Support NeoGAF

[HStallion]

But the unborn babies are not "free to abstain" from being dismembered, burned up with saline, or having their spinal cord clipped.

Anyway, your outdated arguments are moot anyway. We are winning this battle because of science and ultrasounds of unborn children. Everyone knows what that is in there, your euphemisms about "choice" and anti-Christian bigotry are not working as well anymore. Even as younger people have moved left on many social issues, they have become more pro-life. We shall overcome.

Trump has been good on this, even though some of it may just be pandering to the base of his party. He did say on Howard Stern that he was pro-"choice." But it is normal to shift on this issue. Reagan did, Clinton did, Jesse Jackson did, etc.

Winning the battle? I'm guessing you don't pay much attention to women's rights movements as that battle is by no means over or anywhere close to "won". Let's also not kid ourselves that its not actually about being pro-life as once that life is out of the womb the concern for it drops off a cliff, especially if its not white.

 

[David___]

People are "pro-life" up until the baby comes out of the vagina, at which point they would rather have less taxes for stuff like welfare or other social programs to keep money on their paycheck and then claim that the person needing it is lazy for being in financial trouble/hardship.

 

[Airola]

Let's also not kid ourselves that its not about pro-life as once that life is out of the womb the concern for it drops off a cliff, especially if its not white.

This argument has become really tired too.

Let's not kid ourselves that most pro-choice people would change their opinion if states would support the baby and the family from birth to when the kid is 18. It's all about whether the woman wants it, no matter what support the baby would get. People would still be calling out for women's right to choose. People have used that argument many many many times and I have over and over asked what they'd think if the states would offer all possible help and if the families wouldn't have to struggle at all. The answer has always been the same: women should be able to go through abortion no matter what. It seems as if it's used only to try to make to opposing side feel bad about themselves, as a "gotcha" type of an argument.

It also sounds as if the argument is something like if the person's life becomes a struggle, it's better that the person was never born - and that's why it's ok to use whatever means necessary to stop the life from happening in the first place. Just cut the limbs off and suck it out. At least the baby doesn't have to experience hardships in life. That it's better to be dead than to struggle.

People like to ask "what if the woman is raped" or "what if the woman is about to die" and they like to say "no-one cares about the child after birth anyway."
But really, what if abortion would be ok in situations where the woman was raped or the woman is about to die? And what if states would give all the help they can, money, services, etc?
If they still say women should have the right to abort the baby even outside of those situations and even if they would get help, then why did you ask those questions and gave those arguments in the first place?

 

[HStallion]

This argument has become really tired too.

Let's not kid ourselves that most pro-choice people would change their opinion if states would support the baby and the family from birth to when the kid is 18. It's all about whether the woman wants it, no matter what support the baby would get. People would still be calling out for women's right to choose. People have used that argument many many many times and I have over and over asked what they'd think if the states would offer all possible help and if the families wouldn't have to struggle at all. The answer has always been the same: women should be able to go through abortion no matter what. It seems as if it's used only to try to make to opposing side feel bad about themselves, as a "gotcha" type of an argument.

It also sounds as if the argument is something like if the person's life becomes a struggle, it's better that the person was never born - and that's why it's ok to use whatever means necessary to stop the life from happening in the first place. Just cut the limbs off and suck it out. At least the baby doesn't have to experience hardships in life. That it's better to be dead than to struggle.

People like to ask "what if the woman is raped" or "what if the woman is about to die" and they like to say "no-one cares about the child after birth anyway."
But really, what if abortion would be ok in situations where the woman was raped or the woman is about to die? And what if states would give all the help they can, money, services, etc?
If they still say women should have the right to abort the baby even outside of those situations and even if they would get help, then why did you ask those questions and gave those arguments in the first place?

I love how every time someone who wants to take down abortion comes in they have to describe it like they're ripping fully formed children out of the womb and hacking them pieces with a butcher knife. The fact that your mind instantly goes straight to baby butchers and doesn't take much else into consideration shows that I have little to say in regard to this. All I'll add is forcing children on people who don't want them, won't care for them, will abuse them and so on and so forth comes off as far worse to me. That or its dumping them into a system that is, surprising to know one, woefully underfunded and outfitted to properly care for all the unwanted or neglected kids out there. Its basically forcing a child to be born to suffer just because it had to be born. There is no consideration for the child itself but the child as a prop in a sad crusade that's all about controlling women when it comes down to it.

 

[appaws]

Winning the battle? I'm guessing you don't pay much attention to women's rights movements as that battle is by no means over or anywhere close to "won". Let's also not kid ourselves that its not actually about being pro-life as once that life is out of the womb the concern for it drops off a cliff, especially if its not white.

It has nothing to do with women's rights. You don't give a crap about unborn women. Pro-aborts turn their heads and pretend not to see when the subject of sex-selective abortion comes up. "Not white." Do you care that unborn babies of color are disproportionately likely to be aborted?

People are "pro-life" up until the baby comes out of the vagina, at which point they would rather have less taxes for stuff like welfare or other social programs to keep money on their paycheck and then claim that the person needing it is lazy for being in financial trouble/hardship.

Any topic can be turned into a bludgeon to promote statism. Airola demolished these arguments above.

 

[HStallion]

It has nothing to do with women's rights. You don't give a crap about unborn women. Pro-aborts turn their heads and pretend not to see when the subject of sex-selective abortion comes up. "Not white." Do you care that unborn babies of color are disproportionately likely to be aborted?



Any topic can be turned into a bludgeon to promote statism. Airola demolished these arguments above.

I actually do care and that's the reason I think abortion should be an option. As I said. dumping kids onto parents who aren't ready, aren't willing or worse abusive just because they need to be born is the shining example of being callous and cruel. When people support defunding and destroying social safety nets of all kinds and then prop up being pro life it is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[David___]

I actually do care and that's the reason I think abortion should be an option. As I said. dumping kids onto parents who aren't ready, aren't willing or worse abusive just because they need to be born is the shining example of being callous and cruel. When people support defunding and destroying social safety nets of all kinds and then prop up being pro life it is the height of hypocrisy.

Doubly so when they vote for the singular party that has their platform based on both of these, add to the fact that they also love to call themselves pro small gov't.

 

[Airola]

I love how every time someone who wants to take down abortion comes in they have to describe it like they're ripping fully formed children out of the womb and hacking them pieces with a butcher knife.

No. I didn't say that. I think most don't say that. No-one is saying anyone is ripping fully formed children out of the womb and hacking them to pieces with a butcher knife. You are just twisting my words to make me sound more absurd than what I really said.

But the reality is that the abortion methods are more brutal the later it happens. You can laugh at people mentioning cutting off the limbs and sucking the thing out of the body all you want, but that's how it's done in many cases. That is what happens. There's no way around that fact.

The fact that your mind instantly goes straight to baby butchers and doesn't take much else into consideration shows that I have little to say in regard to this.

My mind didn't go instantly there. I first and foremost countered your "they don't care about them after birth" claims.

Besides, it's pretty odd thing to read that I'm not taking much else into consideration when it seems you try to completely avoid the actual abortion part of the issue. You take many thing into consideration but avoid taking the thing that is being aborted into consideration.

