As a women I understand why abortion is such a key issue. It's all about rights over our bodies. For generations women were told what they had to do with their bodies . Can't blame us for now wanting full control now that we have it. Also, once rights have started to be taken away then there tends to be a slide of other rights being taken away as well. First abortion, then the right to contraceptive, etc etc.

Thanks mafia. It appears I was *mistaken* (again, not a lie as there was no intent). That was the kind of citation I was looking for. While I'm pro-life, I do not support this tight-fisted stance and believe life does *not* begin at conception and, therefore, a rape victim (or any woman considering when life begins) should be allowed to have an abortion up to the point the child is a life. That is more than enough time for a pregnant rape victim to both know she is pregnant and choose to terminate the pregnancy *before* the potential life actually becomes a life.

@Draug Where do you consider life to begin?

Also reading that platform is super upsetting. Like the part where it says that parental notification laws for abortion are to "protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape" and that because the family is the basic unit of society parents should make reproductive choices for their teenage daughters. Ugh, fucking disgusting.

@CF - but do you think a child's head intentionally being smashed in as it emerges from the birth canal is anything *except* murder? Putin believes it is a growth and up to the mother all the way until the cord is cut, if I'm not mistaken.

@CF - where there is brainwaves and the fetus feels pain. If we start arguing viability outside the womb, then someone on life support who hasn't expressed their intent via a living will suddenly becomes a valid target not just to have the support turned off, but to have their life forfeit to direct action.

@CF I would never have an abortion that late but it's not my body and not my choice. I'd be a lot my willing to limit abortion if we had a better adoption system.

*rolls eyes* Oh good, the partial birth abortion boogeyman is back. Where's fulhamish? This is his favourite topic!

err @drauger Sorry tired.

@Mafia - reading over that makes me reconsider who I vote for this fall. If that is what Romney supports, then I have a real problem with a party that proclaims they support individuals rights but then don't allow a teenager her right to privacy and to determine the course of her life.

Also usually abortions that late occur for medical reasons. ie. the mother will die otherwise. You want to make a law that says "if you encounter complications very late in your pregnancy, too bad, you have to die"?

I'll try and find the exact language. It's in the RNC platform, but I don't know what Romney's personal stance is on the issue. I wouldn't bother trying to find out though. He'll change his mind in 3 minutes anyway.

@CF - I knew who you meant. But do you think *any* woman should have the right to abort a child that is viable outside the womb? Considering she has had months on months to decide to abort to this point, it seems she gave up that freedom to choose when she choose to carry the baby that long. Kind of like I have a right to life, but if I kill someone, that right is forfeit. Actions have consequences and carrying a aby for 4 or 5 months until it is actually a life and then deciding to kill it seems... well... morally repulsive.

"Because the family is our basic unit of society, we fully support parental rights to consent to medical treatment for their children including mental health treatment, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives and abortion."

"We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement."

Well the thing is Draugnar, most people who choose late term abortions (and they are quite rare) do so because of medical complications. The mother's life is at risk because of the pregnancy usually. That's why. Again, I think it's wrong to create a law that tells women they have to die.

@Mafia - I believe in exceptions to every rule and my personal view is that everyone should have the right to argue their view in court and let the courts make a well reasoned opinion when it comes to a second life. But viability outside the womb means it is big enough to be a risk aborting as well. In that case, there should be an option to have the child removed and placed in incubation with the mother having the choice of keeping it or giving it up for adoption. And if viability isn't a possibility by today's standard but the child is alive (pain and brainwaves) then the removal should be attempted anyhow and, if the child doesn't make it, at least we tried. Imagine if doctors never tried extreme measures to save lives. There would be a lot more dead people and a lot fewer life saving techniques.

So you think women's individual health should be a matter of public record in every case? You want judges and committees deciding whether a woman has the right to decide to give birth early, and even then, whether the woman wants it or not the doctors have to try to deliver? Why do you get to make this choice. It's NOT YOUR BODY.

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm sorry, you're wrong.

Draugnar doesnt even know his own partys platform. Talk about a dummycrat. No wonder these fools get away with being ignorant, womenhating thugs.

It's *not* just the woman's body. It's the *child's* body. I've already said I don't believe it's a life until certain standards we set are met. And I don't believe the RNC standards are at all realistic or based on scientific evidence.

What don't you get about a baby that is viable outside the womb not being subject to murder? It isn't perfect, but someone has to speak for those who can't speak for themselves.

Hey puttydick! Didn't you read where I said I was reconsidering my vote? Also, I've clearly stated in the past that I'm a conservative lkeaning independent. Fuck, asswipe, I voted for Obama *and* for Perot. The Tea Party and the classic Republican party are *not* my party. The closest I come to being a party follower (unlike you who follow your party line even when you don't agree with it which is, what, never?) is Ron Paul's views on individual's rights and states rights. And some of those are even wrong as far as I'm concerned.

@Mafia - Your opinion is I'm wrong. My opinion is your wrong. Discussion finished if that is how you truly feel.

You change your political views more often than most people change their socks. Youve spent the last several months demonizing Obama with tea party rhetoric, and you repeatedly claim youre a Republucan to deflect criticism if Republicans. But when its convenient you call yourself independent.

Lol...

@Putin - I use my brain and am continually evaluating and making decisions. I'm not indoctinated into the rhetoric and follow it blindly like you do.

When you are as old as I am, I hope you have moved beyond following the party line and rhetoric and actually learn to use your brain, but I fear the liberal education/indoctrination you have received may well work against that possible outcome. Your what, eraly to mid 20s? Around half my age... Get a couple more decades under the belt and see how reality actually works outside of academia.

@Draug That's silly to just blame it on age. I'm barely 30 and I do the same as you. I change my opinions as more information comes forward so it's not age.

Age is not a substitute for critical thinking. Though it's a handy crutch to use to try and shut down a younger person, huh?

Oh and I am a college grad so it's not a "liberal education" thing either. I was even a theatre major so I got a pretty liberal education.

You used party line rhetoric as of this week. Now you claim to be older and more moderate. Right, dummycrats. You argue like a weasal. Say whatever is useful at the moment, much like Romney.