Should ABORTION be regulated on the State or Federal level... or neither at all?

Better yet, let me put some facts where the rhetoric is.

According to PregnancyAndBaby.com, "the heart... starts beating around the 22nd to 25th day after conception." That's less than one month! According to ePregnancy.com, at 10 weeks, the "brain is also moving like Greased Lightning: every minute it develops a quarter of a million new neurons." By week 12, the baby is "fully formed."

So the baby has heart and brain activity both within the first trimester. Although it can be argued that life begins before those points, it is impossible to argue that life begins AFTER the brain and heart are both developed and working.

More facts from PregnancyAndBaby.com: After 24 weeks, the "lungs are just starting to develop to the point that some babies -- with major intensive care -- may survive [outside the womb]." At 28 weeks, the eyes are open and babies inside the womb have responded to differences between light and dark. By week 36, "almost all babies born now will survive."

At this point, it cannot be argued that the baby is "non-viable", unable to survive outside the womb. Abortion at this point can only be accurately described as "murder."

Regardless of the circumstances, taking the life of an innocent child is not the answer. Rape and incest are horrible and nobody should ever have to go through them, but does their pain give them the right to murder a child? It's not the baby's fault. Don't punish the innocent baby, punish the rapist.

There are a lot of people who would absolutely love to raise an "unwanted" child as their own, but the're on some long waiting list for an adoption that never seems to come. Have you ever seen a newborn in an orphanage? No, because everybody wants to adopt a newborn, but not a teenager. While that's tragic for orphaned teens, there is a huge demand for newborn babies!

I do put my money where my mouth is. I work for a living and regularly give to my local church as well as worthy charities. But that's not the point. The point is, murder is murder and theft is theft, regardless of whether or not it's endorsed by a corrupt government.

As to the Constitutionality of abortion, let's look at our country's founding documents:

"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." - The Declaration of Independence, ratified 7/4/1776

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." - U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment, ratified 12/15/1791

"No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." - U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, ratified 7/9/1868

These rights are not given by government, but by God Himself. And they are not just afforded to American citizens, but to all mankind. The 5th and 14th Amendments protect the life of any and all "person"s, and that, as proven in the first part of this post, includes those yet to be born.

Finally, I don't believe your argument is a good case for forced "universal health care" a la Hillary Clinton. I believe in helping the poor and needy, but I don't believe in a government stealing from the "rich" to redistribute to the "poor". I believe health care should be kept privatized, yet affordable. Let me donate to the charites I choose. The tragedies that you've listed do not legitimize theft (forced universal health care) and murder (abortion). Our corrupt government may be leaning in that direction, but it's not the Christian Way and it's certainly not the American Way.

I'm not for forcing somebody to become pregnant. I agree that rape is horrible and that those who commit it should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. But how can anybody in good conscience argue dollars over a life?

Number one, I believe in the sanctity of human life, as our Country's Preeminent documents I've previously quoted clearly state. Based on the Constitution (over which liberals falsely claim a monopoly), nobody and I mean NOBODY has the right to deny the unborn child its fundamental, God-given right to life.

Secondly, we have a right to liberty. We are free to live our lives as we choose as long as we do not infringe upon someone else's rights... or break a law that has been legitimately established. Then you may be tried, and if found guilty, punished appropriately.

Thirdly, we have the right to pursue our individual happiness. That means go out, get a job, be a productive member of society, and build the best possible life for yourself. I don't have a right to take the money that you've earned in order to pay my medical expenses and you don't have a right to take mine to pay for yours. Like it or not, The United States is a Capitalist society and that gives us more freedom.

I believe that there should be resources for people in emergency situations, as the hypothetical young lady you referenced... and there are. Every community in our nation has privately-funded organizations, religiously-based as well as secular, that provide such services. As an American I believe in your freedom to give, or not to give, your hard-earned money to help the poor and needy. As a Christian, I choose to give some of mine. But I will give MY money... I won't steal yours under the guise of "Universal Health Care".

Yes You are Forcing Someone To Be Pregnant. Forcing Involves making someone do what they don't want. That's forcing. Period.

Next here's the facts if you lose your job and want to go on COBRA.
http://www.denverpost.com/per...
not many families can afford that. If your child has a preexisting condition you probably would prefer keeping the COBRA. Which would be very expensive.

Should children go without insurance? Is that what Jesus would do?
Would Jesus want anyone to have no insurance and go bankrupt because they got sick?