All I'll add is forcing children on people who don't want them, won't care for them, will abuse them and so on and so forth comes off as far worse to me. That or its dumping them into a system that is, surprising to know one, woefully underfunded and outfitted to properly care for all the unwanted or neglected kids out there. Its basically forcing a child to be born to suffer just because it had to be born. There is no consideration for the child itself but the child as a prop in a sad crusade that's all about controlling women when it comes down to it.

Huh, are you really claiming the pro-choice stance takes the child into consideration more than the pro-life stance?
I mean, really, both sides are arguing for hypothetical possibilities. The other side assumes life will be worthwhile, the other side assumes it won't. Neither of them can say for certain the life will be good. And neither can also say it will be bad. But the difference between those sides is that the other at least gives the possibility and the other one doesn't.

It's absurd to read you saying there is no consideration for the child itself when your option involves actually ending that life without even a chance to experience anything good ever. And like it or not

It's also odd how you are laughing at people mentioning the methods of abortion and implying it's based on shock value and appealing to emotion or whatever, when your examples of the potential life on earth includes scenarios involving abuse and neglection.


Personally, I have been pro-choice for most of my life and I also used to think that being against abortions is to be against women.
I now lean somewhat heavily towards pro-life even though I have still my toes dangling on the fence a bit, but I see myself slowly taking the toes off the fence too day by day.

There are three things I noticed in my logic, and the same things seem to happen in most of the discussions about this issue on the pro-choice side:
1) Dehumanization of the fetus/baby/thing/whatever. This is a really common thing to happen. It's not a baby, period. It's just a lump of tissue, period. It's as if allowing oneself to refuse to call it anything humanlike makes it easier to accept the methods by which abortions are made. It makes "life ends there" to be more like "some sort of life ends there" and it's much easier to think about.
2) Using an -ism to try to make the opposing viewpoint instantly unappealing. It's sexism and misogynism. If you think like this, you are a sexist and misogynist and you want to control women. The pro-choice side doesn't really have to make any other claims. Just say you hate and want to control women and you instantly make any opposing argument feel as if they come from a mouth of a misogynist. No one wants to be claimed to be like that so there's hope it will shut the other side down.
3) Life sucks anyway and there's no need to bring another child to suffer. I feel as if there is some sort of a depression thing going on, either full blown or underlying. Or at the very least chronic pessimism. In myself I have noticed that the further I went away from my past depression and pessimism, the less I wanted to paint a negative picture of the potential life and the less I wanted to use it to support my pro-choice views. It's as if people are mirroring their own disappointments about life on this issue. Like, it's one way to criticize the social system that has failed or disappointed them. And in some weird way death is twisted to be the more sympathetic choice, even as much as it's now ok to claim the other side doesn't really appreciate life if they don't allow that death to happen. All I can see is some kind of a depression logic behind all that. Or general misanthropy.

 

[Dunki]

Winning the battle? I'm guessing you don't pay much attention to women's rights movements as that battle is by no means over or anywhere close to "won". Let's also not kid ourselves that its not actually about being pro-life as once that life is out of the womb the concern for it drops off a cliff, especially if its not white.

They way the act the way they celebrate Islam they never will or even want to win this "battle" anyway.

Its utterly astounding to me how Feminism trying to normalize something like the Hijab that many many many many girls are forced to wear and do not even know otherwise. In some countries you get arrested for not wearing it. Meanwhile Feminism tries to celebrate some loreal model who is highly anti semitic and a great example of radical Islam. Furthermore I love how feminist are trying to slutshame other women. on social media for not wearing the stuff they aprrove of.

But you go girl. You can do everything you want to as long it is in the norm of modern Femininsm otherwise you are evil and not worth listening to.

 

[HStallion]

They way the act the way they celebrate Islam they never will or even want to win this "battle" anyway.

Its utterly astounding to me how Feminism trying to normalize something like the Hijab that many many many many girls are forced to wear and do not even know otherwise. In some countries you get arrested for not wearing it. Meanwhile Feminism tries to celebrate some loreal model who is highly anti semitic and a great example of radical Islam. Furthermore I love how feminist are trying to slutshame other women. on social media for not wearing the stuff they aprrove of.

But you go girl. You can do everything you want to as long it is in the norm of modern Femininsm otherwise you are evil and not worth listening to.

I'm not even sure what the fuck you're talking about but you go girl.

 

[Havoc2049]

Please read the article before you call it horrible. It's not an article about how bad border patrol is, they just injected it in the end. I put a disclaimer about that quote for a reason you know. Also I'm not arguing against what you're saying, a lot of money was injected into those communities as a result of border security, safety and etc. The article is really just about the wall.

I did read the article and my initial comment was about the article. There are numerous things that are factually wrong in the article. He also writes the article like a border wall, border fencing and border barricades reside in a vacuum. They are just one part of the overall solution, that when combined with Border Patrol Agents on the ground, Technology (sensors, ground radar, aircraft, cameras, night vision) and effective laws, can be effective in securing the border.

 

[HStallion]

No. I didn't say that. I think most don't say that. No-one is saying anyone is ripping fully formed children out of the womb and hacking them to pieces with a butcher knife. You are just twisting my words to make me sound more absurd than what I really said.

But the reality is that the abortion methods are more brutal the later it happens. You can laugh at people mentioning cutting off the limbs and sucking the thing out of the body all you want, but that's how it's done in many cases. That is what happens. There's no way around that fact.

Oh sorry you said cut off their limbs inside the womb and suck them out. My bad, I slightly misrepresented your purposefully loaded imagery.

My mind didn't go instantly there. I first and foremost countered your "they don't care about them after birth" claims.

Besides, it's pretty odd thing to read that I'm not taking much else into consideration when it seems you try to completely avoid the actual abortion part of the issue. You take many thing into consideration but avoid taking the thing that is being aborted into consideration.

Your mind didn't go there instantly but its still a basis for your post. Which is it? My entire point is that forcing a child to be born so it can have a shitty life just to slake Pro Birth zealots seems like an utterly cruel, callous and selfish thing. Again putting children into families that don't want them, won't care for them or worse seems like a real concern about the child. Or worse they get dumped into a system that is already underfunded and staffed in hopes that they maybe have a good life. You're more concerned about them being born and any suffering after the fact isn't a big deal.

Huh, are you really claiming the pro-choice stance takes the child into consideration more than the pro-life stance?
I mean, really, both sides are arguing for hypothetical possibilities. The other side assumes life will be worthwhile, the other side assumes it won't. Neither of them can say for certain the life will be good. And neither can also say it will be bad. But the difference between those sides is that the other at least gives the possibility and the other one doesn't.

It's absurd to read you saying there is no consideration for the child itself when your option involves actually ending that life without even a chance to experience anything good ever. An
Personally, I have been pro-choice for most of my life and I also used to think that being against abortions is to be against women.
I now lean somewhat heavily towards pro-life even though I have still my toes dangling on the fence a bit, but I see myself slowly taking the toes off the fence too day by day.

