In case some of you dont know, the Supreme Court has already ruled on abortion. Also, Republicans are slimy bastards.

[dank69]

Because it is a question of murder. It's not what you do to or for yourself. It is for the child involved in that decision.

Try making an argument without redefining words like murder or child.

 

[Ajay]

Well shit! I suggest you stop wasting time on a political forum and get out there to help the millions of women in need. Or do you think your token measures address the overall point being made? Here’s a hint: it doesn’t and there isn’t enough people like you to fully address the problem. So what politicians have you supported that have tried to address the issue legislatively speaking?

Well, with that attitude, I suppose my vote is pitiful as well. Really, it is minuscule. For what it's worth, I voted for my states democratic candidates, but this isn't a significant concern amongst them. Also, I'm not Bill Gates, I'm pretty limited in what I can do - but at least I do what I can.

 

[ivwshane]

Because it is a question of murder. It's not what you do to or for yourself. It is for the child involved in that decision.

There is no child involved at that point.

 

[Ajay]

The key word is "pretending."

Fine then, you dream applies to the pretenders. Their are a lot of us (well, not enough) who aren't pretending.

 

[dank69]

Fine then, you dream applies to the pretenders. Their are a lot of us (well, not enough) who aren't pretending.

Don't make me break out the clinic on fire scenario...or my revised dumpster scenario.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, with that attitude, I suppose my vote is pitiful as well. Really, it is minuscule. For what it's worth, I voted for my states democratic candidates, but this isn't a significant concern amongst them. Also, I'm not Bill Gates, I'm pretty limited in what I can do - but at least I do what I can.

So you limit what you can do in terms of helping women with babies because of your financial situation but you expect women not to have the same right to limit what they do with their bodies because of their financial situation? Have you heard of the word hypocrisy.

 

[Ajay]

So you limit what you can do in terms of helping women with babies because of your financial situation but you expect women not to have the same right to limit what they do with their bodies because of their financial situation? Have you heard of the word hypocrisy.

No. Did you read what I wrote. Obviously, I am personally limited. That's why we have a community that supports local charities that house women, provide daycare as need, help educate, support and provide them a fair shake in life. That's why I wish their were programs available to help mothers who want to keep their babies but are unable to afford to - so even more can be helped. I am the opposite of a hypocrite in this particular situations - yet you persist.

 

[ivwshane]

No. Did you read what I wrote. Obviously, I am personally limited. That's why we have a community that supports local charities that house women, provide daycare as need, help educate, support and provide them a fair shake in life. That's why I wish their were programs available to help mothers who want to keep their babies but are unable to afford to - so even more can be helped. I am the opposite of a hypocrite in this particular situations - yet you persist.

I do persist because people like you can’t see the forest beyond the trees.

So the fact that you wish there were such programs obviously means you are aware that such programs don’t exist. Surely you then understand that there are then many women and children who don’t get help.

So you support restricting what women can do with their body despite knowing the deficits and limitations we have as a country/society exist. That seems rather cruel doesn’t it? What other cruel things do you support in order to force your beliefs on others? I’m guessing you also support requiring a woman to carry to term a child from rape, right? I also am guessing you support forcing women to carry and therefore care for fetuses with birth defects (meaning the defects were known before the child was born). That’s some cruel shit you support!

 

[kage69]

Always hurts to be reminded of how little republicans care for women.

Obstinate white men shouldn't be inconvenienced with wearing masks during a pandemic, but women of child bearing age should have their genitals and womb under Federal control.

But hey, at least the holy roller politicians are real serious about post natal care and single mother support, right?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Because it is a question of murder. It's not what you do to or for yourself. It is for the child involved in that decision.

Then don't do it

 

[Ajay]

So you support restricting what women can do with their body despite knowing the deficits and limitations we have as a country/society exist.

I don't support restricting what women can do with their body. I support restricting what they can do with the fetus they are carrying in their womb. I am annoyed with other democrats, with whom I otherwise agree, who see the support of abortion as the per-eminent women's issue rather than supporting motherhood, which is a manifest good. Let's put our time, money and attention there first. Let's care for the health and welfare of the poor and otherwise neglected women and children in this country rather than wasting so much on 'choice'. Also, please stop wasting time on straw man arguments.

 

[dank69]

I don't support restricting what women can do with their body. I support restricting what they can do with the fetus they are carrying in their womb. I am annoyed with other democrats, with whom I otherwise agree, who see the support of abortion as the per-eminent women's issue rather than supporting motherhood, which is a manifest good. Let's put our time, money and attention there first. Let's care for the health and welfare of the poor and otherwise neglected women and children in this country rather than wasting so much on 'choice'. Also, please stop wasting time on straw man arguments.

