Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ColDayMan

Abortion

Recommended Posts

^I'm specifically contemplating opposition to direct or indirect public funding for it..... i.e. such as it being included in insurance plans which are subsidized or paid in full by the government.  I think that individual school districts should be able to make the choice, even be encouraged (perhaps financially), to pass out free condoms to students.... but I don't support a publicly funded supply of condoms or other birth control devices to adults.  I'd also point out that birth control medication for women can have benefits (such as regulating and minimizing menstrual cycle) which have nothing to do with birth control..... and in that case should absolutely be provided as part of their insurance plan no matter whether that plan is publicly funded or not.  Morning after pills are more controversial from a public funding standpoint, so I can understand opposition to that... although I don't know that I agree with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Google search data, we can get a glimpse into people's personal lives and find out things they would never admit, even anonymously, on a survey for example. The data shows that there is a rise in people searching for information about how to perform abortions at home. And not surprisingly: "These searches are concentrated in parts of the country where it’s hard to get an abortion and they rose substantially when it became harder to get an abortion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/05/541774311/democrats-contemplate-changes-to-abortion-stance

 

Democrats Contemplate Changes To Abortion Stance

 

Absolutely f'ing nope. If you're pro-life, you are simply not liberal. End of story

 

wow way to be nuanced there. It is much more complicated of an issue than being pro life or pro baby killing. End of the day, Abortion is a horrible thing, and as Hillary often said, it should be minimized and policies need to be promoted to choose life. THat does not necessarily mean an end to abortion. There are many people who support social justice and liberal policies who are pro-life. Time to represent their interests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Policies to promote life are fine; policies to make choice illegal are deal-breakers.

 

Pro baby killing? My friend, that would be more a conservative platform anyhow. based on their glee in cutting women's services and essential health benefits.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro Life Rep Tim Murphy asked his mistress to have an abortion.  That's a double wammy for a member of the family values party.  It's typical of these politicians to say one thing to appease their donors but do the opposite in their own life.

 

Either he feels that the abortion is murder line is nonsense or he thinks that it's ok for him to commit murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

 

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

Standing before a roomful of anti-abortion activists in Nashville on Tuesday, Mike Pence described the “great progress” made under President Donald Trump to limit women’s access to legal abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

 

He called for the activists in the room to work ever harder to help “restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” He then made a stunning suggestion: that legal abortion could “once again” be banned in the U.S., and that it could happen “in our time.”


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

 

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

Standing before a roomful of anti-abortion activists in Nashville on Tuesday, Mike Pence described the “great progress” made under President Donald Trump to limit women’s access to legal abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

 

He called for the activists in the room to work ever harder to help “restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” He then made a stunning suggestion: that legal abortion could “once again” be banned in the U.S., and that it could happen “in our time.”

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

 

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

Standing before a roomful of anti-abortion activists in Nashville on Tuesday, Mike Pence described the “great progress” made under President Donald Trump to limit women’s access to legal abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

 

He called for the activists in the room to work ever harder to help “restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” He then made a stunning suggestion: that legal abortion could “once again” be banned in the U.S., and that it could happen “in our time.”

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

 

Both sides are equally guilty of doing this. The Left has been pushing the "if you support the 2nd Amendment you are responsible for the killing of the students in Parkland" line ever sense the background info of the shooter came out. The way I see it, no one side is any more or less guilty of using the morality tactic than the other side is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

 

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

Standing before a roomful of anti-abortion activists in Nashville on Tuesday, Mike Pence described the “great progress” made under President Donald Trump to limit women’s access to legal abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

 

He called for the activists in the room to work ever harder to help “restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” He then made a stunning suggestion: that legal abortion could “once again” be banned in the U.S., and that it could happen “in our time.”

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

 

Both sides are equally guilty of doing this. The Left has been pushing the "if you support the 2nd Amendment you are responsible for the killing of the students in Parkland" line ever sense the background info of the shooter came out. The way I see it, no one side is any more or less guilty of using the morality tactic than the other side is.

 

Nonsense.  The 2 situations are not the same.  The policies that 2nd Amendment proponents support, and the overwhelming gun culture that comes with it, directly allow mass murderers to easily obtain the type of firearms that allow those events to take place. 

 

Liberals generally push policies that benefit everyone.  If common sense gun control is implemented, everyone benefits, even gun owners, because their likelihood of themselves or their loved ones being shot decreases, as well as the possibility of being put in a situation in which gun violence is possible.  And since the vast majority of people are not remotely pushing for a 2nd repeal, they still get to have guns.  The 2nd only specifies a right to own guns, not what type, not how many rounds, not at which age they can have them, etc.  All of those things are in the realm of sensible regulation that doesn't infringe upon the right as written.

