GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Duffyside said:
Did you also come to expect that I may have been in this thread before you? Been arguing all night, dude, for at least 90 minutes longer than I wanted to. I'm not going to keep rehashing the same ol' stuff, nor can I keep up with everyone. Grow up.



Hey, you too.



I don't! Again, not all unborn children are boys. Crazy, I know!
Click to expand...

If you say so..? I guess..

but im glad you can at least cop to your own bullshit of avoidance :)
 
Loofy said:
Didnt actually read what you were quoting:p
Click to expand...

You did not read the article, nor did you understand any of the posts you were quoting.

And if you did, please describe how it is possible for the "life" to be "thankful"? I'm not expecting a real response.
 
Again I want to put focus on another topic.

To pro-choice people, what is your opinion on late term abortions when there isn't a risk to the mother or fetus? 3rd trimester+
 
Saadster said:
I'm pro-choice.

But I always wondered something.

Is the majority "pro-choice" stance allowing abortions up until 9 months?
Click to expand...

I'm pro-choice but become squeamish once it's a few months developed. I think it's rubbish to say one day before birth it's not a baby. It is a baby at that point ready to come out, at some point the argument does change. I looked up on wiki what the terms are like a long time ago, when stuff starts developing etc. but I don't remember what the weeks/months were.

I feel like if everything is developed to the point where it has a heart, can think/dream and breathe/eat properly, and was capable of surviving in the outside world if delivered at that moment then it shouldn't be allowed unless the woman was in a problematic financial situation. If the woman was poor, really did not want the child and couldn't take care of it then I think it should be her choice even in the 9th month. I think it's horrible but preferable to having the kid raised in a shitty environment that doesn't care. (And I don't care about the arguments about successful people who were unwanted, it means nothing since luck plays a huge part it's not a real argument since that same baby could become a serial killer as well).

I think that line of reasoning does propose some much darker ideas though. If we say 9 month death of the baby is okay because it's better than living in a shitty world then from that point you could argue killing babies that are already born and unwanted may be justified. I don't believe this to be the case in a 1st world modern civilization but in a dirt poor 3rd world I would understand it being done, especially if they don't have access to birth control/abortion in the first place, can't feed people who are alive, don't have resources for a newborn etc. and so on.
 
pardon if this was already brought up, but...simple game theory here: what's the purpose of this move? excite a base you already had on lock?
even romney tried to walk back some of this shit from yesterday's genius "misspoken" comments, i'm not seeing the end game here.
 
Loofy said:
That one life thats thankful.
Oh wait my bad, that kid probably ended up committing suicide or something according to people in this thread.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the Wiki article? They virtually all die upon birth.

There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.[2][14]

To date, there are only three recorded cases of anencephalic children surviving for longer periods of time: Stephanie Keene of Falls Church, Virginia, who lived for 2 years 174 days; Vitoria de Cristo, born in Portugal in January 2010 and surviving until July 17, 2012[15]; and Nicholas Coke[16] of Pueblo, Colorado, who as of July 2012, is still living at 3 and a half years old.

In almost all cases, anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated because there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition, and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as futile efforts. Some clinicians and medical ethicists view even the provision of nutrition and hydration as medically futile.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
 
IrishNinja said:
pardon if this was already brought up, but...simple game theory here: what's the purpose of this move? excite a base you already had on lock?
even romney tried to walk back some of this shit from yesterday's genius "misspoken" comments, i'm not seeing the end game here.
Click to expand...

Jesus in every classroom.
 
Keikaku said:
Yeah, I think it's hilarious that you try to have an argument with someone when the sum of your effort is apparently "Oh, I didn't read it LOL"
Click to expand...
Well it doesnt help your efforts. Dev said the baby was already dead for months.
So she was admitting it was once alive. Alive.
 
Saadster said:
Again I want to put focus on another topic.

To pro-choice people, what is your opinion on late term abortions when there isn't a risk to the mother or fetus? 3rd trimester+
Click to expand...

