If you believe they are children then obviously you believe that tax, and other laws should change to reflect this, right?
You can't have it both ways.
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
If you believe they are children then obviously you believe that tax, and other laws should change to reflect this, right?
You can't have it both ways.
Everyone doesn't share the exact same moralities. To you, its a moral issue, to others, its common sense to allow women to have rights to do what they deem nescessary during a pregnancy, to a point.
If those are your morals, go you. Don't have an abortion.
But don't restrict the rights of others behind the guise of some fake morality argument, especially when the GOP doesn't give a damn about the poor homeless children currently dying on the streets of this country every day.
Its hard to tell with these current events! haha. DOH. I mean, I'm sure there is a real source thats not a joke, that says the same exact thing. kinda takes my smile away..
Dog killing child =/= woman aborting fetus they are carrying. I'm baffled at the comparison.
Devolution
Member
Yeah actually I am cool with people doing whatever the fuck they want with their body. Thanks for asking.
I think there is a pretty big difference between a natural miscarriage and a deliberate operation to end a "life."
I will reiterate that I think it should be legal. The people who want abortions will still get them whether it's legal or not. I just don't like it.
Except, depending on your definition of "life" abortion could be much worse. Furthermore it's consequences are far greater in numbers.
Are you putting suicide in the same category as a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy?
Angry Fork
Member
Are there women that support banning abortion for non-religious reasons? I would not understand this one at all.
Just when you think you know Devo....
Devolution
Member
So we should only do what's natural is your argument then? That it's not "natural" for a woman to rid herself of a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry to term? Sorry, you're wrong. If we used "natural" to decide anything ethical, wouldn't medical science be null and void?
Your math is wrong. .08% of 50 million is 40,000. This means that approximately 1,212 late-term abortions happened per year. I don't think it'd be shocking if every single one of them were for health-related reasons (though I don't have the statistics).
I'd also like to add that this platform has been the GOP's platform almost verbatim for many years now. They ran on the same thing in 2008. Here's a quote from their 2008 platform.
Republican Party Platform 2008 said:
There are a lot of people like Devo in the world. I'm one of them too.
I understand that you're religious? But people have the freedom to kill themselves if they want. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. They have their reasons, and their beliefs. 1 belief doesn't trump another. We have equal rights, as citizens.
edit:
well, equal rights unless you're a woman...
edit:
or a minority...
Did you read the part that lead me to the suicide analogy?
more like begin elections has. GOP base doesn't give a damn about the candidate? come up with some anti abortion or anti gay bill and they will come out to vote as always.
Cognition is not a nebulous concept.
A soul is a nebulous concept.
There is no indication that these developing humans are capable of any sort of higher level thinking than the animal whose meat you had last meal, or the animal whose life you destroyed for soft toilet paper.
Given that, the only moral argument that remains from the opposing front is that the zygote is infused with a soul upon conception. We don't know where it is or what it actually does, but some guys with religious books say it's there.
I'd like to add that this whole discussion pisses me off on another level because it's so theoretical and academic, neatly philosophical. How many vocal gaffers here have tried to get children for years, gone through all the literature, seen the doctors, build ovulation and temperature charts, gone through the months where at least 15% and maybe even 1/3 of all pregnancies just end on their own randomly. All sophistry aside, 'life' is just messily, often randomly working biology.
I now have 2 amazing kids but it was a damn hard road there. If you want to open your eyes to the reality of baby making, go read some real life stories on women's baby forums instead of GAF. Might get a new look at what is 'life'. But I guess these righteous republican bosses are too busy having non-reproductive sex in airfield toilets.
Plus I'm still a pro-choice if anyone's wondering. /rant
I now have 2 amazing kids but it was a damn hard road there. If you want to open your eyes to the reality of baby making, go read some real life stories on women's baby forums instead of GAF. Might get a new look at what is 'life'. But I guess these righteous republican bosses are too busy having non-reproductive sex in airfield toilets.
