logo Sign In

The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 8

Author
Time
Post link

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

To illustrate my view that what is important is where one's views are anchored on this topic.

 Ugh.  I hate this topic, though I feel more strongly about it than most any other.  I just know how these "friendly" discussions tend to go.  But here I go, jumping back in when I'm trying to actually spend less time at this site.

I know what you mean but overly contentious debates tend to put me off a forum. I do hope the article will inspire those pro-choice people with philosophical underpinnings on the issue to reconsider their view at least a little. I feel hopeful when I read a prediction that the current attitude and laws on abortion will one day be viewed as one of our society's greatest moral failings. This thread is a good example of how intractable the debate is.

 should we move the legal age for "abortions" up to 4 years of age?

For my college newspaper I wrote an article on post-natal abortion. There were quotes from fictitious individuals praising its value and exclamations about how it truly protected a choice by giving women the opportunity to see if the child actually does create hardship, rather than having to guess. It was entirely political incorrect. Though it was written for April Fool's Day, I was really surprised it did not inspire some outrage on the liberal campus.

I teach my sons to respect the ants around our yard and not to kill them.  Many liberals are completely in favor of the rights of animals, creatures who don't even have a chance at gaining personhood.  Why, oh why do we find the life of an embryo or fetus (terms that in many ways dehumanize what is really a developing child) so relatively meaningless?

I like the not-killing-ants :)

Your question is a big part of what motivates my view.

I know I can be long-winded in this topic, so I'll stop with one last thought: I do sympathize with mothers who did not intend to get pregnant.  It is a scary thing, it causes changes to one's body and alters her life forever.  But I see no reason for her ability to choose to be so much more important than the child's.  I am pro-choice: choose not to have sex unless you're willing to have a child with that person.

I struggle with precisely how the law can handle these issues. But I agree with these principles. I thought the journal article might be eye-opening for those who think the slippery slope is not real, that the killing of infants would never be considered intellectually defensible.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
Post link

My black lab is more of a person than any zygote, I assure you. But I understand the question. Why do some liberals get wild about animal rights but at the same time are pro-choice?

 

Okay so here's my attempt to answer your question (keep in mind that I am not a crazy animal rights person. As a liberal living in Wisconsin I fish/hunt/kill ants/etc): There are plenty of laws to prevent humans from being abused or killed. In comparison there are very few laws that protect animals. So for people who love specific (or all) animals they want laws to protect those animals as well. Only the very extreme animal rights activists believe animals have more value than humans.

But that's just their view on animals. It's completely possible to want to protect animals AND be pro woman's choice. It's not about comparing the life of and animal to that of an unborn child.

If you want a Myspleen invite, just PM me and ask.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Once-upon-a-time-on-MySpleen/topic/12652/

Author
Time
Post link

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/reporter-megan-carpentier-undergoes-unnecessary-transvaginal-ultrasound-frame-155926605.html

In this article, a reporter gets a transvaginal ultrasound in order to demonstrate how uncomfortable it is and how legislators should not require it.  I feel her point largely right, believe it or not.  This is where I think anti-abortion legislation actually impedes rather than promotes itself.  The politicians who pass such laws fail to realize that both in perception and reality, they are overstepping a line when they require an invasive and truly unnecessary procedure prior to any abortion.

Now before applauding me for my liberal open-mindedness, I still would favor a regular ultrasound, which is not invasive and can be well justified by requiring that a patient make an educated decision.  But crossing the linewith a required transvag US is more than a moral stupidity; it's a PR stupidity as well.  How many will be swayed towards a more pro-choice POV because legislators don't know how to get the right laws passed?

Author
Time
Post link

I only we could predict who would grow up to become serial aborters. That way we could sterilize them beforehand, and avoid this whole issue completely.

Author
Time
Post link

darth_ender wrote: Because the sex of your baby is a matter of women's health, apparently:

The article does not make that comparison.

Author
Time
Post link

I agree with none.

The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.

Author
Time
Post link

Before georgec reads this and thinks that for some reason I can't admit when I'm wrong (in spite of admitting it on many occasions), you guys are right.  Well, at least in the sense that the reasons most Dems voted against the bill was because it was perceived as a political trap rather than a legitimate fight.  Nevertheless, were I pro-abortion, I'd still vote against it, as I see such motivation for having an abortion as completely unjustifiable.  Of course, my view now is tainted by the fact that I see abortions in general as unjustified, but I at least see some argument for it in spite of my disagreement.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

TV's Frink said:

The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.

 

       ^ this.

I hate that kind of political game playing.  

Dear politicians,  

Instead of playing these asinine games, how bout trying to solve our problems?

 

Author
Time
Post link

TV's Frink said:

I agree with none.

The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.

To an extent, sure. But why in the world would anyone support sex-selection abortions?

I've read a complaint that such abortions are (supposedly) rare and so not worth doing anything about. I've read a complaint that this will hurt Republicans with asians because it is supposedly more common among asians than other ethnicities. I've read complaints now insinuating this is about financial benefit for the bill's sponsor or just a political ploy. I'm surprised I haven't read the usual/pathetic 'but we have so many important things to be focused on!' argument. I've not found many criticisms based on the actual substance of the bill.

