Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Debate => Topic started by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 18, 2012, 02:33:56 PM



Title: Abortion
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 18, 2012, 02:33:56 PM
Go.

I tend to agree the most with option 2.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 18, 2012, 02:37:43 PM
Option 3


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Donerail on August 18, 2012, 02:42:21 PM
Option 2, though I support option 1 for people who are already receiving federal health care (people on Medicaid).


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 18, 2012, 02:44:09 PM
Abortion should not be legal, but should be federally funded.

Lean option 2.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Free Palestine on August 18, 2012, 02:59:56 PM
Legal and federally funded.  Excising a fetus is expensive, yall.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Goldwater on August 18, 2012, 03:28:07 PM
Option 2.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on August 18, 2012, 04:00:37 PM
Legal and federally funded.  Excising a fetus is expensive, yall.

Expensive it may be, but why would others want to pay for it?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Vosem on August 18, 2012, 04:44:46 PM
Abortion should certainly be legal. As to federal funding, if a universal healthcare system exists, then it's only fair to include abortion, but it would be best if such a system didn't exist.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 18, 2012, 04:49:26 PM
Abortions are medical procedures that are, at times medically recommended and potentially life saving for the mother. There is no rationale I can agree with that makes abortion legal, but also not federally supported.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Napoleon on August 18, 2012, 04:49:36 PM
Option one, but I could support option two if necessary.

Abortions are medical procedures that are, at times medically recommended and potentially life saving for the mother. There is no rationale I can agree with that makes abortion legal, but also not federally supported.

I guess the rationale is having to navigate a political system filled with fundies, moderate heroes and corporate cronies.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 18, 2012, 06:23:59 PM
Option 1 with reservations (restrictions on 2nd trimester abortions and a near-total ban on 3rd trimester abortions)


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: dead0man on August 18, 2012, 06:38:59 PM
Option 1.  The first two are free, the third one you pay for with your ovaries.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Free Palestine on August 18, 2012, 06:51:38 PM
Legal and federally funded.  Excising a fetus is expensive, yall.

Expensive it may be, but why would others want to pay for it?

Because overall, making abortions available to all regardless of their socioeconomic status would be beneficial.

Though of course, I don't support the federal government at all.  But as long as we're going to have this bourgeois society, we might as well fund stuff like that.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 18, 2012, 07:37:35 PM
Option 1 with reservations (restrictions on 2nd trimester abortions and a near-total ban on 3rd trimester abortions)


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on August 18, 2012, 07:49:30 PM
Abortions for all!


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: © tweed on August 19, 2012, 01:44:43 PM
how about a tax deduction for abortions?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 19, 2012, 03:14:30 PM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on August 20, 2012, 04:17:38 PM
Ban it.

I must admit that the number of people supporting option 1 is disturbing. I have accepted that most people here favor the 'right' to abort, but state funding is another story.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Mechaman on August 20, 2012, 04:24:36 PM
Option 1 and 1/2th.

Abortions should be legal but only have federal funding for extenuating circumstances.  Kind of like unemployment comp or something like that.

I'm not sure I would be in favor of MORE abortions, but I can say that having a state ban on abortions sets a pretty dangerous precedent.  Primarily, I'm concerned that such bans could have ramifications that give the state a blank check to control a person's body.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: courts on August 20, 2012, 04:51:05 PM
closer to 3 but obviously simply banning abortion won't necessarily stop it, having access to forms of birth control and certain social services would help reduce the rate more regardless of legality (sane).


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 20, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.

Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 21, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
Option 1 and 1/2th.

Abortions should be legal but only have federal funding for extenuating circumstances.  Kind of like unemployment comp or something like that.

I'm not sure I would be in favor of MORE abortions, but I can say that having a state ban on abortions sets a pretty dangerous precedent.  Primarily, I'm concerned that such bans could have ramifications that give the state a blank check to control a person's body.

...perhaps if a state can mandate a person keeping a fetus to term, it can mandate abortion as well.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Mechaman on August 21, 2012, 10:07:39 AM
Option 1 and 1/2th.

Abortions should be legal but only have federal funding for extenuating circumstances.  Kind of like unemployment comp or something like that.

I'm not sure I would be in favor of MORE abortions, but I can say that having a state ban on abortions sets a pretty dangerous precedent.  Primarily, I'm concerned that such bans could have ramifications that give the state a blank check to control a person's body.

...perhaps if a state can mandate a person keeping a fetus to term, it can mandate abortion as well.

Yes, very much so.

The state could get a blank check to regulate the population of certain groups if given such power.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 21, 2012, 10:17:29 AM
Option 1 and 1/2th.

Abortions should be legal but only have federal funding for extenuating circumstances.  Kind of like unemployment comp or something like that.

I'm not sure I would be in favor of MORE abortions, but I can say that having a state ban on abortions sets a pretty dangerous precedent.  Primarily, I'm concerned that such bans could have ramifications that give the state a blank check to control a person's body.

...perhaps if a state can mandate a person keeping a fetus to term, it can mandate abortion as well.

Yes, very much so.

The state could get a blank check to regulate the population of certain groups if given such power.

Perhaps population control conspiracies aren't as far from the truth as they might seem and perhaps are propagated by those who are likely allied with the conspirators themselves.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Redalgo on August 21, 2012, 10:42:24 AM
Abortion should be legal except for in the third trimester unless the mother's health is in serious jeopardy. My attitude on federal funding would vary based on the type of health care system in place, but in principle I am not at all opposed to option one in this poll.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 21, 2012, 01:00:40 PM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.
Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Free Palestine on August 21, 2012, 01:29:09 PM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.
Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.

