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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ronito said:
I would listen to the pro-lifers if they were actually interested in stopping abortion.

Like I said in the other thread, if you want to stop abortion then up sex ed and have birth control be free and easy to get.

Instead we get less sex ed, restrictions put up around birth control. That just tells me they're not serious about stopping abortion they're only serious about maintaining it as a wedge issue.
Click to expand...

It's because they want to control sex and control women. That's all.
 
Veezy said:
We don't allow adults to take another persons organs to live. Why should we make an exception for a fetus, that isn't even conscious of its own existence, to do the same?
Click to expand...

Exactly. We don't force anyone to use their body to allow other fully grown adults to live. We say "If you can't find that kidney/blood transfusion/whatever, you will die. We can't force anyone to give it to you, because that would be wrong. Good luck!". We don't force adults to use their body parts to allow even their own children who are dependents to live. You can't magically give those rights to a fetus because Jesus. You can't because that doesn't make any fucking sense.
 
Devolution said:
Why even bother responding to people who use terms like "baby" and "child"?
Click to expand...
Because those are potential babies and children, as people are wont to believe in a normal pregnancy. Removing the semblance or spark of life from that collection of cells just muddies the issue in my humble opinion. Ultimately it comes down to a woman's right over her own body, regardless.
 
Devolution said:
I don't know. I read it off some march of dimes thing. Everyone I've talked to has said it's about 25k though. I guess some people with awesome coverage drive it down or some bullshit.
Click to expand...

...25k?!

So... go natural. Must... go natural. By my Mexican hips, I gotta go natural or go bankrupt! D:
 
FyreWulff said:
The Republicans remove or attempt to remove more and more prenatal and postnatal care for poor women. They already view that woman and her kid as a freeloading parasite. They'll force her to give birth and then call her a welfare queen for the having a kid while being poor.
Click to expand...

Exhibit A: Texas

Only 48 percent of Texans have private health insurance, and more than a quarter of the state's population has no insurance at all, more than any other state. To fill this gap, the state's hospital emergency rooms and dozens of women's health clinics have stepped in to serve the uninsured across Texas.
Click to expand...

Over the past eight years, citing budget constraints, Gov. Rick Perry and the Republican-controlled legislature have dropped hundreds of thousands of mostly poor and working-class Texans from the rolls of government-sponsored insurance like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Nearly 6.5 million Texans are now uninsured even though the majority of them have full-time jobs.

Premiums in Texas' unregulated health insurance industry have soared by 105 percent over the past 10 years, according to the federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. Texas employers have responded by raising employee deductibles, often dramatically, or by dropping their coverage entirely.
Click to expand...

This year, the Texas legislature and Gov. Perry cut funding for family planning clinics by two-thirds. Dr. Celia Neavel is director of adolescent health at the People's Community Clinic in East Austin and says it is a devastating blow.

"That particular funding was used obviously for birth control, but also Pap smears, breast cancer screening, for diabetes, thyroid disorders, anemia [and] high cholesterol," Neavel says.
Click to expand...

The budget cuts to family planning clinics won't in the end save Texas money. The state estimates nearly 300,000 women will lose access to family planning services, resulting in roughly 20,000 additional unplanned births. Texas already spends $1.3 billion on teen pregnancies — more than any other state.

In San Antonio alone, unplanned children born to teens would fill 175 kindergarten classrooms each year. What's particularly galling to family planning advocates is that part of the money, $8.4 million, that was cut from family planning will now go to Crisis Pregnancy Centers around the state. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are part of the pro-life movement's answer to family planning clinics.

The Downtown Pregnancy Center's office in Dallas is located inside First Baptist Church's building, historically one of the most conservative and powerful Baptist churches in North Texas. Although it looks similar to a doctor's office, it is not a medical clinic; there are no well-woman examinations, no contraception services, free or paid, and no Pap smears.

There are 165 Crisis Pregnancy Centers across Texas, and plenty won't take any state money. The Downtown Pregnancy Center doesn't. The centers are for women who are willing to keep their babies or give them up for adoption. But clinic president Caroline Cline says, heartbreakingly, only 1 to 2 percent are willing to let their babies be adopted. Cline says teens will say to her, "I'd rather abort than give my baby up for adoption."
Click to expand...

Gee, maybe if you stopped cutting women's health services, you'd have fewer fucking abortions.
 
alphaNoid said:
Because you don't like killing babies?
Click to expand...

The point is, my views around abortion come from the firm belief that a foetus is not a baby. I say this as a parent of two children. If at any stage of either pregnancies there had been complications that endangered my wife, I would not have given a second though to putting her safety first, even if that had meant aborting the foetus.

The oxymoronic thing about pro-lifers is that banning abortion for all reasons will directly lead to the death of women. Pro-some-life doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.
 
H.Protagonist said:
...25k?!

So... go natural. Must... go natural. By my Mexican hips, I gotta go natural or go bankrupt! D:
Click to expand...

