The joke that is American politics

[emainvol]

How about death for the rapist instead of the child?

There is absolutely no reason that a woman who has absolutely no interest in carrying the product of a horrible crime should be forced to subject her body, career, lifestyle, etc. to a pregnancy simply because a bunch of religious fanatics might get butthurt.

Don't like that view? Deal with it.

 

[VOLatile]

I'm glad that we agree on the late stage part. I honestly haven't seen much on here about your stance on abortion though.

The probably is if you consider late stage abortion wrong then chances are (I am assuming here) that you find it wrong because of how horrible the baby dies. If that bothers you then you must on some level consider it a human being or atleast more than just a "choice." With that said, if we say last stage is wrong but second stage is ok then we are placing our own ethics onto what is life and it is no longer a logical debate but an emotional debate. Asking how I feel about rape situations is making it an emotional debate. That is a very dangerous road to go down in any circumstance. Decisions should be well thought out and made based upon what is correct not based upon what is emotionally appealing to the culture of the time.

I would also stress than if the education system in the country was truly fixed and jobs were in abundance and the family unit was strong that abortion would nearly become a thing of the past. Abortion is the outcome of a failed society.

I agree with everything you stated. I think I laid out my case for abortion before but here it is simplified:

When the unborn child develops nerves and a brain, they are human. At which point the option of abortion must no longer exist. I support a woman's choice to abort in the first trimester.

How do you feel about Plan B or the morning after pill?

There is absolutely no reason that a woman who has absolutely no interest in carrying the product of a horrible crime should be forced to subject her body, career, lifestyle, etc. to a pregnancy simply because a bunch of religious fanatics might get butthurt.

Don't like that view? Deal with it.

This puts my views on the rape/incest incidents pretty plainly.

 

[NEO]

I agree with everything you stated. I think I laid out my case for abortion before but here it is simplified:

When the unborn child develops nerves and a brain, they are human. At which point the option of abortion must no longer exist. I support a woman's choice to abort in the first trimester.

How do you feel about Plan B or the morning after pill?



This puts my views on the rape/incest incidents pretty plainly.

I have heard some that say it is still murder. I have heard some say it not an actual child yet. I have honestly not researched the actual pill out in depth to find out how I would truly feel about it. I will say though that I am alot more open to this option.

I will say though that if I was a lawmaker and I was told that I could get the votes to overturn abortion but had to legalize the day after pill to do so I would allow the day after pill to stay legalized.

 

[VOLatile]

I will say though that if I was a lawmaker and I was told that I could get the votes to overturn abortion but had to legalize the day after pill to do so I would allow the day after pill to stay legalized.

I support the pill 100%. I can't find one reasonable explanation for it being murder that's not based on religious context (usually Catholicism), unlike abortion. If I were a lawmaker, I would put more time restrictions on abortion.

I think that the only thing we don't agree on is when life starts, and that puts us at the crossroads in early term abortion that we're at right now. Right?

 

[NEO]

I support the pill 100%. I can't find one reasonable explanation for it being murder that's not based on religious context (usually Catholicism), unlike abortion. If I were a lawmaker, I would put more time restrictions on abortion.

I think that the only thing we don't agree on is when life starts, and that puts us at the crossroads in early term abortion that we're at right now. Right?

Yes, the only thing we disagree with is when life becomes life. I also don't base my view of when life starts on either Catholic beliefs or the Bible because neither get scientific in the manner. I believe a child is a child, and life exist, the minute that it is entirely formed and begins growing. Whether this happens the milisecond the sperm hits the egg or happens a period of time later I don't know and have read different theories on when it happens.

 

[CSVol]

Man, I didn't intend this thread to go this direction. I merely saw a funny clip on tv I thought others might enjoy.
That being said, as a Christian, I am neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. There is a distinction. If someone is for less gov't involvement in our lives, how can one support anti-abortion legislation. What represents more gov't intrusion than dictating what he/she does with their body? Not flaming but looking for opinions. I don't know personally when a fetus is a full human and don't condone murder which is why I personally would not want my unborn child aborted. But I'm also not a woman whose unintended pregnancy would change her life forever and possibly bring an unwanted child into a very unfortunate situation. And yes, before you ask, I do think current drug laws are outmoded, outdated and misdirected.

 

[sjt18]

There is absolutely no reason that a woman who has absolutely no interest in carrying the product of a horrible crime should be forced to subject her body, career, lifestyle, etc. to a pregnancy simply because a bunch of religious fanatics might get butthurt.