It's probably horrible of me, I know, but I have a tendency to groan every time a teenage girl's first thought when she finds out she's preggers is not "well, off to Planned Parenthood."  I experienced this somewhat first-hand with my idiot cousin who I really don't care about at all.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on August 21, 2012, 01:32:55 PM
Abortions are medical procedures that are, at times medically recommended and potentially life saving for the mother. There is no rationale I can agree with that makes abortion legal, but also not federally supported.
In these cases alone- I support the use of federal funds. Aside from this.... I am closest to Option 3


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 21, 2012, 01:35:14 PM
Abortions should be completely legal with no questions asked up until the third trimester or so, and covered by a national single-payer healthcare (or something equivalent) system.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Free Palestine on August 21, 2012, 01:39:16 PM
Abortions should be completely legal with no questions asked up until the third trimester or so, and covered by a national single-payer healthcare (or something equivalent) system.

Jeebus, a year ago I wouldn't have thought I'd ever be to the left of you on an issue.  :P


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Likely Voter on August 21, 2012, 01:46:38 PM
yes abortion should be legal. And if (and only if) a woman qualifies for Medicaid, then yes it should be covered, just like birth control is already covered under Medicaid (in some states). I never understood the legal (non-religious) argument for why birth control is covered but Abortion isn't.



Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on August 21, 2012, 03:14:17 PM
Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on August 21, 2012, 04:32:05 PM
At the root of most objections to abortion rights is an objection to women having control over their own lives.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 22, 2012, 03:15:08 PM
Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 22, 2012, 04:13:26 PM
Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.

Being 'pro-life' (a ridiculous and leading term, much like 'pro-choice') in this context would imply a deontological character to one's stance on the matter, not just a lifestyle preference. I also don't know where you're getting this idea, Steve, that being 'pro-life' and being opposed to premarital sex always coincide.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 22, 2012, 04:27:13 PM
Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.

Being 'pro-life' (a ridiculous and leading term, much like 'pro-choice') in this context would imply a deontological character to one's stance on the matter, not just a lifestyle preference. I also don't know where you're getting this idea, Steve, that being 'pro-life' and being opposed to premarital sex always coincide.

Let me put it to you this way. If you want abortion to be illegal, you should be prepared for the consequences of having casual sex without having all the options available to you. Of course there's child support. ;) ...and if you make say, $40000 a year, that's like $400 a month for 216 months...and that's $86,400 for a lay. No random poon is worth that much..unless she's a porn star that you REALLY like...or God has come down to you and tells you that this is the hottest woman you will EVER be with. ..then again, you could be some woman who can't keep a man but can't afford $20,000 for invitro and decide just to have a kid on your own. But.. being pro-life like that is to traditional values the same way that Diet Coke is to a Super Sized Double Quarter Pounder meal....with a shake for dessert.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 22, 2012, 04:31:29 PM
Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.

Being 'pro-life' (a ridiculous and leading term, much like 'pro-choice') in this context would imply a deontological character to one's stance on the matter, not just a lifestyle preference. I also don't know where you're getting this idea, Steve, that being 'pro-life' and being opposed to premarital sex always coincide.

Let me put it to you this way. If you want abortion to be illegal, you should be prepared for the consequences of having casual sex without having all the options available to you. Of course there's child support. ;)

Well obviously.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Ebowed on August 22, 2012, 04:33:32 PM
It should be entirely legal and costs covered under a universal health care scheme.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Beet on August 22, 2012, 08:06:09 PM
It should be legal up to a certain stage in the pregnancy beyond the first trimester, but not federally funded.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 22, 2012, 10:59:49 PM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.
Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.

It's probably horrible of me, I know, but I have a tendency to groan every time a teenage girl's first thought when she finds out she's preggers is not "well, off to Planned Parenthood."  I experienced this somewhat first-hand with my idiot cousin who I really don't care about at all.

I love how it's pro-lifers who are considered "condescending."


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Free Palestine on August 22, 2012, 11:40:50 PM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.
Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.

It's probably horrible of me, I know, but I have a tendency to groan every time a teenage girl's first thought when she finds out she's preggers is not "well, off to Planned Parenthood."  I experienced this somewhat first-hand with my idiot cousin who I really don't care about at all.

I love how it's pro-lifers who are considered "condescending."

Well, I never said I'd legally mandate that all teens who get pregnant abort.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: greenforest32 on August 23, 2012, 01:09:36 AM
It should be entirely legal and costs covered under a universal health care scheme.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 23, 2012, 08:01:00 AM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.
Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.

It's probably horrible of me, I know, but I have a tendency to groan every time a teenage girl's first thought when she finds out she's preggers is not "well, off to Planned Parenthood."  I experienced this somewhat first-hand with my idiot cousin who I really don't care about at all.

I love how it's pro-lifers who are considered "condescending."

Well, I never said I'd legally mandate that all teens who get pregnant abort.

Now now, apparently pro-lifers' ideas are so great, they can't be refused, even in the cases of incest and rape. :P


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 23, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
I love how it's pro-lifers who are considered "condescending."

What was condescending? And who called pro-lifers condescending?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on August 23, 2012, 06:13:54 PM
Why does being pro-life mean we should just get rid of abortion nationwide? Like I hate tattoos and tons of body piercings but I don't think we should ban them nationwide because I don't like them. I understand abortion is dealing with human lives, but there has not been any evidence to show that life begins at conception.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 24, 2012, 06:18:40 PM
It should be entirely legal and costs covered under a universal health care scheme.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on August 24, 2012, 08:08:38 PM
Why does being pro-life mean we should just get rid of abortion nationwide? Like I hate tattoos and tons of body piercings but I don't think we should ban them nationwide because I don't like them. I understand abortion is dealing with human lives, but there has not been any evidence to show that life begins at conception.

