ClassyPenguin
Banned
Abortion isn't a popular birth control method. No idea where you are getting that notion from.
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Abortion isn't a popular birth control method. No idea where you are getting that notion from.
Any idea why reasoned and logical thought would frighten you so much?
You sure about that? People can be born and survive before nine months, you know. Just imagine the sad sad story of a poor woman on her way to the abortion clinic to get rid of her seven month fetus, only to get into traffic, then panic and go into labor... now she's stuck! Stuck with this awful baby and all the responsibilities that go with it. I thought you cared, Yaboosh. Better rethink your position.
I know, I was hoping no one would call me out on this. It's not like there are any women who are pro-life... Ok, well sure there are some, but it's not like there are many... Well, I guess that would depend on one's definition of many... But it's not like there are MORE women who are pro-life than pro-chOOOOH WAIT A MINUTE!!!
It doesn't. He's pro-life, not pro-choice.
Are these the same women who feel the only valid abortion is one they need themselves? Also since when is the empowerment of women an illogical thing?
It doesn't. He's pro-life, not pro-choice.
Other women have different opinions than me? We'll have to fix this at the next Femmemoot.You sure about that? People can be born and survive before nine months, you know. Just imagine the sad sad story of a poor woman on her way to the abortion clinic to get rid of her seven month fetus, only to get into traffic, then panic and go into labor... now she's stuck! Stuck with this awful baby and all the responsibilities that go with it. I thought you cared, Yaboosh. Better rethink your position.
I know, I was hoping no one would call me out on this. It's not like there are any women who are pro-life... Ok, well sure there are some, but it's not like there are many... Well, I guess that would depend on one's definition of many... But it's not like there are MORE women who are pro-life than pro-chOOOOH WAIT A MINUTE!!!
It doesn't. He's pro-life, not pro-choice.
Palette Swap
Member
Spot on. The GOP is making serious moves to corner the dumbfuck market.
Which is really sad considering there could be room for an enlightened conservative movement. And when I say enlightened I mean "not middle-ages stupid".
By the way, aborting a 7 month year old baby? Are you actually being serious with this scenario? Do you think this is realistic or are you just trolling right now?
people get third trimester abortions in the US all the time! source? what's that?
So now that we've exhausted real situations we're down to hypothetical?
It was a serious scenario for someone to consider who says people don't have the right to their life until they're born. I trust from your incredulity you have a more moral position than he? Great!
Hahaha, this thread has been overflowing with hypotheticals from the pro-choice people. I've honestly been waiting for the "abducted by aliens" argument.
Statistics indicate that most abortions take place <13 weeks gestation. Your scenario is completely unrealistic and irrelevant. I'm not sure what you mean to achieve with your strawman argument but it isn't doing you any favors.
Yep. Republicans are soooo dum...
Why does abortion bother you so much? I mean, it's obviously something that's very personal to you. So much so, that the idea of a woman who has an abortion for no reason other than she just doesn't want a kid you consider a murderer.
I'm not being pedantic. I really want to know why you feel your morals about this topic must be forced upon her but you feel that morals regarding the poor, sick, etc. are unneeded from a governmental stand point.
You should get your local sheriff to threaten her with deadly force!
So you mean to say that we should outlaw aliens because they might abduct and abort our pregnant women?
why does he dislike mexicans so much?
les papillons sexuels
Banned
give her the death penalty, because a baby should have more rights then a full grown human.
Also, many animals have means of aborting their children if the conditions are unsuitable for the child or them.
Irrational thinking and racism often go hand in hand.
First gay animals, now pro-choice ones? Damn librels are infecting nature
OK, so why do women get abortions? What are the stats?
And the financial issues you mentioned is just an example of when I characterized it as making a mistake. Getting knocked up when you can't afford a child is usually not ideal (making it a mistake). It's inconvenient for them.
It takes two to get pregnant. I'm not just singling out the woman. The FATHER is responsible, too.
1) Where is the "argument from incredulity" police? I got a ticket earlier. Hmmm...they must be on a lunch break.
2) I'm talking about the justification used for abortion, particularly in this thread. My description obviously isn't a play-by-play of what happens in real life, but the crux of my argument is found within the reasoning of having an abortion: fixing an inconvenient mistake.
I was talking about the popularity in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.
You forgot to include "women having periods" in your insane analogy.
I still haven't heard a good argument about why it's not okay to abort, but it's okay to not legally force parents to use their bodies to save the lives of their already born children, or even other adults. Why should it ever be okay to legally force someone to use the internal parts of their body to keep another human being alive?
