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

Status
Not open for further replies.
An already born baby is not dependent upon its mother's body to survive. It is not an equivalent situation, and I was not arguing anything about babies already carried to term. Try again.

A 23 (21 seems to be the soonest, by wiki) weeks old fetus isn't dependant of its mother's body either, as seen by preterm babies.
They are already self-sustainable organisms. Although as any (post birth) baby it is dependant of its mother (or a substitute) for survival (since they cannot alimentate themselves...).
 
I like George Carlin's view, here:

"They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.

That's not entirely true. They also want the brain dead and the elderly to live on well past their physical and mental limits on life support machines.

Quality of life? Pah. That's meaningless. Living as long and as miserably as possible? Cool.
 
A 23 (21 seems to be the soonest, by wiki) weeks old fetus isn't dependant of its mother's body either, as seen by preterm babies.
They are already self-sustainable organisms. Although as any (post birth) baby it is dependant of its mother (or a substitute) for survival (since they cannot alimentate themselves...).

There's a reason premature babies have only become saveable in recent human history, and that's because of machinery and technology required to keep them alive. You cannot birth a severely premature baby and expect it to survive outside of essentially what is an environment to simulate the conditions of a womb.
 
A 23 (21 seems to be the soonest, by wiki) weeks old fetus isn't dependant of its mother's body either, as seen by preterm babies.
They are already self-sustainable organisms. Although as any (post birth) baby it is dependant of its mother (or a substitute) for survival (since they cannot alimentate themselves...).

Nah. Anyone born prem at 23 weeks that survives often has a lot of ongoing health problems. Organ function, cognitive ability. It's not strictly true that they are self sustainable. It takes a LOT of technology to keep them alive.
 
Nah. Anyone born prem at 23 weeks that survives often has a lot of ongoing health problems. Organ function, cognitive ability. It's not strictly true that they are self sustainable. It takes a LOT of technology to keep them alive.

Incubators are natural. Abortion isn't.
 
Republicans are more fiscally conservative? Really? Need I remind you what party was waging unfunded wars?

You're going to have to excuse me, I live down the street from where the useless 100 billion bullet train is getting built.

Any liberal who wants to jump on me in this thread can back off right now, I'm not going to get into some pointless pissing match with anyone.
 
You're going to have to excuse me, I live down the street from where the useless 100 billion bullet train is getting built.

Any liberal who wants to jump on me in this thread can back off right now, I'm not going to get into some pointless pissing match with anyone.
Yes, run while you still can.
 
A 23 (21 seems to be the soonest, by wiki) weeks old fetus isn't dependant of its mother's body either, as seen by preterm babies.
They are already self-sustainable organisms. Although as any (post birth) baby it is dependant of its mother (or a substitute) for survival (since they cannot alimentate themselves...).

It is using the resources of its mother's body until it is born. You can switch "dependent upon" for "using the resources of" if that would be more accurate.
 
You're going to have to excuse me, I live down the street from where the useless 100 billion bullet train is getting built.

Any liberal who wants to jump on me in this thread can back off right now, I'm not going to get into some pointless pissing match with anyone.

You mean the trains that will improve our infrastructure, bring jobs to the area, and are actually counted as part of the budget unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan wars until Obama changed it?

Oh, and the Bush Tax Cuts that have cost us billions of dollars for no real gain except to line the vaults of out-of-country bank accounts?

Dems are notorious for spending, but I'm just going to repeat that the Republican party is the party that tripled the national debt. The Democratic party is the only one in recent history that actually made an attempt to start paying it back down. I'm a former Republican, I know what the fuck my old party did.

This is a party that would rather cut a program to take care of every uninsured pregnant woman in their state to "save" 900,000$ while actually spending 10 million dollars to pay the medical bills that resulted from the decision. This is a party that would rather pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to take care of the wards of the state that they forced women to carry to term instead of giving them 5$ worth of condoms.
 
You're going to have to excuse me, I live down the street from where the useless 100 billion bullet train is getting built.

Any liberal who wants to jump on me in this thread can back off right now, I'm not going to get into some pointless pissing match with anyone.

Rather spend money on a train rather on war
 
You're going to have to excuse me, I live down the street from where the useless 100 billion bullet train is getting built.