Don't like that view? Deal with it.

There is absolutely no reason that a woman's career, lifestyle, etc should be considered a higher priority than the right of another human being to live.

Don't be a MORON. It has nothing to do with religious fanaticism or anything of the sort. It has to do with human rights. Period.

Don't like that FACT? Deal with it.


FTR, abortions due to rape, incest, and the physical life of the mother make up a very, very small percentage. If we get to the point of quibbling over that then alot of progress will have been made. Also, if we properly punish rapists, the need for these types of abortions will be reduced.

I am generally supportive of the "right" to self defense therefore if it is truly the life of the mother at stake... she should have abortion as an option.

 

[sjt18]

When the unborn child develops nerves and a brain, they are human. At which point the option of abortion must no longer exist. I support a woman's choice to abort in the first trimester.

A baby has its first heartbeats around 3 weeks so there is some level of neurological impulse going on no later than that. Normal brain waves are detected around day 40.

Since about 1/6 of all pregnancies end as "molar" miscarriages, it would seem that the end of the zygote stage... but that's only about a week. Another compromise might be before the first heart beat.

Most of us think that you go to the point at which medical science can say "it wasn't alive a moment ago and now is".... which is conception. But if we can get more reasonable limits than now exist then that would be a start.

How do you feel about Plan B or the morning after pill?

Very dangerous for women. Had this been a medication without political implications, it probably wouldn't be allowed.

 

[lawgator1]

Man, I didn't intend this thread to go this direction. I merely saw a funny clip on tv I thought others might enjoy.
That being said, as a Christian, I am neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. There is a distinction. If someone is for less gov't involvement in our lives, how can one support anti-abortion legislation. What represents more gov't intrusion than dictating what he/she does with their body? Not flaming but looking for opinions. I don't know personally when a fetus is a full human and don't condone murder which is why I personally would not want my unborn child aborted. But I'm also not a woman whose unintended pregnancy would change her life forever and possibly bring an unwanted child into a very unfortunate situation. And yes, before you ask, I do think current drug laws are outmoded, outdated and misdirected.

The issue is very, very difficult and its easy to tell that people struggle with it. Even the posts here demonstrate the varying positions people can have on it.

Notwithstanding that, it is very aggravating to me that some on the far right insist on calling the other side on the issue "pro-abortion." No one I've ever met is actually pro-abortion. No one I've ever known has opined, gee, I wish there were more abortions.

The issue is whether you believe government should restrict abortion access. I understand the arguments in favor of restricting it and some of them are very compelling. But when one side insists on intentionally misstating the other side's position for such transparent purposes, I think it undermines the weight of their legitimate arguments.

 

[utvolpj]

A baby has its first heartbeats around 3 weeks so there is some level of neurological impulse going on no later than that. Normal brain waves are detected around day 40.

Since about 1/6 of all pregnancies end as "molar" miscarriages, it would seem that the end of the zygote stage... but that's only about a week. Another compromise might be before the first heart beat.

Most of us think that you go to the point at which medical science can say "it wasn't alive a moment ago and now is".... which is conception. But if we can get more reasonable limits than now exist then that would be a start.

none of those you just listed guarantees life. Why don't you just quit trying to label it and let people live their own life?

 

[sjt18]

Man, I didn't intend this thread to go this direction. I merely saw a funny clip on tv I thought others might enjoy.
That being said, as a Christian, I am neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. There is a distinction. If someone is for less gov't involvement in our lives, how can one support anti-abortion legislation.

This applies equally to other acts in which one person's actions violate the fundamental rights of another.

Your logic would legalize murder, theft, perjury, and any of a number of other crimes that have moral overtones.

I am also firmly PRO-CHOICE. A woman has a choice as to whether she will have sex or not. If that choice has undesirable consequences that does not mean she is entitled to a "super" right to end someone else's life because they happen to be inconvenient.

I don't know personally when a fetus is a full human and don't condone murder which is why I personally would not want my unborn child aborted.

How can you possibly stake out a position on this issue without answering the fundamental question of when does life begin?

But I'm also not a woman whose unintended pregnancy would change her life forever and possibly bring an unwanted child into a very unfortunate situation.

About 98% of the pregnancies that will be aborted were "intentional". The woman knew what she was doing and the risks.

I don't want people with ideals like LG, gibbs, and volatile. I find them very inconvenient. Their ideals and votes saddle me with many thousands of dollars worth of taxes that I don't want.

