The problem is that in environments where abortion is illegal, women still seek abortion. Seeking illegal abortions leads to horrific health issues and sometimes victimization of the young women involved by the abortionists (rape, fraud, etc.).
Rent the movie Cider House Rules. Seriously.
canuck
· 4 years ago
hmmmm...i'm willing to wager that 43 million women wouldn't die due to illegal abortions. i still don't understand justifying killing a child just to save a few women who decide to kill off their offspring. and just because hollywood makes a movie about the woo's of the mother doing the killing doesn't justify abortion. go work at an abortion clinic sometime and watch them rip out a child from the mothers womb. seriously.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I've watched Cider House Rules and don't think it makes a compelling case for abortion at all.
From where I'm standing, the reason of "well women will seek them anyway and then will be hurt by inexperienced, back-room abortionists" is not good enough to justify ending the life of a conceived child who didn't ask to be conceived and deserves the chance to be born and live life.
Mark J
· 4 years ago
The Liberal Avenger, the people who performed illegal abortions before Roe vs. Wade are the same people who are doing them today. They just operate out of their front office, instead of their back office. Abortionists are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to doctors. Go ask a doctor about it.
Saying "but they'll do it regardless" isn't a way to argue that it should be legal. All that really shows is how determined women who get abortions are to shirk their responsibility as a parent.
And what about adoption? Ask someone who is getting an abortion why they won't consider adoption. The answer will make you sick. "I couldn't bear to give my child to someone else."
But they have no problem killing it, because they don't have to look at it.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Pro-choice means an interest in preventing government intrusion in this most personal aspect of a woman’s life (something that would otherwise be paramount to conservatives, according to your rhetoric) and it means acknowledging the public health risk that emerges in the absence of safe, legal abortions.
Hey, personal rights are paramount to this conservative. That's why we're all so busy protecting the rights of these unborn children who have no other voices speaking up for them.
The Liberal Avenger
· 4 years ago
Canuck:
A problem in the abortion debate is often the misconception the pro-life side has about the pro-choice side. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. Pro-choice means an interest in preventing government intrusion in this most personal aspect of a woman's life (something that would otherwise be paramount to conservatives, according to your rhetoric) and it means acknowledging the public health risk that emerges in the absence of safe, legal abortions.
If you are interested in my additional thoughts on the latter issue, please this post from November on my own site:
pro-choice, aka, pro-abortion isn't just a woman's health issue. it is a society health issue. killing off 43 million unborn children does not justify saving the few women who might die because they took it upon themselves to kill their unborn child. I don't care what sorry story you propose to me. There is no excuse. The only reason it is easier to take the side of the woman doing the killing is because you've had a chance to get to know her; you feel sorry for her. Had the unborn child been born, much like your own experience, and you got to see and meet the child before hand this wouldn't be a debate. Luckily ultrasounds are amazing these days. All women who decide to abort should have see their child, hear it's heart beat, watch it move and "breath", then witness their child being sucked/ripped out of their bodies. I mean, if you're all for a woman's "choice" why sugar coat it? Call it what it is; murder.
canuck
· 4 years ago
That's great. I'm happy you have a speech all figured out. Bottom line is, abortion is killing a child. There is no "rhetoric" about it. Instead of trying to make a woman feel all warm and fuzzy about her decision in killing a child, why not tell her what really happens? Why sugar coat it with, "well, it's not really a baby."? And your argument of "making it illegal won't stop abortions" doesn't cut it. No, it won't stop abortions, however, it sure as hell would put a dent in 47 millions unnecessary deaths.
In my experience, it's fair to say that the lion's share of people who favor keeping abortion safe and legal, as I do, also would like it to be used only rarely. It isn't.
That is, we agree on the "rare" part. Wouldn't it be great if we spent the time we spend screaming at each other talking about promoting contraceptive use, promoting adoption, and reaching people who would bring the baby to term if they only had some financial and moral support?
canuck
· 4 years ago
oh, and to answer your friends question, "What are you going to do to reduce the number of abortions?" i'll repeat myself saying, all women who decide to abort should have see their child, hear it’s heart beat, watch it move and ""breath", then witness their child being sucked/ripped out of their bodies. so, fine, keep your abortion legal, just don't sugar coat it.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
Frankly, conservatives have no interest in reducing abortions. Why? Because it's a voting bloc they can't live without. So, they'll talk the pro-life talk but they'll not take the first steps toward reducing abortion.
There could be abortion legislation passed with full bipartisan support by the end of the week if the GOP wanted. Such legislation would virtually end all second and third trimester abortions (save for life/health of the mother) except in the cases of rape and incest.
And such legislation would pass with overwhelming bipartisan support.
But conservatives realize they'd be giving up a voting bloc.
canuck
· 4 years ago
riiiiight. no interest, what-so-ever. whatever helps you sleep at night, jade.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
Canuck: Please explain why--if conservatives have this profound revulsion for abortion--conservatives wouldn't be willing to achieve 80-85% of their goals WRT ending many, many abortions?
Conservatives like to frame the issue of abortion as about saving lives. Well, there's a guaranteed proposal on the table that saves many, many lives. But conservatives won't even look at it. Why?
Joe Brooks
· 4 years ago
Why dance around the subject? Liberals use the mother's health as a smokescreen. Reality dictates that people get abortions because 1) They don't want their significant others and parents to know about their sins. 2) They are often urged to think about abortion as a viable option at these clinics 3) They cannot afford children 4) They are not responsible
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
Do you honestly think conservatives don’t want to stop this?
I know for a fact they don't. They value the issue far more than the principle.
As I stated before, conservatives could have overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation which would end second and third trimester abortions--except in cases of the mother's health, rape and incest.
IOW, they'd get 80-85% of what they claim to want--right now. And there's always the possibility they could get more later.
So, why don't they? Because it's an issue they want to keep alive.
canuck
· 4 years ago
Still think abortions are a "women's only health issue"? Still consider this ""rhetoric"? Do you honestly think conservatives don't want to stop this? Have a looksie. Like I said, keep your abortions legal so you can "save the mother" and ignore the baby inside. Still doesn't change the fact that you are killing a child. If you want abortions to be a rare thing, stop making them sound okay. Stop making abortions out to be nothing, when it's very much something. See how many women change their minds once they see exactly what abortion is and what they are doing to themselves and their child.
Joe Brooks
· 4 years ago
Jadegold, have you met a "conservative?"
I'm one and I'm telling you that I think that all forms of abortion are wrong. Does that make me value the issue or the principle? If by principle you mean, "save all the babies that we can to a point" then no, I don't believe in the principle because ALL babies should live.
What is the issue? canuck pins it right here, ""Like I said, keep your abortions legal so you can ""save the mother" and ignore the baby inside. Still doesn’t change the fact that you are killing a child."
Jadegold, which side of this do you take? Are you for or against abortion? I mean you seem to be arguing a point that is against abortion, but only because you see irregularities in a conservatives's point of view.(Although I don't see one because in order to pass the legislation that you suggest means that we would have to give up on the rest of the murders)
I'm not satisfied with 80-85%... if you are against abortions then why are you satisified with 15-20% babies getting killed?
Ed
· 4 years ago
Here's the biggest problem of all: This is a religious issue. The government should not have a say in it (Church & State).
Besides, we don't have enough room to jail 43 million women. If what they do is murder, doesn't that mean they should serve life sentences?
In my life I've known 4 people who've had abortions. 3 of those 4 came from very religious homes with caring, responsible parents. In each instance the parents knew ahead of time about the abortion (aged 16-24) and grudgingly accepted it, as long as they enroll in a suppot group for religious women coping with their decisions.
So, I only know the personal stories of 4 out of 43 million, but from what I've seen they are NOT filled with sluts getting rid of one night stands with the ease of a McDonald's drive-through window.
They're scarred and emotionally hurt, but ultimately thankful for the opportunity to not: a)have a rapists baby, b)severely destroy their body via childbirth due to existing health problems, or c)yes, live in poverty for the rest of their lives to care for a child alone at 16. Believe it or not, even a large number of religious parents are hypocritical and irresponsible idiots.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Here’s the biggest problem of all: This is a religious issue. The government should not have a say in it (Church & State).
So by your definition of "religious issue" the government should stay out of murder investigations as well?