Plus I'm still a pro-choice if anyone's wondering. /rant
In your opinion, I'm wrong. I respect that viewpoint, I just don't share it. Where do you draw the line? I mean, we base lots of things as natural. That's why a parent killing there 2 year old is illegal yet if your 2 year old dies from a freak playground accident there is no penalty. It was unintentional and reasonably unavoidable.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Republican Party Platform 2008 said:
Every effort. Except actually financially and medically supporting them. Everything but that.
Really, everything that doesn't actually cost us anything. Yeah - a pep talk and a pat on the back is plenty.
People are destroyed every day, every hour. Every minute probably. If half the energy poured into the abortion debate was instead focused on having the people already on this planet have longer and happier lives, we wouldn't have to deal with severe levels of poverty, malnutrition, and lack of affordable healthcare. We shouldn't have to with the level of technology and civilization we're reached, but dumb shit keeps dooming people to the dark ages.
Yes, but I still don't see the leap in logic.
Even if I did, it's still a bad comparison. It's comparing a person with, generally, a mental dysfunction ending their life and leaving people behind versus a woman terminating a pregnancy occurring within her body and nobody, besides her, being impacted.
Well yeah, except the child. He/she is a bit impacted...
edit: Oh yeah, and the father. He's a bit impacted...and grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc...
If you want to kindly explain what insight your attempt to have a child and/or women's baby forums have given you above everyone else here, please do so. Until then, your post adds nothing to the discussion.
Devolution
Member
Natural to me holds no meaning, it's another nebulous concept that people use to denounce certain human actions that have spanned the dawn of time that they don't like currently. Before abortion you had infanticide and abandonment when women, societies and or tribes couldn't care for children.
We've decided that a 2 year old is a human being endowed with rights. We've also decided that a fetus does not share these rights in its early stages and that the woman carrying it, her rights matter more. Natural has nothing to do with anything.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Sounds like a real winner, Republicans. Good luck with that.
Darn, I wish I remembered how to write that emoticon with the shrugged shoulders and silly face.
Darn, I wish I remembered how to write that emoticon with the shrugged shoulders and silly face.
I'm saying that the line is arbitrary. There are really only 2 logical choices. When it exits the female, or at conception.
Completely wrong. It's not a child, it's a collection of tissue with zero cognitive ability using the resources of the mother to develop eventually into a baby.
How's the father impacted? I mean, he doesn't need to know. It's not like it was a planned and discussed pregnancy. Why is the family involved at all? Missing the opportunity eventually to buy Christmas presents?
Let's not be obtuse, the mother is the one saddled with the burden of development of the child. Nobody else.
Thats my problem. It really is a private health issue. All of these conditions under which an abortion should be legal, are going to put a gigantic spotlight on a persons private health.
The family, etc, are negatively impacted by expectations. People are negatively impacted by expectations all the time. That is life.
The child is unable to have the expectation that it will grow up and be born. It does not have the mental faculties required to have this expectation.
Devo implied that if it happens naturally (death:miscarriage) that it's OK to force it deliberately (suicide:abortion). Where is the leap in logic?
(and in your post, you COMPLETELY disregarded Devo's post about a person doing WHATEVER they want with their body)
And just so you know Devo, after looking over some posts, I call bullshit on you "being cool" with people committing suicide.
Wait, we're supposed to pretend to care about that?
Neither does my 4 month old daughter...she really doesn't know anything right now except how to blow spit bubbles. At this point she thinks that we disappear when we leave the room. She doesn't have the faculties necessary to actually realize that we are just in the other room. She has no expectation that she will grow up. If she died right now it would not have hurt any of her "expectations." Again I will state, where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary.
divisionbyzorro
Member
I wouldn't say that's true. There are plenty of other logical arbitrary lines one could draw. For example, when the baby has its own heartbeat, or when it has its own brainwaves. One could even draw completely arbitrary lines if they wanted; second trimester, third trimester, etc. As I pointed out earlier, we draw arbitrary lines all the time in the interest of balancing protecting the innocent and infringing upon the rights of individuals (for example, the age of consent). The difference here is that one side is interested in invoking religion to back up a particular viewpoint, which makes the discussion impossible to have in any real context (nevermind that the religious arguments themselves are often flawed even within the context of that religion's texts, but that's for another discussion).
