• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How come there aren't any candidates who are neutral on abortion?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AFMatt

Senior member
Aug 14, 2008
248
0
0
I was happy to see this year that it didn't feel like a huge issue in the race. Maybe it has faded away along with other somewhat pointless issues like past drug use. Clinton hit some weed and it was blown up all over the place... Obama used cocaine and it didn't even come up. Personally, I feel voting for someone based on their position on abortion is about as intelligent as voting for someone based on their race.

As far as my position on the issue.. Well, due to my girlfriend's and my own ignorance of a woman's menstrual cycle (she thought you couldn't get preg the day your period ended, I didn't know any better), I experienced the unfortunate situation of unwanted pregnancy in the 10th grade. I was more than willing to do whatever it took to make sure I could care for that child if need be, but she chose to get an abortion and told me after the fact. I wasn't happy about it. With that, I don't feel unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is a valid argument to justify an abortion. If you don't feel you have what it takes to take care of that child, what's wrong with putting it up for adoption?
BTW, I am agnostic, borderline atheist, so religion definitely has nothing to do with it.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
Favoring the repeal of Roe and Casey, in order to push the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs, is a neutral position.
No, it isn't, because that would reverse the court opinions of the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution that those decisions rely upon.
Yes, it is. The equation of a right to 'privacy', if it exists, and whatever it is, with the right to an abortion is a figment of Harry Blackmun's imagination.

The right to privacy was established 8 years before Roe v. Wade.

I assume you are referring to Griswold v. Connecticut, a case overturning a CT law that forbade contraception advice (in the 1960s, no less). That case alluded to the right to privacy, but was not decided on those grounds. Roe v. Wade's legal underpinnings are firmly based upon the right to privacy. There is no way to overturn Roe v. Wade without abrogating the right to privacy. In these days of so-called Homeland Security, and the current Bush administration's practices and abuses, that would be a very bad idea to any freedom loving Americans.
Any "freedom-loving American" should be scared of a Court that cooks up a right that simply doesn't exist in the Constitution, and which is both ambiguous and selectively-protected by the Court. If I have a "right to privacy" protected by the Constitution, why can't I smoke pot in my own home legally? Civil rights are getting trampled all over the place as part of the so-called War on Drugs, but where's the Court on that? Griswold and Roe were both agenda-driven decisions devoid of solid legal reasoning.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: Atreus21Oh, I see. So if the woman wants to abort, it's her free choice. If the man doesn't want to abort, he needs to grow a pair.
That--and a uterus.

Note that I'm also a supporter of paper abortions for men since I believe that since women have the choice of whether or not to give birth they should also bear the responsibility if the man doesn't want to be a father.

 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
And why must EVERYTHING that isn't 100% pro-choice be tied to religion?
Because the notion that a God-being "breathes" a "soul" into the embryo at conception is a religious notion?

What about the guy who doesn't even consider himself religious, but still thinks that life begins at conception, and thinks it sucks that they have no say in a woman's choice to abort (not even the legal right to be allowed to give an opinion, let alone influence the decision), but must pay child support for a woman who decides to complete a pregnancy?
Uh...what's the problem there? If he thinks life begins at conception then why would he have difficulty with having to pay child support? Isn't that what he would want?

Note that while there may be some freaks who claim to be atheist and who say that individual rights begin at conception, there numbers are very small. In a world of over six billion people there's bound to be a small handful of wackos.

How about this for a quick read.
I'm not really interested in reading that. You can just briefly type out the argument to me.

What about those guys that are pro-choice, but THEIR choice is pro-life. What happens then?

(and yes, you may say "he should have thought about that before", or "tough for him", but many women change their "choice" overnight).
They're just going to have to come to grips with the fact that women are not their chattel.


[/quote]

 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,031
41
91
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I was happy to see this year that it didn't feel like a huge issue in the race. Maybe it has faded away along with other somewhat pointless issues like past drug use. Clinton hit some weed and it was blown up all over the place... Obama used cocaine and it didn't even come up. Personally, I feel voting for someone based on their position on abortion is about as intelligent as voting for someone based on their race.

