I disagree... with " repeat "this board is not the place for this subject". This board is almost "perfect" in manhandling persons who are unable or unwilling to debate serious issues WITHOUT making it personal. This is a serious issue. I will debate it seriously without personal "attacks", name calling, or casting discredit or disrespect on any other person here. It has always been acceptable to disagree or debate an issue here by stating affirmatively your position. However, editorializing, characterizing another person's opinion in any way is unnecessary and counter productive.
Having thusly jumped into the fray, I will now add my "three cents" (Obama is singularly responsible for the rampant 50% inflation rate on the market value of conservative opinions by requiring so many of us to state them.)
I do not believe "Federal" funds shoiuld in any way be provided to any agency or organiztion that provides abortion services, period. If any individual State or States wants to do so I will argue against the policy or moral grounds. I however do not need a moral argument against the Federal Govenment funding such an entity (or lots of other things it currently funds) because there is no athority for it to be done under the US Constitution. Our Federal Government is one that is limited in scope by the various grants of authority set out in the US Constitution. It's like the old ad; "show me the beef". Only, show me the authority in the Constitution. If it is not authorized, whether it is (in your opinion or mine) good or bad policy, it is not a permissible Federal activity. End of that argument from my perspective.
Now, at the State level. Here is my convoluted position. First, I personally find abortion on any grounds other than to preserve the woman's life unacceptable. I have no illusions about a religious or moralistic dogmatic argument. My position is based on a personal observation that human life, all human life is precious and worthy of my personal protection within the constraints of the law. (there is the sticky/tricky part) I will what I can to save another's life. I will do what I can to protect another's life. However, I know that in some aspects I am being hypocritical because I have in my past done whatever was necessary to do the exact opposite when it was my duty or obligation. But, that is for another moment in time to be examined.
Now, for the confusion and dichotomy in my pesonal position. But, and this is a big one, I do not believe that it is the government's place to intrude into a peronal matter so inimate and private as procreation to regulate it or it's termination early in the pregnancy. I do not like this aspect of my position but I find myself grudgingly accepting that others may and do disgree with my position and I cannot accept that the government has the authority to intrude in early pregancies. It is why I am willing to "accept" the arbitrary time frames and the results of Roe v. Wade. At some point society's (read that as State Government's) power to protect it's citizens grows more pursuasive than a woman's right to control her own body. (this isn't easy or comfortable if you are intellectually honest and consistent in regard to the sanctity of life or the right to privacy because they are in direct conflict) Similar, sort of, to the accptable limitations on free speech..no shouting "fire" for a joke in a public auditorium when there is none. My rights and your rights do have limits where a more important societal right comes into conflict with them. Thus, if a woman is going to choose to terminate her pregnancy she may do so early when the viability of the fetus is clearly in doubt. But, she will lose that right to choose if she delays her decision too long in the eyes of the law. (Yes it can be argued that the lines are abitrary, but consistency and predictability are factors in establishing "laws".) Roe v. Wade is settled law. It ought not to be disturbed.