First off, for many many people, it's beyond a scientific belief. Secondly, technically, that is life as it is cells. The real argument would be of whether those cells constitute human life or not.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 24, 2012, 08:11:45 PM
First off, for many many people, it's beyond a scientific belief. Secondly, technically, that is life as it is cells. The real argument would be of whether those cells constitute human life or not.

That's why abortion should be legal. There's no definitive truth to when life begins, it's totally up to interpretation. One person can't legislate their subjective beliefs over another when not everyone believes in the truth they campaign for.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 24, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
That's why abortion should be legal. There's no definitive truth to when life begins, it's totally up to interpretation. One person can't legislate their subjective beliefs over another when not everyone believes in the truth they campaign for.

If you want to take the "we don't know which side is right and wrong" approach in this case there is a tremendous disparity in the consequences of each outcome; if it's not a person then outlawing it is forcing a woman to endure nine months of labor, but if it is a person then we're murdering 800,000 people a year.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Vosem on August 24, 2012, 09:15:53 PM
That's why abortion should be legal. There's no definitive truth to when life begins, it's totally up to interpretation. One person can't legislate their subjective beliefs over another when not everyone believes in the truth they campaign for.

If you want to take the "we don't know which side is right and wrong" approach in this case there is a tremendous disparity in the consequences of each outcome; if it's not a person then outlawing it is forcing a woman to endure nine months of labor, but if it is a person then we're murdering 800,000 people a year.

You forgot the consequence that if they are not aborted those 800,000 people a year become children whose parents (at least initially) don't want them. That's the concerning part, not the nine months of labor.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SPC on August 24, 2012, 11:25:24 PM
From a pure negative rights standpoint, the woman has a right to defend herself against lethal trespassers. Assuming the woman's life is not at stake, the woman is merely entitled to remove the trespassers from her property. Unfortunately, technological constraints make this a virtual death sentence for the trespassers, thus making it a highly unethical action to undertake.

From a practical standpoint, preventing a woman from marooning her fetus would be unenforceable, as it would require all women with miscarriages to prove their innocence.

I see no reason why the government should fund any abortions, and IMHO it is asinine to propose such unless the woman's life is at stake. What other elective procedures should your neighbors be forced to pay for?

I see Option 2 as the least objectionable choice.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Link on August 25, 2012, 02:45:26 PM
I see no reason why the government should fund any abortions...

Babies on welfare.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: afleitch on August 25, 2012, 02:56:53 PM
That's why abortion should be legal. There's no definitive truth to when life begins, it's totally up to interpretation. One person can't legislate their subjective beliefs over another when not everyone believes in the truth they campaign for.

If you want to take the "we don't know which side is right and wrong" approach in this case there is a tremendous disparity in the consequences of each outcome; if it's not a person then outlawing it is forcing a woman to endure nine months of labor, but if it is a person then we're murdering 800,000 people a year.

Which may involve a girl being forced to give birth even though it may kill her, or force a woman to forgo chaemotherapy or life saving drugs as it may harm the 'unborn'. Women's lives can be at stake if society wishes to infringe on her body.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SPC on August 25, 2012, 05:55:52 PM
I see no reason why the government should fund any abortions...

Babies on welfare.

Seems to be more an argument against welfare than an argument for eugenics.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 25, 2012, 09:42:47 PM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.
Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.

It's probably horrible of me, I know, but I have a tendency to groan every time a teenage girl's first thought when she finds out she's preggers is not "well, off to Planned Parenthood."  I experienced this somewhat first-hand with my idiot cousin who I really don't care about at all.

I love how it's pro-lifers who are considered "condescending."

Well, I never said I'd legally mandate that all teens who get pregnant abort.

Not the point. You and fezzy support people getting abortions because you consider most young women to be idiots, and those who give birth to be irresponsible.  My opposition to abortion is not based in any way on disparaging beliefs about anyone, but on my belief in protecting young human lives.  It is not a matter of hating or not respecting women, as is so often baselessly claimed.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 25, 2012, 10:01:29 PM
From a pure negative rights standpoint, the woman has a right to defend herself against lethal trespassers. Assuming the woman's life is not at stake, the woman is merely entitled to remove the trespassers from her property. Unfortunately, technological constraints make this a virtual death sentence for the trespassers, thus making it a highly unethical action to undertake.

From a practical standpoint, preventing a woman from marooning her fetus would be unenforceable, as it would require all women with miscarriages to prove their innocence.

I see no reason why the government should fund any abortions, and IMHO it is asinine to propose such unless the woman's life is at stake. What other elective procedures should your neighbors be forced to pay for?

I see Option 2 as the least objectionable choice.

That's actually the most objective way to look at it. If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person and the state can only commodere that property (I assume against judgement that any competent person with a human uterus is a "person") and alienate the associated property right with Eminent Domain (in this situation, if the state were to make abortion a crime, they would have to compensate all whose property rights would be alienated). Eminent Domain's requirement of a "public purpose" could be made even if a fetus cannot be proven to be a person because of some other "public purpose".  However, there could be said to be a "neccesity" to prevent another from being harmed, but generally this sort of exception is used in a tangible national emergency such as a war or a disaster, not some allegded en masse moral failing. (You can't just break into a bakery because you are starving) Therefore, a fetus, if its a person, could be considered someone who will starve if they do not burglarize the grocery store.

I probably missed some steps, but this is pretty much the jist of it. You can't just force someone to personally keep someone else alive against their will is the point...so, in a way, "personhood" laws actually elevate embryos and fetuses above a born person....then again, whether to protect the community from the "lawlessness" if aborting a fetus is killing a person, or from the mere offensiveness and psychological welfare of those who believe it is if it isn't, the state can "compensate" from women the easement for the fetuses...provided a "fair market value" can be made, otherwise forcing a preganat woman to give birth would be illegal taking or involuntary servitude or "slavery".