There are three things I noticed in my logic, and the same things seem to happen in most of the discussions about this issue on the pro-choice side:
1) Dehumanization of the fetus/baby/thing/whatever. This is a really common thing to happen. It's not a baby, period. It's just a lump of tissue, period. It's as if allowing oneself to refuse to call it anything humanlike makes it easier to accept the methods by which abortions are made. It makes "life ends there" to be more like "some sort of life ends there" and it's much easier to think about.
2) Using an -ism to try to make the opposing viewpoint instantly unappealing. It's sexism and misogynism. If you think like this, you are a sexist and misogynist and you want to control women. The pro-choice side doesn't really have to make any other claims. Just say you hate and want to control women and you instantly make any opposing argument feel as if they come from a mouth of a misogynist. No one wants to be claimed to be like that so there's hope it will shut the other side down.
3) Life sucks anyway and there's no need to bring another child to suffer. I feel as if there is some sort of a depression thing going on, either full blown or underlying. Or at the very least chronic pessimism. In myself I have noticed that the further I went away from my past depression and pessimism, the less I wanted to paint a negative picture of the potential life and the less I wanted to use it to support my pro-choice views. It's as if people are mirroring their own disappointments about life on this issue. Like, it's one way to criticize the social system that has failed or disappointed them. And in some weird way death is twisted to be the more sympathetic choice, even as much as it's now ok to claim the other side doesn't really appreciate life if they don't allow that death to happen. All I can see is some kind of a depression logic behind all that. Or general misanthropy.

Huh, are you really claiming the pro-choice stance takes the child into consideration more than the pro-life stance?
I mean, really, both sides are arguing for hypothetical possibilities. The other side assumes life will be worthwhile, the other side assumes it won't. Neither of them can say for certain the life will be good. And neither can also say it will be bad. But the difference between those sides is that the other at least gives the possibility and the other one doesn't.

It's absurd to read you saying there is no consideration for the child itself when your option involves actually ending that life without even a chance to experience anything good ever. And like it or not

It's also odd how you are laughing at people mentioning the methods of abortion and implying it's based on shock value and appealing to emotion or whatever, when your examples of the potential life on earth includes scenarios involving abuse and neglection.

No I'm pointing out the pro life people are often hypocritical because they support a party that is aimed at destroying the very social safety nets that are supposed to help children. I'd possible be pro life but I'd have to be blind to everything else going on in my country revolving around the fact like treating Planned Parenthood like a butcher shop that does abortions on a conveyor belt and nothing else.

Personally, I have been pro-choice for most of my life and I also used to think that being against abortions is to be against women.
I now lean somewhat heavily towards pro-life even though I have still my toes dangling on the fence a bit, but I see myself slowly taking the toes off the fence too day by day.

There are three things I noticed in my logic, and the same things seem to happen in most of the discussions about this issue on the pro-choice side:
1) Dehumanization of the fetus/baby/thing/whatever. This is a really common thing to happen. It's not a baby, period. It's just a lump of tissue, period. It's as if allowing oneself to refuse to call it anything humanlike makes it easier to accept the methods by which abortions are made. It makes "life ends there" to be more like "some sort of life ends there" and it's much easier to think about.
2) Using an -ism to try to make the opposing viewpoint instantly unappealing. It's sexism and misogynism. If you think like this, you are a sexist and misogynist and you want to control women. The pro-choice side doesn't really have to make any other claims. Just say you hate and want to control women and you instantly make any opposing argument feel as if they come from a mouth of a misogynist. No one wants to be claimed to be like that so there's hope it will shut the other side down.
3) Life sucks anyway and there's no need to bring another child to suffer. I feel as if there is some sort of a depression thing going on, either full blown or underlying. Or at the very least chronic pessimism. In myself I have noticed that the further I went away from my past depression and pessimism, the less I wanted to paint a negative picture of the potential life and the less I wanted to use it to support my pro-choice views. It's as if people are mirroring their own disappointments about life on this issue. Like, it's one way to criticize the social system that has failed or disappointed them. And in some weird way death is twisted to be the more sympathetic choice, even as much as it's now ok to claim the other side doesn't really appreciate life if they don't allow that death to happen. All I can see is some kind of a depression logic behind all that. Or general misanthropy.

1. I'm not dehumanizing anything. I'm stating the fact that Pro Life is actually Pro Birth. There is little real concern except some empty words about the children after the fact and we can see that for how the Pro Life party treats things like child healthcare, welfare and so on.
2. Because those claims are solid ones. The fact that you just try to dismiss them without countering them is pretty facile. They don't want to be claimed that because it shines a light on the ugliness around "Pro Life" that they want to ignore to champion unborn babies that turn into children they could care less about.
3. Life can and does suck for many people and trying to make this about depression or whatever is beside the point and more than a little rich considering your second point.

 

[appaws]

Your mind didn't go there instantly but its still a basis for your post. Which is it? My entire point is that forcing a child to be born so it can have a shitty life just to slake Pro Birth zealots seems like an utterly cruel, callous and selfish thing. Again putting children into families that don't want them, won't care for them or worse seems like a real concern about the child. Or worse they get dumped into a system that is already underfunded and staffed in hopes that they maybe have a good life. You're more concerned about them being born and any suffering after the fact isn't a big deal.

3. Life can and does suck for many people and trying to make this about depression or whatever is beside the point and more than a little rich considering your second point.

Your life might suck. So let's kill you. Meanie conservatives underfund the nanny state. So let's kill you....

How can we decide in advance who's life is going to suck enough to warrant death? You seem to be powerfully asserting that the poor, sick, or disabled can't have fulfilling and wonderful lives, even while overcoming obstacles.

Consider the overwhelming percentage of Down's Syndrome babies who are murdered because they are an inconvenience, like female babies are an inconvenience in some cultures and are snuffed out. Quite a statement about the depths of human depravity when we show our hierarchy of values this way.

 

[Airola]

Oh sorry you said cut off their limbs inside the womb and suck them out. My bad, I slightly misrepresented your purposefully loaded imagery.

There is really nothing loaded in that. It is what it is. I could've been way more graphic and it still would've been a factual depiction.

Your mind didn't go there instantly but its still a basis for your post. Which is it? My entire point is that forcing a child to be born so it can have a shitty life just to slake Pro Birth zealots seems like an utterly cruel, callous and selfish thing. Again putting children into families that don't want them, won't care for them or worse seems like a real concern about the child. Or worse they get dumped into a system that is already underfunded and staffed in hopes that they maybe have a good life. You're more concerned about them being born and any suffering after the fact isn't a big deal.

So:
I want a child to live even if life can be hard = selfish, callous and cruel?
I don't want a child so death is the answer = not selfish, not callous and not cruel?

1. I'm not dehumanizing anything. I'm stating the fact that Pro Life is actually Pro Birth. There is little real concern except some empty words about the children after the fact and we can see that for how the Pro Life party treats things like child healthcare, welfare and so on.

You assume that the word "life" includes constant happiness. No-one is there to kill the baby after birth. It's not Pro-GoodLife and it's not Pro-BadLife. It's Pro-Life, warts and all.

2. Because those claims are solid ones. The fact that you just try to dismiss them without countering them is pretty facile. They don't want to be claimed that because it shines a light on the ugliness around "Pro Life" that they want to ignore to champion unborn babies that turn into children they could care less about.

Claiming it's sexist and misogynist is completely ignoring the third life in the equation. There is the woman, there is the man, and there is their offspring. And that offspring is the one that gets ignored, especially when the arguments are highlighting some "they hate women" type of bullshit. It's easier to ignore the removable part when you bury it under negative -isms.

3. Life can and does suck for many people and trying to make this about depression or whatever is beside the point and more than a little rich considering your second point.

Maybe for the misanthropy part that's fair enough. But I don't think depression or pessimism is even nearly in the same ballpark than claims of sexism and misogynism.