Well here's one opinion:

foodtaster said:
the woman can do whatever she wants until the baby is born. if she is so compelled to abort the baby a few weeks before the baby is born, then so what?
Click to expand...

edit:

Saadster said:
It's a zygote when the two gametes combine. Then it turns into a blastula, gastrula etc...


It isn't even classified as a fetus until 11 weeks in.
Click to expand...

I was just talking about when it was considered a human life (which is why I said "person/human/human being/whatever")
 
Angry Fork said:
I'm pro-choice but become squeamish once it's a few months developed. I think it's rubbish to say one day before birth it's not a baby. It is a baby at that point ready to come out, at some point the argument does change. I looked up on wiki what the terms are like a long time ago, when stuff starts developing etc. but I don't remember what the weeks/months were.

I feel like if everything is developed to the point where it has a heart, can think/dream and breathe/eat properly, and was capable of surviving in the outside world if delivered at that moment then it shouldn't be allowed unless the woman was in a problematic financial situation. If the woman was poor, really did not want the child and couldn't take care of it then I think it should be her choice even in the 9th month. I think it's horrible but preferable to having the kid raised in a shitty environment that doesn't care. (And I don't care about the arguments about successful people who were unwanted, it means nothing since luck plays a huge part it's not a real argument since that same baby could become a serial killer as well).

I think that line of reasoning does propose some much darker ideas though. If we say 9 month death of the baby is okay because it's better than living in a shitty world then from that point you could argue killing babies that are already born and unwanted may be justified. I don't believe this to be the case in a 1st world modern civilization but in a dirt poor 3rd world I would understand it being done, especially if they don't have access to birth control/abortion in the first place.
Click to expand...

Honestly my position is similar to yours. I do become squeamish at the thought of aborting at a very late term.

I am all for pro-choice, but when a mother decides at THAT point to get an abortion (given that it isn't a health issue), it gives of a sense of irresponsibility. I mean by all means go ahead if you have good reasons, but damn woman you really waited until the clock struck 12.

MIMIC said:
I was just talking about when it was considered a human life (which is why I said "person/human/human being/whatever")
Click to expand...


Well scientifically it is a fetus until birth. Now if it is a "functional fetus" (meaning it can survive outside the womb), that's much earlier. No one really knows the exact second a fetus becomes "functional."
 
IrishNinja said:
pardon if this was already brought up, but...simple game theory here: what's the purpose of this move? excite a base you already had on lock?
even romney tried to walk back some of this shit from yesterday's genius "misspoken" comments, i'm not seeing the end game here.
Click to expand...



Completely agree. This is a bizarre move at a bizarre time for bizarre reasons that I can't comprehend.

You better believe that the heavies in the GOP don't give a flying fuck about abortion being illegal or legal. That doesn't affect their bank accounts, why should they actually care?

They only care insofar as it helps get them elected. But I simply can't imagine this move helping them get elected.
 
Duffyside said:
Did you also come to expect that I may have been in this thread before you? Been arguing all night, dude, for at least 90 minutes longer than I wanted to. I'm not going to keep rehashing the same ol' stuff, nor can I keep up with everyone. Grow up.



Hey, you too.



I don't! Again, not all unborn children are boys. Crazy, I know!
Click to expand...
I did read the whole thread. What am I supposed to do, skip to the end, type "Oh I didn't read what you said:p" and go from there?

I read the whole thread and what I saw was you making either logically inconsistent arguments, logically indefensible arguments or just avoiding any questions where people brought up points that you actually had to answer. I pointed this out in light of your supposed exasperation with regards to pro-choice proponents being "ghastly".

If you refuse to answer reasonable questions posed to you, if you cherry pick your arguments and descend to name calling you are the one who has to grow up.
 
Loofy said:
Well it doesnt help your efforts. Dev said the baby was already dead for months.
So she was admitting it was once alive. Alive.
Click to expand...

Theres no shame in just saying you jumped to a conclusion, and didn't read what was being discussed.

Right now, you kinda sound like heffer.