This philosophy is seen in other positions as well.  Gay marriage support expands the right to gay people without forcing anyone into a gay marriage.  Churches can still refuse to perform them based on religious views.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.  Same with all LGBT rights/protections.

Expanding voting access and making it easier to vote is another one.  None of those things removes someone's choices or rights.  It actually expands them, something that Republican actions have worked against.

Abortions, regardless of personal views, should be allowed.  No one is forced to have one, and nothing is stopping society from promoting sexual education and family planning, both of which have been proven to lower abortion rates without actually infringing on someone's personal choice to have one.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.  Beyond that, most people can't even agree on when life begins.  Pence pushes for the "at conception" position, but science does not support that that is a human child.  It would be better if conservatives would push for limits on partial-birth, which at least has majority support on both sides, but that's not nearly as common as some think, anyway.

 

The bottom line is that it is far more likely that a conservative wants to ban something than a liberal does.  Even with social issues, anything that liberals want to ban tends to revolve around active discriminatory policy and getting rid of it.  Having non-discriminatory policy is for literally everyone even if the necessity originated from minority groups.  You just don't see this stuff from conservatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You drink too much of the Kool Aid jon81oh[/member]. Both parties push policies that are designed to keep them in power. Why do you think Trump is president, not because he struck a nerve with the evangelicals in the country, but because Hillary Clinton told the working class to go f**k themselves and wanted to focus on other groups she deemed more important. She felt those groups have more potential to allow for longer term sustained power than paying attention to the working class.

 

To act like the Democrats are pure to the GOP being evil is very Pollyannish and far from true. But if you want to keep believing it, you are welcome to live in your naïve bliss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

 

Both sides are equally guilty of doing this.

 

Abortion has been around for centuries.  Banning it has been tried and it didn't stop abortions from being done.  Making abortion legal makes it safer.  If we go back to making it illegal (or extremely difficult to obtain), we're asking desperate women to return to unsafe back-alley abortions. 

 

I know there are many on the Right who cannot conceive of situation where an abortion would be ok and are unwilling to compromise, but it's ironic that the Right is otherwise adamant that government shouldn't be telling them how to live their lives.  I also know that most of the people on the Left are against abortions generally and think that they should be very rare and performed only under the supervision of a physician, and that it's a personal decision between a woman and her doctor. 

 

I also think that both sides win if we find ways to ensure that women are not put in a position where they feel like they need to have an abortion.  That's where we need to have more discussion (and funding) -- prenatal care, postnatal support, parental leave, mental health services, other social services -- all things that the Right traditionally does not want to fund.  Where do we go from here?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

 

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

Standing before a roomful of anti-abortion activists in Nashville on Tuesday, Mike Pence described the “great progress” made under President Donald Trump to limit women’s access to legal abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

 

He called for the activists in the room to work ever harder to help “restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” He then made a stunning suggestion: that legal abortion could “once again” be banned in the U.S., and that it could happen “in our time.”

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

 

Both sides are equally guilty of doing this. The Left has been pushing the "if you support the 2nd Amendment you are responsible for the killing of the students in Parkland" line ever sense the background info of the shooter came out. The way I see it, no one side is any more or less guilty of using the morality tactic than the other side is.

 

Nonsense.  The 2 situations are not the same.  The policies that 2nd Amendment proponents support, and the overwhelming gun culture that comes with it, directly allow mass murderers to easily obtain the type of firearms that allow those events to take place. 

 

Liberals generally push policies that benefit everyone.  If common sense gun control is implemented, everyone benefits, even gun owners, because their likelihood of themselves or their loved ones being shot decreases, as well as the possibility of being put in a situation in which gun violence is possible.  And since the vast majority of people are not remotely pushing for a 2nd repeal, they still get to have guns.  The 2nd only specifies a right to own guns, not what type, not how many rounds, not at which age they can have them, etc.  All of those things are in the realm of sensible regulation that doesn't infringe upon the right as written.

This philosophy is seen in other positions as well.  Gay marriage support expands the right to gay people without forcing anyone into a gay marriage.  Churches can still refuse to perform them based on religious views.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.  Same with all LGBT rights/protections.

Expanding voting access and making it easier to vote is another one.  None of those things removes someone's choices or rights.  It actually expands them, something that Republican actions have worked against.