As far as my position on the issue.. Well, due to my girlfriend's and my own ignorance of a woman's menstrual cycle (she thought you couldn't get preg the day your period ended, I didn't know any better), I experienced the unfortunate situation of unwanted pregnancy in the 10th grade. I was more than willing to do whatever it took to make sure I could care for that child if need be, but she chose to get an abortion and told me after the fact. I wasn't happy about it. With that, I don't feel unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is a valid argument to justify an abortion. If you don't feel you have what it takes to take care of that child, what's wrong with putting it up for adoption?
BTW, I am agnostic, borderline atheist, so religion definitely has nothing to do with it.
I agree with you 100%. While I think the Government should stay out of the issue (hence, I guess I am "pro choice", though I hate using that term), people should have much more respect for what's inside of them. I believe life begins at conception, but that belief has 150% absolutely NOTHING to do with any faith/religion of any kind.

If abortion rates were closer to the rate of failed contraception (1-2%), I wouldn't be as hard pressed about it, though I'd still be upset. But the fact that 1 in 2 women get an abortion at some point in their life? What the heck?

But even I don't feel like I have the right to impede on someone's life that I don't even KNOW. If John and Jody Doe want to get an abortion and I've never met them, why am I going to be able to say no? That isn't my right. No matter my feelings on the issue.

It sucks because if a girl decides to keep a baby, the guy has to pay child support, and of course hopefully support the baby. But if the girl wants to have an abortion, the guy, no matter what his emotional/other feelings are on it, have to accept that decision. Its not like we can take over the pregnancy and be like "here, put it in my stomach!"

And when a girl has an abortion and the guy thought perhaps keeping the baby wouldn't have been the
worst choice, he gets called unsupportive, abandoning the mother, not ready to be a father, and immature. In light, he basically gets told to "suck it up, grow up, and deal with it". But if the mother wants to keep the baby and the guy doesn't, he gets called immature, abandoning the mother, and told to "suck it up, grow up, and deal with it". :confused:

So yes, because of the way nature made females and males, even though a baby is 50% a mom and 50% a
dad, because of 9 months of work the female must physically go through (I feel like both parties go through things emotionally during that time, even if its not evenly dispersed), on the issue of the fate of a kid, guys have to deal with whatever gets thrown at us.

Perhaps this post is just being bitter towards the treatment of the father in abortion. Even political candidates never even mention the father and his emotions. They say "Abortion should be a choice made between a woman's doctor and god". How come no one ever says "Abortion should be a choice made between a woman's doctor, god, and boyfriend/husband". Yes, its the girls choice, but everyone seems to forget that since the guy is also affected by whatever decision is made, he should at least be given the right to offer an opinion.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: AFMattIf you don't feel you have what it takes to take care of that child, what's wrong with putting it up for adoption?
There are only so many people who want to adopt infants each year and many don't have an interest in racial minority infants.

If women didn't have abortions but instead turned unwanted children over to the state, the number of unwanted children being raised in orphanages would increase rapidly and it would become very expensive to maintain the orphanages (along with having more public schools and medicaid, etc.). The end result would probably be that parents could no longer opt to have their children become wards of the state but that they would be forced to raise them even if they don't want to.
 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,031
41
91
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: AFMattIf you don't feel you have what it takes to take care of that child, what's wrong with putting it up for adoption?
There are only so many people who want to adopt infants each year and many don't have an interest in racial minority infants.

If women didn't have abortions but instead turned unwanted children over to the state, the number of unwanted children being raised in orphanages would increase rapidly and it would become very expensive to maintain the orphanages (along with having more public schools and medicaid, etc.). The end result would probably be that parents could no longer opt to have their children become wards of the state but that they would be forced to raise them even if they don't want to.
It's pretty sad that our society has turned into a place where people don't "want" kids, especially since its one of the fundamental reasons our society exists to begin with.
 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,031
41
91
There are only so many people who want to adopt infants each year and many don't have an interest in racial minority infants.
From what I understand, there is an incredible adoption shortage in the United States.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS