|
On June 29 2013 00:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 23:53 Shiori wrote:On June 28 2013 22:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 22:48 ZeaL. wrote:On June 28 2013 18:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:
A woman shouldn't have an obligation put on her - at least a pregnancy, maybe a miscarriage or complication, giving birth, then raising a child maybe or giving it up - when she never gave consent to have sex. I'm very pro-life but rape is in my eyes a justified reason to have an abortion.
Incest no, consensual sex between adults resulting in pregnancy, incest or not, to me means either should have kept your legs closed or not wanted to get it in so bad or taken your birth control or been on birth control or used a condom or went and got the morning-to-3-days after pills, or don't kill an innocent and defenseless life because you don't want it and other people say it's alright you can. I don't really understand this sentiment. Murder is okay, but only okay if it was preceded by rape? If the mother doesn't want to raise the child, there's always adoption. Aren't pro-life people always talking about giving life a chance regardless of the circumstances the life may have to endure? There was a time when masturbation was not condoned by the Catholic Church since it was murdering children. They then pulled back and now say that abortion is murdering children. They're right now pulling back and are saying that "rape and incest" is okay They will eventually move the goalpost yet again in the future. This is actually just not even remotely true at all. The Catholic Church has never condoned masturbation, but it has nothing to do with "murdering children." They view it as a corruption of human sexuality which shirks the procreative element in favour of pure pleasure. Obviously, this is silly, but it definitely isn't murdering children, nor does the Church claim that it is. They have pretty much always stated that abortion is murdering children, although they have quibbled about the timing. The Catholic Church doesn't actually make exceptions for rape and incest. People in this thread have done so, but it has nothing to d with the Catholic Church afaik. You haven't read enough 13th century writing...
Yes I have. Condemnation of masturbation is based on a passage in the Old Testament, not 13th century writing.
|
I think that abortion should be totally legal. After all, if a woman is convinced that she wants it, she'll get it. If it's forbidden she'll do it in some illegal clinic or with homebrew methods of this sort or another, all of which carry much higher risk than a proper procedure carried out at a hospital.
I'm not saying that abortion is a good thing, but if someone is hell-bent on it, why not allow them to at least have it done properly?
|
On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: It should be noted that I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website.
It's not particularly centrist to claim that being opposed to abortion = anti-woman, psychotic, and hideously immoral. I'm opposed to abortion in most circumstances (though I don't think making abortion illegal is practical or advisable) and I'm a feminist. My position with respect to abortion has nothing to do with my understanding of female ontology; it's based on my understanding of personhood and bodily autonomy. I'd also like to think that I'm not psychotic. I don't think it's particularly fair to call me hideously immoral, provided I approach the issue as honestly as I can. For example, I wouldn't condemn pro-choice people as being "hideously" immoral. I'd say that they're, in general, wrong, but I can definitely see where they're coming from. In particular, I have great sympathy for those who permit abortion in the first trimester but are opposed to late-term abortions, because, to me, that's the most reasonable pro-choice position since it offers a reasonable definition of personhood without over-indulging bodily autonomy to the point where a woman could abort a fetus 1 day before it's due.
I've never really understood the miscarriage example. No agent is responsible for miscarriage anymore than an agent is responsible for a tornado strike. If we discovered that there was some evil scientist responsible for inducing all the miscarriages in the world, we probably would arrest that person.
For the record, I am totally fine with abortions due to rape, threat to the life of the mother, and/or extreme fetal abnormalities which preclude acquisition of sapience (being born without a brain, for example).
EDIT: I know you said that the position is what's evil, psychotic, and immoral, but only the latter of these can be meaningfully applied to abstractions i.e. "positions." Psychosis is a psychological state; it afflicts minds, not arguments. Evil is also inseparably associated with moral agency (e.g. tumors are not "evil" because they are not agents; they simply are).
|
On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy.
I treat abortions like I treat Do Not Resuscitate clauses. I wouldn't ban either, but both end lives. I'm also fine with the death penalty even though, in the end, I know its just justifiable murder. Thinking something is murder does not mean that one thinks it is evil.
|
On June 29 2013 00:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. I treat abortions like I treat Do Not Resuscitate clauses. I wouldn't ban either, but both end lives. I'm also fine with the death penalty even though, in the end, I know its just justifiable murder. Thinking something is murder does not mean that one thinks it is evil.