You're wrong.
Besides, we don’t have enough room to jail 43 million women. If what they do is murder, doesn’t that mean they should serve life sentences?
First of all, its 43 million over three decades. Second, we're not going to see abortions at the same rate once they're illegal.
a)have a rapists baby
The baby should die for the sin's of a rapist? Doesn't sound fair to me.
severely destroy their body via childbirth due to existing health problems
So the solution to the health problems is to kill the baby? Maybe mom should have considered her health before getting pregnant. Also, the vast majorit of aboritons being perfomred have nothing to do with health complications. This is a cop-out.
c)yes, live in poverty for the rest of their lives to care for a child alone at 16.
We all have to live with the consequences of the life choices we make. If you choose to have sex, you deal with the consquences. If you choose to gamble and loose all your money you don't have the option to pretend like it never happened. Why should we hold mothers to a lesser standard?
Joe Brooks
· 4 years ago
Reason for abortion - to protect the mother's health.
My rebuttle - I thought as humans one of the things that makes us unique is that we PROTECT our children. If a mother puts her own health in front of that of her child then she does not deserve the ability to have children.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
"If a mother puts her own health in front of that of her child then she does not deserve the ability to have children. "
Spoken like a man, Joe Brooks.
Joe Brooks
· 4 years ago
Don't insult me Jadegold. What is so wrong if mothers show a little compassion for their unborn children? Show me a parent who disregards their own children's health (before or after birth) and I'll show you someone who doesn't deserve to have children. It's that simple. If someone chooses to end their babies' life they don't deserve that child or any other children.
Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I cannot understand the bond between child and parent. I was a child once and plan on being a parent in the future. Jadegold, you are bordering on being a troll on this website.It's getting annoying in my opinion.
Rob
· 4 years ago
No, spoken like a person trying to defend the rights of one who cannot speak.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
"No, spoken like a person trying to defend the rights of one who cannot speak."
Really? It seems to me, Mr. Brooks just demanded a woman sacrifice her health, perhaps her life, to give birth.
Or don't her rights matter?
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
"Of course the woman’s rights matter, but not more than the unborn child’s nor does the rights of the unborn child matter more than the mother’s"
Again, opinions vary. I'd argue several points; first, what if the woman has other children? Would you then say the woman's rights remain equal to that of the fetus? Second, very often in the case where a woman's health is endangered, so is the health of the fetus. Shouldn't potential for survivability play in the equation?
Issues such as these are seldom as black and white as you'd like to portray.
"But we all know that the majority of abortions being performed in this country have nothing to do with a woman’s health and everything to do with wanting to shirk the responsibility of parentship. "
Again, the issue is more nuanced than you think. Would you compel a woman to have a child as a result of rape or incest?
You also have to factor in the fact that most of those opposed to choice are also opposed the very things that could significantly mitigate unwanted pregnancy.
slarrow
· 4 years ago
Actually, JadeGold, I don't believe the kind of legislation you're talking about would pass Court scrutiny under the current understanding. Heck, not even partial-birth abortion made it past some federal judges.
The sticking point is "health of the mother." Conservatives oppose such an innocuous-sounding exception because it has in fact been used as a loophole to escape restrictions. (Actual attempts to define what constitutes a legitimate health concern are rife with their own philosophical problems, not least of which is the sacred cow of "privacy.")
So the kind of "easy" legislation you claim the GOP could pass is liable to either being stomped on by the courts or so flexible as to not actually change facts on the ground. It would also have used up the political capital on the issue. A very cunning suggestion, JadeGold, to challenge the other side to fire using blanks to demonstrate their sincerity.
Joe Brooks
· 4 years ago
No, I said that a mother who wasn't willing to sacrifice her own health and general well-being for her child does not deserve to be a parent. I didn't say demand, it should be a parental instinct to see your child survive beyond your own days.
Also, I'm against "health" as a viable reason for abortion because what will be regulated as a health situation? What keeps a mother from going to a clinic and saying she has a headache and its because of her pregnancy. Or what if the mother gains weight and doesn't like her appearance, so she proclaims depression in order to get an abortion. These can all be considered health issues, and any of them could escalate to a life or death situation for the mother.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Of course the woman's rights matter, but not more than the unborn child's nor does the rights of the unborn child matter more than the mother's.
But we all know that the majority of abortions being performed in this country have nothing to do with a woman's health and everything to do with wanting to shirk the responsibility of parentship.
Joe Brooks
· 4 years ago
No, I said that a mother who wasn't willing to sacrifice her own health and general well-being for her child does not deserve to be a parent. I didn't say demand, it should be a parental instinct to see your child survive beyond your own days.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
"Actually, JadeGold, I don’t believe the kind of legislation you’re talking about would pass Court scrutiny under the current understanding. Heck, not even partial-birth abortion made it past some federal judges."
Two separate issues. Crafting the legislation to survive court scrutiny isn't difficult. The so-called PBA legislation was struck down for very good reasons not least of which is that it's a transparently an example of wedge politics.
"The sticking point is ""health of the mother." Conservatives oppose such an innocuous-sounding exception because it has in fact been used as a loophole to escape restrictions."
Choose your poison. Do you want an MD or some political appointee making your health decisions?
"So the kind of ""easy" legislation you claim the GOP could pass is liable to either being stomped on by the courts or so flexible as to not actually change facts on the ground."
They could easily pass such legislation and pass court muster. The problem is that you're unwilling to compromise a bit. Again, the value of the issue trumps the principle.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Jadegold spits out, "Frankly, conservatives have no interest in reducing abortions. Why? Because it’s a voting bloc they can’t live without."
Wow...what a thing to say. You sure have a knack for ASSuming.
Do you honestly think conservatives don’t want to stop this? [question by canuck to Jadegold]
I know for a fact they don’t. They value the issue far more than the principle.
A "fact", huh? Where did you get this "fact"?
"If a mother puts her own health in front of that of her child then she does not deserve the ability to have children." [Joe Brooks said this]
Spoken like a man, Joe Brooks.
Yes Jadegold. Spoken like a man. A gentleman. A human being. It's better than speaking like an immature child like you're doing.
Crafting the legislation to survive court scrutiny isn’t difficult.
Really Jadegold? Do you realize that the courts often don't follow the law? (Roe vs Wade)
They could easily pass such legislation and pass court muster. The problem is that you’re unwilling to compromise a bit. Again, the value of the issue trumps the principle.
Well..keep on ASSuming that Jadegold. Oh..and hold onto your "fact".
Ed says, "Here’s the biggest problem of all: This is a religious issue. The government should not have a say in it (Church & State)."
One: this isn't a religious issue. This is a matter of life and death and the sanctity of life. Can you even allow for that possibility or does your cookie cutter view prevent it? Two: What "church & state" issue ? Don't try to slip bullshit past me.
Sara
· 4 years ago
First and foremost, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. It is unconstitutional to control a woman's right to choose. Canuck, your arguement is based solely on using brutal language like, "rip out a child from the mothers womb" and "murder" which are entirely opinion based. First of all, where the human life begins is not a clear line, so who are you to say that conception is the beginning of life. With that said, it is not murder unless it is a human, which is entirely ambiguous at this point in time. Second, my guess would be that your opinions on abortion are in fact religious based. To push your religious beliefs on others would be immoral. Moreso, it would be both immoral and unconstituional to pass laws based upon religious beliefs. If you are against abortion, then the answer is simple; don't have one. But don't push your emotion based veiwpoints on others. Lastly, pro-abortion is an incorrect term, it implies that pro-choicers prefer abortion to child birth, which is ludacris. Pro-choice would be the correct term because it accurately expresses where we stand on a woman's right to choose.
Sara
· 4 years ago
One more thing, Rob, as a man, is not burdened with the same responsibilities that a woman is as far a children go. Therefore, he would be unable to argue against legal abortion, which is a women's issue. It is easy for Rob to say what a woman should do, but this is an issue that he will never have to face. He will never have to worry about being pregnant nor will he have to make the decision about how he should handle it. Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that a man shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion in the event that his wife or girlfriend get's pregnant, I am simply saying that in the end it is her decision because it is her life and her body. You may say, "But what about the baby's life?," but once again, who's to make the judgement about when life actually begins. That's the great thing about pro-choice. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you can choose to have that baby. But if you don't, abortion is an option.