Then again, there is the point that abortion cannot be proven as easy as someone using or possessing illicit substances or committing some form of sodomy (illicit sexual activity).  ie you can find people who heard someone buy sex or you can find the dope residue in some guys' car...if someone is all the sudden was not pregnant, then pregnant and then not pregnant, you can't priove anything, right? Maybe it was a miscarriage, maybe someone mobster or pharmacist came to her house with coat hanger..maybe she just threw herself down the stairs..


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 25, 2012, 10:55:24 PM
If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person
There's a few unstated assumptions there (most notably that a person can be considered property).


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Free Palestine on August 26, 2012, 02:05:15 AM
Flush 'em. And encourage dumb young women to do so. But that'll never happen because the government can't make more money for its members without population growth, so babies will continue to be softly encouraged.
Who decides which young women are dumb?  Or are you assuming that about all of them?

A vast majority, yes. Most young people are stupid, especially when it comes to a perspective on responsibility. Having a child as a teenager or even a little older strikes me as reeking of poor decision-making for a number of reasons.

It's probably horrible of me, I know, but I have a tendency to groan every time a teenage girl's first thought when she finds out she's preggers is not "well, off to Planned Parenthood."  I experienced this somewhat first-hand with my idiot cousin who I really don't care about at all.

I love how it's pro-lifers who are considered "condescending."

Well, I never said I'd legally mandate that all teens who get pregnant abort.

Not the point. You and fezzy support people getting abortions because you consider most young women to be idiots, and those who give birth to be irresponsible.  My opposition to abortion is not based in any way on disparaging beliefs about anyone, but on my belief in protecting young human lives.  It is not a matter of hating or not respecting women, as is so often baselessly claimed.

Oh, it's not because I think most young women are idiots.  I just think that it's idiotic to ruin your life at like 14 or 16 or even 21 because you believe that the thing growing in your uterus that looks like a lizard is a person.

Despite what the wishy-washy pro-choicers might say, there are women who don't care about fetuses, who don't have to chug a fifth of whiskey and be dramatic over the decision to abort.  I know that if I were a woman, and I got preggers, I wouldn't think twice -- off to Planned Parenthood, for me.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: 後援会 on August 26, 2012, 02:18:06 AM
There is simply no moral argument that can sway me into supporting abortion. This includes the ill Violinist, largely because I think I would have a moral obligation to stay connected, at least if the Violinist was related to me.

At the same time, considering the type of person who would get an abortion would also likely raise children with similar attitudes and character as them if they had not gotten that abortion, hey, legalized abortion is pretty damn useful.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Free Palestine on August 26, 2012, 02:33:54 AM
\At the same time, considering the type of person who would get an abortion would also likely raise children with similar attitudes and character as them if they had not gotten that abortion, hey, legalized abortion is pretty damn useful.

Pro-choice people often stay pro-choice even after they pop out larvae, you know.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 26, 2012, 10:21:32 AM
Not the point. You and fezzy support people getting abortions because you consider most young women to be idiots, and those who give birth to be irresponsible.  My opposition to abortion is not based in any way on disparaging beliefs about anyone, but on my belief in protecting young human lives.  It is not a matter of hating or not respecting women, as is so often baselessly claimed.

Those are two very separate things. I oppose excessive abortion restrictions mostly because I think legislating subjective morality is absurd and overreaching, and I don't think anyone benefits from outlawing abortion. All I'm saying beyond that is I think very young girls having kids because no one taught them about sex and then refused to allow them to get rid of it is shameful and irresponsible. I don't blame them for getting pregnant or keeping the baby, they just don't know any better and shouldn't be expected to have to make such a difficult decision based on what someone else has already decided for them (i.e. the government or their ignorant parents). I blame their parents for refusing to have them educated about their bodies and exposing their children to the nonsensical demands of American Christian society. The disrespect for women is in the lack of trust society places in them by telling them they don't know what's right for their own health or what's right morally. All women should be encouraged to seek professional help at their doctor or Planned Parenthood, but that's been demonized by an overzealous, politicized religion complex. My beliefs beyond that point are just my hopes for their futures; Baby-less and educated. No one can force that though, and I don't expect anyone to.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on August 26, 2012, 10:27:41 AM
If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person
There's a few unstated assumptions there (most notably that a person can be considered property).
Not a person, but one body of a person. Are you your own? If not, you are someone else's property.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on September 04, 2012, 08:18:08 AM
Option 3.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on September 13, 2012, 05:25:57 PM
I agree with abortion rights on a practicality sense, but that does not mean I think it's a good thing.  Therefore... legal but not federally funded, except in the instances of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.  If it was accidental, sorry, but society shouldn't pay for this kind of -up.  There are an enormous amount of cheap, reasonable ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy.  This obviously creates a problem for a woman who took serious precautions (birth control, condoms, etc.) but got pregnant anyway... but this problem is too rare and problematic to legislate. 



Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on September 16, 2012, 12:45:04 AM
If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person
There's a few unstated assumptions there (most notably that a person can be considered property).
Not a person, but one body of a person. Are you your own? If not, you are someone else's property.

I am my own in the sense that I exist as myself, but I do not own myself in the sense of being property.  To own something as property I must objectify it. Why would I want to objectify myself?
My body is not something I can separate out from myself and turn into a chattel, since it is fundamental and integral to every aspect of my existence.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Frodo on September 16, 2012, 09:50:05 AM
It's quite telling that 53% (as of now, with 70 votes cast) of this supposedly left-wing forum do not support federal funding for abortions.  


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Goldwater on September 16, 2012, 10:09:45 AM
It's quite telling that 53% (as of now, with 70 votes cast) of this supposedly left-wing forum do not support federal funding for abortions.  