Yaboosh said:
Completely agree. This is a bizarre move at a bizarre time for bizarre reasons that I can't comprehend.

You better believe that the heavies in the GOP don't give a flying fuck about abortion being illegal or legal. That doesn't affect their bank accounts, why should they actually care?

They only care insofar as it helps get them elected. But I simply can't imagine this move helping them get elected.
Click to expand...

Its the religious vote... I thought they pretty much already had it in the bag. But this is the only reason I see this coming up again.. and the GOP hates women. But thats the status-quo.
 
Loofy said:
Well it doesnt help your efforts. Dev said the baby was already dead for months.
So she was admitting it was once alive. Alive.
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to argue if you're not even going to read, just give canned responses without even thinking. It's not a good look, bro.

But if you're still going to keep up the act like you have even a shred of a clue what the fuck you're talking about, then please regale us with your answer about how the life was able to be thankful for the non-abortion. But we all know that's not going to happen, don't we?
 
Hey why does gaf lean left guys. Why do alternative viewpoints get banned. If it's anything like this thread it's either "didn't read lol" or avoiding actual discussion and calling people names.
 
Saadster said:
Again I want to put focus on another topic.

To pro-choice people, what is your opinion on late term abortions when there isn't a risk to the mother or fetus? 3rd trimester+
Click to expand...
You need to get some perspective first. It is not like third term abortions make up 1/3 of all abortions. They make up like 0.08% of abortions.

When they are done it is generally because there is some real serious issue like cancer in the mother or fetus, Anencephaly, Etc.

Leave it up to the mother & doctor. Do people really believe their mothers getting pregnant, carrying the fetus for months, and then having an abortion just for the fun of it? Why the fuck would people want to do that? No, they are generally terrible situations that deal with a last resort option. The situation you describe pretty much never happens . . . and in such cases, most doctors will not perform the procedure.
 
Can't believe a country this ignorant is this powerful, it's weird.
 
Jackson said:
Shouldn't we use science instead? That seems so very arbitrary and convoluted. I get the whole "an embryo is scientifically not human". I understand that. But I find it strange that the fetus to baby line is so murky.
Click to expand...

An embryo is scientifically a human stage of development, and is most definitely "life"; all the information necessary to produce a person is there. However, keep in mind that scientific categorizations are always for the convenience for the human mind; Nature does not name things. Regardless, semantic arguments are always crappy grounds to stand on.

For the record, I am pro-choice, and I believe a pregnant woman has the greater right because it's also her body, the the developing human has yet to form consciousness, and there are significant negative societal consequences of unwanted births.

Pro-life individuals feel that it is essentially murder (calling them anti-women is a straw man), but in light of the fact that these aborted humans have less consciousness than the animals we eat every day, and that the female body often (more than you'd think) naturally rejects these zygotes (whether due to the mother's health or random genetic fuckups), the only reason they actually feel so strongly about it is that some religious guy arbitrarily decided once the gametes collide, there's a soul in there (whatever the hell that means).
 
Look, Devo, please use your photoshop Wizardry skills and modify Timedog's avatar to have the TimeDoggyDog eyes and mouth, please.
 
Timedog said:
Please stop trying to argue if you're not even going to read, just give canned responses without even thinking. It's not a good look, bro.
Click to expand...
The GOPs words are life at conception. Pro-choice people can talk about babys being parasites, or that they legally arent 'persons' according to legal definitions. But they just have to admit theyre killing a life.

But if you're still going to keep up the act like you have even a shred of a clue what the fuck you're talking about, then please regale us with your answer about how the life was able to be thankful for the non-abortion. But we all know that's not going to happen, don't we?
Click to expand...
I just told you I never read what you were quoting.
 
image.php

image.php

image.php

image.php
 
Well, doesn't the fetus develop significant nervous connections and brain development only after the third month of gestation? I would consider that to be the beginnings of person-hood.
Three months to decide such a crucial personal decision does not really sound like that much, but it's better than not having any choice at all.