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
Let me be the devil's advocate here Sara. So if I were a woman and I didn't believe life began until birth, by your own logic it would be ok to abort at 8 months and 29 days pregnant...and nobody has the right to say that's wrong?
If on the other hand your response is that there is some pre-partum dividing line, then I have to ask who is to say what that line is?
Seems like there's a bit of a hole in your argument.
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
What's more Sara, who's to say that a man has no voice in the matter? That an unmarried man must pay child support for his progeny clearly establishes the standard that he has some stake, and therefore a right to an opinion, in the matter. If a man has a stake in post-partum affairs, then clearly he has a stake in pre-partum affairs.
Rob
· 4 years ago
First and foremost, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. It is unconstitutional to control a woman's right to choose.
Really? Care to point to the part of the Constitution that guarantees abortion rights?
Canuck, your arguement is based solely on using brutal language like, "rip out a child from the mothers womb" and "murder" which are entirely opinion based.
No, Caunucks argument (and mine as well) is based on the idea that an unborn child is a life, and that the premeditated killing of it is murder. You, unfortunately, think that an unborn child is a "mass of cells" (or something along those lines) and thus feel no compunction what-so-ever in killing it.
First of all, where the human life begins is not a clear line, so who are you to say that conception is the beginning of life. With that said, it is not murder unless it is a human, which is entirely ambiguous at this point in time.
Maybe its not clear to you. Its clear to the rest of us. When there is a fertilized egg implanted and growing in a mother there is a life there. That life is a human life. In order for you to say that, at the time of implantation, there is no life in existence you would also have to contend that there is no life in that mother's tummy until the time of birth. Are you willing to make that argument? And if you are, would you consider a man punching is 8-month-pregnant wife in the stomach and killing the child guilty of murdering the baby?
Second, my guess would be that your opinions on abortion are in fact religious based. To push your religious beliefs on others would be immoral. Moreso, it would be both immoral and unconstituional to pass laws based upon religious beliefs.
Bad guess. I'm an atheist and my objection to abortion arises from a firm belief (not grounded in any sort of spiritual dogma) that killing children because they're inconvenient to the parents that conceived them is wrong. More than wrong. Atrocious.
If you are against abortion, then the answer is simple; don't have one. But don't push your emotion based veiwpoints on others.
I think that robbing banks is wrong...should I restrict my opposition to armed robbery to my own personal habits lest I push my "emotion based viewpoints" on others?
Lastly, pro-abortion is an incorrect term, it implies that pro-choicers prefer abortion to child birth, which is ludacris. Pro-choice would be the correct term because it accurately expresses where we stand on a woman's right to choose.
Pardon my French, but bullshit. If the pro-abortion crowd were truly in favor of child birth over abortion they'd be encouraging these mothers toward adoption (there are millions of couples in this country alone who would like to adopt a child) not abortion.
One more thing, Rob, as a man, is not burdened with the same responsibilities that a woman is as far a children go. Therefore, he would be unable to argue against legal abortion, which is a women's issue.
Oh good grief. This canard again. Listen, as Seth points out, men have a stake in their unborn children as well. Child support is a good example, but even fathers that stay with the mother work just as hard as parents as the mother does. Granted, the father doesn't have to carry the child to term, but that's not exactly anything the father can help.
This argument is sort of a cop-out. You want to dismiss my opposition to abortion out of hat, so its easy to say "Oh, he's a man" to discredit my arguments.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Sara said, It is unconstitutional to control a woman's right to choose.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman's "right to choose"?
Second, my guess would be that your opinions on abortion are in fact religious based.
I'm against abortion and it has nothing to do with religion. It is funny that you said this though because you are talking to a bunch of atheists and agnostics. It shows me that you have no argument.
Moreso, it would be both immoral and unconstituional to pass laws based upon religious beliefs.
How so?
If you are against abortion, then the answer is simple; don't have one.
Another answer is to work to make it illegal.
But don't push your emotion based veiwpoints on others.
I'm against abortion based upon logic and reason. This assumption of yours that it is based upon emotion shows me yet again that you have no argument.
Lastly, pro-abortion is an incorrect term, it implies that pro-choicers prefer abortion to child birth, which is ludacris.
It doesn't necessarily imply that. Oftentimes it does. Just check out the pro-abortion crowd.
Pro-choice would be the correct term because it accurately expresses where we stand on a woman's right to choose.
The dead baby has no choice. Therefore, "right to choose" is a disgusting misnomer.
One more thing, Rob, as a man, is not burdened with the same responsibilities that a woman is as far a children go. Therefore, he would be unable to argue against legal abortion, which is a women's issue. It is easy for Rob to say what a woman should do, but this is an issue that he will never have to face. He will never have to worry about being pregnant nor will he have to make the decision about how he should handle it.
It takes a man and a woman to have a baby so you can stop this argument right here.
Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that a man shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion in the event that his wife or girlfriend get's pregnant...
Bullshit. That is exactly what you just said.
...I am simply saying that in the end it is her decision because it is her life and her body.
There is one or more bodies there besides her own. There is one or more lives there besides her own. You are discounting the obvious.
You may say, "But what about the baby's life?," but once again, who's to make the judgement about when life actually begins.
There's a life inside the mother. Only a non-serious person with an agenda would deny this obvious truth.
That's the great thing about pro-choice. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you can choose to have that baby. But if you don't, abortion is an option.
In other words, you make up your own reality as you go.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Word of the day: Viable
Sara
· 4 years ago
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -14th amendment
Sara
· 4 years ago
Clearly none of you read the last part of my arguement as far as men's opinions on abortion. I did not say that he should not be able to have any say in whether or not his wife or girlfriend has and abortion, I just think that it is unfair for a man to have a say in what all women do. I do believe that human life begins as soon as the brain has developed to a certain point. However, I am not willing to push my views of when human life begins on anyone else, therefore I will not say when it is or is not okay to have an abortion. This is an arguement that will never end because you will never be able to convince me that a woman doesn't have the right to choose, and I will never be able to convince you that a woman has the right to choose. It is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment (privacy). Read up on Roe vs. Wade. We can go on and on about why it is not a human, and so why it doesn't have a choice. You can manipulate my words into saying whatever you want, but I meant only what I said. I used to be pro-life, but upon doing research to conduct an argument against abortion, I found that I was being ignorant. Why would you want to make abortion illegal just because you don't agree with it. I know a woman who is in her mid forties and had an abortion at age twenty. She didn't tell her parents or the father. She went to college and got a masters degree in art history, spent several years in the army and got married. I once asked her if she regrets the abortion since she is now unable to have children. She told me that if she had to do it again, she would have made the same decision.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Quite frankly, many people who are on life support should be taken off of it. And once again...IT ISN'T MURDER IF IT ISN'T HUMAN. It's not killing unborn children if they aren't children. And, the woman I am referring to is extremely kind and unselfish. It would have been selfish to bring a child into a crappy situation with an uneducated mother. Consequences my ass, accidents happen. I have been sexually active since I turned 18 (now 21). I have not gotten pregnant at any point. If I did, I would know that I avoided it to the best of my ability, and would have an abortion.
Sara
· 4 years ago
It is implied, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't have been the grounds for overturning state abortion laws in 1973. Another thing that you will notice upon inspecting this amendment are the words "born and naturalized," meaning that a fetus does not have any of the rights that the mother does. Privacy has to do with a persons right to keep any medical issues private. No actually you don't have a good reason to be in this debate, no matter what you say, you will never have to play as responsible a role as the woman as far a children are concerned. You don't have to carry it for nine months. You aren't the one breast feeding it. You aren't the one who is screwed when the father walks away and leaves you with no money to survive and nobody to watch it while you go to work. And even if you do have to pay child support, it is a few simple checks that you pay and then you never have to deal with the child.
Sphagnum
· 4 years ago
, I just think that it is unfair for a man to have a say in what all women do.
As a former fetus, Sara, I have a very good reason to be involved in the abortion debate.
And that's a nice quotation of the 14th amendment, but I'm must be missing the relevence... Did I miss the part about abortion? Or maybe it says something about "privacy"? No? What about the part about the government not making laws that effect your body? That's not in their either? Hm... what was the point?