Abortions, regardless of personal views, should be allowed.  No one is forced to have one, and nothing is stopping society from promoting sexual education and family planning, both of which have been proven to lower abortion rates without actually infringing on someone's personal choice to have one.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.  Beyond that, most people can't even agree on when life begins.  Pence pushes for the "at conception" position, but science does not support that that is a human child.  It would be better if conservatives would push for limits on partial-birth, which at least has majority support on both sides, but that's not nearly as common as some think, anyway.

 

The bottom line is that it is far more likely that a conservative wants to ban something than a liberal does.  Even with social issues, anything that liberals want to ban tends to revolve around active discriminatory policy and getting rid of it.  Having non-discriminatory policy is for literally everyone even if the necessity originated from minority groups.  You just don't see this stuff from conservatives. 

 

Are you aware that you are doing exactly what you are condemning others of doing. You just spent your entire post talking about how The Left is morally superior to The Right in every hot topic right now, which is ironic because you claimed The Right is known for doing just that. Morality is a very malleable concept, and it changes from person to person. As a result, it is very easy for one person to view their opinion on a subject to be a simple fact that should be accepted by everyone, while another person can hear that opinion and believe the opinion was formed due to the perceived morality of the person who holds that opinion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To act like the Democrats are pure to the GOP being evil is very Pollyannish and far from true. But if you want to keep believing it, you are welcome to live in your naïve bliss.

 

 

Any person who believes that either political party is pure and either political party is pure evil is a complete and utter moron. Unfortunately, far too many people view politics in exactly that light in the present day which caused so much of the division in the American society when it comes to almost any issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortions, regardless of personal views, should be allowed.  No one is forced to have one, and nothing is stopping society from promoting sexual education and family planning, both of which have been proven to lower abortion rates without actually infringing on someone's personal choice to have one.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.

 

You saying that no ones right is being taken away is a major point of contention. Not even the flamingest of liberals believes an unborn child has no rights.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

 

Both sides are equally guilty of doing this.

 

Abortion has been around for centuries.  Banning it has been tried and it didn't stop abortions from being done.  Making abortion legal makes it safer.  If we go back to making it illegal (or extremely difficult to obtain), we're asking desperate women to return to unsafe back-alley abortions. 

 

I know there are many on the Right who cannot conceive of situation where an abortion would be ok and are unwilling to compromise, but it's ironic that the Right is otherwise adamant that government shouldn't be telling them how to live their lives.  I also know that most of the people on the Left are against abortions generally and think that they should be very rare and performed only under the supervision of a physician, and that it's a personal decision between a woman and her doctor. 

 

I also think that both sides win if we find ways to ensure that women are not put in a position where they feel like they need to have an abortion.  That's where we need to have more discussion (and funding) -- prenatal care, postnatal support, parental leave, mental health services, other social services -- all things that the Right traditionally does not want to fund.  Where do we go from here?!?

 

Here's a huge issue I see. The abortion topic, just like almost any topic in modern day politics/society, has been split into two extreme sides that most people don't fall one. One side is allow abortions to happen. The other side is never allow abortions to happen.

 

I think a huge percentage of Americans are somewhere in the middle. Many on the right are very aware that there could certainly be rare cases in which an abortion could potentially be justified. Many on the left may not be supportive of late term abortions or abortions simply for the sake of not wanting to raise the child. Unfortunately, these people who, in my opinion, are a majority of Americans, are forced to choose between two polar opposite sides.

 

If we can accept that almost every topic is much more nuanced than "for or against" I think we can have much more productive conversations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

 

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

Standing before a roomful of anti-abortion activists in Nashville on Tuesday, Mike Pence described the “great progress” made under President Donald Trump to limit women’s access to legal abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

 

He called for the activists in the room to work ever harder to help “restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” He then made a stunning suggestion: that legal abortion could “once again” be banned in the U.S., and that it could happen “in our time.”

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

 

Both sides are equally guilty of doing this. The Left has been pushing the "if you support the 2nd Amendment you are responsible for the killing of the students in Parkland" line ever sense the background info of the shooter came out. The way I see it, no one side is any more or less guilty of using the morality tactic than the other side is.

 

Nonsense.  The 2 situations are not the same.  The policies that 2nd Amendment proponents support, and the overwhelming gun culture that comes with it, directly allow mass murderers to easily obtain the type of firearms that allow those events to take place. 

 

Liberals generally push policies that benefit everyone.