Slowly, the veil of right-wingers is burning under their own beliefs. Now it's up to the people whether or not they will accept it.
Strangely, this whole climate of cultural clashes reminds of the end of the Weimar republic. It's scary.
 
speculawyer said:
You need to get some perspective first. It is not like third term abortions make up 1/3 of all abortions. They make up like 0.08% of abortions.

When they are done it is generally because there is some real serious issue like cancer in the mother or fetus, Anencephaly, Etc.

Leave it up to the mother & doctor. Do people really believe their mothers getting pregnant, carrying the fetus for months, and then having an abortion just for the fun of it? Why the fuck would people want to do that? No, they are generally terrible situations that deal with a last resort option. The situation you describe pretty much never happens . . . and in such cases, most doctors will not perform the procedure.
Click to expand...

Yeah I realize that, and thank goodness people have more sense than to have an abortion at that stage for a very irresponsible reason.

I did mean when it ISN'T a health issue. And I realize that's even rarer that a woman would want to abort at that stage.


I guess your explanation is pretty good honestly, who in their right mind would do that? But then again there are always people...thankfully it is very very rare and even doctors have the sense against it.
 
Loofy said:
The GOPs words are life at conception. Pro-choice people can talk about babys being parasites, or that they legally arent 'persons' according to legal country. But they just have to admit theyre killing a life.

I just told you I never read what you were quoting.
Click to expand...

Life is such a nebulous concept. Thanks for the non-contribution like so many other pro-lifers.
 
The abortion of anencephaly and similar conditions that affect the most basic functions for sustainable living was voted and approved here in Brazil a few months ago. There were even a few parents that attended the voting with their children. :(

That brought a more grey discussion too.
Child birth defects (severe mental retardation, complete limb malformation, etc) that can be detected during birth and parent(s) who won't have conditions to provide a 'decent' living to the child. And the possibility of abortion.

Tough and torturously sad issue to discuss. Especially since my mother taught at a school for special needs, and the parents of some children would cry that they do not have the conditions to maintain. :/
 
Loofy said:
The GOPs words are life at conception. Pro-choice people can talk about babys being parasites, or that they legally arent 'persons' according to legal country. But they just have to admit theyre killing a life.
Click to expand...

Which has exactly what to do with Devo's post, or your assertion that that "life" must have been thankful for being carried?

Your posts are getting dumber and dumber as the thread goes along, but please keep going. Please answer the ^^^ question.
 
Lesath said:
An embryo is scientifically a human stage of development, and is most definitely "life"; all the information necessary to produce a person is there. However, keep in mind that scientific categorizations are always for the convenience for the human mind; Nature does not name things. Regardless, semantic arguments are always crappy grounds to stand on.

For the record, I am pro-choice, and I believe a pregnant woman has the greater right because it's also her body, the the developing human has yet to form consciousness, and there are significant negative societal consequences of unwanted births.

Pro-life individuals feel that it is essentially murder (calling them anti-women is a straw man), but in light of the fact that these aborted humans have less consciousness than the animals we eat every day, and that the female body often (more than you'd think) naturally rejects these zygotes (whether due to the mother's health or random genetic fuckups), the only reason they actually feel so strongly about it is that some religious guy arbitrarily decided once the gametes collide, there's a soul in there (whatever the hell that means).
Click to expand...

I like you.
 
Timedog said:
Which has exactly what to do with Devo's post, or your assertion that that "life" must have been thankful for being carried?

Your posts are getting dumber and dumber as the thread goes along, but please keep going. Please answer the ^^^ question.
Click to expand...
Why are you so hung up on this.
I didnt read what she was quoting so I didnt know the baby was already dead in the womb. So if the mother didnt have an abortion then the baby would grow up to be thankful that she didnt have an abortion.
 
I think the debate of when a fetus is considered human is pointless and misdirected, because if the child is born, these 'pro-life' politicians do not give a shit if the kid suffers and dies at any other point in its existence. They are trying to score points with God from a self-centered and self-righteous pov.
 