Devolution
Member
Abstinence, birth control, contraception those are unnatural too. See how unnatural means fuck all?
Whats age have to do with a womans privacy? I mean abortions are generally not done under ideal circumstances. There is a spectacularly high divorce rate & single mothers in America. This grand family unit of support isn't there. And it isn't a womans obligation to share her private health issues with anyone, it sure as pie isn't the governments task to force her to do so.
She is no longer a part of your wife's body. Your wife's body is no longer requisite for her survival.
At what point is it no longer just her private health issues and it becomes her and her child's private health issues? Not to mention the father...
soundscream
Member
Yep.
People have been taught that their own life and the life of others are some sort of sacred existence. And while the relationships we have with each other can help to enforce this notion, in the big scheme of it all we are not special, we are a blip of a blip of a blip in the grand cosmic scheme of the universe.
If someone wants to exit before their time its their choice. It doesn't make a loss of life any less sad. But it also isn't the end all be all either.
I just said it in the post. I'm just personally miffed how blithely people decide what is life and what is not when that said life is so fricking fragile. Also annoyed how earlier in the thread someone said how 'pro-lifers' reveal their true disgusting murderous colors etc, so I was underlining that even having gone through a lot of work to get some actual kids in the world, pro-choice folks are not actually murderous anti-child people.
About the baby forums, if you go check it out you'll note that it's full of stories how people damn often go through couple, maybe even 3-4 early miscarriages trying to get kids. It really puts a different spin on the whole 'sanctity of life from the moment of conception' thing and reinforces what I said earlier about the unlogic of religous people pushing that angle seeing how God himself is the greatest abortion doctor of all time. If life is so sacred, how come a baby can be aborted naturally so often just because that wad of cells floats a few cm off to a bad place?
It was also just a rant partially, which I also said in the post. You get it now?
divisionbyzorro
Member
If I was interested in being pedantic, I could say that somebody's body is requisite for her survival, in that a 4-month-old is still completely incapable of surviving on its own...
Twenty-Seven. Who's had an ex go through an abortion.
Wanna continue with this rodeo? Because I can tell you I wasn't the one on the table. I wasn't the one who skipped her period. I wasn't the one with an unwanted pregnancy in my uterus. I wasn't the one who had to worry about what people would think about me as my stomach got bigger and bigger. I wasn't the one worried about paying for treatments. I wasn't the one worried about figuring out how to adjust my new career around a fucking baby.
@MIMIC - I just meant that they're not anywhere near in the same category. What she said was iffy, but I don't think she would put them there either.
And we have adoption programs for people that don't want their babies. We don't have a program for transferring fetus' to other women's wombs.
Yes.
Devolution
Member
Fact of the matter is as humans we've been able to manipulate the environment and our own biology to suit our needs. So any sort of "natural" v "unnatural" terminology means nothing. If abortion is not right because it's not a natural miscarriage, how is viagra right? How are birth control, IVF or fertility treatments right?
No one can define this, as that definition has many beliefs behind it. No belief is more significant than another one, so the default position has to be to go with the Woman's rights as a citizen to make these choices on her own, with the support of trained medical professionals. People can have abortions if they choose, and they can not have them if they please. That is the only logical solution when we have a myriad of different beliefs in our country, which is what makes our country unique. You can't force a religious belief on another citizen, thats what restricting women's rights to choose does.
Freezie KO
Banned
MIMIC said:
I'd recommend psychological help, but if a person wants to die, what's it to you? How about you make a list of things that MIMIC is okay with people doing to themselves, and then we can legislate based on that?
The child isn't biologically dependent. That's a substantive difference.
Because it benefits rich, old men.
Pretty much.
You guys know that surgery is a way of unnaturally prolonging life, right?
- Status