To go out and get a job depends on if there is a job available. There are many overqualified people out there who cannot get jobs, and once they lose a job it may take awhile to get a new one.

Personally I think it's Dickensian to have anyone go without insurance. There is universal healthcare in other countries, we should do so as well.

It is irresponsible to force someone to be pregnant and then not help to provide for the medical checkups for the woman which would be necessary to make sure that the child that may be born is healthier. Is there a reason that this is not something that you who have forced the woman to be pregnant would feel that you are not obligated to follow up with by providing financial aid? To me that's just evil because some of these women may not have insurance at the time they become pregnant and it very well might lead them to become bankrupt. Certainly you'd wonder how the woman can feed herself if she's stuck with huge medical bills. Maybe you think she and her baby should starve?

You too receive benefits from others. Other people through their taxes provide for your roads, schools, protection: military & police, farmers get subsidies and corporations do as well. If your child became disabled and you or your wife are out of work, you'd probably receive help from the government as well.

Taxes does not equal Robin Hood. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. Unfortunately too many people like you do not believe in sharing. They believe that discrepancy in income is a good thing.

Here's how the poor (which I don't think you have had much experience with) make their living: http://www.nytimes.com/books/...

And here's about the discrepancy in income in the USA.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jou...

Bottom line: Unless you are prepared to pay for the medical care of the woman who is pregnant -- and not necessarily via a nice husband but perhaps through gang rape or through incest-- then you are being highly responsible. You are being highly irresponsible if you force a child to be born into this world and don't have any intention of providing for it's medical care and other needs. Pregnancy is not cheap and no doubt she'd have to pay for medical care which could make her bankrupt. And you'd have to be willing to accept the number of women who will commit suicide rather than have their lives ruined by having a baby. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

We owe it to the rest of humanity that it receive a living wage. Do you think that $7/hour plus the minimum subsidies like food stamps or energy assistance is enough to support yourself and your loved ones. Have you fought to help people receive a living wage?

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

For the record, I do believe (as I've stated before) in sharing my wealth (although I don't have much of it). I just don't believe in forcing you to share yours. I've worked in mental health care for the past two years, literally placing my life in jeopardy on a regular basis, and still make slightly over minimum wage. When the minimum wage is raised in July, I probably won't receive a boost in income. In fact, the 16-year-old kid flipping burgers at McDonald's will be making as much as me. But I chose my line of work because I want to help people with mental and behavioral disabilities and am willing to work for low pay in order to do so. I've worked in management at businesses such as grocery stores and banks and could be making a fortune right now if I'd stayed in those fields, but I'd rather make less money and be helping those less-fortunate than myself. I've also worked part-time for a local church for the past 3 1/2 years, founded and lead volunteer faith-based organizations for the past 16 1/2 years, and volunteer for organizations such as The American Cancer Society, The National Right to Life Association, and The Red Cross for the same reasons.

I don't believe a mandated minimum wage is effective because the businesses and employers that have to pay the higher wages simply raise the prices of their products and services to make up the difference. Therefore, the people who the government is trying to subsidize with a minimum wage just end up spending more for their basic cost of living. It's a well-intentioned concept in theory, but it just doesn't work. But that's an economic issue, and getting off the main topic of this poll.

I believe there should be agencies to help support people in crisis such as those to whom you referred, but I don't think it should be done by taxes. It should be done by volunteer charitable organizations, churches, faith-based groups, and individuals by their own free will. Taxes were established for common needs of the Nation, such as National Defense, law enforcement, roads, etc. When we start raising taxes to pay for things that belong in the private sector, then we're heading down the road to socialism... then communism.

Anyway, I think we agree on the principle that people should have sources of support for crisis situations. We just differ on what those sources should be and how they should be paid.

As it relates to this poll, my bottom line is this: I want all people to have their fundamental human and civil rights. Those are defined in the Constitution as life, liberty, and property. The primary of those is life (hence this poll). If you are denied your right to life without due process, liberty and property go out the window with it. Liberty cannot be denied without due process as well, but when your liberty infringes upon someone else's human rights (such as a mother who wants to abort her baby), then sacrifices in liberty need to be made in deference to life. And when a person's private property and hard-earned assets are taken to "redistribute" to others, then we're violating their third fundamental human right. When we deny someone (whether they be 9 years old, 90 years old, or 90 days in the womb) their human rights, we sacrifice everything that makes our Nation the greatest in the world, and I think it's high time we start protecting those rights for the last oppressed minority of our time: those yet to be born.