Now that I have firmly established that they are unwanted and burdensome... do I have a right to kill them? How about welfare recipients? How about the disabled?

Where is the logical justification for ending an innocent unborn's life that does not apply to virtually any innocent person on this side of the womb?

 

[sjt18]

none of those you just listed guarantees life.

Everything I listed are indications of LIFE.

If you had an auto accident and had to be on life support but had around an 80% chance of full recovery to normal life... should someone else have the option to have you killed simply because you were inconvenient, expensive, or they didn't want you anymore to start with?

Why don't you just quit trying to label it and let people live their own life?

That is my sole desire. To let innocent unborns live their lives without being killed because some selfish person finds them "inconvenient".

 

[utvolpj]

Everything I listed are indications of LIFE.

indicators but no guarantee. Heart beat, brain waves, etc don't actually tell you that the fetus will become human. You're assigning the "life" label to something that may not even make it

That is my sole desire. To let innocent unborns live their lives without being killed because some selfish person finds them "inconvenient".

it's only your desire as long as everyone buys into your definitions

 

[sjt18]

The issue is whether you believe government should restrict abortion access. I understand the arguments in favor of restricting it and some of them are very compelling. But when one side insists on intentionally misstating the other side's position for such transparent purposes, I think it undermines the weight of their legitimate arguments.

I guess you also had in mind the left's charges that those who oppose abortion are against women's rights or want to force women back into alleys, right?

Science is on the side of those opposing abortion. Reason is. Morality is. Justice is. Human rights is.

The ONLY arguments used to any effect by the left do exactly what you condemn.

However, please suggest an alternate term. I refuse to use the term "pro-choice" since the child has no choice. The father almost never has a choice nor any other family member. But most of all because the woman already exercised the "choice" she has a RIGHT to when she becomes pregnant.

The priority of "right" then goes to the life of the child... not the convenience of the mother.

 

[lawgator1]

I guess you also had in mind the left's charges that those who oppose abortion are against women's rights or want to force women back into alleys, right?

Science is on the side of those opposing abortion. Reason is. Morality is. Justice is. Human rights is.

The ONLY arguments used to any effect by the left do exactly what you condemn.

However, please suggest an alternate term. I refuse to use the term "pro-choice" since the child has no choice. The father almost never has a choice nor any other family member. But most of all because the woman already exercised the "choice" she has a RIGHT to when she becomes pregnant.

The priority of "right" then goes to the life of the child... not the convenience of the mother.

Do you use the phrase "pro-abortion" to describe the other side?

 

[sjt18]

indicators but no guarantee. Heart beat, brain waves, etc don't actually tell you that the fetus will become human. You're assigning the "life" label to something that may not even make it

No. It is surprising to see you engage in something as ridiculous as this line of "definition of is" argumentation.

The fetus IS human. It is NOT in the process of becoming human. Everything about it is HUMAN from the moment of conception. It has unique human DNA. It is not part of the mother.

Your argument just as easily applies to you right at this moment. You must not be human since we don't really know if you will survive the day, right?

it's only your desire as long as everyone buys into your definitions

Propose alternate definitions based on anything reasonable and not arbitrary. You just arbitrarily proposed that we not label unborns "human" for the express purpose of justifying abortion. On what basis do you do that? Once you propose that basis then let's see if it can be applied consistently.

 

[sjt18]

Do you use the phrase "pro-abortion" to describe the other side?

Yes or usually "supporters of abortion". It is also incorrect to call them "supporters of abortion rights" since it is not a "right" to take someone's life because they are inconvenient.

Again, suggest another accurate term and I will gladly use it.

 

[utvolpj]

No. It is surprising to see you engage in something as ridiculous as this line of "definition of is" argumentation.

The fetus IS human. It is NOT in the process of becoming human. Everything about it is HUMAN from the moment of conception. It has unique human DNA. It is not part of the mother.

Your argument just as easily applies to you right at this moment. You must not be human since we don't really know if you will survive the day, right?



Propose alternate definitions based on anything reasonable and not arbitrary. You just arbitrarily proposed that we not label unborns "human" for the express purpose of justifying abortion. On what basis do you do that? Once you propose that basis then let's see if it can be applied consistently.

Your argument about me being a human is ridiculous at best. A fetus is not a human at all points in its development. If it is then your god chooses to end more "lives" than man ever could. But you're ok with that since he wrote a best-selling book.

