Support NeoGAF

[PogiJones]

This just sounds petty. You don't want women to have abortion rights because men don't? Pregnancy is inherently unjust; it's something women are responsible for, it's their bodies. How about just giving people as much freedom as possible, for the greater good of the world.

No, you misunderstand. I don't want women to have unnecessary abortions because it KILLS THE FETUS, who did nothing wrong. I bring up the fact that men's offspring choice happens at the time of sex to show that making a choice at that point is possible and reasonable, both in practice and in law. More specifically, I bring it up to counter the oft-cited argument that women sometimes don't know what they're getting into, so they need a way to back out of the fruit of their actions. But that's not true. Sometimes they want a way to back out, and for many their quality of life might improve by backing out. But they do not need a way out, just as men do not need a way out. To suggest they can't make rational decisions as quickly as men is just being disingenuous to women, and above all, has dire implications for the fetuses. And lest you miss my point again, I'm going to bold it: I do not believe egalitarianism is always right, and I am all for accommodating women with their unique needs in every reasonable way. I do not oppose women getting at-will abortions because men can't get it, or because I don't want to accommodate women. I don't give a crap about getting my fair treatment. I accommodate--and support societal accommodations for--pregnant women (including my wife) in every possible and reasonable way that is not killing a fetus.
Do all the dishes? Check. Drive? Yes. Give her daily massages? I sure did. All those things are not killing a fetus. If the man and woman both chose to have sex, and she then decides she doesn't want the very product of having sex, the fetus should not be the one to pay for this reversal with its life.

"Freedom?" "Her body?" "Greater Good of the world?" That's a lot of god-terms to assign exclusively to your viewpoint. Give women all the freedoms they want. Give everyone all the freedoms they want. Give her all the control over her body she wants...AS LONG AS IT'S NOT UNNECESSARILY HARMING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ELSE. If we have to abort to save the mother's life or to prevent the life-long trauma of remembering your rapist every time you see your baby, then those are necessary abortions that we unfortunately need to do "for the greater good of the world." But If there is a reasonable way to allow the fetus to live, we should undertake every care to do so. Preventing the killing of fetuses is, with very few exceptions, "for the Greater Good of the world." Healthy pregnancy is not always ideal, and it can be painful, but every one of our ancestors has done it. It is a reasonable (and only) method of not killing the fetus, even for poor people. Yes, poor babies have a higher risk of committing a crime. But I think we've all seen the Minority Report.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It amazes me that abortion is still a political issue in the US. :\

It also amazes me that people still cannot understand that it's none of their business what another person does with their body.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

No, you misunderstand. I don't want women to have unnecessary abortions because it KILLS THE FETUS, who did nothing wrong. I bring up the fact that men's offspring choice happens at the time of sex to show that making a choice at that point is possible and reasonable, both in practice and in law. More specifically, I bring it up to counter the oft-cited argument that women sometimes don't know what they're getting into, so they need a way to back out of the fruit of their actions. But that's not true. Sometimes they want a way to back out, and for many their quality of life might improve by backing out. But they do not need a way out, just as men do not need a way out. To suggest they can't make rational decisions as quickly as men is just being disingenuous to women, and above all, has dire implications for the fetuses. And lest you miss my point again, I'm going to bold it: I do not believe egalitarianism is always right, and I am all for accommodating women with their unique needs in every reasonable way. I do not oppose women getting at-will abortions because men can't get it, or because I don't want to accommodate women. I don't give a crap about getting my fair treatment. I accommodate--and support societal accommodations for--pregnant women (including my wife) in every possible and reasonable way that is not killing a fetus.
Do all the dishes? Check. Drive? Yes. Give her daily massages? I sure did. All those things are not killing a fetus. If the man and woman both chose to have sex, and she then decides she doesn't want the very product of having sex, the fetus should not be the one to pay for this reversal with its life.

"Freedom?" "Her body?" "Greater Good of the world?" That's a lot of god-terms to assign exclusively to your viewpoint. Give women all the freedoms they want. Give everyone all the freedoms they want. Give her all the control over her body she wants...AS LONG AS IT'S NOT UNNECESSARILY HARMING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ELSE. If we have to abort to save the mother's life or to prevent the life-long trauma of remembering your rapist every time you see your baby, then those are necessary abortions that we unfortunately need to do "for the greater good of the world." But If there is a reasonable way to allow the fetus to live, we should undertake every care to do so. Preventing the killing of fetuses is, with very few exceptions, "for the Greater Good of the world." Healthy pregnancy is not always ideal, and it can be painful, but every one of our ancestors has done it. It is a reasonable (and only) method of not killing the fetus, even for poor people. Yes, poor babies have a higher risk of committing a crime. But I think we've all seen the Minority Report.