Psychotext
Member
The difference is pretty easy to see. You see a foetus as a baby / human right from the start (I'm guessing even before the blastocyst has hit the wall of the uterus), I don't.
For me it's just a cluster of cells until a certain point in its development.
Not when the woman doesn't have a choice.
I've called out at least two people on their hypocrisy on this front and they just ignore the post, lol
Ummm....how is someone even going to do this?
I was waiting for this sweeping generalization to show up. I really, really was. And I'm not surprised, either.
Not that it has a single thing to do with the pro-life debate.....but I'm pro-life, against the death penalty and not a conservative. Is your mind blown? Or is this simply too implausible?
Do I get a free "change the subject" pass somewhere in this thread?
Are you talking about rape (which represents less than 1% of all abortions)? I still think it's wrong. One depraved act is already too much.
can you explain the birth of baby jesus then???
Technosteve
Banned
So you want a woman to always be reminded of the time she was sexually assaulted by bearing a child that's 50% her rapist and having to raise it? And you think that having an abortion is wrong in this case?
I find that scenario to be more depraved than abortion.
don't worry, rape isn't a big deal.
is it as scary as marginal tax rates?Abortion-GAF scares me greatly.
Broodmares.
Using words?
1) No, I don't want ever want a woman to have to be constantly reminded that she raped. But I'm also against abortion, so....
If anything, I think victims of rape should be given special medical consideration when having to deal with this type of thing.
2) An abortion doesn't wipe away a rape. So if the "memory" of being raped is all you're concerned about, rest assured: it still happened.
Is she fond of omelets?
As an outsider, that certainly does seem like a succinct summary of the situation in the US. Such a fucking mess.
So, not only do you value the rapist's embryo over the woman he forcibly impregnated, you're accusing women that don't want to carry a rapist's baby of only wanting to get rid of it to deny the rapist his pleasure, and ignore the financial and mental toll it takes. How do you not see this as a terrible situation and existence for women?
There's a difference between having a trauma because of being assaulted and being reminded by it everyday because of your own child.
It's not only the trauma that has to be considered. What about the woman's life? If she didn't want children, had something entirely else planned in her life, you are taking away her right to choose how to live her life because you think that aborting a fetus in early stages is killing a human life.
If she gets an abortion, she can atleast try to pick up her former life instead of having to play mother for a child that she didn't want to have in the first place.
I'm sorry, there is no defending this stance, not everything is black and white in this world. Sometimes, even doing something you consider bad can be for the greater good.
not sure how familair you are with george carlin, but as an outsider like you, he seems to summarise most of the internal conflicts in the USA pretty much spot on.
I literally laughed out loud at this bullshit. It's sick, but it's funny that you would actually say that.
You know this is the same, exact argument made (by the pro-choice side) for women who simply don't want it? "inconvenient for my life, can't afford it right now, etc". I don't see how this is any different. But like I said before, I'd be perfectly OK with victims of rape possibly receiving free treatment during pregnancy because 1) they had no say in the matter and 2) they only represent a tiny fraction of women who get abortions so it's not like it would hemorrhage hospitals financially.
I didn't say she had to keep the child. But it's not like you can't keep a child because they were the product of rape. ALL children deserve to be loved, regardless of the circumstances.
So if people made an exception for rape victims, a ban on all other abortions would be OK? Because if not then everything apparently DOES have to be black and white.
It's a awful paradox. Both scenarios are terrible to me.
Well if that "bad" is considered taking a life, I'm not on board.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
There are a lot of different views on sex, so it's important to keep in mind that what one person considers to be responsible can be seen as irresponsible to someone else. Even if you slack when it comes to birth control, and get yourself pregnant, I wouldn't want that person to become a parent. They've already shown themselves incapable of acting responsibly when it comes to sex, so why would I trust them with one of the biggest responsibilities in life?
If they don't slack with birth control, then should really their parenthood be determined by the failure rate of their particular form of birth control?
I personally disagree, I don't see why one should "punish" them (and it is a punishment as you are removing a choice, and control over their body) for acting responsible.
There is a fundamental error in your reasoning when you think that people who have been acting responsibly should be punished, and people who are incapable of being responsible laden with a massive responsibility.
Unless you think that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that is, in which case it has nothing to do with responsibility but rather to do with the worth of the fetus.
I've yet to see someone respond to the above, so I am interested in hearing your response.