Rob
· 4 years ago
I just think that it is unfair for a man to have a say in what all women do
As a man, I don't want a say in "what all women do." I just want to stop women from killing unborn children. And its not just men who feel this way, I know quite a few women who agree with me as well.
Its not a question of control, its the fact that killing unborn children is wrong. Period.
I do believe that human life begins as soon as the brain has developed to a certain point. However, I am not willing to push my views of when human life begins on anyone else, therefore I will not say when it is or is not okay to have an abortion.
Well, too bad for you then. I, however, feel that abortion is murder. I feel that its a barbaric practice that should be haulted.
This is an arguement that will never end because you will never be able to convince me that a woman doesn't have the right to choose, and I will never be able to convince you that a woman has the right to choose.
Perhaps, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop arguing. As long as unborn children are being killed because the mothers/parents don't want to be inconvenienced with them I will be speaking out against it.
It is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment (privacy). Read up on Roe vs. Wade. We can go on and on about why it is not a human, and so why it doesn't have a choice.
Ok, you've quoted the text of the 14th amendment, where in there does it say that women have a right to kill unborn children because its convenient for them? And don't feed me the privacy cop-out, doctors are regularly prohibited by law from performing certain medical procedures. It doesn't violate anyone's privacy to prohibit abortions.
You can manipulate my words into saying whatever you want, but I meant only what I said.
Where have I manipulated any of your words?
I used to be pro-life, but upon doing research to conduct an argument against abortion, I found that I was being ignorant. Why would you want to make abortion illegal just because you don't agree with it.
Why would you want to make robbing a bank illegal just because you don't agree with it Why would you want to make murder illegal just because you don't agree with it? Why would you want to make rape illegal just because you don't agree with it?
That's a ludicrous argument.
I know a woman who is in her mid forties and had an abortion at age twenty. She didn't tell her parents or the father. She went to college and got a masters degree in art history, spent several years in the army and got married. I once asked her if she regrets the abortion since she is now unable to have children. She told me that if she had to do it again, she would have made the same decision.
In other words, she was selfish. She unburdened herself of her unborn child (a child which was the consequence of her own actions) so she could carry on the life she wanted to live.
Are you expecting this story to convince me of something?
Word of the day: Viable
Viability, another cop-out. People on life support in intensive care aren't "viable" either. She we go around and pull the plug on all of them because its an inconvenience to keep them around?
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
A human fetus is destined to become a human. A species should naturally prefer it's own species survival.
Sara
· 4 years ago
I can back that statement up with every one of my sinle mother friends. The moment that baby was born, guess who left. Yup, the father. Oh, and none of them are paying child support.
Rob
· 4 years ago
It is implied, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't have been the grounds for overturning state abortion laws in 1973.
Implied? The right of a mother to kill her unborn child is implied in the 14th amendment? That's a stretch.
But since we're talking about the Constitution let me point you toward another amendment.
Abortion is not a power delegated to the federal government nor is it prohibited to the states...therefore it is a matter to be decided by each state on an individual basis. Period. That's the way its supposed to be until a bunch of judges decided that the 14th somehow supported the right to murder unborn children.
Privacy has to do with a persons right to keep any medical issues private.
Where does the 14th say anything about privacy? Do you mean the fourth amendment? And how does even that amendment support the ending of an unborn human life? Can you be specific in any of this or is your entire argument going to based on largely emotional, knee-jerk reactions and generalizations?
No actually you don't have a good reason to be in this debate, no matter what you say, you will never have to play as responsible a role as the woman as far a children are concerned. You don't have to carry it for nine months. You aren't the one breast feeding it. You aren't the one who is screwed when the father walks away and leaves you with no money to survive and nobody to watch it while you go to work. And even if you do have to pay child support, it is a few simple checks that you pay and then you never have to deal with the child.
Oh, so we're back to this again. I can't have an opinon about abortion because I don't have a vagina.
Please. Just address the points I'm raising and quit trying to circumvent them with this cop-out. If you need to pretend I'm a pro-life woman, go ahead.
And, for the record, I don't see where the idea that a child might have a hard life is enough of a reason to advocate for that child's death before it even has a chance to experience the world.
Quite frankly, many people who are on life support should be taken off of it.
Well...ok. Touche. Though that wasn't really my point. Some of the people on life support are going to get better again and return to their lives. A child, when not sucked out of a woman's womb by a vacuum (or some other crude medical procedure), will also come to life. You can try to say that its not human, but really that's just a convenient lable for you to use when avoiding the fact that you could be supporting the murder of the next Einstein. Or Beethoven. Or, granted, the next Hitler. But then, we'll never know until they have a chance to live in the world...right?
And, the woman I am referring to is extremely kind and unselfish. It would have been selfish to bring a child into a crappy situation with an uneducated mother.
If we were able to give these unborn children the choice betwen living with an uneducated mother or being killed I'm sure the vast majority of them would choose life with an unedcuated mother.
Consequences my ass, accidents happen. I have been sexually active since I turned 18 (now 21). I have not gotten pregnant at any point. If I did, I would know that I avoided it to the best of my ability, and would have an abortion.
Yes. Accidents happen. They happen to people driving around without insurance all the time. Should these irresponsible people be allowed to shirk the consequences of their decisions because they don't want to face them? Of course not. And in that example we're not even talking about killing anybody.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
I still don't understand what makes a fetus life more important. Just because you think it is?
Um...because it is a human. How many times do we have to repeat this?
Rob
· 4 years ago
The fact that its a human fetus, of course.
Marty
· 4 years ago
Anyone who knows sara would do well to keep their children far far away from her. She clearly doesn't value human life as much as most of us would assume...
Sara dear, people will judge you for this attitude of yours. You know this, right?
Sara
· 4 years ago
Honestly, I wouldn't want to wait and see if it's the next hitler.
Marty
· 4 years ago
I still don't understand what makes a fetus life LESS important than a 3 year old child. Just because YOU think it isn't?
You'll grow out of this hun. Trust me...
That is, unless you like having a cold and calloused heart, and plan to keep it all your miserable life...
Sara
· 4 years ago
You can say that my arguments are a cop-out all you want. That does not change the relevancy of them just because you say so.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Okay, so let's say your wife gets pregnant and a doctor says that if she does not have an abortion, she will die. Would you support her if she opted for an abortion?
Actually, in this specific instance, I would support allowing a woman to choose between trying to give birth (and possibly or certainly dying) or having an abortion.
But in this instance only. I don't support having an abortion because the mother would be poor or because its inconvenient to the mother's life plans.
I can back that statement up with every one of my sinle mother friends. The moment that baby was born, guess who left. Yup, the father. Oh, and none of them are paying child support.
Anecdotal and not convincing. Give us stats or something. Surely there's been a study done on this.
None of my arguements are cop-outs, you just don't like them and don't agree with them, so the easiest way to shoot them down is by calling them cop-outs. I have answered many questions as if you have a vagina, and have given good arguments.
Actually, I've told you pretty explictly why they're cop outs. You've waivered back and forth on the whole "You're a man so you don't know" thing. You've told me I can't argue the issue while simultaneously arguing the issue with me. The idea that men can't have an opinion about abortion because they don't carry the child is still a cop-out argument though, it just so happens that you're using it but not taking it.
Fact remains though, that you do have a vagina.
Whoa...that's news to me. ;-)
Ok then. respond to my points as if you don't believe a fetus is a human.
Huh? I do believe a fetus is a human. Why should I change my stance?
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Do you eat meat? Have you ever squashed a bug?
Huh? Make your point.
Sara
· 4 years ago
No Rob, just because you've said why you think they are cop-outs doesn't make them cop-outs. So if you would support her choice then What makes your wifes right to live any greater than a fetus?
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
Sara said: You aren't the one who is screwed when the father walks away and leaves you with no money to survive and nobody to watch it while you go to work. And even if you do have to pay child support, it is a few simple checks that you pay and then you never have to deal with the child.
What? What? YOU SAID WHAT!?!?
That is the most ignorant and sexist thing I've seen or heard in at least the last 6 months. No kidding.