 

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

This philosophy is seen in other positions as well.  Gay marriage support expands the right to gay people without forcing anyone into a gay marriage.  Churches can still refuse to perform them based on religious views.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.

 

This is off-topic.  But note that this applies to just about any concept of expanding the sphere of permissible conduct, independent of the specifics.  Eliminating the CFPB would expand the rights of lenders without forcing anyone to take out a predatory loan.  Eliminating most workplace safety protections or hour restrictions wouldn't force anyone to take a job working 14 hours per day in unsafe conditions.  And strict "liberty of contract"-style libertarians might well say yes, that is indeed an argument in favor of both legalizing gay marriage and legalizing all those other things, too.  But most people, when pressed, aren't really both maximalist economic libertarians and maximalist civil libertarians.  Most people acknowledge the existence of at least some other concern somewhere along their personal political spectrum.

 

Abortions, regardless of personal views, should be allowed.  No one is forced to have one, and nothing is stopping society from promoting sexual education and family planning, both of which have been proven to lower abortion rates without actually infringing on someone's personal choice to have one.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.

 

Again begging the conclusion, or at least the premise.  If the life is a child, then absolutely, there is someone's rights being taken away--violently, deliberately, and permanently--every time the procedure is performed.

 

Beyond that, most people can't even agree on when life begins.

 

Technically true, but that's why abortions are legal at all.  If there were universal agreement that it begins at conception, we wouldn't be having this conversation, nor would Roe v. Wade exist.

 

Pence pushes for the "at conception" position, but science does not support that that is a human child.  It would be better if conservatives would push for limits on partial-birth, which at least has majority support on both sides, but that's not nearly as common as some think, anyway.

 

How does science not support that it's a human child?

 

As for majority support, well, the pro-life movement obviously hopes to build majority support, not just take majority support where it exists today.  But even today, the pro-life position is surprisingly strong given the condescension and contempt it is constantly barraged with from elite quarters.

 

The bottom line is that it is far more likely that a conservative wants to ban something than a liberal does.

 

Really?  Seriously?  I think that's one of the least self-aware statements I've seen from a liberal here.  Conservatives want to eliminate entire federal agencies that liberals support almost exclusively because they exist to ban things that liberals don't like.  Liberalism is far more enamored of bans and mandates than conservatism, and far more hostile to traditional conceptions of liberty (defined as the right to be free of compulsion, not the right to be free of material want).  Very few libertarians are Democrats anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-suggests-legal-abortions-103923231.html

 

Mike Pence Suggests Legal Abortions In U.S. Could End ‘In Our Time’

 

Standing before a roomful of anti-abortion activists in Nashville on Tuesday, Mike Pence described the “great progress” made under President Donald Trump to limit women’s access to legal abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

 

He called for the activists in the room to work ever harder to help “restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.” He then made a stunning suggestion: that legal abortion could “once again” be banned in the U.S., and that it could happen “in our time.”

 

The American Taliban.  There's nothing I despise more than one's personal morality, regardless of origin, being used as a hammer to control all people in law.  The Right is basically known for this.

 

Both sides are equally guilty of doing this. The Left has been pushing the "if you support the 2nd Amendment you are responsible for the killing of the students in Parkland" line ever sense the background info of the shooter came out. The way I see it, no one side is any more or less guilty of using the morality tactic than the other side is.

 

Nonsense.  The 2 situations are not the same.  The policies that 2nd Amendment proponents support, and the overwhelming gun culture that comes with it, directly allow mass murderers to easily obtain the type of firearms that allow those events to take place. 

 

Liberals generally push policies that benefit everyone.

 

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

This philosophy is seen in other positions as well.  Gay marriage support expands the right to gay people without forcing anyone into a gay marriage.  Churches can still refuse to perform them based on religious views.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.

 

This is off-topic.  But note that this applies to just about any concept of expanding the sphere of permissible conduct, independent of the specifics.  Eliminating the CFPB would expand the rights of lenders without forcing anyone to take out a predatory loan.  Eliminating most workplace safety protections or hour restrictions wouldn't force anyone to take a job working 14 hours per day in unsafe conditions.  And strict "liberty of contract"-style libertarians might well say yes, that is indeed an argument in favor of both legalizing gay marriage and legalizing all those other things, too.  But most people, when pressed, aren't really both maximalist economic libertarians and maximalist civil libertarians.  Most people acknowledge the existence of at least some other concern somewhere along their personal political spectrum.