Anyway those three things were what I saw in myself back in the day, and things I have seen happen in abortion discussions over and over again. It doesn't mean they necessarily are what you are thinking. For example the dehumanization example happens in discussions concerning the fetus still in the womb and what that is supposed to be. You have not, at least in our discussion, talked about that at all. So I didn't mean that part as a counter-argument for your "no-one cares about them after birth" claim. It's just about abortion discussions in general. Something I noticed I thought when I was pro-choice and something I've noticed that happens very often in abortion discussions. Not right now, but very often when discussion goes around the fetus still in the womb.

 

[bigedole]

So, I decided to respond to this after reading the comments on the last page, but I've seen it's getting a little heated in the back and forth and I hope people can let cooler heads prevail. I want to preface what I'm going to say by openly stating that I am pro-choice for the first trimester of pregnancy. It's a little murky for me up to 20 weeks, mainly because I'm not 100% sure how I feel about forcing people to have kids that they know have something like Down's syndrome, which you can't always find out about in the first 12 weeks (though I think this is changing and should be screenable much earlier now). I think for any reasonable person, this whole debate has got to come down to at what point during conception you consider the baby to be alive. There're a lot of arguments that can be made in many ways, I think ultimately it's going to be a matter of an opinion. I don't personally know anyone who'd say it's okay to abort a baby at 30 weeks, and I think for most that's because the sense is that this lifeform could exist outside the mother's body if it had to. It's kind of a gut feeling that I think will just be different for everyone. For me, before 12 weeks, the baby is basically a parasite and until then, I do believe in the Mother's right to choose. I hope, as adults, that such choice is never made flippantly but it's not for me to judge that choice when the simple fact is that that baby, embryo, whatever you want to call it, can not exist without the Mother's body supporting it.

As far as the Father's rights on the matter, I completely disagree with the person saying a man should be able to choose not to support a child they don't want but the mother does. For men, the decision to support a child or not is made when they decide to have sex, full stop. It's not fair, but that's life. No other solution can even be considered reasonable in the context of a civilized society. If you don't want to risk being in that situation, then don't put your penis in it. Women have to carry the child and go through labor, so the only reasonable option is to give them final say.

 

[gbpxl]

Has the sensibility a of a 14-year-old, the maturity of an 8-year-old, and the body of a 70 year old. sets America's image back at least 50 years not to mention policies that will harm the environment and do nothing to slow global warming. and does nothing about mass shootings, would prefer if everyone walked around with AR-15s and body armor.

 

[Airola]

I hope, as adults, that such choice is never made flippantly but it's not for me to judge that choice when the simple fact is that that baby, embryo, whatever you want to call it, can not exist without the Mother's body supporting it.

But then again this can also be viewed as more of a reason to protect the child. That if the womb is the only place the child can be safe in, the mother, the womb and the child should all be protected even more carefully.
Some then say there are no laws that require anyone to use their body to save anyone's life, but personally I don't think this is that simple of an issue.

I mean, people are up in arms to call out the society for cutting down safety nets for the poor and struggling people, yet they are ok with forceful removal of the embryo/child/whatever from the only place that keeps it alive.

As far as the Father's rights on the matter, I completely disagree with the person saying a man should be able to choose not to support a child they don't want but the mother does.

I'm not sure if that comment was sarcastic or not, playing devil's advocate or something like that.

Anyway, personally I think the father should be there for his child and take responsibility of it no matter what he initially thinks about it. And if the mother and the father can't be together and the father can't be with the child, he should give monetary support from wherever he is living. That's how it is in Finland anyway, and I think that's the correct way to go.

But I think the comment on the father being able to choose not to support a child was made more sarcastically to basically say "if the woman can decide what to do without letting the man chime in, then the man should have some rights too regarding what he wants to do for the child." That's not the best way to tackle the issue, but that's the only way I could at least somewhat understand why someone would say anything like that. But if they were 100% serious about it, I think they are wrong.

No I'm pointing out the pro life people are often hypocritical because they support a party that is aimed at destroying the very social safety nets that are supposed to help children. I'd possible be pro life but I'd have to be blind to everything else going on in my country revolving around the fact like treating Planned Parenthood like a butcher shop that does abortions on a conveyor belt and nothing else.

Why is Planned Parenthood's situation so important that it effects on your stance towards abortion?

It's not as if that's the only place women can get help from. There are tons of other places to receive help and information and services for pregnant women and before pregnancy.
The issue with Planned Parenthood has been that while they used to say life begins at conception, they have been shown to treat conception as something more trivial than what they used to and even if you could say the undercover videos suffer from being edited, those videos still showed a pretty serious lack of tact towards the issue by some people in the company. I think the reactions towards that have probably been overblown, but I don't think there is any sense let that reaction drive anyone towards pro-choice either. To me that would be more about politics than about the issue.

 

[bigedole]

But then again this can also be viewed as more of a reason to protect the child. That if the womb is the only place the child can be safe in, the mother, the womb and the child should all be protected even more carefully.
Some then say there are no laws that require anyone to use their body to save anyone's life, but personally I don't think this is that simple of an issue.

I mean, people are up in arms to call out the society for cutting down safety nets for the poor and struggling people, yet they are ok with forceful removal of the embryo/child/whatever from the only place that keeps it alive.



I'm not sure if that comment was sarcastic or not, playing devil's advocate or something like that..

If you go back a couple pages and read what was being said, there was definitely at least one poster seriously arguing that a man should be able to void his responsibilities to a child if they didn't want to keep it and the mother did.

For the first part, I think it's really all going to go back to where people think life begins. I have chosen to draw a line in the sand at 12 weeks. Before that, I don't think the baby/embryo is alive, and I have no problem with the decision being made to abort the fetus. I think it's a little murky until 20 weeks, but for the sake of argument, I'm against abortion any time after 12. Because at that point, I do believe the baby is a human life that deserves all the same protections of the law. Under the most extreme circumstances (and I hate these arguments, they're almost always used as strawmen) I would prioritize the mother's life over the baby's if it came down to that.

 

[gbpxl]

You assume that the word "life" incl

the only thing I'll contribute to the abortion debate is that I read a book called Freakonomics that talked about why violent crime dropped significantly in 1991. It's a great read, and not very long (less than 200 pages).

With that said, I am pro-life, and pro-responsibility. fetus=human, intentionally ending a human's life=murder, murder=bad. not my responsibility to help raise the kid (would've used a different term than kid but I don't know how strict the moderation here is) and if potential parents knew that they'd be on the hook if they decide not to wear protection, they're more likely to make smarter choices in the first place. the burden of parenthood is on the people who've made the choice to have sex in the first place, not the people who say that people shouldn't be able to kill their kids.

I know that's an unpopular viewpoint but it's not right or wrong and any argument will go nowhere basically, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[PhendranaMama]

I'll forever view life through the lens of the 2016 election.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Nah man. We call him a racist because he's obviously racist, and has been saying and doing racist things longer than I've been alive.

The term racist has been so diluted by the left it has no real impact anymore....everything is racist. Trump gives no fucks he just says what’s on his mind, and if you wanna run with it go ahead.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

The term racist has been so diluted by the left it has no real impact anymore....everything is racist. Trump gives no fucks he just says what’s on his mind, and if you wanna run with it go ahead.

Could you expand on what you mean by “diluted”? There have been numerous examples of racist quotes or actions from Trump given in this thread from throughout his life.