The death penalty is indefensible and evil. No reasonable ethical system establishes that a person committing a crime somehow forfeits their right to life, nor does any reasonable ethical system establish the morality of the death penalty, because it has no purpose. It achieves nothing but vengeance, which is morally worthless.
|
On June 29 2013 00:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 23:53 Shiori wrote:On June 28 2013 22:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 22:48 ZeaL. wrote:On June 28 2013 18:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:
A woman shouldn't have an obligation put on her - at least a pregnancy, maybe a miscarriage or complication, giving birth, then raising a child maybe or giving it up - when she never gave consent to have sex. I'm very pro-life but rape is in my eyes a justified reason to have an abortion.
Incest no, consensual sex between adults resulting in pregnancy, incest or not, to me means either should have kept your legs closed or not wanted to get it in so bad or taken your birth control or been on birth control or used a condom or went and got the morning-to-3-days after pills, or don't kill an innocent and defenseless life because you don't want it and other people say it's alright you can. I don't really understand this sentiment. Murder is okay, but only okay if it was preceded by rape? If the mother doesn't want to raise the child, there's always adoption. Aren't pro-life people always talking about giving life a chance regardless of the circumstances the life may have to endure? There was a time when masturbation was not condoned by the Catholic Church since it was murdering children. They then pulled back and now say that abortion is murdering children. They're right now pulling back and are saying that "rape and incest" is okay They will eventually move the goalpost yet again in the future. This is actually just not even remotely true at all. The Catholic Church has never condoned masturbation, but it has nothing to do with "murdering children." They view it as a corruption of human sexuality which shirks the procreative element in favour of pure pleasure. Obviously, this is silly, but it definitely isn't murdering children, nor does the Church claim that it is. They have pretty much always stated that abortion is murdering children, although they have quibbled about the timing. The Catholic Church doesn't actually make exceptions for rape and incest. People in this thread have done so, but it has nothing to d with the Catholic Church afaik. You haven't read enough 13th century writing... Yes I have. Condemnation of masturbation is based on a passage in the Old Testament, not 13th century writing.
Yes, and they also believed Sperms were Homunculus and the spilling out of them literally killed them. This was most extreme in the 1500's and was a side effect of Catholicism's constant need to scientifically prove whatever they believed to be objectively true and then discarding anything that was to the contrary.
|
It's not particularly centrist to claim that being opposed to abortion = anti-woman, psychotic, and hideously immoral.
I'm not a centrist. I'm a raging liberal. I was talking about Theiving Magpie.
I've never really understood the miscarriage example. No agent is responsible for miscarriage anymore than an agent is responsible for a tornado strike. If we discovered that there was some evil scientist responsible for inducing all the miscarriages in the world, we probably would arrest that person.
Miscarriages can be self induced. You can "fall accidentally down stairs" etc. So in order to make it truly illegal you need to go to court and somehow prove it's not intentional. This is not theoretical. Americans have been thrown in jail for miscarriage.
I don't understand people talking about "aborting the day before it's due." Come on, that's a strawman. Anyway, I generally go by viability. But basically, I think it should be up to the doctor, not a politician.
|
On June 29 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. I treat abortions like I treat Do Not Resuscitate clauses. I wouldn't ban either, but both end lives. I'm also fine with the death penalty even though, in the end, I know its just justifiable murder. Thinking something is murder does not mean that one thinks it is evil. The death penalty is indefensible and evil. No reasonable ethical system establishes that a person committing a crime somehow forfeits their right to life, nor does any reasonable ethical system establish the morality of the death penalty, because it has no purpose. It achieves nothing but vengeance, which is morally worthless.
I don't care either or (death penalty or no death penalty) so long as the commit to one or the other. California currently has a lax death penalty system causing most cases to give the "light judgement" of life in prison because "hey, at least its not death penalty!" causing an overflow of criminals filling prisons.
Either kill them often or only have prison be for the worse offenders possible. Whatever the punishment system, so long as it is efficient I'm happy. Morals have nothing to do with it--it's about whether or not it allows the overall system of humanity to function. If we have laws, we need punishments for those laws. Some people want death, others don't. I don't care either or so long as they commit and not half ass it.
|
On June 29 2013 00:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +It's not particularly centrist to claim that being opposed to abortion = anti-woman, psychotic, and hideously immoral. I'm not a centrist. I'm a raging liberal. I was talking about Theiving Magpie. Show nested quote +I've never really understood the miscarriage example. No agent is responsible for miscarriage anymore than an agent is responsible for a tornado strike. If we discovered that there was some evil scientist responsible for inducing all the miscarriages in the world, we probably would arrest that person. Miscarriages can be self induced. You can "fall accidentally down stairs" etc. So in order to make it truly illegal you need to go to court and somehow prove it's not intentional. This is not theoretical. Americans have been thrown in jail for miscarriage. I don't understand people talking about "aborting the day before it's due." Come on, that's a strawman. Anyway, I generally go by viability. But basically, I think it should be up to the doctor, not a politician.