My wife is absolutely insisting on that, but not for the monetary savings. I'm still weary on her actually going through with it. She's pretty stubborn, so she really might.
 
So I'm confused. If the woman's right to choose to have an abortion is tied to the fact that it's the woman's body. Then at what point does the fetus's body stop being the woman's body? When it's no longer attached at the umbilical cord? That can't be right because if a woman were to willfully kill a baby they just gave birth to while the baby was still attached to the woman, they'd be going to jail.

Is it at a certain stage in development? Is it a certain arbitrary day? When does the baby become it's own legal entity?
 
Duffyside said:
Late-term abortions were banned under Bush. He also prohibited federal funding to foreign establishments that allowed abortions. Obama reversed this. Not to mention the importance of Supreme Court nominees in all this.

Romney is no white knight of the pro-life movement, but there are things to consider if this is an issue you care about. Romney may do whatever is politically convenient, but Obama is pro-choice and not going to falter.
Click to expand...

Ah, forgot about the late term abortion deal with Obama. I dunno how anyone can defend late term abortions, period.
 
SPE said:
The point is, my views around abortion come from the firm belief that a foetus is not a baby. I say this as a parent of two children. If at any stage of either pregnancies there had been complications that endangered my wife, I would not have given a second though to putting her safety first, even if that had meant aborting the foetus.

The oxymoronic thing about pro-lifers is that banning abortion for all reasons will directly lead to the death of women. Pro-some-life doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Women are nothing but child birthing machines to them:
When it comes to Catholic teaching on abortion, no exceptions are allowed. Even if carrying a pregnancy to term would result in the death of both mother and child, abortion is still not an option.

Which is why a nun who is an administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix this week found herself formally excommunicated -- essentially the sacramental equivalent of capital punishment.
Click to expand...
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/21/nun-excommunicated-for-abortion-decision-to-save-mothers-life/
 
chubigans said:
Ah, forgot about the late term abortion deal with Obama. I dunno how anyone can defend late term abortions, period.
Click to expand...

Because a woman doesn't want to die..? Ah right.. I forget.. GOP hates women.. nevermind.

Yeah, how could you possibly defend that.

Please, consider that a person having an abortion is doing it for reasons that are important to them. Your opinion on their decision means nothing.
 
SPE said:
The oxymoronic thing about pro-lifers is that banning abortion for all reasons will directly lead to the death of women. Pro-some-life doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Best not to lump everyone people together. A very large portion of pro-lifers agree with abortion if the mother's life is in danger.
 
chubigans said:
Ah, forgot about the late term abortion deal with Obama. I dunno how anyone can defend late term abortions, period.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't reverse the late-term abortion ban, just the second one I mentioned. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. But, it's pretty obvious he never would have pushed for the ban on late-term abortions either.

And I have no idea how people can defend it either. But not only do they, they're also elected to office. And then the other side are called evil monsters. It's... bizarre.
 
ronito said:
Oh that's just for the c-section and hospital,you'll have Anesthesiologist fees, pediatrician fees, etc, etc...
Click to expand...

Ronito, you're scaring me. How do you financially recover from that? Any assistance, insurance, tax breaks, etc., or is it all straight out of savings?
 
Duffyside said:
Obama didn't reverse the late-term abortion ban, just the second one I mentioned. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. But, it's pretty obvious he never would have pushed for the ban on late-term abortions either.

And I have no idea how people can defend it either. But not only do they, they're also elected to office. And then the other side are called evil monsters. It's... bizarre.
Click to expand...
Oh really? So it's still banned?
 
Pollux said:
What's your point?
Click to expand...

That even in the event of a traumatic even where it the mother was in danger, abortion is always evil according to the Catholic Church and they will take action against you.

Ratzinger, the then Cardinal, now Pope wrote:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons"

So even voting for a candidate that is pro-choice is wrong.
 
Jackson said:
Best not to lump everyone people together. A very large portion of pro-lifers agree with abortion if the mother's life is in danger.
Click to expand...
Ahh, so they're pro-abortion and enjoy killing babies under those circumstances then. Good to know.

Simplistic jargon works both ways.

My critique is not specifically aimed at you Jackson, just to be sure.
 
Duffyside said:
Obama didn't reverse the late-term abortion ban, just the second one I mentioned. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. But, it's pretty obvious he never would have pushed for the ban on late-term abortions either.

And I have no idea how people can defend it either. But not only do they, they're also elected to office. And then the other side are called evil monsters. It's... bizarre.
Click to expand...



so, in order to save a mother's life, you'd have both die. great to know.
 
Yeah I'm sure outlawing abortion will stop women from having them.


Oh wait...

A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely.

“What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

All in all, there is strong indications that legal prohibition is not an effective tool for reducing the incidence of abortion
Click to expand...

http://books.google.ca/books?id=JBK3OukxOf0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=sexual+and+reproductive+health&hl=en&ei=-YXJTozZE6b20gHozcQZ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sexual%20and%20reproductive%20health&f=false

The substantial decline in the abortion rate observed earlier has stalled, and the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe has increased. Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates.
Click to expand...

