How do I support murder?  Please, give me some examples.  If I supported murder, would I be anti-abortion on a widescale level except for rape cases?  If I support murder, would I be anywhere but jail?  If I support murder, if I truly condone the killing of people on a widespread basis, should my name be Charles Manson instead of what was given to me?  No, sir, the point is that you cannot come up with a stylistic comeback and run from the original topic by diverting attention to something else--a tactic I, as a Republican, is used to.

I never said you condoned killing on a widespread basis. You said abortion is murder...then you said you would support it in the instance of rape. If you allow an abortion to happen, are you not allowing murder? Is abortion not murder when it is a rape? That seems like an odd stance.

Please, I addressed the topic thoroughly throughout the thread. I ran from nothing.

@Jackson. It may seem that you caught me at a disadvantage. However, when you look at it from a perspective point of view and think to yourself, "Should I really go through this?", then the majority of women would most likely say no. If they do go through with the birth then it should be complemented and hailed. I never said that the instance of rape should be always an abortive case (it should have the option of doing the right thing in my mind). It is the catcher in the rye, the moment where liberals and conservatives collide--that gotcha moment--and it doesn't have to happen. It should not have to happen. However when it does, you have to make sense of the far-reaching things, the potential life threatening things in the long term. A child could be born to that situation and if not adopted, could be distant from his or her mother for the rest of his/her life. Would I want that? Of course not. You see there is a common bind between all parties. It is emotion. One of them is sympathy-I may not have it in the other instances but for this one, I most certainly do. If that makes me a hypocrite, then so be it.

If abortion truly is murder, as you believe, it cannot be allowed. If, however, you allow murder because a child may be distant from his/her mother, should you not also allow murder if a child will have some sort of congenital disorder? Is that not worse than someone being distant from his/her mother? I would imagine allowing murder to prevent a debilitating congenital disorder is more justifiable than allowing murder to prevent someone from being distant from his/her mother.

In the long term, it is in the eye of the beholder.  As for major decisions, that is for politicians to decide. 

So here's one:  halogamer1989 (R) for President of VGChartz.  We should have had an election months ago.

Once again, its a Constitutional issue, not simply a moral issue.

I don't see fetuses mentioned in the Constitution! Therefore they aren't protected. Or at least that is where a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution would get you.

But seriously folks, a strict constructionist reading can get you ridiculous results. If you read the Constitution strictly, a fetus has little or no rights under the Due Process Clause. And are fetuses "persons" as defined in other parts of the Constitution?  Were the Founding Fathers thinking of fetuses?  How do we even know?  Its not there on the page, so how can we in good faith say that they were thinking of fetuses?  It says "All persons born or naturalized..." and then goes on to define protections for this class. Guess what? Fetuses aren't "born or naturalized"! They might still fall under the catch-all persons phrase, but are they persons?  Did the Founding Fathers intend that?  I don't know if I can honestly say they did based on what's on the page.

So people who say that the Constitution doesn't provide an express right to abortion by applying a strict constructionist reading are implying additional rights that aren't there, that the fetus has defined rights. Am I saying this is how we should read the Constitution? No, I am just saying that if you take a step back that a strict constructionist reading of everything produces absurd results.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It really comes down to if you believe in what good for a secular society, or what's good for a 'religious' society. I really don't get the latter because everyone in America is going to burn in hell for avarice and coveting thy neighbors property (like that Iphone your friend has? GET ONE and It's right this way to HELL, Like George Carlin said, it runs the economy this commandment is fucking stupid lol). Anyway the religious argument is bullshit because we are all burning. What's good for a society then? Does the devaluation of life continously create a more immoral people? I mean come on, if you can abort people you certainly care less about human life. On the other hand though, hasn' t the devaluation of life occured more so in news media, cinema, and just through our warlike nature? Abortion isn't a spectator sport, like a movie is when we all cheer when a "bad" guy gets his head blown off. Abortion is intensely personal and has a profound effect on ones conscience (I know not everyones). I think our society would be actually much better if abortion was the only way life was "devalued", then it would be intensely personal. Like if we had to kill our own food, we would have a greater appreciation for what has occured. This is all over the place and no, I'm not saying to eat fetuses. I guess I'm just suprised at the black and white nature of the arguments posted on here. Killing is bad ergo, we shouldn't kill. Wait...ammend that so it just is for fetuses. This may seem like a dumb question, but is using a condom immoral? I mean, using one would be preventing life from occuring and fucking with God's work.

Sorry this is all over the place. I just think this issue is made to be out to be too easy, but maybe I'm touting moral relativism too much.

I can think of one type of naturalization.  Sperm, egg he he ooohh-right.  Giggity, giggity ;)