I do not view my opinion as centrist being that I will not cede ground to pro life agendas. I'm simply being honest that I do think its murder and being okay with that. I believe that my personal opinions are not what define law and morals.
|
On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby.
but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension.
almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted?
|
On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted?
The child only needs one legal guardian to give consent.
The woman only needs her consent to give legal consent.
The man is not required for that decision process.
|
On June 29 2013 00:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. I treat abortions like I treat Do Not Resuscitate clauses. I wouldn't ban either, but both end lives. I'm also fine with the death penalty even though, in the end, I know its just justifiable murder. Thinking something is murder does not mean that one thinks it is evil.
Uhh... DNRs are obviously not murder. Its not even euthanasia. No one is even an agent.
And murder usually refers to bad murder. It has a negative connotation. That's why we say abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc. If you don't mean it that way then you probably shouldn't use the word murder. That implies that you consider it together with infanticide.
|
On June 29 2013 00:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +It's not particularly centrist to claim that being opposed to abortion = anti-woman, psychotic, and hideously immoral. I'm not a centrist. I'm a raging liberal. I was talking about Theiving Magpie. Show nested quote +I've never really understood the miscarriage example. No agent is responsible for miscarriage anymore than an agent is responsible for a tornado strike. If we discovered that there was some evil scientist responsible for inducing all the miscarriages in the world, we probably would arrest that person. Miscarriages can be self induced. You can "fall accidentally down stairs" etc. So in order to make it truly illegal you need to go to court and somehow prove it's not intentional. This is not theoretical. Americans have been thrown in jail for miscarriage. I don't understand people talking about "aborting the day before it's due." Come on, that's a strawman. Anyway, I generally go by viability. But basically, I think it should be up to the doctor, not a politician.
An induced miscarriage is an abortion. "Miscarriage" is just a term for "spontaneous abortion." If you fall down the stairs, then it was an abortion if intended and a miscarriage if not intended. Similarly, someone who falls down the stairs and breaks their neck has been assaulted if they were intentionally pushed but not assaulted if someone at the top of the stairs just happened to bump into them by accident. Yes, it's near impossible to prove, but it doesn't invalidate the definition of assault.
Throwing people in jail for miscarriage, is, of course, absurd, as is throwing people in jail for abortion. People who perform/undergo abortions are not murderers. I would never support a law which made abortion a crime punishable by prison time. If anything, I would have the licenses of doctors suspended for performing it; nothing more. The women who undergo abortions need not be punished. But as I stated earlier, I do not think making abortion illegal is a good idea, simply because the issue is too divisive and emotionally charged. Much more effective, I think, would be to make contraceptives widely available, and to improve quality of life for pregnant women as well as support for new parents. It's very depressing that the popular pro-life movement safeguards zygotes but abandons toddlers to a paltry welfare system.
Going by viability doesn't really make sense to me. I think going by sapience is much more reasonable, because sapience is the quality we use to determine whether some organism is deserving of rights. Viability is not. There are many infants who would not survive without intensive care, and yet we have no problem devoting our tax dollars to taking care of them. Similarly, all infants require near-constant attention from a caregiver, be it a parent or nanny. They are viable in the sense that they can breathe the air, but they are pretty much just as taxing, if not more so, because they now require socialization and affection in addition to nourishment. While I don't deny that pregnancy can be traumatic and difficult, actually taking care of an infant is probably harder, because the former is mostly a matter of physical ailments and diet maintenance whereas the latter requires willfully taking care of two people (instead of one of them being taken care of simultaneously with the mother eating etc.) and spending time with that infant. Fetuses may be painful and (perhaps) parasitic, but they don't require lullabies or kisses  .
|
On June 29 2013 00:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote:
I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. but you see, i want that bastard to live so he would pay my pension. almost everyone in a society is doing some kind of sacrifice for the greater good, why women should be exempted?
wat?
almost eveyone is dong some kind of sacrifice for the greater good. except for over half of them?
so your anti abortion arguement is the tax revenue created by unwanted children?
|
Since im from denmark i wonder why the women of the US would allow a anti-abortion bill in the first place. The 20 week rule seem like it should fit well enough without exceptions. Thats how we have it atleast
|
On June 29 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. I treat abortions like I treat Do Not Resuscitate clauses. I wouldn't ban either, but both end lives. I'm also fine with the death penalty even though, in the end, I know its just justifiable murder. Thinking something is murder does not mean that one thinks it is evil. The death penalty is indefensible and evil. No reasonable ethical system establishes that a person committing a crime somehow forfeits their right to life, nor does any reasonable ethical system establish the morality of the death penalty, because it has no purpose. It achieves nothing but vengeance, which is morally worthless.