I've proposed my definition many times so not going to rehash that. Yours is just as arbitrary. Sometimes the ridiculous nature of these arguments gets to me (especially when based on religious ideas rather than rational thought)

 

[utvolpj]

Yes or usually "supporters of abortion". It is also incorrect to call them "supporters of abortion rights" since it is not a "right" to take someone's life because they are inconvenient.

Again, suggest another accurate term and I will gladly use it.

if I said I was for the ability for a person to take, or get aid in taking, their own life would I be pro-choice or pro-suicide? The pro-abortion thing was created to paint opposing viewpoints in a bad light

 

[sjt18]

Your argument about me being a human is ridiculous at best. A fetus is not a human at all points in its development.

Ask any doctor. Yes, it simply is. If it is NOT human then what pray tell is it? It has human dna. Stage of development is NOT a valid test for determining if someone is human or "alive". It simply isn't.

You labeled my argument ridiculous but failed to state why or why yours is better. You are making a completely arbitrary argument for no other reason than convenience. I truly am surprised. This isn't typical of you.

If it is then your god chooses to end more "lives" than man ever could. But you're ok with that since he wrote a best-selling book.

Has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the definition of "life" and then equal protection of "life" under the law.

I've proposed my definition many times so not going to rehash that.

Where?

Yours is just as arbitrary.

Prove it. It is NOT arbitrary to say something with human DNA and a metabolism is a human life. That is very, very concrete and objective.

Sometimes the ridiculous nature of these arguments gets to me (especially when based on religious ideas rather than rational thought)

You are the one citing religion, not me. I have many times agreed that if abortion were merely a moral matter then we should defer to the woman's choice. But it isn't.

Please answer the question about being on life support. Does someone have the "right" to kill you?

 

[lawgator1]

Yes or usually "supporters of abortion". It is also incorrect to call them "supporters of abortion rights" since it is not a "right" to take someone's life because they are inconvenient.

Again, suggest another accurate term and I will gladly use it.

I am unaware of anyone who actually likes abortion.

 

[sjt18]

if I said I was for the ability for a person to take, or get aid in taking, their own life would I be pro-choice or pro-suicide?

You would be pro-euthanasia... and I don't think anyone would object to that label.

The pro-abortion thing was created to paint opposing viewpoints in a bad light

Maybe so. I use it because it seems the most accureate of any of the labels. I don't think of it is people who want more abortions but people who are defending the procedure's legality.

If there is a more benign label that accurately describes that position, I will be glad to use it.

 

[utvolpj]

Ask any doctor. Yes, it simply is. If it is NOT human then what pray tell is it? It has human dna. Stage of development is NOT a valid test for determining if someone is human or "alive". It simply isn't.

You labeled my argument ridiculous but failed to state why or why yours is better. You are making a completely arbitrary argument for no other reason than convenience. I truly am surprised. This isn't typical of you.

experience, taking to doctors and reading plenty on the subject tells me your definition is arbitrary. Define it how you want but it doesn't really matter.

Where? Prove it. It is NOT arbitrary to say something with human DNA and a metabolism is a human life. That is very, very concrete and objective.

the possibility exists it can develop into one but it is not an actual human at the points you mention. The slim chance is may become a human != a human being

You are the one citing religion, not me. I have many times agreed that if abortion were merely a moral matter then we should defer to the woman's choice. But it isn't.

again presenting opinion as fact. It is your opinion that a fertilized egg is a human being. The fact is most don't make it that far

Please answer the question about being on life support. Does someone have the "right" to kill you?

leading question (since you assume but are equally alive) but a human has plenty the time to express their wishes on the matter. And if the human is not able or has not made their desires known then it's up to those closest to them right?

 

[sjt18]

I am unaware of anyone who actually likes abortion.

see the response immediately above this one.

 

[utvolpj]

You would be pro-euthanasia... and I don't think anyone would object to that label.

no I would be for people making their own decisions about their life, ie pro-choice. Again, they're not really comparable since the lives aren't equal.

Maybe so. I use it because it seems the most accureate of any of the labels. I don't think of it is people who want more abortions but people who are defending the procedure's legality.

If there is a more benign label that accurately describes that position, I will be glad to use it.

it's not accurate at all! I think it's a sick practice but do not feel it's my place to make decisions like that for others. Difference is that you want that ability

I am unaware of anyone who actually likes abortion.

that's because it doesn't exist. It's a negative label used to try and sway the argument by one side. It would be like me calling the pro-life sect "pro-welfare" since they are saying they would gladly pay to take the responsibility of raising these kids