Although, looking at it from another perspective, 73% of this forum supports legalized abortion.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Frodo on September 16, 2012, 12:33:20 PM
It's quite telling that 53% (as of now, with 70 votes cast) of this supposedly left-wing forum do not support federal funding for abortions.  

Although, looking at it from another perspective, 73% of this forum supports legalized abortion.

So we support a woman's right to have an abortion (within limits) -we just don't want to pay for it. 


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Maxwell on September 16, 2012, 02:52:19 PM
Pro-Choice, no federal funding.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on September 17, 2012, 01:50:27 PM
If you are not your own private property (and thus possess the right to exclude others from it), you are not a person
There's a few unstated assumptions there (most notably that a person can be considered property).
Not a person, but one body of a person. Are you your own? If not, you are someone else's property.

I am my own in the sense that I exist as myself, but I do not own myself in the sense of being property.  To own something as property I must objectify it. Why would I want to objectify myself?
My body is not something I can separate out from myself and turn into a chattel, since it is fundamental and integral to every aspect of my existence.
Well, maybe not but someone can and wants to and may someday. Remember, what the state has given, it has the power to take away.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Spanish Moss on September 21, 2012, 08:37:38 PM
Considering my general political paradigm, this is the one issue where I'm unconventional.  It's constantly a struggle for me.

I was, at one point, against abortion in all cases except if the mother's life is at risk (because I believe it is self defense, and that should be a right).  But I've come to a position where I consider myself pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

It seems to me that outlawing abortion won't really prevent it to any meaningful degree, but will cause many more women to die - meaning more death and suffering (if someone has studies showing otherwise, or that agree, I'm welcome to new information).  Either way, I believe the greater focus should be on contraception, and that contraception should be free and very easily available, and that sex education is critical in schools.  I feel to reduce abortion and reduce death - that is the very best approach.

And no, I'm not anti women.  Half of those killed in abortion are female, so on that I'd say I'm pro-women.  Not to mention Susan B. Anthony was strongly against abortion... and people aren't claiming she was anti-woman.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on October 03, 2012, 09:28:44 AM
From conception, the baby is biologically human and genetically distinct from it's mother. Therefore it is a human being and should be treated as such. I would support abortion in cases where the mother's life is at stake, but it's really irrelevant given that those cases are such a small percentage of abortions.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Person Man on October 06, 2012, 05:09:36 PM
Considering my general political paradigm, this is the one issue where I'm unconventional.  It's constantly a struggle for me.

I was, at one point, against abortion in all cases except if the mother's life is at risk (because I believe it is self defense, and that should be a right).  But I've come to a position where I consider myself pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

It seems to me that outlawing abortion won't really prevent it to any meaningful degree, but will cause many more women to die - meaning more death and suffering (if someone has studies showing otherwise, or that agree, I'm welcome to new information).  Either way, I believe the greater focus should be on contraception, and that contraception should be free and very easily available, and that sex education is critical in schools.  I feel to reduce abortion and reduce death - that is the very best approach.

And no, I'm not anti women.  Half of those killed in abortion are female, so on that I'd say I'm pro-women.  Not to mention Susan B. Anthony was strongly against abortion... and people aren't claiming she was anti-woman.

and don't forget what overturning Roe and eventually making abortion a crime would do to the prison population....I mean, you would think that would prevent most abortions, but does the War on Drugs do anything to prevent drug addiction or abuse? ...and now perhaps a large fraction of prisoners are drug offenders. At least banning abortion would end the gender gap in prisons.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on October 08, 2012, 12:41:56 AM
Considering my general political paradigm, this is the one issue where I'm unconventional.  It's constantly a struggle for me.

I was, at one point, against abortion in all cases except if the mother's life is at risk (because I believe it is self defense, and that should be a right).  But I've come to a position where I consider myself pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

It seems to me that outlawing abortion won't really prevent it to any meaningful degree, but will cause many more women to die - meaning more death and suffering (if someone has studies showing otherwise, or that agree, I'm welcome to new information).  Either way, I believe the greater focus should be on contraception, and that contraception should be free and very easily available, and that sex education is critical in schools.  I feel to reduce abortion and reduce death - that is the very best approach.

And no, I'm not anti women.  Half of those killed in abortion are female, so on that I'd say I'm pro-women.  Not to mention Susan B. Anthony was strongly against abortion... and people aren't claiming she was anti-woman.

and don't forget what overturning Roe and eventually making abortion a crime would do to the prison population....I mean, you would think that would prevent most abortions, but does the War on Drugs do anything to prevent drug addiction or abuse? ...and now perhaps a large fraction of prisoners are drug offenders. At least banning abortion would end the gender gap in prisons.
most people who support making abortion a crime do not support throwing the mother in prison. they would charge the abortionist.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: General White on October 08, 2012, 02:03:01 AM
Option 3. All Abortions should be banded.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Mercenary on October 31, 2012, 02:34:16 AM
Not only make it illegal, but enforce it with real penalties.

At the same time do more to assist pregnant woman and do more to teach about safe sex so people don't get pregnant in the first place.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on October 31, 2012, 11:57:34 AM
option 1. anything else is completely unacceptable.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: General White on October 31, 2012, 04:40:06 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 01, 2012, 06:59:50 AM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Oakvale on November 01, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
I only think some abortions should be banded, personally.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 01, 2012, 01:01:12 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: General White on November 01, 2012, 06:54:11 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Gass3268 on November 12, 2012, 02:31:33 AM
To me an abortion should be avoided at all costs, but the choice comes down to the mother, the mother alone and whenever she wants to make the decisions. if she needs federal funding I have no problem with the government giving the help. 


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Svensson on November 12, 2012, 03:21:36 AM
Option 2. It's a woman's issue - you come to me when you can push an eight-pound bowling ball out the end of your dick, you can have an opinion on abortion.