 

Abortions, regardless of personal views, should be allowed.  No one is forced to have one, and nothing is stopping society from promoting sexual education and family planning, both of which have been proven to lower abortion rates without actually infringing on someone's personal choice to have one.  No one's right is being taken away by it existing.

 

Again begging the conclusion, or at least the premise.  If the life is a child, then absolutely, there is someone's rights being taken away--violently, deliberately, and permanently--every time the procedure is performed.

 

Beyond that, most people can't even agree on when life begins.

 

Technically true, but that's why abortions are legal at all.  If there were universal agreement that it begins at conception, we wouldn't be having this conversation, nor would Roe v. Wade exist.

 

Pence pushes for the "at conception" position, but science does not support that that is a human child.  It would be better if conservatives would push for limits on partial-birth, which at least has majority support on both sides, but that's not nearly as common as some think, anyway.

 

How does science not support that it's a human child?

 

As for majority support, well, the pro-life movement obviously hopes to build majority support, not just take majority support where it exists today.  But even today, the pro-life position is surprisingly strong given the condescension and contempt it is constantly barraged with from elite quarters.

 

The bottom line is that it is far more likely that a conservative wants to ban something than a liberal does.

 

Really?  Seriously?  I think that's one of the least self-aware statements I've seen from a liberal here.  Conservatives want to eliminate entire federal agencies that liberals support almost exclusively because they exist to ban things that liberals don't like.  Liberalism is far more enamored of bans and mandates than conservatism, and far more hostile to traditional conceptions of liberty (defined as the right to be free of compulsion, not the right to be free of material want).  Very few libertarians are Democrats anymore.

 

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being, so your claim isn't going to sway my view.  That is largely a religious distinction.  Most liberals also want to see as few abortions as possible, but they're just not generally comfortable with being in the business of legislating a singular personal and moral view onto everyone else, especially one in which most people can't even agree.

 

All of your examples have tangible harmful effects.  Without workplace regulations, for example more people will end up hurt or killed, and it would directly reduce the choice of employment as many companies, simply by citing cost savings, would not bother having many of them.  Which would raise the unemployment rate and probably health costs due to a large increase in accidents.  Not to mention the insurance repercussions.  Simply put, if you want to have a discussion on the merits of any particular set of rules, I'm all for it.  Some existing regulations have perhaps more cons than pros and could be reduced or eliminated, but your examples, I would argue, are clearly not in that realm.  Just as gay marriage is not.

 

Again, your view is that a fetus is a child.  Mine is not.  Who is unquestionably correct?  This isn't like the murder of a 30-year-old.  If there is no definitive answer, I typically side with more choice, not less.  Since you acknowledge that there is no agreement and that a significant portion of the anti-abortion movement is rooted in subjective religious views, there can be no reasonable conclusion made that abortion should, in fact, be illegal.  Everyone practices there own views on this matter, and that is perhaps the best compromise that can be had on such a complex, emotionally-charged issue.  I can't make the choice for anyone else, but neither should they make it for me.   

 

I would argue that the condescension is more prevalent in the anti-abortion circles that insist that people who do have an abortion are evil baby murderers.

 

Yes, agencies like the EPA that have tangible benefits for everyone that outweigh negatives?  Or education?  Or programs targeted to helping the poor?  Please, it has nothing to do with removing unfair, harmful regulations and everything to do with the Republican desire to dismantle government that stands in the way of lining their pockets and gaining singularly more authority over citizens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

Do you also believe that women who take the birth control pill to "prevent" pregnancy are murdering their children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jonoh81, all of that is of course begging the question.  Of course the issue is when life begins.  Your post is essentially an argument from ignorance (not calling you ignorant, but it's the term for that form of argument): "Again, your view is that a fetus is a child.  Mine is not.  Who is unquestionably correct? ... If there is no definitive answer, I typically side with more choice, not less."

 

If there is no definitive answer to the only question that matters, then maybe we ought to discuss what kind of evidence would be required to get such an answer.  If it's a question of principle or interpretation rather than a disagreement about the evidence, then we can have that discussion instead.

 

Otherwise, I could just as easily say that if there's no "definitive" answer to whether it's a human life at stake, then we ought to err on the side of protecting it.  Supposing you had a job filling sinkholes with infill.  Would you tip the dump truck back and fill the hole if someone told you at that moment that there was "no definitive answer" as to whether there were a person in that sinkhole at that very moment?  Wouldn't you want some positive confirmation that there was no one about to be buried alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

Do you also believe that women who take the birth control pill to "prevent" pregnancy are murdering their children?