Nobody should be forced to incubate someone else. Period.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't support restricting what women can do with their body. I support restricting what they can do with the fetus they are carrying in their womb. I am annoyed with other democrats, with whom I otherwise agree, who see the support of abortion as the per-eminent women's issue rather than supporting motherhood, which is a manifest good. Let's put our time, money and attention there first. Let's care for the health and welfare of the poor and otherwise neglected women and children in this country rather than wasting so much on 'choice'. Also, please stop wasting time on straw man arguments.

Isn't it a straw man argument to suggest that Democrats don't want to support struggling mothers? It seems like your point is because people are arguing against your pro-life stance that they don't want to provide social services; however, I don't think that's the case.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't support restricting what women can do with their body. I support restricting what they can do with the fetus they are carrying in their womb. I am annoyed with other democrats, with whom I otherwise agree, who see the support of abortion as the per-eminent women's issue rather than supporting motherhood, which is a manifest good. Let's put our time, money and attention there first. Let's care for the health and welfare of the poor and otherwise neglected women and children in this country rather than wasting so much on 'choice'. Also, please stop wasting time on straw man arguments.

What straw man did I use? I know what you support and I also know those things don’t exist and more than likely will never exist which means you support or at the very least you accept the cruel reality of the policies you support.

 

[Ajay]

Nobody should be forced to incubate someone else. Period.

You say 'forced'. I think that continuing a natural process, that have served us (and other species) so well for millions of years has nothing to do with being forced. This seems like a redefinition of human nature to me.

 

[Ajay]

What straw man did I use? I know what you support and I also know those things don’t exist and more than likely will never exist which means you support or at the very least you accept the cruel reality of the policies you support.

This is your straw man argument: "So you support restricting what women can do with their body despite knowing the deficits and limitations we have as a country/society exist. That seems rather cruel doesn’t it? What other cruel things do you support in order to force your beliefs on others? I’m guessing you also support requiring a woman to carry to term a child from rape, right? I also am guessing you support forcing women to carry and therefore care for fetuses with birth defects (meaning the defects were known before the child was born). That’s some cruel shit you support!"

Look up the definition if you care.

 

[ivwshane]

This is your straw man argument: "So you support restricting what women can do with their body despite knowing the deficits and limitations we have as a country/society exist. That seems rather cruel doesn’t it? What other cruel things do you support in order to force your beliefs on others? I’m guessing you also support requiring a woman to carry to term a child from rape, right? I also am guessing you support forcing women to carry and therefore care for fetuses with birth defects (meaning the defects were known before the child was born). That’s some cruel shit you support!"

Look up the definition if you care.

Which part was I wrong on? Be real specific as I don’t want to accuse you of things that aren’t true, so point it out.

 

[ivwshane]

You say 'forced'. I think that continuing a natural process, that have served us (and other species) so well for millions of years has nothing to do with being forced. This seems like a redefinition of human nature to me.

For millions of years we killed and hunted things not like us. For millions of years the chances of a fetus surviving outside the womb was slim as was the chances of surviving.

That seems like a really poor reason to continue doing something as circumstances have changed drastically from a million years ago until now.

 

[dank69]

You say 'forced'. I think that continuing a natural process, that have served us (and other species) so well for millions of years has nothing to do with being forced. This seems like a redefinition of human nature to me.

It may seem like that to you, but that does not make it true. Examine it logically. If humans had the ability to crawl inside each other and leech nutrients from each other, would we be allowed to defend our bodies with lethal force? Before you try to sidestep with a "fetus does not choose to crawl inside" defense, let's also pretend that we have no control over the process, and it just "happens" sometimes for reasons we have not yet determined.

The point is simply that even if we classify the embryo as a person, which it is not, no person has a right to occupy another person's body regardless of intent.

 

[MrSquished]

There's a difference between wanting people to stop asking questions with no answer vs asking someone to change their belief system.

Do you think people calling embryos 'babies' is disingenuous?

 

[Moonbeam]

People vary in their capacity to deal with nuance and complexity. This relates to their capacity to deal with uncertainty, namely how threatening uncertainty is for an individual. Those among us who are most emotionally repressed, who have the greatest fears of what they feel can deal with uncertainty less effectively than people who either do not have a huge amount of repressed traumatic events in their past, or have dealt with at least some of it successfully, say people who have had deep religious transcendental experiences or psychoanalysis.

The issue of abortion falls into this category. At the least complex and most certainty providing level of response to the issue it is easy to see and to believe that life is good, sacred, containing a divine spark, and that it begins at conception. We have here both religious of feeling based belief, we all sense our own will to survive and be alive, and the science that tells us how an embryo or potential human comes into being.

This is all the simple minded need. I use simple minded here not as a put down but as a description of a psychological state that admits to little tolerance for ambiguity. For any who believe in God, the killing of an individual is a sin. Put that together with the fact that we know that the DNA of an individual is created at inception and there is no escape from this mental prison. The simple minded have no way out. They can't give up the science, few modern people can. And they can't give up the idea that it is God that is the source of the good.

The result is that one sex by an accident of ancient evolution gives birth and the other sex fertilizes. Another accident of evolution was the evolution of self awareness along with will and self direction, imprisoning half of the human race as the result of this simple minded decision, including the presence of women who do not believe or have religious faith, who do not want to be subject to what all other female animal forms experience, the inability to consciously abort.

Put that together with a secular society that can't pass law that conforms to any one religious view and we have the new condition that the issue becomes far more complex, requiring compromise the simple minded can't accept. It threatens their world view that God exists and everything other than their view is actually sin.

Well the simple fact is that the fear of sin, the fear of evil, the notion of a great war between good and evil leads to division and hate, the very thing that violates the central rule of religion, that all life is sacred and divine. The fear creates the impossibility to rationally think. All of these religious beliefs also must die under the rule of the ONE TRUE FAITH. Without the right of abortion, without the secular state, every religion but one will be destroyed and it will very likely be all the religions that say life is sacred and that there is a God.

The ultimate manifestation of intolerance is intolerance of intolerance, because we create what we fear. The ultimate realization of rationality is that we are all better off when all the bigots are dead. That will lead to just one of us left standing to die all alone.

 

[Aikouka]

This is your straw man argument: "So you support restricting what women can do with their body despite knowing the deficits and limitations we have as a country/society exist. That seems rather cruel doesn’t it? What other cruel things do you support in order to force your beliefs on others? I’m guessing you also support requiring a woman to carry to term a child from rape, right? I also am guessing you support forcing women to carry and therefore care for fetuses with birth defects (meaning the defects were known before the child was born). That’s some cruel shit you support!"

Look up the definition if you care.

Keep in mind that this entire thread is based around a news story of Arkansas trying to outlaw abortion for anything but saving the mother's life. I think you could argue that it may not be as much of a straw man for him to ask if your generically defined Pro-Life stance includes aspects that are on-topic to this discussion.

 

[shortylickens]

The argument that its a child or that Americans should take care of children is horse shit. The people trying to push that agenda don't believe you're a human unless you are white, straight, and Christian. They do absolutely nothing for you after you are out of the womb. In fact they actively support legislation which fucks over and kills people who are out of the womb.

They're trying to control women. Because it makes them feel strong. They can't control men. If you tried any of this shit on men they'd hunt you down and beat you to death. But controlling women is an outside possibility so they do their best to make it work. Interestingly its an awful lot of women in that group as well.

The people who actually want to save babies are in favor of bigger government programs like adoption and single mother welfare and generally making society a better place so women don't feel the need for an abortion.
Patricia Heaton says that when a woman feels like she needs an abortion it means society has failed that woman.

 

[Paratus]

Bullshit. My wife and I are pro-life and have put our money to help women in bad situations so they can keep their babies.
I also think we should have a gov't program to help in the same situation. Who cares what duplicitous conservatives do anyways.



Someday, in my dreams, people will stop asking this idiotic question.

Let me explain my issue with disregarding spontaneous abortion vs choosing abortion. (I’m not going to jump on you for your beliefs. Your intentions seem to be good)

I assume you being pro-life would not approve of someone taking RU486. RU486 has a 95% efficacy rate of causing an abortion.

I also assume you being pro-life have no issue with married couples having children whenever they care to try.

Well as parents age their risk of spontaneous abortion or miscarriage After conception increases until it’s above 80% in their mid forties.

The moral hazard that pro-lifers state they care about is causing the death of a child.

A woman taking RU486 has a 95% chance to abort a fetus after conception.

A pro-life couple in their mid- forties trying to conceive have an 80% chance of abortion or miscarriage after EACH conception until she successfully makes it through 9 months.

The moral hazard that pro-lifers state they care about is causing the death of a child.

In case 1 a single fetus is likely aborted. In the second multiple fetuses are likely aborted. Yet only the first case is “wrong” per the pro-life position.

Both cases rest upon the “parents” making decisions with a similar level of risk for causing a dead fetus.

How do you reconcile these cases from the pro-life standpoint of fetus=child?

If the argument is one person wanted the abortion and the other wanted a child are we saying it’s acceptable to kill as many fetuses (children) as we have to until we get a live birth?

How is that pro-life?
It only makes logical sense if the reason isn’t to prevent the deaths of “children” but to control women’s reproduction.

 

[ivwshane]

He won’t be returning, they never do. It’s easy to defend your position when you ignore any scrutiny or contradictions.

The sad fact is that abortions should be reduced but not because of some moral argument about protecting babies. But rather they should be reduced because it’s good policy... so long as the reasons abortions are reduced is because women/men have better access to health care that allows them to prevent pregnancies in the first place, that reduce the amount of unprotected sex, that leads to healthier embryos being created, and because people are more financially secure to have children or better safety net programs exist.

However none of that will happen so long as the issue is treated as black and white, good vs bad.

No woman enjoys getting an abortion so why not support policies that give them options that will minimize their need for one in the first place.