You don't think men don't care for their children? Do you think it doesn't absolutely tear a man's heart out to have his children torn away from his life by a woman's selfish, fickle actions? Do you have any idea how life shattering it is for a man to have a judge grant custodial rights to the mother based solely on gender? Do you honestly think that women don't walk out on men, taking that man's children away?
Do you have any idea how absolutley punitive child support payments are for a man? Do you know a man becomes a felon if he can't pay? Do you know that if, by some miracle, the man gets custody, the woman's support obligation will likely be less of a burden to her than to a man making the same amount of money? Do you know that women are proportionally much, much, MUCH more likely than men to not pay support payments? Do you know that women are much, much, MUCH less likely to be punished by the courts for not paying child support?
IF you want to do some research, maybe you could do some research on the treatment of fathers by the family courts...
...or you could just continue to be an ignorant sexist.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Okay, so let's say your wife gets pregnant and a doctor says that if she does not have an abortion, she will die. Would you support her if she opted for an abortion?
Rob
· 4 years ago
Do you eat meat? Have you ever squashed a bug?
In order for me to buy this argument I'd have to be willing to believe that an unborn child is not human. Which is not something that is true. A fetus is a human at the very beginning of its existence. That's a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Ok then. respond to my points as if you don't believe a fetus is a human.
That is not even comparable to what Rob is saying. You are asking him to change his belief to make his point. He is just asking you for a solid argument that can be made to him regardless of what his gender is.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to wait and see if it's the next hitler.
Right. So kill all kids now. Great logic there.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Not true, pretending that a fetus is a life, I'm just wondering what makes a fetal life any more significant than a cow's life or a monkey's life, or a bug's life.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Yeah you can say because it's human, but that isn't even an argument. I could sit here and say abortion should stay legal, and when you ask me why I could say because it should. That would be the crappiest argument ever.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Oh please. Sexist my ass. I am more than willing to admit that not all fathers walk out and don't look back. I am also willing to admit that many do care for their children. But the likelihood of a father walking out on his children is much higher that that of a mother.
Sphagnum
· 4 years ago
If I killed your mother, would you be offended, Sara? What makes her life more valuable than my unborn child's?
Sara
· 4 years ago
I still don't understand what makes a fetus life more important. Just because you think it is?
Marty
· 4 years ago
Because a human fetus can turn into a lovely young lady like you Sara... instead of a cow, or a monkey.
You'd think you'd find that something special.
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
Sara said: I am also willing to admit that many do care for their children. But the likelihood of a father walking out on his children is much higher that that of a mother.
You want to back that statement up?
Rob
· 4 years ago
Also, as a divorced father who has been through much of what Seth describes and is absolutley in love with his little girl, I'd like to second Seth's comment.
No, men don't have to carry the children or give birth to them, but there are more than a few men (myself included) who would gladly bear that burden if it meant they'd get equal treatment in custody battles and/or would be able to see their children born instead of killed.
Sara
· 4 years ago
It's just as rediculous for me to ask him to pretend that he doesn't believe that a fetus is human as it is for me to pretend that he doesn't have a vagina. I have made plenty of arguments without bring up that you are men, but they are all going back to the same spot; is a fetus human or not? Neither you or I can make valid arguements if we don't agree on that one thing. And no, I don't think that everyone should have abortions to avoid the next Hitler, my point was simply that it should be our right to choose whether or not to have it.
Sphagnum
· 4 years ago
Sara, you're clueless... can't figure out what the difference between a baby cow and a baby human is? Wow...
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Sara said, Clearly none of you read the last part of my arguement as far as men's opinions on abortion. I did not say that he should not be able to have any say in whether or not his wife or girlfriend has and abortion, I just think that it is unfair for a man to have a say in what all women do.
Oh no. We read it. We just disagree with it.
It is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment (privacy).
The 14th Amendment isn't about privacy.
Why would you want to make abortion illegal just because you don't agree with it.
Because it is the taking of a human life. That's why. Clear enough for you? Besides, as Rob pointed out in a comment below yours, this is a ludicrous point to make.
Word of the day: Viable
I hope you never need living assistance in your older age. You won't be "Viable" anymore and your arguments could come back to bite you in the ass.
No actually you don't have a good reason to be in this debate, no matter what you say, you will never have to play as responsible a role as the woman as far a children are concerned.
What? Explain your logic here (if any logic exists). Why are you bringing up children? You are advocating the position of killing them.
You don't have to carry it for nine months. You aren't the one breast feeding it. You aren't the one who is screwed when the father walks away and leaves you with no money to survive and nobody to watch it while you go to work. And even if you do have to pay child support, it is a few simple checks that you pay and then you never have to deal with the child.
That's a nice excuse for murder. What's your point supposed to be? Since the child is such a burden for the woman, she should have the option of killing it? Wow!
And, the woman I am referring to is extremely kind and unselfish.
So why did she kill her baby? Her action paints her as the worst kind of selfishness a human being can display and anything but "extremely kind".
It would have been selfish to bring a child into a crappy situation with an uneducated mother.
Right...because situations like this are pure hopelessness and never changing. Sorry,...this is a weak point you are trying to make. It comes off as an excuse. What is to say that her situation wouldn't have improved? Nothing.
Consequences my ass, accidents happen.
Sex is an accident? Who knew?
I have been sexually active since I turned 18 (now 21). I have not gotten pregnant at any point. If I did, I would know that I avoided it to the best of my ability, and would have an abortion.
Well, it is obvious that you are quite selfish then Sara. Avoiding pregnancy "to the best of your ability" would be to not have sex.
You can say that my arguments are a cop-out all you want. That does not change the relevancy of them just because you say so.
No. A lot of your arguments are a cop-out. Flat out excuses in other instances. That does change the relevancy of them when it comes to the logic of your argument.
once again...You can say that my arguments are a cop-out all you want. That does not change the relevancy of them just because you say so.
Rob is explaining why your arguments are a cop-out. He's also destroying any "relevancy" of your arguments. I can't say that you are doing the same.
Sara
· 4 years ago
None of my arguements are cop-outs, you just don't like them and don't agree with them, so the easiest way to shoot them down is by calling them cop-outs. I have answered many questions as if you have a vagina, and have given good arguments. Fact remains though, that you do have a vagina.
You say that I can't argue this issue because I don't have a vagina. I say fine, respond to my points as though I did have a vagina.
Ok then. respond to my points as if you don't believe a fetus is a human.
Sara
· 4 years ago
once again...You can say that my arguments are a cop-out all you want. That does not change the relevancy of them just because you say so.
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
Gee Sara, might "all my single mother friends" just possibly be a self-selecting group? I wonder, how many single mothers do you know?
You do understand that's not a statistically significant group, don't you?
By the way Sara, a little free legal advice: your single mother freinds have to go to court to get awarded child support. If they have done so and the father still isn't paying, then another visit to the court is warranted. The man could have his wages garnished, or even convicted under federal law (US CODE: TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 11A, § 228) and sent to jail.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Do you eat meat? Have you ever squashed a bug?
Rob
· 4 years ago
The problem is that they aren't really arguments. You say that I can't argue this issue because I don't have a vagina. I say fine, respond to my points as though I did have a vagina.
Same with your "its not human" claim. A fetus is human. Granted, its at the very beginning of its existence, but that does not diminish its humanity. If left alone it would grow into another functioning member of human society. If it isn't killed, that is.
Saying that it isn't human is a cop-out because using that label makes it easier for you to support abortion.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Oh...and Sara? Most of your argument is a cop-out. A "cop-out" is an excuse. That is what you are giving us.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Yeah you can say because it's human, but that isn't even an argument.
I see...so the very facts of the matter themselves are not a valid argument for you. Gotcha.
I fear this is a lost cause.
I could sit here and say abortion should stay legal, and when you ask me why I could say because it should.
Except...that's not the argument we're making. We're saying that an unborn human child is a life that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out because its existence might inconvenience the people who created it.
Sara
· 4 years ago
Making personal attacks on my life is entirely unwarranted. Considering that you know nothing about me except for my views on abortion. No, actually I grew into this.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Marty said, Sara dear, people will judge you for this attitude of yours. You know this, right?
Yep. The judgements are: narcissistic, cold-hearted, ignorant, and evil.
Sara
· 4 years ago
I will be chatting with you tomorrow, I have to write a paper that I have already put off for too long because of this discussion.
