just one day, it established that in this nation, all men had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From that point forward, for anyone claiming otherwise, the burden falls upon them to establish that the right to life has been constitutionally taken away, and to do that, he (or she) is going to have to show a deliberate constitutional description of the particular individuals who have had their inalienable right to life abolished.

Simply stated, the people of this country, in the instrument by which they first announced their political independence from the king and declared their right to establish a government of their own also declared that the inalienable right of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a ”SELF EVIDENT TRUTH”.

Self evident truths, except those which are explicitly denied are taken for granted and constitute a fundamental part of all constitutions, compacts and systems of government. If we did not take for granted self evident truths it would be impossible for any orderly government to be established because it would be impossible to make an actual inventory of all of the self evident truths that are to be taken into account in the administration of a government. This is especially true of governments as we have here in the US that are founded upon a contract. It is impossible in a contract of government to list all of the self evident truths that would have to be acted upon in the administration of the law and therefore they are all taken for granted EXCEPT for the ones that have been plainly denied.

The principle that self evident truths (even those not enumerated) make a part of all laws and contracts unless they are clearly refused is not only necessary to the very existence of a civil society, but it is a prerequisite to the administration of justice in each and every case that may arise out of a contract or other arrangement between individuals. As with government, it would be impossible for us to make contracts at all if it were going to be necessary to list each and every self evident truth that might have some bearing on their contract before a judge. Because of this, self evident truths are taken for granted out of legal necessity.

Governments have no more right to deny self evident truths than individuals in any case. To deny that self evident truths are part of the law is no different than arguing that self evident deception is part of the law.

So if, according to our founders, and founding document, it is a self evident truth that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that truth must be present in all of our laws and all of our constitutions except in caes where it has been unmistakably and precicely denied.

What say ye?

[castille]

I don't believe any form of life that is unaware of its existence has any rights.

This goes for trees, plants, fetus, etc.

After all, if we can argue a fetus has rights, we can also argue a tree, or bacteria, all have rights.

[caspian88]

Pale Rider, my argument hinges on this - where do we get these natural rights from?

Answer - nowhere. These "self evident truths" are ideas that were mutually agreed upon by many, if not most, people. They are not something that any person has a right to based solely on their existence, it is a convention that came about over several thousand years. Saying that they are "natural" was a result of religoius influence and the ignorance and idealism of the times.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: caspian88 Pale Rider, my argument hinges on this - where do we get these natural rights from? Answer - nowhere. These "self evident truths" are ideas that were mutually agreed upon by many, if not most, people. They are not something that any person has a right to based solely on their existence, it is a convention that came about over several thousand years. Saying that they are "natural" was a result of religoius influence and the ignorance and idealism of the times.

Nowhere.. Except that they are encoded into every facet of our legal system. To deny that they exist is to deny your right to live as a free person as opposed to living as a slave.

You can make all the philosophical arguments that you like, but the fact remains that in this country, an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is granted to every human being by his creator. If you believe in God, then the right comes from that source, if you don't, then your parents create you and they give you that right. And it isn't a time compliant right. If you are a human being, the right is yours. Since we don't become more human by virtue of our age, it stands to reason that we always have the right

Roe is going to be struck down next time it is heard precicely because unborns are human beings from the moment of their conception (agreed upon by contemporary science) and in this nation, human beings have an inalienable right to life. Unless of course, the unborn is directly threatening the life of the woman who has the right to defend herself.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: castille I don't believe any form of life that is unaware of its existence has any rights. This goes for trees, plants, fetus, etc. After all, if we can argue a fetus has rights, we can also argue a tree, or bacteria, all have rights.

But trees and bacteria are not human beings. Unborn humans are. If one human has rights in this country, then all humans have the same rights. It is the foundation of our legal system.