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61786-8/fulltext

The legal status of abortion is believed to play a major role in the frequency of unsafe abortion.[33][34] For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications,[35] with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion
 
Al-ibn Kermit said:
Even if you don't have health insurance, I'm pretty sure most states have programs that give free coverage for pregnant women.
Click to expand...

You can't legally be turned away for medical care (in the US) if you are pregnant or have a life threatening injury. It's federally mandated.
 
Devolution said:
Why even bother responding to people who use terms like "baby" and "child"?
Click to expand...

'Unborn child' is not exactly an uncommon description of a fetus. There are thousands of examples on the internet of people using those sorts of descriptions without trying to further a pro-life campaign.

Not that it even matters what it's called. It's the same thing no matter what word you use to describe it. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
 
chubigans said:
Ah, forgot about the late term abortion deal with Obama. I dunno how anyone can defend late term abortions, period.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody's "defending them". I doubt anybody - least of all the women that end up having them, with the physical and psychological ramifications - thinks they're good. They are, however, things that have to be considered in certain medical situations due to the not-completely stable nature of childhood, and I think at that point, it needs to be left to the woman and her doctor and nobody else. It certainly shouldn't be any business of the state.
 
Jackson said:
You can't legally be turned away for medical care if you are pregnant or have a life threatening injury. It's federally mandated.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm talking about the cost to the patient though. With insurance, the out of pocket cost of giving birth is I'm guessing under $1,000.
 
Slavik81 said:
Not that it even matters what it's called. It's the same thing no matter what word you use to describe it. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Click to expand...

Words have power, especially when you're talking a very emotionally charged topic such as this.
 
Fiction said:
Okay, I'll tell you a story here. My child survived, but it was a close thing, and was very nearly something like a late term abortion.

Serious complications throughout the entire pregnancy. My entire uteruii (Yeah I had two, long story) detached and flipped over. This was two and a half months before she was due to be born. Way too early. Because of this I went into labor, and the force of the contractions were concentrated on the wrong place. I was in the hospital for two weeks, trying to eek out more time for her to develop, but when I was seconds from bleeding to death, they had to take her. One emergency c-section later, and I had a very premature baby.

Some of these laws would prevent even stuff like that, because it would risk the child. Seriously. My daughter lived, but if it had happened a month earlier, it would have likely had a very different outcome.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, that is a crazy story. Thanks for sharing; we don't really get that kind of perspective on GAF.
 
chubigans:
Well let me put it this way: late term abortions that do not have anything to do with the health of the mother should be banned, period. I think we should be able to agree on that eh?
Click to expand...

Hardly. There are always reasons to do it, its not just all crazy godless teenagers. Its really a complicated, and private issue. Because of these complications, a women shouldn't have to jump through any hoops to have a medical procedure done that she feels is needed. Its like she has to let everyone know what is going on, and why, versus just a doctor.
 
RDreamer said:
Words have power, especially when you're talking a very emotionally charged topic such as this.
Click to expand...

It's only meaningful if the argument is an emotional appeal, rather than a substantial argument. And, if it's an emotional appeal, it's inherently flawed anyways.
 
Slavik81 said:
'Unborn child' is not exactly an uncommon description of a fetus. There are thousands of examples on the internet of people using those sorts of descriptions without trying to further a pro-life campaign.

Not that it even matters what it's called. It's the same thing no matter what word you use to describe it. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Click to expand...

Words like child and baby are used specifically to make people who get abortions seem like murderers.
 
doitlive said:
That even in the event of a traumatic even where it the mother was in danger, abortion is always evil according to the Catholic Church and they will take action against you.

Ratzinger, the then Cardinal, now Pope wrote:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons"

So even voting for a candidate that is pro-choice is wrong.
Click to expand...

Can you read? He said that it's wrong if you vote for that candidate BECAUSE of the candidates pro-choice stance, but if you vote for that candidate DESPITE the pro choice stance in light of other reasons it may be permitted. e.g. I'm voting for Obama despite his stance on abortion because he cares far more about social justice and a number of other issues than Romney.
 
Duffyside said:
Obama didn't reverse the late-term abortion ban, just the second one I mentioned. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. But, it's pretty obvious he never would have pushed for the ban on late-term abortions either.

And I have no idea how people can defend it either. But not only do they, they're also elected to office. And then the other side are called evil monsters. It's... bizarre.
Click to expand...

Hey Duffyside, are you going to give a response to Fyrewulf other than some vague remark about "DNA"? Or are you going to go on with the thread and pretend his post didn't happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dats Rape Drugs... WTF guys
37
772
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
498
Ellis replied
ANACONDA – Official Trailer
46
396
roosnam1980 replied
The Mandalorian and Grogu | Official Trailer | In Theaters May 22, 2026
2 3
120
342
EverydayBeast replied
Top Bottom