Any liberal who wants to jump on me in this thread can back off right now, I'm not going to get into some pointless pissing match with anyone.

You heard him: BACK OFF, LIBERALS!
 
You're going to have to excuse me, I live down the street from where the useless 100 billion bullet train is getting built.

Any liberal who wants to jump on me in this thread can back off right now, I'm not going to get into some pointless pissing match with anyone.

Infrastructure spending has always improved the economy in the long-term. Don't need to be a "liberal" to understand that. You see, this is a problem. Dont try to sort yourself into political cliques. Everyone is a mix of different policies, based on their self-interest.
 
Sounds like an easy decision... GOP loses. But why do I know it's not going to be anywhere near that clear cut?

/shakes head

People always vote against their self-interest. Just keep them distracted. Politics is just a con with the numbers turned way up.

So they want to increase actual suffering with their mystical reasoning.

Don't vote for these guys.

As if people on GAF would vote for these guys. It's either Obama, or no vote.
 
So just for my own edification, help me understand... I post, agreeing with the social perspective and lamenting the lack of options a fiscal conservative has when it comes to voting, and all of you respond with WELL DID YOU SEE HOW MUCH MONEY REPUBLICANS ARE SPENDING?

I shouldn't have even bothered in the first place. Enjoy your circle jerk everyone.
 
So just for my own edification, help me understand... I post, agreeing with the social perspective and lamenting the lack of options a fiscal conservative has when it comes to voting, and all of you respond with WELL DID YOU SEE HOW MUCH MONEY REPUBLICANS ARE SPENDING?

I shouldn't have even bothered in the first place. Enjoy your circle jerk everyone.

You still going to vote Republican?
 
There's a reason premature babies have only become saveable in recent human history, and that's because of machinery and technology required to keep them alive. You cannot birth a severely premature baby and expect it to survive outside of essentially what is an environment to simulate the conditions of a womb.

Nah. Anyone born prem at 23 weeks that survives often has a lot of ongoing health problems. Organ function, cognitive ability. It's not strictly true that they are self sustainable. It takes a LOT of technology to keep them alive.

Self-sustainable means that he has the necessary biological functions of an expected organism. Organ systems (even if not fully developed) and more importantly, functioning ANS.

Of course means to auxiliate/assist its full development outside womb are necessary.
There are full term deliveries that need it too.

It is using the resources of its mother's body until it is born. You can switch "dependent upon" for "using the resources of" if that would be more accurate.

It is benefiting from the environment provided for his ideal development. I agree.
My point was that the full term (or "as long as it is inside") is not a threshold of insufficiency for the fetus.
 
I apologize if I'm going out of line here, but here's a few questions for ya:

What exactly is prompting behaviours that lead into unwanted pregnancies and other lewd activities?

If the people are saying that forbiding women to abort their child under any circumstance (at least according to CNN) is not the solution to the problem, if so than what is to be done?
 
So just for my own edification, help me understand... I post, agreeing with the social perspective and lamenting the lack of options a fiscal conservative has when it comes to voting, and all of you respond with WELL DID YOU SEE HOW MUCH MONEY REPUBLICANS ARE SPENDING?

I shouldn't have even bothered in the first place. Enjoy your circle jerk everyone.

I don't think true fiscal conservatism is possible as long as both parties want to maintain the military we have. Democrats are as good as you're likely to find because at least they're not allergic to the idea of revenue.

If the people are saying that forbiding women to abort their child under any circumstance (at least according to CNN) is not the solution to the problem, if so than what is to be done?

Good sex education and plentiful contraception help, but the anti-abortion people are often also anti-contraception.
 
So just for my own edification, help me understand... I post, agreeing with the social perspective and lamenting the lack of options a fiscal conservative has when it comes to voting, and all of you respond with WELL DID YOU SEE HOW MUCH MONEY REPUBLICANS ARE SPENDING?

I shouldn't have even bothered in the first place. Enjoy your circle jerk everyone.

What the actual fuck. You said one thing. We replied. So? Get a backbone and argue back, instead of just leaving.

And don't even bother on fiscal conservatism. It's not going to happen. Too much pressure from too many angles.
 