 

You put "prevent" in quotation marks.  Are you referring to abortifascients that prevent implantation after conception?  Or are you just referring to regular birth control that prevents conception from ever occurring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon you continue to argue that there can be no reasonable defense for the pro life position when even liberals like Hilary Clinton favor limitations in the third trimester. How do you reconcile that most people want some degree of limitation?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^actually didn't Hillary alter her position halfway through the campaign, becoming more militant and tossing aside any limitations whatsoever on abortion? I seem to recall that. I guess she figured she would go for broke since she wasn't going to win over any pro-life people regardless of how "moderate" she tried to portray herself on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

Do you also believe that women who take the birth control pill to "prevent" pregnancy are murdering their children?

 

You put "prevent" in quotation marks.  Are you referring to abortifascients that prevent implantation after conception?  Or are you just referring to regular birth control that prevents conception from ever occurring?

 

In the scenario where an egg is fertilized but implantation is prevented, do you consider this an abortion/murder of a human life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny that a lot of conservatives are very mad about being called murderers.  I wonder how Tiller the baby killer feels about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jonoh81, all of that is of course begging the question.  Of course the issue is when life begins.  Your post is essentially an argument from ignorance (not calling you ignorant, but it's the term for that form of argument): "Again, your view is that a fetus is a child.  Mine is not.  Who is unquestionably correct? ... If there is no definitive answer, I typically side with more choice, not less."

 

If there is no definitive answer to the only question that matters, then maybe we ought to discuss what kind of evidence would be required to get such an answer.  If it's a question of principle or interpretation rather than a disagreement about the evidence, then we can have that discussion instead.

 

Otherwise, I could just as easily say that if there's no "definitive" answer to whether it's a human life at stake, then we ought to err on the side of protecting it.  Supposing you had a job filling sinkholes with infill.  Would you tip the dump truck back and fill the hole if someone told you at that moment that there was "no definitive answer" as to whether there were a person in that sinkhole at that very moment?  Wouldn't you want some positive confirmation that there was no one about to be buried alive?

 

That's just it, I'm not sure we can answer that question definitively.  We would first need to tackle the question of "What is life?" before we even begin to determine the moment that such life comes into being.  Then we have to determine what exactly makes something human, and at what point a fetus or zygote becomes one.  It's not simply one question, but multiple, with philosophical, religious and biological considerations.  After all, would those that rely on religious interpretations of life be satisfied with the scientific, or vice versa?  I'm guessing not so much.  Pretty much everyone has a different view.  Who is absolutely correct?  Again, it's easy when it's an established person after birth, but there are simply too many gray areas before that.  You assertion that 60 million people have been killed doesn't really help.  That's why I'd rather see education to reduce unwanted/unplanned pregnancies play a bigger role rather than steamrolling through the limitation of choice based on subjective belief. 

 

Your example is not the same either.  It's pretty easy to look in a physical hole and make sure there's no life at risk.  You would be irresponsible not to.  No one debates, seeing a human in a sinkhole, whether or not that human being is actually a living person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon you continue to argue that there can be no reasonable defense for the pro life position when even liberals like Hilary Clinton favor limitations in the third trimester. How do you reconcile that most people want some degree of limitation?

 

Actually that's not my position.  I've already repeatedly said that neither side should get to make the choice for anyone else.  Liberals aren't attempting to legislate that people be forced to have abortions, but the "pro-life" conservatives are making that choice for others by attempting to ban it entirely.  If I said that shooting a 30-year-old to death was not murder, I would be objectively wrong.  It's the taking of established life.  There's no ambiguity with it.  If I said that aborting a fetus is not murder, who is going to tell me definitively that it is?  Who gets to make that determination when there is zero agreement?  I also never said I wasn't in favor of any limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon you continue to argue that there can be no reasonable defense for the pro life position when even liberals like Hilary Clinton favor limitations in the third trimester. How do you reconcile that most people want some degree of limitation?

 

Actually that's not my position.  I've already repeatedly said that neither side should get to make the choice for anyone else.

 

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. And actually I'm not even trying to change it. What I am trying to get you to see however, is when you use phrases like anyone else there are people - not religious zealots but honestly reasonable people - who put unborn into that category. It's not extremism to say that this unborn human is someone who is entitled to a right to life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon you continue to argue that there can be no reasonable defense for the pro life position when even liberals like Hilary Clinton favor limitations in the third trimester. How do you reconcile that most people want some degree of limitation?

 

Actually that's not my position.  I've already repeatedly said that neither side should get to make the choice for anyone else.