When did the Left start diluting the term? What about several decades ago when he was sued by the federal government for discrimination against African Americans? Has this dilution been going on for that long? Was that not actually discrimination?

 

[Autoignition]

This page reads like a bunch of men who honestly think that the abortion debate is honestly about babies and ignore the fact that abortion is a woman's health issue. The US has the highest mortality rate for pregnant women among first-world countries because of our restrictive abortion laws. Wake the fuck up. Restricting abortion kills women. Full stop. Period. The end. Not up for debate. If you're supposedly "pro-life" that should bother you.

Y'all act like stoopid wimminz get knocked up and just run to the abortion clinic as a get out of jail free card. The majority of abortions are sought by women with complicated pregnancies and married women whose birth control failed and they would not be able to support another child. Christ.

 

[Airola]

This page reads like a bunch of men who honestly think that the abortion debate is honestly about babies and ignore the fact that abortion is a woman's health issue. The US has the highest mortality rate for pregnant women among first-world countries because of our restrictive abortion laws. Wake the fuck up. Restricting abortion kills women. Full stop. Period. The end. Not up for debate. If you're supposedly "pro-life" that should bother you.

Abortion kills unborn life (unborn life meaning life living inside of the womb instead of outside of the womb). Full stop. Period. The end. Not up for debate.

This is not a black and white issue. This is absolutely a severe issue for both women and two people's offspring living inside of the womb. Besides, many pro-life people think abortion is ok when continuing pregnancy would mean the mother's death.

Because it is such a severe issue, people should take way more responsibility what comes to having sex with each other. Birth control is not an excuse to be careless and irresponsible with sex. A "what if" scenario always exists. And if "we can always abort it" is the go-to answer instead of "I will take responsibility", it is very worrying. It's frankly disgusting how many men just ditch the woman altogether when this "what if" scenario happens. I think spineless irresponsible men is one of the bigger reasons women feel abortion is the only option available. Men should and first and foremost be there to show the women that they are not alone in this situation.

In any case, one thing is 100% certain in each and every abortion there is. A thing, whether you call it an embryo, a fetus, a lump of ooze, a person, a baby or a child, dies. This is the one death that will 100% surely happen each and every time. And that is not up for debate.
You may or may not care about that, but that is still a 100% fact.
Other social issues such as women's rights and health should not be used as a rug to cover this fact of this issue. I get it, it's important to think about that side of the issue too, but it's not the thing that ends the debate.

Y'all act like stoopid wimminz...

And what's this all about?
Is this "stoopid wimminz" thing supposed to show pro-life people are dumb who don't know how to write?
Are you trying to add some spice to your argument by throwing in stereotypes?

 

[Autoignition]

Abortion kills unborn life (unborn life meaning life living inside of the womb instead of outside of the womb). Full stop. Period. The end. Not up for debate.

An unborn life has no value. Hypothetical value is not a thing. A wife, mother, and professional in her field does have demonstrable value. If she dies, her children go motherless, her household is without a full set of income, and a member of the community is gone. This is not a hard comparison to make. We should hold the mother's life in higher priority every time.

Because it is such a severe issue, people should take way more responsibility what comes to having sex with each other.

Fuck this argument. There's no way to know during sex that the pregnancy will end up with complications, especially if the woman in question has already had a child or two with no problems.

Birth control is not an excuse to be careless and irresponsible with sex.

I don't know what this means. If you're using birth control, you're having responsible sex. That's what responsible sex is. Or are you really trying to argue that a low-income married couple (or just poor people in general) should just abstain from having sex just because the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy exists, even with precautions taken? That seems outrageously cruel and out of touch with reality.

Other social issues such as women's rights and health should not be used as a rug to cover this fact of this issue.

On the contrary, you're using a bs argument about the hypothetical value of a person who doesn't even exist yet to sweep women's health under the rug and are effectively saying that you don't care if women die. Trying to pretty it up with statements like "this is not a black and white issue" doesn't really erase the fact that when you argue in favor of restricting abortion, you're arguing in favor of allowing women to die. (and FYI the fetus usually dies in those situations too, making the woman's death completely meaningless. it's even more egregious when she's already miscarried and she dies over a dead fucking fetus that a doctor refuses to remove because of restrictive abortion laws.)

Are you trying to add some spice to your argument by throwing in stereotypes?

No, I'm trying to mock the logistics behind your argument, because your prior posts make it sound like some slut-shaming bs about how women need to keep their legs shut and maybe they wouldn't have to run to the abortion clinic.

 

[Airola]

An unborn life has no value. Hypothetical value is not a thing. A wife, mother, and professional in her field does have demonstrable value. If she dies, her children go motherless, her household is without a full set of income, and a member of the community is gone. This is not a hard comparison to make. We should hold the mother's life in higher priority every time.

If unborn life has no value to you, I assume you accept abortion up until birth. If so, I'll give you that you at least are consistent with your stance. But for many that is simply not the case. For many the new life holds amazing amount of value the closer the birth is. And many feel the life has value immediately they see the first ultrasound pictures. And many feel the value even before that.

In fact abortion causes amazing amount of distress to some women. It shows that even though they felt it's better to have an abortion, that life inside of them actually had some value. If it didn't have, they wouldn't be distressed about it. Some women even feel the need to have a ritual of some sort to be able to let go of what they lost. Obviously not everyone feels like this, but this is a thing that exists and it shows your opinion about the value of an unborn life is just that, an opinion, and not something that could or even should be used to make resolutions to the issue.

Besides, a pregnant woman can have value by just existing among the community. Sometimes it causes excitement to the community. Sometimes it just makes people happy to see one of the women in the community is pregnant. Sometimes it gives people hope for the future. I would even claim that when people see other people die, even in the most dire surroundings, a pregnant woman can be the single biggest reason for people to get their hopes up for the future.

Fuck this argument. There's no way to know during sex that the pregnancy will end up with complications, especially if the woman in question has already had a child or two with no problems.

And that's why it's even more important to not take sex too lightly and always keep a sense of responsibility for situations that might cause new life to exist. Being responsible to use safe sex methods does not take away your responsibility for situations after that might fail.

I don't know what this means. If you're using birth control, you're having responsible sex. That's what responsible sex is. Or are you really trying to argue that a low-income married couple (or just poor people in general) should just abstain from having sex just because the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy exists, even with precautions taken? That seems outrageously cruel and out of touch with reality.

It means that your responsibility does not stop in using a contraception. Your responsibility goes beyond that. That goes for both the male and the female.
You can have sex in ways that don't involve the possibility of new life. And when you do have sex that involves that possibility even when using a condom or anything else, you have to understand there is still a possibility that new life begins. Your sense of responsibility has to take that into account as well. And that responsibility, especially for men, involves taking care of the health of both the mother and the new life.

On the contrary, you're using a bs argument about the hypothetical value of a person who doesn't even exist yet to sweep women's health under the rug and are effectively saying that you don't care if women die. Trying to pretty it up with statements like "this is not a black and white issue" doesn't really erase the fact that when you argue in favor of restricting abortion, you're arguing in favor of allowing women to die. (and FYI the fetus usually dies in those situations too, making the woman's death completely meaningless. it's even more egregious when she's already miscarried and she dies over a dead fucking fetus that a doctor refuses to remove because of restrictive abortion laws.)

Can't you see the same arguments can be used by switching the word women to children/fetuses/whatever around.

