The GOP War on Women - The Megathread

[LastVoter]

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions.

So you support cases like the one I posted where a woman who had to have an abortion or give birth to a child who would require constant expensive medical care and have a miserable life? And are you willing to have the state pay for this constant medical care since you're forcing the issue?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you support treating teenage girls as the property of their parents, and forcing those girls to give birth and likely have to drop out of high school?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you support making a fetus even more developed before it gets terminated?

All of these are pretty obvious positions resulting from a fetus being a human life since they increase the chances the woman will not have an abortion. First you attack me for not really believing that abortion is murder and now you are asking about whether or not I support these things?! Isn’t it completely obvious that murder outweighs any of these complaints by such a ridiculous margin that it’s pointless to even ask them?

And yes (since this is the only one worth addressing) I would support having the state pay for healthcare for severely disabled people if their parents cannot afford it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you support destroying programs that actually prevent abortions and allow low-income women to have healthy children, even though none of the funding you are taking away actually goes to abortions?

Planned Parenthood is not the only healthcare provider in existence. Less money for them means more money for other health clinics. If there were some remote local area where Planned Parenthood was the only local provider of other care then I would be fine granting them an exemption. But in most places the opposite is true, for example, there are five clinics in my hometown that offer mammograms but zero abortion clinics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was speaking of the fact that you think this...



...is somehow a person, even though there's no evidence for that.[/quote]

A human embryo is alive and contains the full capability of progressing into a full grown adult. The embryo is not a part of the mother’s body— they have different DNA than the mother. The only coherent definition of when life begins that can be found is at fertilization because all others are arbitrary. If you say that life begins at birth, then the fetus just about to be born is not a person until it comes out, even though it’s structure before and after that point are essentially identical. The same can be said of any other arbitrary point along fetal development, such as viability or when a heart rate is detected, etc. The only logical place to assign the beginning of a life to is to fertilization (or perhaps implantation but that doesn’t make as much sense since the zygote is still around before then). If you try to trace a person’s existence backward, the place where the existence begins is at fertilization. Before then, the individual person is an egg and a sperm, clearly neither component is a person (and only has half the DNA). As far as truly proving it’s a person, you can’t prove anyone is a person. I can’t prove you are a person and you can’t prove I am.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that it’s okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isn’t acceptable. Murder is not okay, regardless of whether or not the person who is killed is in a better place. That person has the right to go through life. This applies to persons in society at large beyond abortion. If we take this as a purely religious argument then the soul of the baby is not the only one we should be concerned about. What about the mother?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So exactly how are these steps going to change the problems you mentioned earlier with incarcerating women en masse? Abortions are going to still happen in large numbers, just as it always has.

These steps would make abortion much harder to get, therefore drastically reducing the number that occur. You have admitted yourself that some girls would be forced not to have abortions here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would requiring parental consent stop girls from having an abortion or not? You can’t have it both ways.

If you make abortions illegal, fewer doctors will perform them, if nothing else because they must be done in secret (and of course some people will not perform them out of fear of breaking the law), it would reduce the supply of abortions and make them more difficult to get.

[/quote]
By your logic, we should just let cancer progress to it's natural outcome - death of the host.

[LastVoter]

I guess that statement was a little too vague. Obviously cancer is not a separate person since it comes from a mutation rather than reproduction.

Don't get caught up in the rhetoric , or we might have some candidates for submission to The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts thread.