Well yeah, of course. As if it was expected otherwise.

I find the person who says "Abortion is wrong, except for incest and rape" odd, since most pro-lifers approach it from "Life begins at conception" but are willing to make an exception in those instances, even though it's still killing a child. I think there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with saying they're pro-choice (because so many conservatives make a point of equating it to pro-baby killing), but understand that there are legitimate reasons for someone to have an abortion and that it's not a black-and-white issue or an easy thing for any woman to go through. I can better understand being against it except in cases where the mother's life is in danger, but even then it's the same logical thread - doesn't matter, you still killed the baby.

This is an issue I've wrestled with as I've grown up. My parents are both strictly pro-life, mainly based in their religious beliefs, but are also antiwar and anti-death penalty, which is something I can respect. I used to be for it in general, but against it personally. Then me and my girl had a pregnancy scare and my mindset totally warped itself. I was 20, I had nothing in savings, still in college, still living at home, working a shitty minimum wage job, and that's to say nothing of her, who was younger and had no support from her parents at all. And I totally thought about it and talked with her about it, and luckily it never came to that but I was completely willing to argue that side of it. Neither of us were responsible or adult enough to fully take care of ourselves, much less another human being that's far more vulnerable and weak than either of us. And as it happened, we broke up exactly 9 months later. The child would have had to live with a single parent in either scenario, and we all know how much right-wing fundamentalists love those.

So my perspective changed a little. Compounding this was my friend John - the kind of older-brother-I-never-had - telling me and that he and his fiancee have also discussed this, and decided if they found out tomorrow that she was pregnant, they would go through with an abortion simply because they're barely making ends meet as is and wouldn't be able to support a kid in their lives. They want to wait until they're good and ready - when they're financially secure and have a bigger place. Two very responsible people, 5-7 years ahead of me, being able to matter-of-factly discuss this and come to that conclusion, helped me see it that way.

If you choose to see a fetus as the same thing as a human life, I can totally understand how someone would be pro-life, but I don't even care about that distinction. What good is there in bringing a child into a world where he wasn't planned, not necessarily wanted, and will probably have a poor quality of life in adolescence and probably in adulthood too, when the same thing will happen to them?

And these are the same assholes who want to ban contraceptives and teach abstinence-only education, so we can all end up like Bristol Palin and revel in our white privilege if we have it, or be forced to suck off the teat of the welfare system if we don't.
 
I apologize if I'm going out of line here, but here's a few questions for ya:

What exactly is prompting behaviours that lead into unwanted pregnancies and other lewd activities?

If the people are saying that forbiding women to abort their child under any circumstance (at least according to CNN) is not the solution to the problem, if so than what is to be done?

Let's stop acting as if it's a huge problem.
Poverty and other more pressing matters leads to unwanted pregnancies.
Some medications have horrid side effects but the solution is not to ban them outright if the alternative is worse :/
 
I apologize if I'm going out of line here, but here's a few questions for ya:

What exactly is prompting behaviours that lead into unwanted pregnancies and other lewd activities?

If the people are saying that forbiding women to abort their child under any circumstance (at least according to CNN) is not the solution to the problem, if so than what is to be done?

I'd put it on a lack of education.
 
I'd put it on a lack of education.

Or it could be a married women with a deadbeat husband.
Or a woman with already enough children and accident happens.
Or a rape gone bad.
Or incest (which in most cases look like rape gone bad...)
there's plenty of reasons, it's not like it's important.
 
Seems to me like you're making things up on the fly....or just unaware of the scientific community which has said that conception (that cluster of dividing cells) is considered to be the starting phase of a human life/person/human being/whatever

Unless, of course, these scientists moonlight as ministers.

'scientific community' lol.

This must be the same 'scientific community' that has disproven evolution and says climate change doesn't exist.
 
American politics confuse the shit out of me. Your economy is going down in flames, unemployment and poverty are rampant, and the only things people seem to talking about over there in the last few days are rape and abortions...
 
Or it could be a married women with a deadbeat husband.
Or a woman with already enough children and accident happens.
Or a rape gone bad.
Or incest (which in most cases look like rape gone bad...)
there's plenty of reasons, it's not like it's important.