Sara
· 4 years ago
I am not angry at any person here except for those who are making personal attacks (marty and likwidshoe). I do respect your opinion and your right to have that opinion. I do look forward to chatting with you tomorrow and will look back on any posts that I didn't get to read and clarify my arguments. I hope that tommorrow is as interesting as it was tonight. Bye
Marty
· 4 years ago
I'm not arguing with you. I'm old enough to know better than to argue with a 21 year old about abortion. Been there done that. When i was 21, i agreed with you.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Alrighty then, Sara. We're all subscribed to this post. We'll be here and ready to discuss when you are.
And please don't let anger cloud your objectivity on this argument. We all care passionately about the issue at hand and can get frustrated when discussing it with those who do not agree with us, but I'd much rather you go away from all this thoughtful instead of angry.
And look around. There are lots of other posts here you may feel like discussing in the future.
The Rogue Angel: Politics Arch
· 3 years ago
[...] David posted a comment to a post over at Say Anything. I posted a comment to it on David's blog, because the comment he posted hit a pet peeve of mine, and then Mark replied to me. Well, I went to reply to Mark and ended up writing more than a mere comment, so I decided to make a post out of my comments. So, it's not that you don't want the responsibility, it's that you don't think you can handle it, because of your responsibility to your older children? It's still a responsibility issue. [...]
All Comments
Rent the movie Cider House Rules. Seriously.
From where I'm standing, the reason of "well women will seek them anyway and then will be hurt by inexperienced, back-room abortionists" is not good enough to justify ending the life of a conceived child who didn't ask to be conceived and deserves the chance to be born and live life.
Saying "but they'll do it regardless" isn't a way to argue that it should be legal. All that really shows is how determined women who get abortions are to shirk their responsibility as a parent.
And what about adoption? Ask someone who is getting an abortion why they won't consider adoption. The answer will make you sick. "I couldn't bear to give my child to someone else."
But they have no problem killing it, because they don't have to look at it.
Hey, personal rights are paramount to this conservative. That's why we're all so busy protecting the rights of these unborn children who have no other voices speaking up for them.
A problem in the abortion debate is often the misconception the pro-life side has about the pro-choice side. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. Pro-choice means an interest in preventing government intrusion in this most personal aspect of a woman's life (something that would otherwise be paramount to conservatives, according to your rhetoric) and it means acknowledging the public health risk that emerges in the absence of safe, legal abortions.
If you are interested in my additional thoughts on the latter issue, please this post from November on my own site:
http://liberalavenger.com/2004/11/way-it-was.html
pro-choice, aka, pro-abortion isn't just a woman's health issue. it is a society health issue. killing off 43 million unborn children does not justify saving the few women who might die because they took it upon themselves to kill their unborn child. I don't care what sorry story you propose to me. There is no excuse. The only reason it is easier to take the side of the woman doing the killing is because you've had a chance to get to know her; you feel sorry for her. Had the unborn child been born, much like your own experience, and you got to see and meet the child before hand this wouldn't be a debate. Luckily ultrasounds are amazing these days. All women who decide to abort should have see their child, hear it's heart beat, watch it move and "breath", then witness their child being sucked/ripped out of their bodies. I mean, if you're all for a woman's "choice" why sugar coat it? Call it what it is; murder.
http://loyopp.typepad.com/loyal_opposition/2005/01/thoughts_on_the.html
That is, we agree on the "rare" part. Wouldn't it be great if we spent the time we spend screaming at each other talking about promoting contraceptive use, promoting adoption, and reaching people who would bring the baby to term if they only had some financial and moral support?
There could be abortion legislation passed with full bipartisan support by the end of the week if the GOP wanted. Such legislation would virtually end all second and third trimester abortions (save for life/health of the mother) except in the cases of rape and incest.
And such legislation would pass with overwhelming bipartisan support.
But conservatives realize they'd be giving up a voting bloc.
Conservatives like to frame the issue of abortion as about saving lives. Well, there's a guaranteed proposal on the table that saves many, many lives. But conservatives won't even look at it. Why?
I know for a fact they don't. They value the issue far more than the principle.
As I stated before, conservatives could have overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation which would end second and third trimester abortions--except in cases of the mother's health, rape and incest.
IOW, they'd get 80-85% of what they claim to want--right now. And there's always the possibility they could get more later.
So, why don't they? Because it's an issue they want to keep alive.
I'm one and I'm telling you that I think that all forms of abortion are wrong. Does that make me value the issue or the principle? If by principle you mean, "save all the babies that we can to a point" then no, I don't believe in the principle because ALL babies should live.
What is the issue? canuck pins it right here, ""Like I said, keep your abortions legal so you can ""save the mother" and ignore the baby inside. Still doesn’t change the fact that you are killing a child."
Jadegold, which side of this do you take? Are you for or against abortion? I mean you seem to be arguing a point that is against abortion, but only because you see irregularities in a conservatives's point of view.(Although I don't see one because in order to pass the legislation that you suggest means that we would have to give up on the rest of the murders)
I'm not satisfied with 80-85%... if you are against abortions then why are you satisified with 15-20% babies getting killed?
Besides, we don't have enough room to jail 43 million women. If what they do is murder, doesn't that mean they should serve life sentences?
In my life I've known 4 people who've had abortions. 3 of those 4 came from very religious homes with caring, responsible parents. In each instance the parents knew ahead of time about the abortion (aged 16-24) and grudgingly accepted it, as long as they enroll in a suppot group for religious women coping with their decisions.
So, I only know the personal stories of 4 out of 43 million, but from what I've seen they are NOT filled with sluts getting rid of one night stands with the ease of a McDonald's drive-through window.
They're scarred and emotionally hurt, but ultimately thankful for the opportunity to not: a)have a rapists baby, b)severely destroy their body via childbirth due to existing health problems, or c)yes, live in poverty for the rest of their lives to care for a child alone at 16. Believe it or not, even a large number of religious parents are hypocritical and irresponsible idiots.
So by your definition of "religious issue" the government should stay out of murder investigations as well?
You're wrong.
Besides, we don’t have enough room to jail 43 million women. If what they do is murder, doesn’t that mean they should serve life sentences?
First of all, its 43 million over three decades. Second, we're not going to see abortions at the same rate once they're illegal.
a)have a rapists baby
The baby should die for the sin's of a rapist? Doesn't sound fair to me.
severely destroy their body via childbirth due to existing health problems
So the solution to the health problems is to kill the baby? Maybe mom should have considered her health before getting pregnant. Also, the vast majorit of aboritons being perfomred have nothing to do with health complications. This is a cop-out.
c)yes, live in poverty for the rest of their lives to care for a child alone at 16.
We all have to live with the consequences of the life choices we make. If you choose to have sex, you deal with the consquences. If you choose to gamble and loose all your money you don't have the option to pretend like it never happened. Why should we hold mothers to a lesser standard?
My rebuttle - I thought as humans one of the things that makes us unique is that we PROTECT our children. If a mother puts her own health in front of that of her child then she does not deserve the ability to have children.
Spoken like a man, Joe Brooks.
Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I cannot understand the bond between child and parent. I was a child once and plan on being a parent in the future. Jadegold, you are bordering on being a troll on this website.It's getting annoying in my opinion.
Really? It seems to me, Mr. Brooks just demanded a woman sacrifice her health, perhaps her life, to give birth.
Or don't her rights matter?
Again, opinions vary. I'd argue several points; first, what if the woman has other children? Would you then say the woman's rights remain equal to that of the fetus? Second, very often in the case where a woman's health is endangered, so is the health of the fetus. Shouldn't potential for survivability play in the equation?
Issues such as these are seldom as black and white as you'd like to portray.
"But we all know that the majority of abortions being performed in this country have nothing to do with a woman’s health and everything to do with wanting to shirk the responsibility of parentship. "
Again, the issue is more nuanced than you think. Would you compel a woman to have a child as a result of rape or incest?
You also have to factor in the fact that most of those opposed to choice are also opposed the very things that could significantly mitigate unwanted pregnancy.
The sticking point is "health of the mother." Conservatives oppose such an innocuous-sounding exception because it has in fact been used as a loophole to escape restrictions. (Actual attempts to define what constitutes a legitimate health concern are rife with their own philosophical problems, not least of which is the sacred cow of "privacy.")