Nonetheless, I would prefer if it were funded at the state level, or charitably.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Link on November 13, 2012, 11:05:35 AM
Legal and federally funded.  Excising a fetus is expensive, yall.

Expensive it may be, but why would others want to pay for it?

()

Questions?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 16, 2012, 12:48:57 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 16, 2012, 04:21:11 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.

The crimes aren't equivalent. Having an abortion is akin to hiring a hitman.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SPC on November 16, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.

The crimes aren't equivalent. Having an abortion is akin to hiring a hitman.

Wouldn't that make women who receive abortions accessories to murder?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: General White on November 16, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.

The crimes aren't equivalent. Having an abortion is akin to hiring a hitman.

A fetus is a baby. Getting a abortion just to "make your life easyier" is the same as murder like DC Al Fine says its the same as hiring a hitman. getting a abortion in any case is wrong period they should be put in jail for getting a abortion.

Abortion is sick,disgusting,and evil how it is legalized in this society is disgusting. It should be banded in all cases except to save the life of the mother.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: politicallefty on November 17, 2012, 03:42:56 AM
I consider myself to be solidly pro-choice, supporting President Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" approach and the decision in Roe v. Wade. I will admit that I do find myself morally opposed to it personally, but I think the ultimate decision is the woman's and that she should have the choice with respect to her own body. With that said, I can't say that I support federal funding for abortion expect in specific cases (i.e. health/life of mother, incest, rape). In any other case, I think it's an elective procedure and I tend not to support coverage in many of those instances. On the other hand, I am vehemently opposed to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood despite the possibility of federal funds going to abortion. That is completely unacceptable to me.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2012, 08:43:34 AM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.

The crimes aren't equivalent. Having an abortion is akin to hiring a hitman.

A fetus is a baby. Getting a abortion just to "make your life easyier" is the same as murder like DC Al Fine says its the same as hiring a hitman. getting a abortion in any case is wrong period they should be put in jail for getting a abortion.

Abortion is sick,disgusting,and evil how it is legalized in this society is disgusting. It should be banded in all cases except to save the life of the mother.

yeah, because aborting a fetus after a rapist sexually attacked you is so selfish.

i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Donerail on November 17, 2012, 09:42:48 AM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.

The crimes aren't equivalent. Having an abortion is akin to hiring a hitman.

A fetus is a baby. Getting a abortion just to "make your life easyier" is the same as murder like DC Al Fine says its the same as hiring a hitman. getting a abortion in any case is wrong period they should be put in jail for getting a abortion.

Abortion is sick,disgusting,and evil how it is legalized in this society is disgusting. It should be banded in all cases except to save the life of the mother.

How can you murder something that isn't alive?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 17, 2012, 10:12:25 AM
i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.

I find it sick, disgusting, and evil how so many people on this website believe that those who are strongly anti-abortion are that way solely because they hate women rather than because they love human life.  Cut back on the demonization, will you?  Just because their definition of human life is not objective fact does not make yours an objective fact either.  I don't think those on either side of the debate would say that if a human life were not being terminated abortion should be prevented, nor would they say that if a human life were being terminated then abortion should not be casually allowed.  However, neither side agrees on whether a human life is involved, which is what all the hoo-haa is about.

If you want to demonize the anti-abortion people here over what you perceive as their misguided definition of human life, go ahead.  But to attribute it to misogyny only coarsens the conversation and causes the people I presume you are trying to convince to tune you out.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2012, 10:16:55 AM
i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.

I find it sick, disgusting, and evil how so many people on this website believe that those who are strongly anti-abortion are that way solely because they hate women rather than because they love human life.  Cut back on the demonization, will you?  Just because their definition of human life is not objective fact does not make yours an objective fact either.  I don't think those on either side of the debate would say that if a human life were not being terminated abortion should be prevented, nor would they say that if a human life were being terminated then abortion should not be casually allowed.  However, neither side agrees on whether a human life is involved, which is what all the hoo-haa is about.

If you want to demonize the anti-abortion people here over what you perceive as their misguided definition of human life, go ahead.  But to attribute it to misogyny only coarsens the conversation and causes the people I presume you are trying to convince to tune you out.

i never said it was an objective fact. what i pointed out was that they're prepared to making living, conscious human beings suffer rather than get rid of something which isn't alive and is only the potential for human life. if that offends you, i'm sorry, but it disgusts me.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 17, 2012, 10:34:47 AM
i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.

I find it sick, disgusting, and evil how so many people on this website believe that those who are strongly anti-abortion are that way solely because they hate women rather than because they love human life.  Cut back on the demonization, will you?  Just because their definition of human life is not objective fact does not make yours an objective fact either.  I don't think those on either side of the debate would say that if a human life were not being terminated abortion should be prevented, nor would they say that if a human life were being terminated then abortion should not be casually allowed.  However, neither side agrees on whether a human life is involved, which is what all the hoo-haa is about.

If you want to demonize the anti-abortion people here over what you perceive as their misguided definition of human life, go ahead.  But to attribute it to misogyny only coarsens the conversation and causes the people I presume you are trying to convince to tune you out.

i never said it was an objective fact. what i pointed out was that they're prepared to making living, conscious human beings suffer rather than get rid of something which isn't alive and is only the potential for human life. if that offends you, i'm sorry, but it disgusts me.

I see you're still begging the question.  Those who oppose abortion in all cases don't agree with you.  From their viewpoint, you are advocating allowing the murder of a child in order to alleviate some suffering on the part of the mother.  Now which is worse, causing some suffering, or murder?  So attributing their desire to prohibit abortion to a hatred of women is ridiculous as there is no need for them to hate women to be against abortion.

I'm not offended by your strong support for choice.  I'm offended by you maligning the motives of those who disagree with you without any merit to your charge.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 17, 2012, 11:20:56 AM
i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.

I find it sick, disgusting, and evil how so many people on this website believe that those who are strongly anti-abortion are that way solely because they hate women rather than because they love human life.  Cut back on the demonization, will you?  Just because their definition of human life is not objective fact does not make yours an objective fact either.  I don't think those on either side of the debate would say that if a human life were not being terminated abortion should be prevented, nor would they say that if a human life were being terminated then abortion should not be casually allowed.  However, neither side agrees on whether a human life is involved, which is what all the hoo-haa is about.

If you want to demonize the anti-abortion people here over what you perceive as their misguided definition of human life, go ahead.  But to attribute it to misogyny only coarsens the conversation and causes the people I presume you are trying to convince to tune you out.

i never said it was an objective fact. what i pointed out was that they're prepared to making living, conscious human beings suffer rather than get rid of something which isn't alive and is only the potential for human life. if that offends you, i'm sorry, but it disgusts me.

I see you're still begging the question.  Those who oppose abortion in all cases don't agree with you.  From their viewpoint, you are advocating allowing the murder of a child in order to alleviate some suffering on the part of the mother.  Now which is worse, causing some suffering, or murder?  So attributing their desire to prohibit abortion to a hatred of women is ridiculous as there is no need for them to hate women to be against abortion.

I'm not offended by your strong support for choice.  I'm offended by you maligning the motives of those who disagree with you without any merit to your charge.

Hear Hear!


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: TJ in Oregon on November 17, 2012, 02:34:26 PM
Guys... it isn't all disputable that a fetus is alive. Anyone with a vague understanding of life science can agree on that. Now, whether or not that life is a human life can be disputed (what is a "human"?).

Actually I think the ideological construction of oppose abortion with a rape exception is more problematic than banning it altogether in terms of how women should interpret it if that is your actual policy goal rather than a position taken out of political expedience because if you acknowledge abortion is killing a person then you can't really want a rape exception. If abortion isn't killing a person, then why would you want it to be illegal? In our political arena it comes across the opposite way because the Democrats have found harnessing the fear of being raped to gather female votes (not that a handful of Republicans like Akin have tried very hard to make this difficult for them).


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: General White on November 17, 2012, 05:47:54 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.

The crimes aren't equivalent. Having an abortion is akin to hiring a hitman.

A fetus is a baby. Getting a abortion just to "make your life easyier" is the same as murder like DC Al Fine says its the same as hiring a hitman. getting a abortion in any case is wrong period they should be put in jail for getting a abortion.

Abortion is sick,disgusting,and evil how it is legalized in this society is disgusting. It should be banded in all cases except to save the life of the mother.

yeah, because aborting a fetus after a rapist sexually attacked you is so selfish.

i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.

Its sick and disgusting how YOU want to punish a baby for the evils of the rapists. So its the babies fault that the woman was raped? pure evil. Abortion is complete evil in every case.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 18, 2012, 04:08:46 PM
All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

Do you support a woman's right to smother her rapist's child (that she birthed) in it's crib? If the fetus is human the whole rape question is irrelevant.

All abortions should be banded even for rape. I dont know how anyone could support Abortion its pure evil.

i don't know how you could support forcing women to carry a rapist's child.

That child has a right to live. Two wrongs dont make it a right. So punish the child for what the rapist did?.

you seem confused. fetuses aren't equivalent to living, breathing human beings anymore than seeds are equivalent to a tree.

this debate isn't about whether abortions should happen though. it's about whether they should be legal and as safe for the mother as possible, or whether they should be illegal and result in women dying due to unsafe backalley abortions. and then, if they do survive, you propose a life sentence for murder on top of that? if you seriously believe fetuses are full human beings, you'd be quite prepared to give women life sentences or even the death penalty, but the fact is very few people actually believe that.

The crimes aren't equivalent. Having an abortion is akin to hiring a hitman.

A fetus is a baby. Getting a abortion just to "make your life easyier" is the same as murder like DC Al Fine says its the same as hiring a hitman. getting a abortion in any case is wrong period they should be put in jail for getting a abortion.

Abortion is sick,disgusting,and evil how it is legalized in this society is disgusting. It should be banded in all cases except to save the life of the mother.

yeah, because aborting a fetus after a rapist sexually attacked you is so selfish.

i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.

Its sick and disgusting how YOU want to punish a baby for the evils of the rapists. So its the babies fault that the woman was raped? pure evil. Abortion is complete evil in every case.

this is beginning to sound disturbingly similiar to jewcon's "logic" that the fetus's life is worth more than the mothers. if you'd rather see a woman die than let her have an abortion to save her life due to your own ideology, then i'm afraid the only word for that sort of mindset is "sick".


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 18, 2012, 04:13:42 PM
i find it sick, disgusting and evil how so many people on this website can justify nationalizing wombs because they hate women.

I find it sick, disgusting, and evil how so many people on this website believe that those who are strongly anti-abortion are that way solely because they hate women rather than because they love human life.  Cut back on the demonization, will you?  Just because their definition of human life is not objective fact does not make yours an objective fact either.  I don't think those on either side of the debate would say that if a human life were not being terminated abortion should be prevented, nor would they say that if a human life were being terminated then abortion should not be casually allowed.  However, neither side agrees on whether a human life is involved, which is what all the hoo-haa is about.

If you want to demonize the anti-abortion people here over what you perceive as their misguided definition of human life, go ahead.  But to attribute it to misogyny only coarsens the conversation and causes the people I presume you are trying to convince to tune you out.

i never said it was an objective fact. what i pointed out was that they're prepared to making living, conscious human beings suffer rather than get rid of something which isn't alive and is only the potential for human life. if that offends you, i'm sorry, but it disgusts me.

