Oklahoma lawmakers want men to approve all abortions

[Maxwell]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

ah yes, the one of two natural conclusions of youthful libertarianism.

What's the other one, and is it less awful?

socialism or fascism are the two

[DC Al Fine]

oh ffs please stop this

Why? Maybe I'm juat clueless about this type of thinking because abortion, like guns, is not that much of an issue in my country and seems more like an American obsession, but is it really hard to accept that new facts have been learned since priests thousands of years ago wrote a book?

Apparently it's no harder than it is to accept that just because we have learned new facts, that doesn't affect morality.  At most it might affect how we apply the principles of that ancient book to our somewhat altered society, but not the basic ideas therein.  Societal changes (principally the adoption of the welfare state in place of having children take care of their parents in old age) have rendered the basis of the bias against homosexuality suspect moot, but they haven't affected the issue of abortion much.  Modern medicine allows us to use something a little less subjective than quickening can be used to demark the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to consideration under the law, but the basic reasons are still sound.

I understand why someone would personally object to abortion, but in today's world, we know enough to render it completely unjustifiable to force a woman, by law, to go through a pregnancy. The grand majority of abortions are in early months, when the fetus is definitely not conscious. the anti-choice (as opposed to real pro-life) folk oppose abortion even then, and in my view that's the equivalent of torture.

What an intelligent, thought out post.

Why bother debating someone who's clearly focused on beating up the farmer's strawman?

[RFayette]

oh ffs please stop this

Why? Maybe I'm juat clueless about this type of thinking because abortion, like guns, is not that much of an issue in my country and seems more like an American obsession, but is it really hard to accept that new facts have been learned since priests thousands of years ago wrote a book?

Apparently it's no harder than it is to accept that just because we have learned new facts, that doesn't affect morality.  At most it might affect how we apply the principles of that ancient book to our somewhat altered society, but not the basic ideas therein.  Societal changes (principally the adoption of the welfare state in place of having children take care of their parents in old age) have rendered the basis of the bias against homosexuality suspect moot, but they haven't affected the issue of abortion much.  Modern medicine allows us to use something a little less subjective than quickening can be used to demark the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to consideration under the law, but the basic reasons are still sound.

I understand why someone would personally object to abortion, but in today's world, we know enough to render it completely unjustifiable to force a woman, by law, to go through a pregnancy. The grand majority of abortions are in early months, when the fetus is definitely not conscious. the anti-choice (as opposed to real pro-life) folk oppose abortion even then, and in my view that's the equivalent of torture.

What an intelligent, thought out post.

Why bother debating someone who's clearly focused on beating up the farmer's strawman?

Not to mention that comparing pregnancy to torture is, err, pretty ridiculous.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

oh ffs please stop this

Why? Maybe I'm juat clueless about this type of thinking because abortion, like guns, is not that much of an issue in my country and seems more like an American obsession, but is it really hard to accept that new facts have been learned since priests thousands of years ago wrote a book?

Apparently it's no harder than it is to accept that just because we have learned new facts, that doesn't affect morality.  At most it might affect how we apply the principles of that ancient book to our somewhat altered society, but not the basic ideas therein.  Societal changes (principally the adoption of the welfare state in place of having children take care of their parents in old age) have rendered the basis of the bias against homosexuality suspect moot, but they haven't affected the issue of abortion much.  Modern medicine allows us to use something a little less subjective than quickening can be used to demark the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to consideration under the law, but the basic reasons are still sound.

I understand why someone would personally object to abortion, but in today's world, we know enough to render it completely unjustifiable to force a woman, by law, to go through a pregnancy. The grand majority of abortions are in early months, when the fetus is definitely not conscious. the anti-choice (as opposed to real pro-life) folk oppose abortion even then, and in my view that's the equivalent of torture.

What an intelligent, thought out post.

Why bother debating someone who's clearly focused on beating up the farmer's strawman?

Not to mention that comparing pregnancy to torture is, err, pretty ridiculous.

No, it isn't. At all. An unwanted pregnancy can be horrible. Apparently you don't have the ability to emphasize with women who have to live with these things, because the idea wouldn't be at all ridiculous if you did.

Plus, the scientific fact is, fetuses aren't conscious or thinking beings. And parrotguy wasn't straw-manning.

[America Needs R'hllor]

oh ffs please stop this

Why? Maybe I'm juat clueless about this type of thinking because abortion, like guns, is not that much of an issue in my country and seems more like an American obsession, but is it really hard to accept that new facts have been learned since priests thousands of years ago wrote a book?

Apparently it's no harder than it is to accept that just because we have learned new facts, that doesn't affect morality.  At most it might affect how we apply the principles of that ancient book to our somewhat altered society, but not the basic ideas therein.  Societal changes (principally the adoption of the welfare state in place of having children take care of their parents in old age) have rendered the basis of the bias against homosexuality suspect moot, but they haven't affected the issue of abortion much.  Modern medicine allows us to use something a little less subjective than quickening can be used to demark the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to consideration under the law, but the basic reasons are still sound.

I understand why someone would personally object to abortion, but in today's world, we know enough to render it completely unjustifiable to force a woman, by law, to go through a pregnancy. The grand majority of abortions are in early months, when the fetus is definitely not conscious. the anti-choice (as opposed to real pro-life) folk oppose abortion even then, and in my view that's the equivalent of torture.

What an intelligent, thought out post.

Why bother debating someone who's clearly focused on beating up the farmer's strawman?

Not to mention that comparing pregnancy to torture is, err, pretty ridiculous.

What else would you call a nine-month long process where you progressively get weaker, have all sorts of issues, your life is at risk and it ends with immense pain- all without choice? This is a horrible thing I wouldn't wish on anyone.