So the kind of "easy" legislation you claim the GOP could pass is liable to either being stomped on by the courts or so flexible as to not actually change facts on the ground. It would also have used up the political capital on the issue. A very cunning suggestion, JadeGold, to challenge the other side to fire using blanks to demonstrate their sincerity.
Also, I'm against "health" as a viable reason for abortion because what will be regulated as a health situation? What keeps a mother from going to a clinic and saying she has a headache and its because of her pregnancy. Or what if the mother gains weight and doesn't like her appearance, so she proclaims depression in order to get an abortion. These can all be considered health issues, and any of them could escalate to a life or death situation for the mother.
But we all know that the majority of abortions being performed in this country have nothing to do with a woman's health and everything to do with wanting to shirk the responsibility of parentship.
Two separate issues. Crafting the legislation to survive court scrutiny isn't difficult. The so-called PBA legislation was struck down for very good reasons not least of which is that it's a transparently an example of wedge politics.
"The sticking point is ""health of the mother." Conservatives oppose such an innocuous-sounding exception because it has in fact been used as a loophole to escape restrictions."
Choose your poison. Do you want an MD or some political appointee making your health decisions?
"So the kind of ""easy" legislation you claim the GOP could pass is liable to either being stomped on by the courts or so flexible as to not actually change facts on the ground."
They could easily pass such legislation and pass court muster. The problem is that you're unwilling to compromise a bit. Again, the value of the issue trumps the principle.
Wow...what a thing to say. You sure have a knack for ASSuming.
Do you honestly think conservatives don’t want to stop this? [question by canuck to Jadegold]
I know for a fact they don’t. They value the issue far more than the principle.
A "fact", huh? Where did you get this "fact"?
"If a mother puts her own health in front of that of her child then she does not deserve the ability to have children." [Joe Brooks said this]
Spoken like a man, Joe Brooks.
Yes Jadegold. Spoken like a man. A gentleman. A human being. It's better than speaking like an immature child like you're doing.
Crafting the legislation to survive court scrutiny isn’t difficult.
Really Jadegold? Do you realize that the courts often don't follow the law? (Roe vs Wade)
They could easily pass such legislation and pass court muster. The problem is that you’re unwilling to compromise a bit. Again, the value of the issue trumps the principle.
Well..keep on ASSuming that Jadegold. Oh..and hold onto your "fact".
Ed says, "Here’s the biggest problem of all: This is a religious issue. The government should not have a say in it (Church & State)."
One: this isn't a religious issue. This is a matter of life and death and the sanctity of life. Can you even allow for that possibility or does your cookie cutter view prevent it? Two: What "church & state" issue ? Don't try to slip bullshit past me.
If on the other hand your response is that there is some pre-partum dividing line, then I have to ask who is to say what that line is?
Seems like there's a bit of a hole in your argument.
Really? Care to point to the part of the Constitution that guarantees abortion rights?
No, Caunucks argument (and mine as well) is based on the idea that an unborn child is a life, and that the premeditated killing of it is murder. You, unfortunately, think that an unborn child is a "mass of cells" (or something along those lines) and thus feel no compunction what-so-ever in killing it.
Maybe its not clear to you. Its clear to the rest of us. When there is a fertilized egg implanted and growing in a mother there is a life there. That life is a human life. In order for you to say that, at the time of implantation, there is no life in existence you would also have to contend that there is no life in that mother's tummy until the time of birth. Are you willing to make that argument? And if you are, would you consider a man punching is 8-month-pregnant wife in the stomach and killing the child guilty of murdering the baby?
Bad guess. I'm an atheist and my objection to abortion arises from a firm belief (not grounded in any sort of spiritual dogma) that killing children because they're inconvenient to the parents that conceived them is wrong. More than wrong. Atrocious.
I think that robbing banks is wrong...should I restrict my opposition to armed robbery to my own personal habits lest I push my "emotion based viewpoints" on others?
Pardon my French, but bullshit. If the pro-abortion crowd were truly in favor of child birth over abortion they'd be encouraging these mothers toward adoption (there are millions of couples in this country alone who would like to adopt a child) not abortion.
Oh good grief. This canard again. Listen, as Seth points out, men have a stake in their unborn children as well. Child support is a good example, but even fathers that stay with the mother work just as hard as parents as the mother does. Granted, the father doesn't have to carry the child to term, but that's not exactly anything the father can help.
This argument is sort of a cop-out. You want to dismiss my opposition to abortion out of hat, so its easy to say "Oh, he's a man" to discredit my arguments.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman's "right to choose"?
Second, my guess would be that your opinions on abortion are in fact religious based.
I'm against abortion and it has nothing to do with religion. It is funny that you said this though because you are talking to a bunch of atheists and agnostics. It shows me that you have no argument.
Moreso, it would be both immoral and unconstituional to pass laws based upon religious beliefs.
How so?
If you are against abortion, then the answer is simple; don't have one.
Another answer is to work to make it illegal.
But don't push your emotion based veiwpoints on others.
I'm against abortion based upon logic and reason. This assumption of yours that it is based upon emotion shows me yet again that you have no argument.
Lastly, pro-abortion is an incorrect term, it implies that pro-choicers prefer abortion to child birth, which is ludacris.
It doesn't necessarily imply that. Oftentimes it does. Just check out the pro-abortion crowd.
Pro-choice would be the correct term because it accurately expresses where we stand on a woman's right to choose.
The dead baby has no choice. Therefore, "right to choose" is a disgusting misnomer.
One more thing, Rob, as a man, is not burdened with the same responsibilities that a woman is as far a children go. Therefore, he would be unable to argue against legal abortion, which is a women's issue. It is easy for Rob to say what a woman should do, but this is an issue that he will never have to face. He will never have to worry about being pregnant nor will he have to make the decision about how he should handle it.
It takes a man and a woman to have a baby so you can stop this argument right here.
Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that a man shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion in the event that his wife or girlfriend get's pregnant...
Bullshit. That is exactly what you just said.
...I am simply saying that in the end it is her decision because it is her life and her body.
There is one or more bodies there besides her own. There is one or more lives there besides her own. You are discounting the obvious.
You may say, "But what about the baby's life?," but once again, who's to make the judgement about when life actually begins.
There's a life inside the mother. Only a non-serious person with an agenda would deny this obvious truth.
That's the great thing about pro-choice. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you can choose to have that baby. But if you don't, abortion is an option.
In other words, you make up your own reality as you go.
As a former fetus, Sara, I have a very good reason to be involved in the abortion debate.
And that's a nice quotation of the 14th amendment, but I'm must be missing the relevence... Did I miss the part about abortion? Or maybe it says something about "privacy"? No? What about the part about the government not making laws that effect your body? That's not in their either? Hm... what was the point?
As a man, I don't want a say in "what all women do." I just want to stop women from killing unborn children. And its not just men who feel this way, I know quite a few women who agree with me as well.
Its not a question of control, its the fact that killing unborn children is wrong. Period.
Well, too bad for you then. I, however, feel that abortion is murder. I feel that its a barbaric practice that should be haulted.
Perhaps, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop arguing. As long as unborn children are being killed because the mothers/parents don't want to be inconvenienced with them I will be speaking out against it.
Ok, you've quoted the text of the 14th amendment, where in there does it say that women have a right to kill unborn children because its convenient for them? And don't feed me the privacy cop-out, doctors are regularly prohibited by law from performing certain medical procedures. It doesn't violate anyone's privacy to prohibit abortions.
Where have I manipulated any of your words?
Why would you want to make robbing a bank illegal just because you don't agree with it Why would you want to make murder illegal just because you don't agree with it? Why would you want to make rape illegal just because you don't agree with it?
That's a ludicrous argument.
In other words, she was selfish. She unburdened herself of her unborn child (a child which was the consequence of her own actions) so she could carry on the life she wanted to live.
Are you expecting this story to convince me of something?
Viability, another cop-out. People on life support in intensive care aren't "viable" either. She we go around and pull the plug on all of them because its an inconvenience to keep them around?
Implied? The right of a mother to kill her unborn child is implied in the 14th amendment? That's a stretch.
But since we're talking about the Constitution let me point you toward another amendment.