So when does these new persons begin to exist? When they start to speak? When they crie their first cry? When they are completely removed from the mother? When their head shows up? When they are about to be born? Are they nonexisting when they are still inside the mother? Is the belly of the mother a place of nonexistence?

Believe me, I have gone through these same arguments over and over again myself when I was fully pro-choice.

No, I'm trying to mock the logistics behind your argument, because your prior posts make it sound like some slut-shaming bs about how women need to keep their legs shut and maybe they wouldn't have to run to the abortion clinic.

If you see this as slut-shaming, which it's not, at least then say I'm slut-shaming both women and men instead of trying to shut it down with some "you are anti-women because of x" strawmen.

 

[Autoignition]

If unborn life has no value to you, I assume you accept abortion up until birth. If so, I'll give you that you at least are consistent with your stance. But for many that is simply not the case. For many the new life holds amazing amount of value the closer the birth is. And many feel the life has value immediately they see the first ultrasound pictures. And many feel the value even before that.

In fact abortion causes amazing amount of distress to some women. It shows that even though they felt it's better to have an abortion, that life inside of them actually had some value. If it didn't have, they wouldn't be distressed about it. Some women even feel the need to have a ritual of some sort to be able to let go of what they lost. Obviously not everyone feels like this, but this is a thing that exists and it shows your opinion about the value of an unborn life is just that, an opinion, and not something that could or even should be used to make resolutions to the issue.

Don't mansplain to me about the distress of having an abortion; I've had one, and I have PTSD from it. I'm still fully pro-choice, because I know that if I couldn't get the procedure done, I would have killed myself. My blood would have been on the hands of you and every constituent and lawmaker who prevented me from having one. I never, ever, ever want to hear a story about a woman who took her own life the way I almost took mine.

Besides, a pregnant woman can have value by just existing among the community. Sometimes it causes excitement to the community. Sometimes it just makes people happy to see one of the women in the community is pregnant. Sometimes it gives people hope for the future. I would even claim that when people see other people die, even in the most dire surroundings, a pregnant woman can be the single biggest reason for people to get their hopes up for the future.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything that we're discussing.

And that's why it's even more important to not take sex too lightly and always keep a sense of responsibility for situations that might cause new life to exist. Being responsible to use safe sex methods does not take away your responsibility for situations after that might fail.

This has literally nothing to do with what you quoted from me. Unless you mean that having a complicated pregnancy means that you should "take responsibility" by allowing yourself to be killed by your unborn baby? What kind of fucking monster are you?

It means that your responsibility does not stop in using a contraception. Your responsibility goes beyond that. That goes for both the male and the female.
You can have sex in ways that don't involve the possibility of new life. And when you do have sex that involves that possibility even when using a condom or anything else, you have to understand there is still a possibility that new life begins. Your sense of responsibility has to take that into account as well. And that responsibility, especially for men, involves taking care of the health of both the mother and the new life.

So, yes, you think poor people should not have intercourse. Lovely. We've got some classism mixed in with your sexism.

So when does these new persons begin to exist? When they start to speak? When they crie their first cry? When they are completely removed from the mother? When their head shows up? When they are about to be born? Are they nonexisting when they are still inside the mother? Is the belly of the mother a place of nonexistence?

Believe me, I have gone through these same arguments over and over again myself when I was fully pro-choice.

They begin to exist when the mother in question sees the merit of bringing them to term and not a second sooner.

 

[Airola]

Don't mansplain to me about the distress of having an abortion; I've had one, and I have PTSD from it. I'm still fully pro-choice, because I know that if I couldn't get the procedure done, I would have killed myself. My blood would have been on the hands of you and every constituent and lawmaker who prevented me from having one. I never, ever, ever want to hear a story about a woman who took her own life the way I almost took mine.

Ok, I'm going to roll my eyes on the mansplaining part.
(would be interesting to have a thread about "mansplaining" here though)

For the rest I say I'm sorry you have gone through terrible things. I do not take anyone's depression and suicidal thoughts lightly. Never ever. I don't assume you believe a word of that, and you don't have to, but that's how it is for me.
Suicide is a horrible thing. I could go on about that issue quite a bit more but as this abortion thing is already so much off topic I'll leave that subject alone.

But I will say that my and probably everyone else's hands already are bloody, more or less indirectly, from all kinds of shit that happen around the world. Calling that out does not tackle the issues themselves at all.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything that we're discussing.

Why not? You said unborn life has no value. I wrote some examples when it might have some value.

This has literally nothing to do with what you quoted from me. Unless you mean that having a complicated pregnancy means that you should "take responsibility" by allowing yourself to be killed by your unborn baby?

No, I have already mentioned the possibility of allowing abortions if carrying on with pregnancy would kill the mother.
I personally would probably allow it in cases of rape, incest and if there is something severely wrong with the baby. I used the word 'probably' because that's where I'm still on the fence as I'm not 110% pro-life but it's increasingly hard for me to find any perfect arguments to support that but I still do though.

What kind of fucking monster are you?

So now not only I am a misogynist and sexist and upper class hater of poor people (and a "mansplainer"), I am a monster too. Not only a monster, but a fucking monster. That surely helps with your arguments. It's easier to dismiss the other side when that side is a literal demon.

So, yes, you think poor people should not have intercourse. Lovely. We've got some classism mixed in with your sexism.

Where did I say that? Just because I call for responsibility it doesn't mean you can't have an intercourse.
Please talk about the issues instead of painting the opposing side as being every boogieman you can think of.

I am pretty poor myself. I have never had income that goes over the line of being statistically poor in Finland. The line is obviously pretty arbitrary and not any way comparable to any real poorness levels in the world though.
I have sex.
But I don't forget my responsibilities if new life begins to exist because I wanted to have sex.

They begin to exist when the mother in question sees the merit of bringing them to term and not a second sooner.

Where's the science in that? What if the mother first sees the merit and then decides there's no merit anymore? Does the life suddenly gain and then as suddenly get rid of its value just because how the mother happens to think about it? Does this mother's mind based merit carry on post birth too? Does the value go away immediately if the mother just decides it is so?

 

[Autoignition]

No, I have already mentioned the possibility of allowing abortions if carrying on with pregnancy would kill the mother.
I personally would probably allow it in cases of rape, incest and if there is something severely wrong with the baby.

How would you enforce that, when the majority of rapists are never convicted? So the women who can't prove it, or whose trials don't pan out, just have to suffer and deal with it? What about women who never see the face of their attacker, because it was either too dark or they were unconscious? This is even ignoring the fact that the justice system moves like molasses in this country and most criminal trials take longer to complete than the full term of a pregnancy.

What about women like me? I was none of those things. You said that you don't take depression and suicide lightly. Would you have let me kill myself?

So now not only I am a misogynist and sexist and upper class hater of poor people (and a "mansplainer"), I am a monster too. Not only a monster, but a fucking monster. That surely helps with your arguments. It's easier to dismiss the other side when that side is a literal demon.

The question was rhetorical and its relevance dependent on you answering "yes" to the previous question. Don't be obtuse.

Where did I say that? Just because I call for responsibility it doesn't mean you can't have an intercourse.

When you said: "You can have sex in ways that don't involve the possibility of new life." You're offering an alternative for intercourse, implying that you think these people should abstain from intercourse.