 

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. And actually I'm not even trying to change it. What I am trying to get you to see however, is when you use phrases like anyone else there are people - not religious zealots but honestly reasonable people - who put unborn into that category. It's not extremism to say that this unborn human is someone who is entitled to a right to life.

 

And?  That they have an honestly-held belief hardly makes it more significant than my honestly-held belief, does it?  You want me to consider the strong beliefs of pro-life folks while they do everything they can to trash mine and make them illegal?  Why is it that I have to give up everything I believe in, again? It's not my side of the issue refusing to acknowledge or respect a dissenting opinion here, as I am not the one legislating the limitation of choice.

 

Oh, and you're still trying to argue with me as if everyone is in agreement that a fetus is a human being.  Clearly that is not the case, and it isn't with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

Do you also believe that women who take the birth control pill to "prevent" pregnancy are murdering their children?

 

You put "prevent" in quotation marks.  Are you referring to abortifascients that prevent implantation after conception?  Or are you just referring to regular birth control that prevents conception from ever occurring?

 

In the scenario where an egg is fertilized but implantation is prevented, do you consider this an abortion/murder of a human life?

 

I do consider it an abortion.

 

"Murder" is a legal term as well as one of principle, and when you get down to it, very few pro-life activists really want to treat abortion as murder in criminal codes (and those who have are generally letting their passions rule, are trying to move the Overton window, or simply haven't sat down and done the math for what kind of consequences that would entail for the criminal justice system).  Much pro-life literature actually considers the mother the second victim of an abortion, in whole or part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

Do you also believe that women who take the birth control pill to "prevent" pregnancy are murdering their children?

 

You put "prevent" in quotation marks.  Are you referring to abortifascients that prevent implantation after conception?  Or are you just referring to regular birth control that prevents conception from ever occurring?

 

In the scenario where an egg is fertilized but implantation is prevented, do you consider this an abortion/murder of a human life?

 

I do consider it an abortion.

 

"Murder" is a legal term as well as one of principle, and when you get down to it, very few pro-life activists really want to treat abortion as murder in criminal codes (and those who have are generally letting their passions rule, are trying to move the Overton window, or simply haven't sat down and done the math for what kind of consequences that would entail for the criminal justice system).  Much pro-life literature actually considers the mother the second victim of an abortion, in whole or part.

 

So you consider using birth control pills to be a from of murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

Do you also believe that women who take the birth control pill to "prevent" pregnancy are murdering their children?

 

You put "prevent" in quotation marks.  Are you referring to abortifascients that prevent implantation after conception?  Or are you just referring to regular birth control that prevents conception from ever occurring?

 

In the scenario where an egg is fertilized but implantation is prevented, do you consider this an abortion/murder of a human life?

 

I do consider it an abortion.

 

"Murder" is a legal term as well as one of principle, and when you get down to it, very few pro-life activists really want to treat abortion as murder in criminal codes (and those who have are generally letting their passions rule, are trying to move the Overton window, or simply haven't sat down and done the math for what kind of consequences that would entail for the criminal justice system).  Much pro-life literature actually considers the mother the second victim of an abortion, in whole or part.

 

So you consider using birth control pills to be a from of murder?

 

Scientifically, that's not what regular birth control pills do.  It's what certain "morning after" pills do, which is why I'm drawing that distinction and asking why jonoh put "prevent" in quotation marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, there seems to be real confusion on how birth control works.  If you're confused please read from the below link.  Most birth control blocks fertilization from even occurring.

 

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/tc/how-birth-control-methods-prevent-pregnancy-topic-overview


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that link which backs up exactly what i said.

 

Hormonal aka The Pill

 

Prevents ovulation

Thickens mucus at the cervix so sperm cannot pass through

Changes the environment of the uterus and fallopian tubes to prevent fertilization and to prevent implantation if fertilization occurs

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Plan B aka "morning after pills" are merely a large dose of of traditional hormonal birth control.  It performs the same function as normal hormonal birth control.  Yes, it is amazing how many people don't know how birth control works and merely repeat rhetoric from the anti-choice lobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if I understand your point, a fetus doesn’t become a human being until the moment it is born then?

 

More like I don’t think an unborn fetus has any expectation of rights.  When a fetus becomes a person is, of course, highly debatable.  But again, I am not forcing anyone to conform to my view. You are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, I am not forcing anyone to conform to my view. You are.

 

I would think you both are trying to get the other to conform to your respective views, which differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that link which backs up exactly what i said.