Abortion is not a power delegated to the federal government nor is it prohibited to the states...therefore it is a matter to be decided by each state on an individual basis. Period. That's the way its supposed to be until a bunch of judges decided that the 14th somehow supported the right to murder unborn children.
Where does the 14th say anything about privacy? Do you mean the fourth amendment? And how does even that amendment support the ending of an unborn human life? Can you be specific in any of this or is your entire argument going to based on largely emotional, knee-jerk reactions and generalizations?
Oh, so we're back to this again. I can't have an opinon about abortion because I don't have a vagina.
Please. Just address the points I'm raising and quit trying to circumvent them with this cop-out. If you need to pretend I'm a pro-life woman, go ahead.
And, for the record, I don't see where the idea that a child might have a hard life is enough of a reason to advocate for that child's death before it even has a chance to experience the world.
Well...ok. Touche. Though that wasn't really my point. Some of the people on life support are going to get better again and return to their lives. A child, when not sucked out of a woman's womb by a vacuum (or some other crude medical procedure), will also come to life. You can try to say that its not human, but really that's just a convenient lable for you to use when avoiding the fact that you could be supporting the murder of the next Einstein. Or Beethoven. Or, granted, the next Hitler. But then, we'll never know until they have a chance to live in the world...right?
If we were able to give these unborn children the choice betwen living with an uneducated mother or being killed I'm sure the vast majority of them would choose life with an unedcuated mother.
Yes. Accidents happen. They happen to people driving around without insurance all the time. Should these irresponsible people be allowed to shirk the consequences of their decisions because they don't want to face them? Of course not. And in that example we're not even talking about killing anybody.
Um...because it is a human. How many times do we have to repeat this?
Sara dear, people will judge you for this attitude of yours. You know this, right?
You'll grow out of this hun. Trust me...
That is, unless you like having a cold and calloused heart, and plan to keep it all your miserable life...
Actually, in this specific instance, I would support allowing a woman to choose between trying to give birth (and possibly or certainly dying) or having an abortion.
But in this instance only. I don't support having an abortion because the mother would be poor or because its inconvenient to the mother's life plans.
Anecdotal and not convincing. Give us stats or something. Surely there's been a study done on this.
Actually, I've told you pretty explictly why they're cop outs. You've waivered back and forth on the whole "You're a man so you don't know" thing. You've told me I can't argue the issue while simultaneously arguing the issue with me. The idea that men can't have an opinion about abortion because they don't carry the child is still a cop-out argument though, it just so happens that you're using it but not taking it.
Whoa...that's news to me. ;-)
Huh? I do believe a fetus is a human. Why should I change my stance?
Huh? Make your point.
So if you would support her choice then
What makes your wifes right to live any greater than a fetus?
You aren't the one who is screwed when the father walks away and leaves you with no money to survive and nobody to watch it while you go to work. And even if you do have to pay child support, it is a few simple checks that you pay and then you never have to deal with the child.
What? What? YOU SAID WHAT!?!?
That is the most ignorant and sexist thing I've seen or heard in at least the last 6 months. No kidding.
You don't think men don't care for their children? Do you think it doesn't absolutely tear a man's heart out to have his children torn away from his life by a woman's selfish, fickle actions? Do you have any idea how life shattering it is for a man to have a judge grant custodial rights to the mother based solely on gender? Do you honestly think that women don't walk out on men, taking that man's children away?
Do you have any idea how absolutley punitive child support payments are for a man? Do you know a man becomes a felon if he can't pay? Do you know that if, by some miracle, the man gets custody, the woman's support obligation will likely be less of a burden to her than to a man making the same amount of money? Do you know that women are proportionally much, much, MUCH more likely than men to not pay support payments? Do you know that women are much, much, MUCH less likely to be punished by the courts for not paying child support?
IF you want to do some research, maybe you could do some research on the treatment of fathers by the family courts...
...or you could just continue to be an ignorant sexist.
In order for me to buy this argument I'd have to be willing to believe that an unborn child is not human. Which is not something that is true. A fetus is a human at the very beginning of its existence. That's a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not.
That is not even comparable to what Rob is saying. You are asking him to change his belief to make his point. He is just asking you for a solid argument that can be made to him regardless of what his gender is.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to wait and see if it's the next hitler.
Right. So kill all kids now. Great logic there.
You'd think you'd find that something special.
I am also willing to admit that many do care for their children. But the likelihood of a father walking out on his children is much higher that that of a mother.
You want to back that statement up?
No, men don't have to carry the children or give birth to them, but there are more than a few men (myself included) who would gladly bear that burden if it meant they'd get equal treatment in custody battles and/or would be able to see their children born instead of killed.
Oh no. We read it. We just disagree with it.
It is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment (privacy).
The 14th Amendment isn't about privacy.
Why would you want to make abortion illegal just because you don't agree with it.
Because it is the taking of a human life. That's why. Clear enough for you? Besides, as Rob pointed out in a comment below yours, this is a ludicrous point to make.
Word of the day: Viable
I hope you never need living assistance in your older age. You won't be "Viable" anymore and your arguments could come back to bite you in the ass.
No actually you don't have a good reason to be in this debate, no matter what you say, you will never have to play as responsible a role as the woman as far a children are concerned.
What? Explain your logic here (if any logic exists). Why are you bringing up children? You are advocating the position of killing them.
You don't have to carry it for nine months. You aren't the one breast feeding it. You aren't the one who is screwed when the father walks away and leaves you with no money to survive and nobody to watch it while you go to work. And even if you do have to pay child support, it is a few simple checks that you pay and then you never have to deal with the child.
That's a nice excuse for murder. What's your point supposed to be? Since the child is such a burden for the woman, she should have the option of killing it? Wow!
And, the woman I am referring to is extremely kind and unselfish.
So why did she kill her baby? Her action paints her as the worst kind of selfishness a human being can display and anything but "extremely kind".
It would have been selfish to bring a child into a crappy situation with an uneducated mother.
Right...because situations like this are pure hopelessness and never changing. Sorry,...this is a weak point you are trying to make. It comes off as an excuse. What is to say that her situation wouldn't have improved? Nothing.
Consequences my ass, accidents happen.
Sex is an accident? Who knew?
I have been sexually active since I turned 18 (now 21). I have not gotten pregnant at any point. If I did, I would know that I avoided it to the best of my ability, and would have an abortion.
Well, it is obvious that you are quite selfish then Sara. Avoiding pregnancy "to the best of your ability" would be to not have sex.
You can say that my arguments are a cop-out all you want. That does not change the relevancy of them just because you say so.
No. A lot of your arguments are a cop-out. Flat out excuses in other instances. That does change the relevancy of them when it comes to the logic of your argument.
once again...You can say that my arguments are a cop-out all you want. That does not change the relevancy of them just because you say so.
Rob is explaining why your arguments are a cop-out. He's also destroying any "relevancy" of your arguments. I can't say that you are doing the same.
You say that I can't argue this issue because I don't have a vagina. I say fine, respond to my points as though I did have a vagina.
Ok then. respond to my points as if you don't believe a fetus is a human.
You do understand that's not a statistically significant group, don't you?
By the way Sara, a little free legal advice: your single mother freinds have to go to court to get awarded child support. If they have done so and the father still isn't paying, then another visit to the court is warranted. The man could have his wages garnished, or even convicted under federal law (US CODE: TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 11A, § 228) and sent to jail.
Same with your "its not human" claim. A fetus is human. Granted, its at the very beginning of its existence, but that does not diminish its humanity. If left alone it would grow into another functioning member of human society. If it isn't killed, that is.
Saying that it isn't human is a cop-out because using that label makes it easier for you to support abortion.
I see...so the very facts of the matter themselves are not a valid argument for you. Gotcha.
I fear this is a lost cause.
Except...that's not the argument we're making. We're saying that an unborn human child is a life that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out because its existence might inconvenience the people who created it.
Yep. The judgements are: narcissistic, cold-hearted, ignorant, and evil.
And please don't let anger cloud your objectivity on this argument. We all care passionately about the issue at hand and can get frustrated when discussing it with those who do not agree with us, but I'd much rather you go away from all this thoughtful instead of angry.
And look around. There are lots of other posts here you may feel like discussing in the future.