Are you sure its completely indefensible? If a person is well-connected to the mob or some terrorist group, and they are known to have killed dozens if not hundreds of people beyond a shadow of a doubt (mountains of forensic evidence, testimonials, personal confessions, etc.), I think you could argue that it is better to impose the death penalty than to sentence them to jail.
In jail, even one with high security, there is a chance that his/her supporting group could try to break them out of prison, and if that happens that individual could again threaten the safety of dozens if not hundreds of people. In that case the right of the person to live a life (at the bare minimum) is not worth the risk he poses to others.
|
On June 29 2013 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2013 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Abortion is not murder, and if you're pro-choice and say that I think you're being completely disingenuous. By saying that abortion is murder you are saying that doctors are murderers. It is not a centrist position at all. It is extreme.
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition.
However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil.
The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world?
Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy.
Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. I treat abortions like I treat Do Not Resuscitate clauses. I wouldn't ban either, but both end lives. I'm also fine with the death penalty even though, in the end, I know its just justifiable murder. Thinking something is murder does not mean that one thinks it is evil. Uhh... DNRs are obviously not murder. Its not even euthanasia. No one is even an agent. And murder usually refers to bad murder. It has a negative connotation. That's why we say abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc. If you don't mean it that way then you probably shouldn't use the word murder.
If you're going the route of being picky with word definitions then a murder is a flock of crows.
But lets not be silly. Murder is making the choice to kill someone. If you knowingly deciding to end a life it is murder. If you feel that word has too many connotations then replace it with kill, replace it with slay, replace it with whatever synonym you like.
I am not willing to play the game of "what day does the kid count" because that bogs things down in unnecessary red tape. The choice is the woman's, if she decides to end it then she can it. Playing games of "late term, early term" bullshit simply redirects the discussion away from the Pro-Choice stance that it is about choice. And until Pro-Life people spend every single dollar and every single political power they have to end low income poverty, improve foster care, improve the adoption system, and welfare for single mothers--I will not actually believe they care about life in any way shape or form.
Here's where you and I differ. I think its terrible that politicians spend time protecting kids that aren't born yet without protecting kids that are already born. I think its worse when the public believes them. I think that someone who believes in the sanctity of children's lives should do everything in their power to make it a good idea and a boon to have kids, not a burden. The day when accidentally getting pregnant stops feeling like a death sentence is the day when pro-life gets their say.
|
On June 29 2013 01:00 Chr15t wrote:
Since im from denmark i wonder why the women of the US would allow a anti-abortion bill in the first place. The 20 week rule seem like it should fit well enough without exceptions. Thats how we have it atleast
Women and Men fight for abortion.
Sadly, women and men also fight for anti-abortion.
The US is a very conservative country is all.
|
Here's where you and I differ. I think its terrible that politicians spend time protecting kids that aren't born yet without protecting kids that are already born. I think its worse when the public believes them. I think that someone who believes in the sanctity of children's lives should do everything in their power to make it a good idea and a boon to have kids, not a burden. The day when accidentally getting pregnant stops feeling like a death sentence is the day when pro-life gets their say.
Nah, my position is basically "politicians GTFO" like yours. Sounds like we don't actually differ. Seems more like an argument difference than a policy difference.
|
On June 29 2013 01:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Here's where you and I differ. I think its terrible that politicians spend time protecting kids that aren't born yet without protecting kids that are already born. I think its worse when the public believes them. I think that someone who believes in the sanctity of children's lives should do everything in their power to make it a good idea and a boon to have kids, not a burden. The day when accidentally getting pregnant stops feeling like a death sentence is the day when pro-life gets their say. Nah, my position is basically "politicians GTFO" like yours. Sounds like we don't actually differ. Seems more like an argument difference than a policy difference.
Yeah, I simply try to keep my biases in check.
I don't want to become one of those people who is secretly _____ but says he's blank ______.
I want to own up to my isms and try to deal with them on a day to day basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