The notable exception is Obama who claims the bill would essentially force doctors to interrogate women about their motivation for seeking an abortion and that the government would be overstepping its bounds by imposing such a rule. My educated guess is that the bill does not impose such a requirement nor would a court construe it that way, but those who desire continued support of the pro-choice movement will read it into the bill as a palatable reason for opposing it.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Mrebo said:

TV's Frink said:

I agree with none.

The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.

To an extent, sure. But why in the world would anyone support sex-selection abortions?

I don't.   But as to why some would:  lets first assume we are talking about a group of people who believe the fetus is not yet human life with the same rights as you or I.   Let us also assume we are talking about a group people that believe in a woman's right to chose.    I don't think it is a stretch to think that this group of people might also believe that a woman should be able to use whatever reason she wants to in deciding to get an abortion, that the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what reasoning a woman can and can't use.     Again, I don't agree with those people, but that might be why some would support sex-selection abortions.   

Mrebo said:

I've read a complaint that such abortions are (supposedly) rare and so not worth doing anything about. I've read a complaint that this will hurt Republicans with asians because it is supposedly more common among asians than other ethnicities.

I know it is common in China to prefer male children to female children.   That, with the rules there limiting how many children you can have, is why most children up for adoption in China are girls.   I know this stuff because my brother and his wife adopted a child from china, my niece.     She is the light of my life, btw.

Mrebo said: I'm surprised I haven't read the usual/pathetic 'but we have so many important things to be focused on!' argument.

did you miss my previous post?

why is that argument pathetic?  don't we have more important things to do than put up a bill that was designed to create ammo for campaign commercials?   In the political thread, you said the number one issue for the upcoming election  is the economy.   Maybe Congress should be focused on that rather than playing games?  In any case,  I certainly don't think it is pathetic to think this way.    

Mrebo said:

The notable exception is Obama who claims the bill would essentially force doctors to interrogate women about their motivation for seeking an abortion and that the government would be overstepping its bounds by imposing such a rule. My educated guess is that the bill does not impose such a requirement nor would a court construe it that way, but those who desire continued support of the pro-choice movement will read it into the bill as a palatable reason for opposing it.

without such a rule, just how would we go about enforcing a ban on sex-selection abortions?  

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler, forgive me for straying yet again from topic, but this is exactly the kind of post I like to read from you, providing good reasoning, even though you don't even agree with most of your party on the topic.  I want to see more more of these :)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

my party? meaning the democrats?   I am not a democrat.  I am a RINO(republican in name only).      thanks for the compliment.

Author
Time
Post link

Don't you just hate free will?

Since they're like poetry, what with the rhyming and all, I find that I only need to watch three out of the six films.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

As Warbler says, you can swing your arm all you want as long as you don't hit someone else.  Abortion, to me, hits the unborn child in the face.  Your free will should not extend so far as to reduce that of someone else's.

Author
Time
Post link

darth_ender said:

As Warbler says, you can swing your arm all you want as long as you don't hit someone else.  Abortion, to me, hits the unborn child in the face.  Your free will should not extend so far as to reduce that of someone else's.

Until it is separated from the Mother, it doesn't get individual rights.

Since they're like poetry, what with the rhyming and all, I find that I only need to watch three out of the six films.

Author
Time
Post link

Under what reasoning?  Of course all advocates say that.  This is the same old argument for 8 pages.  Why does the mom get the rights and the child not?  Why not reverse it and give the child rights and the mother not?

The real reasoning for abortion is that having a child would be inconvenient or painful for the mother.  To justify it, we say that an unborn child has no rights.

I had a similar argument with Warbler in the politics thread.  Rights are simply what we as a society define as morally correct and not.  Somehow abortion advocates believe that these rights do not come till birth or 20 weeks gestation or whatever.  I believe that these rights are inherent to all, regardless of their development.

Author
Time
Post link

Monolithium said:

darth_ender said:

As Warbler says, you can swing your arm all you want as long as you don't hit someone else.  Abortion, to me, hits the unborn child in the face.  Your free will should not extend so far as to reduce that of someone else's.

Until it is separated from the Mother, it doesn't get individual rights.

word.

If you want a Myspleen invite, just PM me and ask.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Once-upon-a-time-on-MySpleen/topic/12652/

Author
Time
Post link

ender, you know that's not the only reason for abortion.

Author
Time
Post link

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that ultimately it all boils down to.  Excluding rape/incest/mother's health, which inevitably only account for a relatively small portion of all abortions, they all seem to fall under the categories I described.  Even a young pregnant teen has an abortion because of convenience...a child would interfere with her life, would be expensive, would be unloved and unwanted, would not have a father, or something else along those lines.  In other words, inconvenient.  If I'm wrong, I'd love some enlightenment.

Author
Time
Post link

darth_ender said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that ultimately it all boils down to.  Excluding rape/incest/mother's health, which inevitably only account for a relatively small portion of all abortions, they all seem to fall under the categories I described.  Even a young pregnant teen has an abortion because of convenience...a child would interfere with her life, would be expensive, would be unloved and unwanted, would not have a father, or something else along those lines.  In other words, inconvenient.  If I'm wrong, I'd love some enlightenment.

You said...

darth_ender said:

The real reasoning for abortion is that having a child would be inconvenient or painful for the mother.  To justify it, we say that an unborn child has no rights.

So I say...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002625/

This kind of stuff happens more than you think.  But no one likes to talk about it.