 

Hormonal aka The Pill

 

Prevents ovulation

Thickens mucus at the cervix so sperm cannot pass through

Changes the environment of the uterus and fallopian tubes to prevent fertilization and to prevent implantation if fertilization occurs

 

This is exactly the point I was driving at. It is quite possible for a woman taking the common birth control pill to have a fertilized egg which then can not survive due to the inability to implant.

 

If the death of a fertilized egg = an abortion:

 

In the scenario where an egg is fertilized but implantation is prevented, do you consider this an abortion/murder of a human life?

 

I do consider it an abortion.

 

"Murder" is a legal term as well as one of principle, and when you get down to it, very few pro-life activists really want to treat abortion as murder in criminal codes (and those who have are generally letting their passions rule, are trying to move the Overton window, or simply haven't sat down and done the math for what kind of consequences that would entail for the criminal justice system).  Much pro-life literature actually considers the mother the second victim of an abortion, in whole or part.

 

And an abortion = a person killed:

 

The 60 million people killed by abortion in the past 40 years might disagree.

 

Then women taking the common birth control pill are potential murderers.

 

Just want to make sure we're being clear and consistent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, I am not forcing anyone to conform to my view. You are.

 

I would think you both are trying to get the other to conform to your respective views, which differ.

 

How so?  We’re all giving our opinions on the matter. And I’m specifically talking about legislation forcing abortions.  I would never support that, but the opposite side is absolutely trying to legislate a ban based on their view.  It’s not remotely equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so?  We’re all giving our opinions on the matter. And I’m specifically talking about legislation forcing abortions.  I would never support that, but the opposite side is absolutely trying to legislate a ban based on their view.  It’s not remotely equal.

 

The central argument in the abortion debate is when we consider life to begin and/or when that life has the expectation of rights.  I don't think anyone disputes that after this point, abortion should be illegal.  The dispute is what that point is, and there are more than just "two sides" to that debate.  Everyone argues for their opinion to be the one transcribed as law.  Some people think it may be earlier than others.  Some people think the current laws are good.  Some think they're too lenient.  Some think they're too restrictive.  There isn't a simple dichotomy here.

 

If someone believes (for whatever reason...scientific, religious, or other) that the cutoff should be earlier, then the "ban" to them is not much different than "banning" murdering 50 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so?  We’re all giving our opinions on the matter. And I’m specifically talking about legislation forcing abortions.  I would never support that, but the opposite side is absolutely trying to legislate a ban based on their view.  It’s not remotely equal.

 

The central argument in the abortion debate is when we consider life to begin and/or when that life has the expectation of rights.  I don't think anyone disputes that after this point, abortion should be illegal.  The dispute is what that point is, and there are more than just "two sides" to that debate.  Everyone argues for their opinion to be the one transcribed as law.  Some people think it may be earlier than others.  Some people think the current laws are good.  Some think they're too lenient.  Some think they're too restrictive.  There isn't a simple dichotomy here.

 

So again, if everyone disagrees, why shouldn’t the default legal position be that people can make their own decisions as to whether they have one?

 

I also just think people should admit that they don’t care what someone else thinks when their goal is to circumvent their personal views altogether by law.  Why even debate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So again, if everyone disagrees, why shouldn’t the default legal position be that people can make their own decisions as to whether they have one?

 

Well, I think the point of these debates is for each side to try to make the other agree with them.  I don't know if either side is effective in that.  I don't really know if people can effectively debate anything anymore, based on what I see in politics, but that's a whole different issue.

 

But what you're saying is effectively, "if people disagree, why not make the default my point of view?"  But that's exactly what the other side thinks, too.  And thus, we're back at square one.

 

To people who believe abortion is murder, your argument seems to them like "if some people decide that murdering handicapped people was OK for some strange reason, just let them decide if it's OK, nobody's forcing you to murder handicapped people, but there's no reason to ban it and not let people choose for themselves."  Just because you don't view them as similar arguments doesn't mean that a valid argument couldn't be made to the contrary.

 

I also just think people should admit that they don’t care what someone else thinks when their goal is to circumvent their personal views altogether by law.  Why even debate?

 

I'm sure there are people that think that.  I'm sure there are people on both sides that have no basis for their opinion or specious reasoning.  That doesn't mean there aren't valid points to consider, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So again, if everyone disagrees, why shouldn’t the default legal position be that people can make their own decisions as to whether they have one?

 

There’s also much historical disagreement over age of consent, or the age required for buying alcohol. Should there not be laws addressing controversial subjects?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...