I see you're still begging the question.  Those who oppose abortion in all cases don't agree with you.  From their viewpoint, you are advocating allowing the murder of a child in order to alleviate some suffering on the part of the mother.  Now which is worse, causing some suffering, or murder?  So attributing their desire to prohibit abortion to a hatred of women is ridiculous as there is no need for them to hate women to be against abortion.

I'm not offended by your strong support for choice.  I'm offended by you maligning the motives of those who disagree with you without any merit to your charge.

it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-abortion, they don't have to have one. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism to me


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 18, 2012, 05:35:02 PM
Quote
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti abortion child rape, they don't have to do it. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's pedophiles' bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism bigotry to me

Fixed it for you.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 18, 2012, 05:37:38 PM
Quote
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti abortion child rape, they don't have to do it. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's pedophiles' bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism bigotry to me

Fixed it for you.

so you think abortion and raping children are morally equivalent?

[inks] you


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Icehand Gino on November 18, 2012, 06:31:23 PM

Its sick and disgusting how YOU want to punish a baby for the evils of the rapists. So its the babies fault that the woman was raped? pure evil. Abortion is complete evil in every case.

Even if mother's life is threatened ?

If abortion is a murder, right of self-defense should be applied like in every case of murder.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 18, 2012, 08:05:30 PM
Quote
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti abortion child rape, they don't have to do it. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's pedophiles' bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism bigotry to me

Fixed it for you.

so you think abortion and raping children are morally equivalent?

[inks] you

No abortion is worse.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: The Simpsons Cinematic Universe on November 18, 2012, 09:02:17 PM

And that position would be absolutely justified if fetuses were sentient. The flaw in your position is that they aren't.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 18, 2012, 09:59:34 PM

And that position would be absolutely justified if fetuses were sentient. The flaw in your position is that they aren't.

Have you ever seen a premature baby. They seem pretty sentient to me.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: John Dibble on November 18, 2012, 11:00:41 PM

And that position would be absolutely justified if fetuses were sentient. The flaw in your position is that they aren't.

Have you ever seen a premature baby. They seem pretty sentient to me.

MCC is probably unaware of the fact that the medical definition of a fetus refers to the time of development between 9 and 38 weeks, so it would be a broad statement to say sentience is not present in all fetuses.

It would be fair to say that a fetus is likely sentient in the later stages of development. However, have you seen what a fetus looks like at week nine? On what basis does is seem sentient to you at that point?


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: smoltchanov on November 19, 2012, 03:08:54 AM
Option 2. For me - obviously (i am at least somewhat fiscal conservative, but rather social liberal)


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 19, 2012, 07:23:31 AM

And that position would be absolutely justified if fetuses were sentient. The flaw in your position is that they aren't.

Have you ever seen a premature baby. They seem pretty sentient to me.

MCC is probably unaware of the fact that the medical definition of a fetus refers to the time of development between 9 and 38 weeks, so it would be a broad statement to say sentience is not present in all fetuses.

It would be fair to say that a fetus is likely sentient in the later stages of development. However, have you seen what a fetus looks like at week nine? On what basis does is seem sentient to you at that point?

I'm not asserting all fetuses are sentient. I was pointing out that MCC was incorrect in his assertion.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: John Dibble on November 19, 2012, 09:55:04 AM

And that position would be absolutely justified if fetuses were sentient. The flaw in your position is that they aren't.

Have you ever seen a premature baby. They seem pretty sentient to me.

MCC is probably unaware of the fact that the medical definition of a fetus refers to the time of development between 9 and 38 weeks, so it would be a broad statement to say sentience is not present in all fetuses.

It would be fair to say that a fetus is likely sentient in the later stages of development. However, have you seen what a fetus looks like at week nine? On what basis does is seem sentient to you at that point?

I'm not asserting all fetuses are sentient. I was pointing out that MCC was incorrect in his assertion.

Ok. I wasn't sure which is why I asked.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 20, 2012, 07:01:59 PM
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-abortion, they don't have to have one. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism to me

I see you are still begging the question and asserting that your beliefs are objective fact.  If you were to take the opposite position as objective fact I could see an an alternate universe version of you writing:

Quote from: Alternate universe windis
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-life, they don't have to have children. but they have to infringe on unborn people's rights too. Trying to destroy children's bodies smacks quite heavily of ageism to me


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 21, 2012, 07:31:39 AM
It should be illegal and never federally funded.  The only exception I would allow for is in an ectopic pregnancy where the fetus is known to have no chance of surviving and all other alternatives have already been exhausted.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-abortion, they don't have to have one. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism to me

I see you are still begging the question and asserting that your beliefs are objective fact.  If you were to take the opposite position as objective fact I could see an an alternate universe version of you writing:

Quote from: Alternate universe windis
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-life, they don't have to have children. but they have to infringe on unborn people's rights too. Trying to destroy children's bodies smacks quite heavily of ageism to me

i'm not asserting anything as fact, except that they're trying to control women's reproductive rights, which they are.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 22, 2012, 06:39:30 PM
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-abortion, they don't have to have one. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism to me

I see you are still begging the question and asserting that your beliefs are objective fact.  If you were to take the opposite position as objective fact I could see an an alternate universe version of you writing:

Quote from: Alternate universe windis
it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-life, they don't have to have children. but they have to infringe on unborn people's rights too. Trying to destroy children's bodies smacks quite heavily of ageism to me

i'm not asserting anything as fact, except that they're trying to control women's reproductive rights, which they are.

Nobody is denying that. The only difference of opinion is over whether or not the situation merits such controls, which you're reducing to a question of personal preference because you don't think that it does and aren't demonstrating any interest in understanding the mindset of people who do.


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Supermariobros on November 23, 2012, 03:41:49 AM
Option three.