I am pretty poor myself. I have never had income that goes over the line of being statistically poor in Finland. The line is obviously pretty arbitrary and not any way comparable to any real poorness levels in the world though.

Then you're clearly not the kind of person I'm talking about.

Where's the science in that?

A woman's understanding of her wellness and financial situation is not a scientific equation.

What if the mother first sees the merit and then decides there's no merit anymore? Does the life suddenly gain and then as suddenly get rid of its value just because how the mother happens to think about it?

Then that's her choice. That's why it's called a choice.

Does this mother's mind based merit carry on post birth too?

No, because her body is no longer being used as an incubator and the child is an autonomous person.

 

[Airola]

How would you enforce that, when the majority of rapists are never convicted? So the women who can't prove it, or whose trials don't pan out, just have to suffer and deal with it? What about women who never see the face of their attacker, because it was either too dark or they were unconscious? This is even ignoring the fact that the justice system moves like molasses in this country and most criminal trials take longer to complete than the full term of a pregnancy.

First of all, it's not the fault of the new life and it's not the fault of the mother either that the father is a disgusting rapist. That's the argument that I battle with whenever I question my personal pro-choice arguments.

But yeah, that is a tough problem. But I don't think the solution would be to let the relatively rare cases be the deciding factor on how the rest of the cases should be treated.

It's a complex issue full of "what about this and that" scenarios that all need to be addressed. There are tons of that type of scenarios for both pro-choice and pro-life sides.

A few examples:
While it's a terrible situation for the woman and while it can be terrible for a child to know they were born from rape, there still are children like that who are glad they weren't aborted. And then again in those cases what about the mothers whose lives can still be ruined even if the kid would have an ok life (maybe someone adopted the child - or maybe the child just doesn't care how they became into existence).
And yes, there is a problem if the rape has to be legally proved before doing it. Going through the legal system can hurt the woman even more. And then if rape does not have to be proved in court to be able to have an abortion, then there is the danger of misusing that and falsely accusing someone of rape. And that again makes it more possible for rapists to use those false accusations to hide their own crimes and claim they were falsely accused.

So should this complex problem be the reason to just let abortions be done for any reason so that tough situations like that don't ever happen and no-one has to ever go through that? Maybe, but then again is that really right for all those lives that will prematurely end because we didn't want these complex situations to exist?

I think that even if abortions would be accepted for any cause for anyone in any place, I still think this discussion is good to be kept alive because it's basically the only way to keep abortions from growing as just a form of contraception.

What about women like me? I was none of those things. You said that you don't take depression and suicide lightly. Would you have let me kill myself?

If I could choose and if I could have any say on the matter, I would not let anyone to kill themselves, ever.
At the very least, if I knew you and if I could talk to you, I would try to talk you out of the suicidal thoughts. And I would tell you about the chance to give the child to adoption if the thought of raising the child would be the reason for the suicidal thoughts. The first thing to do certainly would be to try to offer reasons to other solutions that don't involve anyone or anything to be killed.
But in reality even if I knew you, you probably wouldn't let me know about it. And as in reality I don't know you my chances to help you or anyone else on this matter are close to zero anyway.

Obviously I don't know the reasons you felt the only option for you was to kill yourself so it's hard to say anything constructive on that matter.

However, one thing I want to say now is that it's not good to keep any sort of "it would be your fault if I killed myself" thinking alive. First of all it rarely does any good to blame outsiders on what you chose to do with your life. Suicides cause tons of misery to the relatives and people who knew the person and it's hard for people close to that person to not blame themselves regardless what the real reasons were. And then there are people who get more willpower to commit the suicide because they believe they can show the world or just certain people something. Any kind of "that'll show them" mentality can be something that causes people to step over the line.

The question was rhetorical and its relevance dependent on you answering "yes" to the previous question. Don't be obtuse.

That type of language clearly has more load to it than just being a possible outcome whether a person replies the other question "correctly" or not.

When you said: "You can have sex in ways that don't involve the possibility of new life." You're offering an alternative for intercourse, implying that you think these people should abstain from intercourse.

"You can have sex in ways that don't involve the possibility of new life. And when you do have sex that involves that possibility even when using a condom or anything else..."

Then you're clearly not the kind of person I'm talking about.

Then I'd say it's better to not make such assumptions in the first place if you are not sure about what you are about to claim.

A woman's understanding of her wellness and financial situation is not a scientific equation.

But it's absurd to not look at science when talking about when human is a human or a person is a person. The facts of the world are not dependant on what an individual just thinks they are. A personhood doesn't come from someone else's current health and even less it comes from someone else's financial situation.

Then that's her choice. That's why it's called a choice.

People have the choice to do whatever they want. People have the choice to do good things and bad things. People have the choice to try to break into Area 51 if they want to.
There is a reason some choices have been made easier to act upon than others and there's a reason why acting upon some choices are even punishable.

The problem here is if the thought of the choice of the mother is more important than the thought of the right of the new life to grow in the womb and be able to experience life outside the womb.

No, because her body is no longer being used as an incubator and the child is an autonomous person.

The child still needs all the help they can get after they are born. They will simply die if no-one does nothing for them. They can't eat or drink anything without help. They are about as autonomous right after the birth than what they are in the last month of pregnancy. Babies survive prematural births earlier and earlier. At some point the record was a few days more than 21 weeks. After 30 weeks the survival rate is way higher. With current medical help and knowledge the babies don't rely that much on the mother to be able to survive.

 

[Autoignition]

I give up. Even after all of this, you still place a greater value on the hypothetical worth of a lump of cells than of the feelings, health, and life of the fully grown woman carrying it. You just don't care about the quality of women's lives or whether they live or die. You don't care about my experience, you don't care about the experiences of so many other women like me, and there's nothing I can say to get you to understand. It's nice to know how little my life is worth in the eyes of those I speak with, I guess.

By the way, I didn't say it before, but your whole "take responsibility" mindset disgusts and horrifies me, because not only does it imply that getting an abortion is somehow irresponsible (when honestly it's the most responsible decision a person can make, in most cases), but it also puts the concept of having a baby in such a language as to imply that it's a punishment. And to think of a human life as a punishment is abhorrent.

This is what women are talking about when we say that men look at us as sub human, by the way.

 

[Dienekes]

Hi everyone. We are definitely happy to let tangentials to a topic (in this case pro life/choice) run their course in a thread where relevant, but I believe for the purpose of this thread topic, it has done so now. If others wish to continue this particular debate, please create a thread topic for that, so all of the forum can participate and any discussion therein may continue.

Also, as an aside, while I've not seen any personal attacks per se, a few of the comments have been a bit barbed. Please be respectful of all our members when commenting and perhaps make your points a bit less aggressively.

Thanks.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Anyone saying lump of cells obviously has never had a child...

 

[VAL0R]

Someone should start an abortion topic per Dienekes suggestion (I can't).

 

[Dienekes]

Someone should start an abortion topic per Dienekes suggestion (I can't).

If you all really feel you must, please make sure it’s done right and with forethought and care as that is a very, very hot topic that is extremely sensitive for both sides. Do not use the word ‘official’ (we don't have an OT for this subject) or ‘abortion’ (over Pro life/ Pro choice) in the title and do not set a negative tone in the OP or gloss over it quickly. The OP should have something to say worthy of this level of discussion and in the most respectful of manners for any kind of productive discourse to be had (as the OP sets the high-bar often in these threads).