What do you consider free treatment?
You said it yourself, it is different because it's 2 people having consensual sex which can result in pregnancy against a woman being forced to have sex and having to face the consequences alone.
All people deserve to lead happy lifes, that doesn't mean it happens in real life. This isn't an utopia. It is very possible that some women can cope with having the child, but I'm damn sure there are other who can't, yet you want to force them because the child deserves to be loved, what? Some things can't be fixed with therapy.
The point is that I can, to an extent understand why people don't support abortion, but I find it perverse that you actually want to force a woman to keep a child conceived by rape.
Except that it isn't. It's taking a potential life, at best.
So let me get this straight :
morning after pill : AOK
abortion after rape : Hell NO
did I get that right?
And seriously what kind of sick people think it's a good idea to force a woman who's been raped to just carry the child of the rapist?
Why the hell would you force someone to live through that?
Sometimes it begs the question if a good war wouldn't actually be a good way to manage the population of crazies....
morning after pill : AOK
abortion after rape : Hell NO
did I get that right?
And seriously what kind of sick people think it's a good idea to force a woman who's been raped to just carry the child of the rapist?
Why the hell would you force someone to live through that?
Sometimes it begs the question if a good war wouldn't actually be a good way to manage the population of crazies....
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Posted for new page:
These are your feelings on the matter, and you can't claim universality for them.
There are a lot of different views on sex, so it's important to keep in mind that what one person considers to be responsible can be seen as irresponsible to someone else. Even if you slack when it comes to birth control, and get yourself pregnant, I wouldn't want that person to become a parent. They've already shown themselves incapable of acting responsibly when it comes to sex, so why would I trust them with one of the biggest responsibilities in life?
If they don't slack with birth control, then should really their parenthood be determined by the failure rate of their particular form of birth control?
I personally disagree, I don't see why one should "punish" them (and it is a punishment as you are removing a choice, and control over their body) for acting responsible.
There is a fundamental error in your reasoning when you think that people who have been acting responsibly should be punished, and people who are incapable of being responsible laden with a massive responsibility.
Unless you think that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that is, in which case it has nothing to do with responsibility but rather to do with the worth of the fetus (in which case you should probably drop the "irresponsible sex" line of reasoning as it is insulting to anyone who has taken proper precautions to protect themselves).
I've yet to see someone respond to the above, so I am interested in hearing your or anyone else's response on that and the below:
I'd like to once again point out that pro-choice means only that abortions are legal up to a certain point, not that people have to be for abortions or have them oneself. So a pro-choice legislation is inherently accommodating of people who think abortion is wrong and would never have one, whereas a pro-life legislation does not accommodate the pro-choice.
One side is already a better compromise than the other, and it's also more beneficial to society.
These are your feelings on the matter, and you can't claim universality for them.
There are a lot of different views on sex, so it's important to keep in mind that what one person considers to be responsible can be seen as irresponsible to someone else. Even if you slack when it comes to birth control, and get yourself pregnant, I wouldn't want that person to become a parent. They've already shown themselves incapable of acting responsibly when it comes to sex, so why would I trust them with one of the biggest responsibilities in life?
If they don't slack with birth control, then should really their parenthood be determined by the failure rate of their particular form of birth control?
I personally disagree, I don't see why one should "punish" them (and it is a punishment as you are removing a choice, and control over their body) for acting responsible.
There is a fundamental error in your reasoning when you think that people who have been acting responsibly should be punished, and people who are incapable of being responsible laden with a massive responsibility.
Unless you think that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that is, in which case it has nothing to do with responsibility but rather to do with the worth of the fetus (in which case you should probably drop the "irresponsible sex" line of reasoning as it is insulting to anyone who has taken proper precautions to protect themselves).
I've yet to see someone respond to the above, so I am interested in hearing your or anyone else's response on that and the below:
I'd like to once again point out that pro-choice means only that abortions are legal up to a certain point, not that people have to be for abortions or have them oneself. So a pro-choice legislation is inherently accommodating of people who think abortion is wrong and would never have one, whereas a pro-life legislation does not accommodate the pro-choice.
One side is already a better compromise than the other, and it's also more beneficial to society.
This is what I don't understand, is it because of a lack of knowledge of conception and the process of a fetus developing in the womb?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Did you miss the legal part of his sentence? Do pro-life people believe that it should be illegal to refuse organ transplants for your family members? I mean, if anything that seems more cruel, since the child would have already lived and had experiences
- Status