Loofy said:
Why are you so hung up on this.
I didnt read what she was quoting so I didnt know the baby was already dead in the womb. So if the mother didnt have an abortion then the baby would grow up to be thankful that she didnt have an abortion.
Click to expand...

You'd look less stupid in this situation if you didn't admit to clearly ignoring what I was referencing in order to make a comment about how the child would be happy to be born. Apparently you're okay with forcing women to carry fetuses to term, which is just a disgusting stance, sorry. Women aren't broodmares.
 
Loofy said:
Why are you so hung up on this.
I didnt read what she was quoting so I didnt know the baby was already dead in the womb. So if the mother didnt have an abortion then the baby would grow up to be thankful that she didnt have an abortion.
Click to expand...
What Devo said was that one of her instructors was forced to carry one of these "babies" to term. It was already dead and there was no abortion.

So what "point" are you trying to make?
 
Loofy said:
Why are you so hung up on this.
I didnt read what she was quoting so I didnt know the baby was already dead in the womb. So if the mother didnt have an abortion then the baby would grow up to be thankful that she didnt have an abortion.
Click to expand...

That last sentence makes no fucking sense.
 
Devolution said:
You'd look less stupid in this situation if you didn't admit to clearly ignoring what I was referencing in order to make a comment about how the child would be happy to be born. Apparently you're okay with forcing women to carry fetuses to term, which is just a disgusting stance, sorry.
Click to expand...
If you wanna know my official stance.
I think women should have a choice.. but that choice should be to carry the baby.
Sort of like how people should be married to have kids, but I wouldnt make it the law.
 
Keikaku said:
What Devo said was that one of her instructors was forced to carry one of these "babies" to term. It was already dead and there was no abortion.

So what "point" are you trying to make?
Click to expand...

That women should be forced to carry the fetus to term because it would be happy to be born. He thinks they should essentially have no choice in the matter.


Loofy said:
If you wanna know my official stance.
I think women should have a choice.. but that choice should be to carry the baby.
Sort of like how people should be married to have kids, but I wouldnt make it the law.
Click to expand...

You are terrible at wording your posts. I'll assume you mean you think it's ideal to carry the fetus. Of course you would what other perspective do you have on the issue.
 
Loofy said:
If you wanna know my official stance.
I think women should have a choice.. but that choice should be to carry the baby.
Sort of like how people should be married to have kids, but I wouldnt make it the law.
Click to expand...
So their choice can only go one way? How is that a choice?
Devolution said:
That women should be forced to carry the fetus to term because it would be happy to be born. He thinks they should essentially have no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...
He beat you to the stupid. Sorry.
 
Loofy said:
Huh? are you not thankful that your mother didnt have you aborted?
Click to expand...
Seeing as Timedog was born alive and with his whole brain intact (granted, sometimes his threads make me wonder
I kid, I kid
) I don't see how he and the example that Devo gave are related . . .
 
There are valid and important discussions to be had around the timing of abortions, when a fetus becomes a human life, etc. But these discussions can't be had when the GOP is only interested in drawing the line to the absurd.

The truth is that the government is generally in the business of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to establish a benchmark which protects the greatest amount of the population. What makes someone suddenly capable of driving a car on their 16th birthday, responsible enough to drink on their 21st, or have the cognitive ability to say yes or no to sex on their 18th? The answer is absolutely nothing; we have drawn that line because it we have decided that it protects the greatest amount of people while restricting the freedoms of the fewest.

I firmly believe there is a similar line that must be drawn with abortion, but that discussion can't happen while one side adopts this absurd stance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

"The Simpsons 2" is officially in the works and set to release in theaters on July 23, 2027.
News 
44
69
DKehoe replied
Dats Rape Drugs... WTF guys
37
816
wondermega replied
Avatar: Fire and Ash | Official Trailer
2
59
1K
ADiTAR replied
Leonardo DiCaprio set to star in Michael Mann's Heat 2
34
544
Ellis replied
ANACONDA – Official Trailer
46
468
roosnam1980 replied
Top Bottom