So you're a sexist. I gotcha. BTW cells are not human, nor do they feel pain. In fact, it's very late in the pregnancy when the fetus does, farther than any legal abortions unless a medical emergency . Even, a lot of scientists argue that it's even after it is born and not counting just reactions to nerve stimuli.

 

[pigeon]

The President of the Senate looked like he had no idea what he was doing, mostly evidenced by the fact that he had to consult the parliamentarian next to him literally after every single sentence he spoke. Before last night I would have assumed the President of the Senate knew how to run the Senate, but that apparently is not the case.

I believe that Dewhurst, the technical president of the Texas senate, was absent, and Duncan, another senator, was running the show. Since 90% of the time being Senate president is basically a thankless and powerless job, it's usually handed off. For example, in the federal Senate, the Vice-President is President of the Senate, the senior senator is the President pro tempore, and the junior senators actually do the job of presiding so that they can learn parliamentary procedure. But typically in a situation that matters the president will show up!

 

[Qazaq]

I bring up the fact that men's offspring choice happens at the time of sex to show that making a choice at that point is possible and reasonable, both in practice and in law. More specifically, I bring it up to counter the oft-cited argument that women sometimes don't know what they're getting into, so they need a way to back out of the fruit of their actions. But that's not true. Sometimes they want a way to back out, and for many their quality of life might improve by backing out. But they do not need a way out, just as men do not need a way out

O.O

Are you trolling? This must be a troll post. It's actually hysterically brilliant.

 

[el retorno]

It amazes me that abortion is still a political issue in the US. :\

And its not in other places?

Its a big deal in Europe still. Its not even legal in some European Countries, Ireland for one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

 

[Zoe]

I believe that Dewhurst, the technical president of the Texas senate, was absent, and Duncan, another senator, was running the show. Since 90% of the time being Senate president is basically a thankless and powerless job, it's usually handed off. For example, in the federal Senate, the Vice-President is President of the Senate, the senior senator is the President pro tempore, and the junior senators actually do the job of presiding so that they can learn parliamentary procedure. But typically in a situation that matters the president will show up!

Dewhurst stepped aside when his final ruling came under question.

 

[LuchaShaq]

No, you misunderstand. I don't want women to have unnecessary abortions because it KILLS THE FETUS, who did nothing wrong. I bring up the fact that men's offspring choice happens at the time of sex to show that making a choice at that point is possible and reasonable, both in practice and in law. More specifically, I bring it up to counter the oft-cited argument that women sometimes don't know what they're getting into, so they need a way to back out of the fruit of their actions. But that's not true. Sometimes they want a way to back out, and for many their quality of life might improve by backing out. But they do not need a way out, just as men do not need a way out. To suggest they can't make rational decisions as quickly as men is just being disingenuous to women, and above all, has dire implications for the fetuses. And lest you miss my point again, I'm going to bold it: I do not believe egalitarianism is always right, and I am all for accommodating women with their unique needs in every reasonable way. I do not oppose women getting at-will abortions because men can't get it, or because I don't want to accommodate women. I don't give a crap about getting my fair treatment. I accommodate--and support societal accommodations for--pregnant women (including my wife) in every possible and reasonable way that is not killing a fetus.
Do all the dishes? Check. Drive? Yes. Give her daily massages? I sure did. All those things are not killing a fetus. If the man and woman both chose to have sex, and she then decides she doesn't want the very product of having sex, the fetus should not be the one to pay for this reversal with its life.

"Freedom?" "Her body?" "Greater Good of the world?" That's a lot of god-terms to assign exclusively to your viewpoint. Give women all the freedoms they want. Give everyone all the freedoms they want. Give her all the control over her body she wants...AS LONG AS IT'S NOT UNNECESSARILY HARMING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ELSE. If we have to abort to save the mother's life or to prevent the life-long trauma of remembering your rapist every time you see your baby, then those are necessary abortions that we unfortunately need to do "for the greater good of the world." But If there is a reasonable way to allow the fetus to live, we should undertake every care to do so. Preventing the killing of fetuses is, with very few exceptions, "for the Greater Good of the world." Healthy pregnancy is not always ideal, and it can be painful, but every one of our ancestors has done it. It is a reasonable (and only) method of not killing the fetus, even for poor people. Yes, poor babies have a higher risk of committing a crime. But I think we've all seen the Minority Report.