There are obviously a lot of reasons. But I think we'd see a decrease in abortions if sexual education was better.
 
This is actually the answer.

Less sexual education = higher unwanted pregnancies.

Freakanomics had the section that saw the statistical correlation between abortions becoming legal and a generation later, the fall in crime rates throughout urban America. Who'd have thought, that forcing poor mothers to bring unwanted children into the world would led to social issues and the children growing up to a life of crime? Anyone with a brain, I'd have thought.

So that's another side to the pro-life stance. They only care for the 'person' up until birth, then it's GTFO. No social services, no health care, underfunded education, poor social mobility, but thank Jesus, at least you were born.
 
Or it could be a married women with a deadbeat husband.
Or a woman with already enough children and accident happens.
Or a rape gone bad.
Or incest (which in most cases look like rape gone bad...)
there's plenty of reasons, it's not like it's important.

A rape... gone bad? WTF?

Do you mean when you go out rapin', it's only bad if you accidentally knock them up?
 
'scientific community' lol.

This must be the same 'scientific community' that has disproven evolution and says climate change doesn't exist.

He is actually correct.
For biology, the very fact that multiplication of cells occurs, it means it is "living", an organism.
 
A rape... gone bad? WTF?

Do you mean when you go out rapin', it's only bad if you accidentally knock them up?

I didn't write it that way but I kinda find your interpretation funnier...if you can find that kind of thing funny that is.
Rapes are horrible enough but getting another side bonus with it on top of it is quite scarring to say the least.

There are obviously a lot of reasons. But I think we'd see a decrease in abortions if sexual education was better.

It would certainly help in cases of teen pregnancy and the likes.
 
Or it could be a married women with a deadbeat husband.
Or a woman with already enough children and accident happens.
Or a rape gone bad.
Or incest (which in most cases look like rape gone bad...)
there's plenty of reasons, it's not like it's important.

I find it interesting that the most popular choice wasn't listed, yet the least popular choices were.

'scientific community' lol.

This must be the same 'scientific community' that has disproven evolution and says climate change doesn't exist.

Yes...the same doctor who said life begins at conception is qualified to speak about evolution and climate change.

But bonus points for trying to attack the source....even thought you've attacked the wrong source.
 
He is actually correct.
For biology, the very fact that multiplication of cells occurs, it means it is "living", an organism.

That's not what he's getting at. He's implying the scientific community agree that the moment of conception is when a human begins. E.g. Agree with the pro-life view.

There is great debate within scientific circles when a person becomes a person. Is it the viability of the foetus, or when the brain develops to a certain point, or when the foetus can survive outside the womb.

No one ever has claimed that a zygote is not the initial phase of a new life, but that's not the discussion at hand.
 
This is actually the answer.

Less sexual education = higher unwanted pregnancies.
Actually, an improved quality of life leads to less sex, so less pregnancies. If you give people something to do with their time instead of fucking, they'll do less fucking. There's a reason why the fastest growing populations are also the poorest.
 
I find it interesting that the most popular choice wasn't listed, yet the least popular choices were.

Which would be?
I'm not psychic don't let us all hanging!
More Seriously there was a study in France showing the reason why women were going through abortions (interestingly you have to remember that France is one of the few European countries with a good demography) and the results were surprising as teen pregnancy was way down the list behind married wives and other women who choosed their careers over becoming mother or something.

e : end of page whether 50 or 100? glorious me!
 
Actually, an improved quality of life leads to less sex, so less pregnancies. If you give people something to do with their time instead of fucking, they'll do less fucking. There's a reason why the fastest growing populations are also the poorest.

Part of the same argument I Was making, really. Once you are educated on how to HAVE a healthy sex life you're less likely to be so careless with it.
 
Part of the same argument I Was making, really. Once you are educated on how to HAVE a healthy sex life you're less likely to be so careless with it.
Not really. Instead of saying anything about sex, and thus getting them thinking about it, distract them with shiny objects instead. Or load them up with enough fat that sex won't be worth the effort.
 
Not really. Instead of saying anything about sex, and thus getting them thinking about it, distract them with shiny objects instead. Or load them up with enough fat that sex won't be worth the effort.

You may be overestimating the power of shiny toys overriding the urge to have sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom