Roe vs Wade anniversary

[brycejones]

Unlike Christmas there is a real war on choice.......

Agree.

Well at least we've finally put the war on Christmas to bed.

 

[Kadarin]

Agree. Pro-choice supporters love choice when it comes to abortion but suddenly have a problem when it comes to school choice or the 2nd Amendment.

I am pro-choice, and I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and firearm rights. And the death penalty.

 

[Texashiker]

The question I have for pro choice people, do you support choice because the supreme court upheld abortion rights? Its the law, so why not?

Or do you think a woman has the right to make decisions for her body?

Or something else?

 

[BoberFett]

Decided January 22, 1973 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Last I heard we are up to an estimated 55 million children legally murdered.

I wish there was less ambiguity in our definition of when life starts, but other than that I'm OK with this number. Half of them were below average anyway.

 

[BoberFett]

The question I have for pro choice people, do you support choice because the supreme court upheld abortion rights? Its the law, so why not?

Or do you think a woman has the right to make decisions for her body?

Or something else?

Because until Homo Sapiens is an endangered species there are more important things to worry about.

 

[Kadarin]

Primarily a war on women being held responsible for their choices

Well, there you go. It's actually a war on female sexuality; if the woman spreads her legs and "does the crime", she must therefore "do the time" and either raise the child or give it up for adoption.

Most people, even "pro-life" people, will make exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother. So let's briefly look at these exceptions:

1. Life of the mother.

Here we make a judgment call that the life of the mother means more than the life of the potential child. Therefore, the potential child isn't really a full human being, is it?

2. Incest.

Two elements here, where you have the genetic risks of bad recessive traits being reinforced, so we make a judgment call that the potentially inferior genetics of this potential human being are not worth saving. Secondly, I imagine a typical incestuous case would be where a father is abusing a daughter who probably isn't capable of consent. Therefore, we make a judgment call that "consent" to sexual activity is more important than the life of a potential human being. More on this in a moment.

3. Rape.

In nature, reproduction can occur regardless of whether the female consented to the activity. The biological result of such a genetic transaction could very well be healthy. Therefore, pro-life people often make a judgment that abortion is perfectly acceptable if the woman did not consent to sexual activity, and presumably did not enjoy it. So if the woman wanted to enjoy sex, abortion is not acceptable, but if she did not, then it is.

This is a war on perceived sexual morality, a war on empowerment of women.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's like saying someone who has an accident, let's say playing football, and breaks their leg, shouldn't be allowed to go to the hospital to have it fixed because they need to learn from their mistakes.

I didn't know consensual sex was "accidental".

 

[Texashiker]

Well, there you go. It's actually a war on female sexuality; if the woman spreads her legs and "does the crime", she must therefore "do the time" and either raise the child or give it up for adoption.

In rebuttal, if a man deposits his sperm he is financially responsible for the child for the next 18+ years, plus health insurance cost, plus 1/2 of medical copays + whatever else the judge says.

When both people are held responsible how is it a war on one or the other?

 

[nehalem256]

Well, there you go. It's actually a war on female sexuality; if the woman spreads her legs and "does the crime", she must therefore "do the time" and either raise the child or give it up for adoption.

Sounds exactly like the argument given for men being forced to pay child support for children that women CHOOSE to have.

EDIT: Except men don't even get the option of adoption

 

[Atomic Playboy]

When both people are held responsible how is it a war on one or the other?

There's a pretty specific medical difference in how men and women experience pregnancy. See if you can guess what it is.

 

[alzan]

Decided January 22, 1973 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Last I heard we are up to an estimated 55 million children legally murdered.

Last I checked that's 55 million potential children/55 million fertilized but non-attached eggs/55 million zygotes/55million fetuses aborted. No guarantee that all of them would have grown and be born children.

Besides I call shens on 55 million because it's an estimate. Probably estimated high by the pro-life ilk for it's shock value.

Won't someone think of the fertilized eggs?

 

[Texashiker]

There's a pretty specific medical difference in how men and women experience pregnancy. See if you can guess what it is.

Sexes are not equal, sorry about that. But giving birth is a burden the woman must carry.

You still not answer the question, how is it a war on sex with both parents are held responsible?

 

[Retro Rob]

There's a pretty specific medical difference in how men and women experience pregnancy. See if you can guess what it is.

Agreed, but how is this a "war on women", when there plenty of "women" who are against abortion?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sexes are not equal, sorry about that. But giving birth is a burden the woman must carry.

Unless they don't want to. Thanks Roe v. Wade!

You still not answer the question, how is it a war on sex with both parents are held responsible?

I didn't actually make that claim, and it's not quite how I see it, but I'll go ahead and address it. Because the responsibilities are not equal. Even given that there is sometimes a relative discrepancy in financial awards between men and women as far as child support (and that's something that should be fixed), you can't compare a woman's experience of pregnancy to a man's, because the man doesn't have to do anything after his sperm are deposited. When it's possible for men to carry a baby to term in their womb, I'll be all about the "men's rights" side of the pregnancy argument. Until then, whoever's body is carrying the embryo/fetus has the right to make the choice.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Agreed, but how is this a "war on women", when there plenty of "women" who are against abortion?

Because only women can get abortions? Frankly, I'm disgusted with the hyperbole we use to discuss ANYTHING in the political sphere. It isn't about rights, it's a "WAR ON <GROUP>." It takes away the ability to form rational arguments because everything is taken to such an illogical extreme. What's the opposite of pro-life; anti-life? Do I want to kill everything in the world because I think abortion should be allowed? So, yeah, I think the "war on women" language is ridiculous. I know pro-life people, and not one of them opposes abortions because they hate women (even women who make poor choices). Framing the argument that way is ridiculous.

 

[Texashiker]

Until then, whoever's body is carrying the embryo/fetus has the right to make the choice.

Location should not determine whether someone lives or dies.

I can not even shoot a dog on my property, unless the dog is attacking a person or my livestock.

Why should a dog have more legal protections than an unborn child?

Some of the far left abortion people approve of nine month partial birth abortions. Who was that doctor who was convicted of botching abortions, delivering the child, and then leaving the child to die?

 

[nehalem256]

When it's possible for men to carry a baby to term in their womb, I'll be all about the "men's rights" side of the pregnancy argument. Until then, whoever's body is carrying the embryo/fetus has the right to make the choice.

So then their choice. Their responsibility.

As soon as men starting CHOOSING to carry a baby to term in their own womb they can be equally responsible for that choice.

 

[Incorruptible]

I am pro-choice, and I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and firearm rights. And the death penalty.

I should have clarified that some of them are hypocrites along with the MSM.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why should a dog have more legal protections than an unborn child?

It doesn't. If the dog happened to find itself inside a woman's uterus, it would be just as legal to kill it as abortion. Similarly, if a fetus finds itself in your yard, you don't have the legal right to shoot it (unless it attacks you, I suppose, but that would be some freaky shit). It's like castle doctrine but it specifically applies to the uterus.

Some of the far left abortion people approve of nine month partial birth abortions. Who was that doctor who was convicted of botching abortions, delivering the child, and then leaving the child to die?

You mean the guy who was arrested and imprisoned? That's your anti-abortion argument? That's like using Timothy McVeigh as an example of small government conservative values.

 

[Kadarin]

Or do you think a woman has the right to make decisions for her body?

This. Accidents and unintentional pregnancies happen. People change their minds. Sometimes what appeared to have been a stable family situation changes.

I believe that if a woman becomes pregnant and then decides for whatever reason (any reason) she does not want to go through with it and have the child, she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Period.

I also believe that this decision needs to be made and carried out relatively early on in the process.

 

[Texashiker]

That's your anti-abortion argument?

My anti-abortion argument is that no person shall be devoid of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

How do we define life? By brain waves and heart beat.

I believe that if a woman becomes pregnant and then decides for whatever reason (any reason) she does not want to go through with it and have the child, she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Period.

Would you extend those same rights to the father and not require him to pay child support?

 

[nehalem256]

It doesn't. If the dog happened to find itself inside a woman's uterus, it would be just as legal to kill it as abortion. Similarly, if a fetus finds itself in your yard, you don't have the legal right to shoot it (unless it attacks you, I suppose, but that would be some freaky shit). It's like castle doctrine but it specifically applies to the uterus.

You can't invite someone in for dinner and then invoke castle doctrine to shoot them.

 

[Retro Rob]

Because only women can get abortions? Frankly, I'm disgusted with the hyperbole we use to discuss ANYTHING in the political sphere. It isn't about rights, it's a "WAR ON <GROUP>." It takes away the ability to form rational arguments because everything is taken to such an illogical extreme. What's the opposite of pro-life; anti-life? Do I want to kill everything in the world because I think abortion should be allowed? So, yeah, I think the "war on women" language is ridiculous. I know pro-life people, and not one of them opposes abortions because they hate women (even women who make poor choices). Framing the argument that way is ridiculous.

This was my point, the hyperbole. Funny how we don't call those being against drunk driving as waging a "war on alcohol", or those against the Iraq War as waging a "war on Government", because nothing evokes more of an emotional response than percived bigotry.

This is politically strategic, but in reality, patently dishonest.

 

[nehalem256]

This. Accidents and unintentional pregnancies happen. People change their minds. Sometimes what appeared to have been a stable family situation changes.

But if any of that happen to the man tough shit.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So then when can I look forward to liberals opposing poor single women having children they cannot feed

You mean all those liberals who believe that abortion should be legal, safe and rare?

I suppose Bill Clinton kind of qualifies as a liberal

"Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare."

BILL CLINTON, speech at DNC, Aug. 29, 1996

​

​