The fact that people are this deluded makes me sick.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

And its not in other places?

Its a big deal in Europe still. Its not even legal in some European Countries, Ireland for one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

No, it amazes me that it's still controversial in the US. It also amazes me that it's still controversial and possibly illegal in many countries, because humanity's capacity for rank stupidity and intolerance is always amazing to behold.

 

[Hycran]

No, you misunderstand. I don't want women to have unnecessary abortions because it KILLS THE FETUS, who did nothing wrong. I bring up the fact that men's offspring choice happens at the time of sex to show that making a choice at that point is possible and reasonable, both in practice and in law. More specifically, I bring it up to counter the oft-cited argument that women sometimes don't know what they're getting into, so they need a way to back out of the fruit of their actions. But that's not true. Sometimes they want a way to back out, and for many their quality of life might improve by backing out. But they do not need a way out, just as men do not need a way out. To suggest they can't make rational decisions as quickly as men is just being disingenuous to women, and above all, has dire implications for the fetuses. And lest you miss my point again, I'm going to bold it: I do not believe egalitarianism is always right, and I am all for accommodating women with their unique needs in every reasonable way. I do not oppose women getting at-will abortions because men can't get it, or because I don't want to accommodate women. I don't give a crap about getting my fair treatment. I accommodate--and support societal accommodations for--pregnant women (including my wife) in every possible and reasonable way that is not killing a fetus.
Do all the dishes? Check. Drive? Yes. Give her daily massages? I sure did. All those things are not killing a fetus. If the man and woman both chose to have sex, and she then decides she doesn't want the very product of having sex, the fetus should not be the one to pay for this reversal with its life.

"Freedom?" "Her body?" "Greater Good of the world?" That's a lot of god-terms to assign exclusively to your viewpoint. Give women all the freedoms they want. Give everyone all the freedoms they want. Give her all the control over her body she wants...AS LONG AS IT'S NOT UNNECESSARILY HARMING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ELSE. If we have to abort to save the mother's life or to prevent the life-long trauma of remembering your rapist every time you see your baby, then those are necessary abortions that we unfortunately need to do "for the greater good of the world." But If there is a reasonable way to allow the fetus to live, we should undertake every care to do so. Preventing the killing of fetuses is, with very few exceptions, "for the Greater Good of the world." Healthy pregnancy is not always ideal, and it can be painful, but every one of our ancestors has done it. It is a reasonable (and only) method of not killing the fetus, even for poor people. Yes, poor babies have a higher risk of committing a crime. But I think we've all seen the Minority Report.

edit: nevermind

 

[Huw_Dawson]

How many innocent fetuses did God kill when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Spoiler

Okay, the above links pro-lifers with religion, that's not fair as the two can be seperated. But still. Worth saying.

 

[Qazaq]

God destroying Sodom is proof that God only intended abortions for would-be sodomites.

 

[G-Unit]

I don't support abortion unless proved risk. Deal with it reddit, i mean gaf.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I don't support abortion unless proved risk. Deal with it reddit, i mean gaf.

You know risk to mother and baby can continue after it is born due to poverty, environment, lack of healthcare, domestic abuse, postpartum depression, mental illness, malnutrition, neglect and other things. Safer to abort than face that risk.

 

[stupei]

How many innocent fetuses did God kill when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Spoiler

Okay, the above links pro-lifers with religion, that's not fair as the two can be seperated. But still. Worth saying.

How many innocent fetuses does God kill with miscarriages?

How many innocent potential lives do men kill every day with masturbation?

We could do this forever. Some people still won't accept the logic. It only counts as murder if it's a woman's choice. When a fetus dies naturally, it was inevitable and just. When a man masturbates, it's basic nature. When a woman seeks an abortion, it's capital e Evil. Somehow the moment cells become life coincides with something that is inherently a woman's choice. Weird.

 

[G-Unit]

You know risk to mother and baby can continue after it is born due to poverty, environment, lack of healthcare, domestic abuse, postpartum depression, mental illness, malnutrition, neglect and other things.

Sex education is way better than abortion in my map.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Sex education is way better than abortion in my map.

Of course, but pro-life in general are against safe sex education and low-cost or free contraception.

Look at the hoopla Catholic hospitals and both public and private high schools go through when they are forced to provide basic sex ed and access to contraception.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Somehow the moment cells become life coincides with something that is inherently a woman's choice. Weird.

I don't think it's often a concious decision to restrict women's rights - it's simple distaste. It's the same distaste that leads people to dislike other ethnicities, cultures and sexual orientations.

Humans are really arrogant sometimes.

BTW, I find abortion to be a really sad case of the world being really screwed up and unfair sometimes. It's not nice or a "good thing" - it's simply absurd that it should be illegal.

We can dream and talk in ideals, but a country's legislature needs to be rooted in reality.

 

[Palom]

It seems to me that some people have this notion that abortions are only a form of birth control. If you are anti-abortion, you really need to start with proper sex education and access to contraception. You won't end abortion by simply being childish about it and telling people they can't have them. Do you want people to return to back-alley coat-hanger abortions? That's all banning it does. If you educate people properly, and leave a legal means to abortion open, then you will naturally bring the procedure to only apply to instances of rape, incest, life-of-mother cases.

 

[Clydefrog]

Those senators and the gallery did good work last night cheers

 

[Orayn]

It seems to me that some people have this notion that abortions are only a form of birth control. If you are anti-abortion, you really need to start with proper sex education and access to contraception. You won't end abortion by simply being childish about it and telling people they can't have them. Do you want people to return to back-alley coat-hanger abortions? That's all banning it does. If you educate people properly, and leave a legal means to abortion open, then you will naturally bring the procedure to only apply to instances of rape, incest, life-of-mother cases.

Pressing a "pro-life" advocate on this issue is a good way to make them out themselves as a a misogynist and/or religious zealot, though the craftier ones will try to change the subject.

 

[Kazerei]

No, you misunderstand. I don't want women to have unnecessary abortions because it KILLS THE FETUS, who did nothing wrong. I bring up the fact that men's offspring choice happens at the time of sex to show that making a choice at that point is possible and reasonable, both in practice and in law. More specifically, I bring it up to counter the oft-cited argument that women sometimes don't know what they're getting into, so they need a way to back out of the fruit of their actions. But that's not true. Sometimes they want a way to back out, and for many their quality of life might improve by backing out. But they do not need a way out, just as men do not need a way out. To suggest they can't make rational decisions as quickly as men is just being disingenuous to women, and above all, has dire implications for the fetuses.

"Abortion is not a necessity" is a pretty poor argument. We're talking about giving greater freedoms to people, and you don't want to because it's not needed? There are a ton of things we have legally that aren't needed, but make our lives better.

"Freedom?" "Her body?" "Greater Good of the world?" That's a lot of god-terms to assign exclusively to your viewpoint. Give women all the freedoms they want. Give everyone all the freedoms they want. Give her all the control over her body she wants...AS LONG AS IT'S NOT UNNECESSARILY HARMING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ELSE. If we have to abort to save the mother's life or to prevent the life-long trauma of remembering your rapist every time you see your baby, then those are necessary abortions that we unfortunately need to do "for the greater good of the world." But If there is a reasonable way to allow the fetus to live, we should undertake every care to do so. Preventing the killing of fetuses is, with very few exceptions, "for the Greater Good of the world." Healthy pregnancy is not always ideal, and it can be painful, but every one of our ancestors has done it. It is a reasonable (and only) method of not killing the fetus, even for poor people. Yes, poor babies have a higher risk of committing a crime. But I think we've all seen the Minority Report.

You haven't articulated why we should prevent the killing of fetuses. Because it's immoral?

"For the greater good of the world" would be to allow women to have abortions if they feel unprepared to bear a child. Positive benefit to society, and to people who are already living. It's really nobody else's business if a woman gets an abortion, anyways.

Edit: sorry for the super late edits

 

[Ludicrous Speed]

You know risk to mother and baby can continue after it is born due to poverty, environment, lack of healthcare, domestic abuse, postpartum depression, mental illness, malnutrition, neglect and other things. Safer to abort than face that risk.

Sounds like just about every fetus should be aborted then. Anyone can suffer from postpartum depression. Best to abort always

 

[Brian Griffin]

Sad I missed all the action but yay for Wendy and women's rights!