It will also be monitored very closely and those being disrespectful, hurtful and/or inflammatory will not be allowed to continue therein. (don't read into that, opinions are fine, just know that what/how you're saying it has an effect on our members here and we want to keep a high bar for important topics like this).

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

removed content by Dienekes

 

[Tams]

Okay, so going back to the topic at hand.

As an outsider, it's been morbidly fascinating watching what's been going on with Trump (my own country's (UK) problems notwithstanding).

He represents groups of people who's concerns have been ignored for all too long. That's not to say those concerns are all rational and just. I like most things though, many do have at least grains of truth to them. Is immigration problematic in some ways? Yes. Do some people feel their communities are coming under threat? Yes. Do people feel their identities are threatened? Yes. These people have for a large part been ignored. Trump offered and in some cases promised what they wanted to hear, so they voted for him.

Now, as Trump achieved much of that? No, not at all. In my opinion in a large part because what he wants to do is morally and ethically wrong, as well as just factually wrong. Clearly enough people to stop him enacting what he wants think so too, or at least have differing opinions to him.

It's not just the US. The rise of the right across the world is a sign that people have been ignored.

 

[Vicetrailia]

January off to a good start!

“Supporters of President Donald Trump used racist language against dark-skinned public servants while rallying against immigration, the Arizona Capitol Times reported Saturday.

Supporters of President Donald Trump singled out dark-skinned lawmakers, legislative staffers and children at the Capitol on Jan. 25 as they protested congressional efforts to pass immigration reform, according to staffers of the Arizona Legislature and two Democratic legislators, AZ Capitol Times reported. “Waving large flags in support of Trump while standing between the House and Senate buildings, the protesters, who were also armed, asked just about anyone who crossed their path if they ‘support illegal immigration.’”

One dark-skinned Arizonian who was asked if he was in the country “illegally” was Rep. Eric Descheenie (D-Chinle).

Rep. Descheenie is a Navajo lawmaker.

“I’m indigenous to these lands,” Rep. Descheenie said. “My ancestors fought and died on these lands. I just told them, ‘Don’t ask me that question.’”

Legislative staffers Lisette Flores and Selianna Robles had gone to a local farmers’ market for lunch and were also accosted.

“We’re walking back, and they start yelling again, ‘Get out of the country.’ At that point, they pointed to Lisette, called her an illegal, and said, ‘Get out, go back home!’” Robles said. “But they pointed at Jane (Ahern), who works for the House, and they said, ‘No, you can stay.’”

Ahern is white.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/ge...-arizona-trump-supporters-accusing-illegally/

 

[bigedole]

January off to a good start!



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/ge...-arizona-trump-supporters-accusing-illegally/

Reads like something straight out of satire.

 

[BANGS]

January off to a good start!



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/ge...-arizona-trump-supporters-accusing-illegally/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/raw-story/

 

[pramod]

Okay, so going back to the topic at hand.

As an outsider, it's been morbidly fascinating watching what's been going on with Trump (my own country's (UK) problems notwithstanding).

He represents groups of people who's concerns have been ignored for all too long. That's not to say those concerns are all rational and just. I like most things though, many do have at least grains of truth to them. Is immigration problematic in some ways? Yes. Do some people feel their communities are coming under threat? Yes. Do people feel their identities are threatened? Yes. These people have for a large part been ignored. Trump offered and in some cases promised what they wanted to hear, so they voted for him.

It's not just the US. The rise of the right across the world is a sign that people have been ignored.

Yeah you are 100% correct. But the problem now is the current Democrat "resistance" against Trump still do not recognize or value any of the concerns of these people. That's why I think it's highly likely they will run an extremely left-wing, out of touch politician like Kamala Harris and Trump will get re-elected as a result.

 

[Corrik]

I was not thrilled with Trump as a candidate. I say that as a Republican who supported Jeb Bush then Kasich.

I, however, viewed only two options worse than Trump. Cruz and Clinton.

Thus, Trump got my vote. And, I cannot act like his positions do not mirror a lot of my own. Surprisingly way moreso than Bush's did.

I just am not fond entirely of how much he is making a show of things or his way of orating. I mean, do not get me wrong, I am one of apparently the few Americans who seem to get Trump's humor and laugh at his jokes instead of making huge deals mocking or calling him stupid. However, I think he could do more to filter his thoughts and say them in better ways.

That said, I think Trump's first year has been good. I do not know many of anyone besides dreamers who can say Trump has negatively affected them in his first year. I got a tax cut that will help me a ton. He is supporting initiatives that help me where I work indirectly. ISIS has been decimated. We stayed strong on foreign policy. It was a pretty good year. However, it was a year I was ready to write off as a bad one prior to the tax bill getting passed.

Before the tax bill, I was pretty set for voting elsewhere for President in 2020. Now, I am continuing my wait and see approach.

Infrastructure bill, fighting pharma, health care reform hopefully, and some combating of the opiod crisis would be what I would like to see.

 

[Corrik]

Yeah you are 100% correct. But the problem now is the current Democrat "resistance" against Trump still do not recognize or value any of the concerns of these people. That's why I think it's highly likely they will run an extremely left-wing, out of touch politician like Kamala Harris and Trump will get re-elected as a result.

This may sound dumb, but I am feeling very much like Clinton is trying to prime to run again. She is doing a lot to stay in the public view.

 

[David___]

Yeah you are 100% correct. But the problem now is the current Democrat "resistance" against Trump still do not recognize or value any of the concerns of these people. That's why I think it's highly likely they will run an extremely left-wing, out of touch politician like Kamala Harris and Trump will get re-elected as a result.

The states that actually matter (ie swing states) barely leaned Trump, and that has more to do with Clinton being stupid and not bothering to go to them during the campaign trail at all. Also with an influx of Puerto Ricans one of them might stop being a swing state all together due to the Trump admin forcing people to migrate to the mainland.

 

[Autoignition]

This may sound dumb, but I am feeling very much like Clinton is trying to prime to run again. She is doing a lot to stay in the public view.

She said multiple times she's done; never again.

She stays in public view because she knows that she won the popular vote by a 3mil margin, and seeing her regularly gives a lot of people in this country comfort and catharsis. It works. At least, for me it does.

 

[BANGS]

She said multiple times she's done; never again

Yeah but she says alot of bullshit...

 

[Autoignition]

Yeah but she says alot of bullshit...

Politifact has her rated as one of the single most honest politicians in this country.

 

[Corrik]

Politifact has her rated as one of the single most honest politicians in this country.

I bet with her flops on gay marriage and black superpredators. She literally just says what she thinks people want to hear.

Disclaimer: I am very anti Hillary.

 

[Autoignition]

I bet with her flops on gay marriage and black superpredators. She literally just says what she thinks people want to hear.

Disclaimer: I am very anti Hillary.

This has nothing to do with my post.

I feel like I have to write that every single time I have a conversation on this site lately.

 

[Corrik]

This has nothing to do with my post.

I feel like I have to write that every single time I have a conversation on this site lately.

You spoke about honesty. I spoke about how she changes positions on core messages constantly according to what people want to hear. That is dishonest on a base level.

I would rather someone be consistent on their position and tell tall tales regarding it here and there than someone who changes their positions depending on who they are talking to.

One I view as more dishonest than the other.

You do not have to talk down to me. You can just acknowledge my position and respond to it normally.