So this thread has turned into an abortion debate now? Sweet.

Yes, poor babies have a higher risk of committing a crime. But I think we've all seen the Minority Report.

I'm curious as to what this has to do with anything. Are you saying we shouldn't abort fetuses because they might grow into people who can see the future?

 

[Tamanon]

I miss JayDubya

 

[Slacker]

Sounds like just about every fetus should be aborted then. Anyone can suffer from postpartum depression. Best to abort always

With logic like that I think you're ready for a job in the Texas Senate. Reminds me of the guy yesterdaty during the filibuster who told the crowd to write a letter to their mamas thanking them for being pro-life. Because that's exactly how it works.

 

[Zebra]

Don't you Texans have term limits? How long has Perry been Governor?

Way too long.

13 years.

 

[ronito]

Again the issue that many anti-choice people have is that they oppose the very things that lead to abortion. You want to end abortion? Great. Start with free and easily accessible condoms, plenty of sex ed, free and easy to access birth control and morning after pills.

 

[Rorschach]

I miss JayDubya

Worst post I've read all day.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Sounds like just about every fetus should be aborted then. Anyone can suffer from postpartum depression. Best to abort always

Uh, no. Not saying that at all. But pro-lifers and conservatives alike usually are against stuff like universal health care and safety nets. By which, if a woman develops depression due to pregnancy she can get help. Right now in Texas? Mental health and public health agencies are an underfunded joke.

The way to lower abortion and infant mortality rates ( which are pretty high in the US for a developed country) is for women to have easy access to healthcare.

Our birth rate is under replacement but we have a healthy immigration rate and with incentives and if we adopted universal healthcare, even better.

 

[patapuf]

There's many different reasons for an abortion and enough unique situations that a "one size fits all" restrictive law creates more tragedies than it prevents.

The cost, material, healthwise and mentally are more than enough deterrent. I'm also pretty sure that in most cases, women prefer having a baby to having an abortion.

Lastly, there are some places where the state has no business interfering. This is one them. It's a profoundly personal descision that will affect the parents and no one else. Which is why no one else should have a say (well, tbf there are health care related costs.).

 

[stufte]

I'm pro-life, but I'm also pro-it's not my fucking business what others do with their bodies. Pro-life for me, everyone else can do what the fuck they want.

 

[speculawyer]

How many innocent fetuses did God kill when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Spoiler

Okay, the above links pro-lifers with religion, that's not fair as the two can be seperated. But still. Worth saying.

Oh god was worse than that. He explicitly said that infants should be dashed up the rocks. The old testament has some crazy brutal stuff. And it is weird watching people like William Lane Craig rationalize such commands (because those killed infants go to heaven dontcha know!).

 

[Kai Dracon]

I once read, in a rare turn, an evangelical conservative pastor broke ranks and said he felt abortion should not be illegal - it should be unthinkable in all but the most dire circumstances.

Which he expanded on by saying that shackling women with laws accomplished nothing to encourage "morality". It was only a punishment for a woman who could already be dealing with deeply troubling circumstances.

 

[tekumseh]

Most definition:

1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2: : the majority of <most people>​

Majority definition

1: : obsolete : the quality or state of being greater
2

a : the age at which full civil rights are accorded
b : the status of one who has attained this age​

3
a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total​

And beyond arguing pure semantics, here's (scroll down a bit) an NBC/WSJ poll that breaks down the specific numbers, because as you said, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are understood differently by different people. In relevant part, those polled thought abortion should be:

Illegal except rape, incest, mother's life: 42%
Always illegal: 10% (So 52% total opposing at-will abortions)
Always legal: 26%
Legal most of the time: 19% (So 45% total supporting some form of at-will abortions)
Unsure: 5%​

And yet, here is an NBC/WSJ poll from January '13, which shows that 70% of those polled do NOT want Roe v. Wade overturned, with 57% feeling strongly about it, while only 24% want it overturned with 21% of those feeling strongly about it.

Numbers are a funny thing...

 

[Devolution]

Again the issue that many anti-choice people have is that they oppose the very things that lead to abortion. You want to end abortion? Great. Start with free and easily accessible condoms, plenty of sex ed, free and easy to access birth control and morning after pills.

But then everyone will be sluts!

 

[Gotchaye]

This stopped being about the filibuster or Texas a while ago.