New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president

[F1fan]

Thanks for sharing. I have no interest in debating abortion (and to be honest I only read a sentence or two of your post), I regret even mentioning it. It is one of those topics in which a debate goes nowhere and just ends in name calling and ugliness.

Yeah, the "pro-life" movement can't really defend itself, so naturally the easy thing to do is ignore the arguments against it. That's how Trump could be elected. His supporters can't listen to the arguments against their choice. This is why ideology is flawed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I already said I would not personally choose to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest but since over 98 percent of abortions would be forbidden, I'm OK with that.

We need a frubal for <non-informative>.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I already said I would not personally choose to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest but since over 98 percent of abortions would be forbidden, I'm OK with that.

The people whose lives may actually be effected are probably not okay with that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Men are lucky. For most of our lives we do not have to put up with that. For women it is far worse than just fingers.

Oh yeah!

 

[F1fan]

I don't know where you are coming from but I will tell you where I am coming from. Not only am I "pro life" but I am also from a family who definitely believes in adoption, and we practice what we preach.

OK, you have beliefs. But do you have understanding? The dilemma with "pro-life" attitudes is that they are too heavily tied to assumptions that are religious and ideological, not facts. Do you understand anything about over-population? Do you understand that many unwanted kids are already in foster homes and not getting the mental health care they need due to the circumstances of their lives? Your beliefs aren't going to solve the problems that over-population will cause.

Also, my daughter was pregnant at 19 and she was unmarried and rightly so. She had fantastic care, through her own well, she didn't even have insurance but she income qualified for fantastic care, better than many people in fact. And her baby was supposed to be born with severely underdeveloped kidneys (didn't happen though two ultrasounds showed it). So not only was her regular doctor there (early) but there was also a top pediatrician there as well. Who we didn't need.

Oh and as for an infant not having any rights legally, well, it does. Did you know that in most states, if not all states, an unborn baby can inherit things from his or her mother or father, for instance? IT doesn't even have to be in the third trimester!

Pregnancy is an unusual circumstance, in that pro-lifers believe that the states should step up and protect the lives of the inborn. Pro abortionists believe that the main issue is bodily autonomy. So the two will never come to an agreement.

OK, you have a story. The thing is personal stories seldom reflect the whole of a situation. To make sound solutions for a nation we need to look at the big picture, not just a few stories that can color beliefs.

As far as children having healthcare access, I know that Kansas will pay for the healthcare of children, but not for the mother. I didn't know about this until one of my friends died in an accident and she left a pregnant widow with another child to take care of. Welfare covered some costs, and the kids had healthcare, but it was so difficult as far as paperwork that she had to quit her job and her parents moved into town to help her. My cycling community came together and provided dinners for her and the family for well into a year until things stabilized for her. The USA is still a nation that values good luck, and it's largely every man for himself. Is there room for idealism based on religious beliefs over abortion? No. Conservatives still complain about welfare, but offer no solutions that will actually resolve the problems of women in poverty.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Yeah, the "pro-life" movement can't really defend itself, so naturally the easy thing to do is ignore the arguments against it. That's how Trump could be elected. His supporters can't listen to the arguments against their choice. This is why ideology is flawed.

I was 'pro-choice' for most of my adult life, fervently so. So there is nothing you have said, or could say, that I have not already rejected to get to where I am now. That is why the topic is pointless to debate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My point is that rape and incest make up less than two percent of the causes of abortion ... Over 98 percent of abortions could be prevented because it's incredibly rare that rape or incest cause the desire to have an abortion.

OK. I'd prefer that it were 100%, that is, that there were no pregnancies due to rape or incest. Wouldn't you?

Maybe the state should stick up for these innocent unborn children?

They're fetuses or earlier, not children.

Protect them from murder?

Legal abortion isn't murder.

You really like the emotional appeal and tugging at the old heartstrings approach, don't you, but that's not effective unless one feels that abortion is immoral. Most people that object to abortion have spent a lot of time in churches, where they are taught that their god objects to abortion and expects them to intercede on its behalf in the lives of pregnant women wanting abortions. Those not subjected to that religious indoctrination generally have no such feeling, which is how we know that the outrage is manufactured. If it were an inherent human intuition, it would exist in large numbers in people who were not indoctrinated by a religion.

The problem with debating abortion is that the 'pro-choice' side only has an argument if they completely discount the value of the unborn.

Then you don't understand the pro-choicer's argument.

By my reckoning, the value of the conceptus is the potential mother's assessment - nobody else's What pro-choicers value that YOU completely discount is bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom, as well as secular government that doesn't impose and enforce the will of the church on people who aren't interested in what they believe.

Many advocate for freedom from religion. The US Constitution guarantees it, but those are just words on paper that can't enforce themselves from the forces who don't respect freedom from religion - or at least not freedom from THEIR religion - and who will impose it on the unwilling anyway if they can. They are NOT good neighbors, and neither is the church that makes them think that.

If you think that anything I've written there is incorrect or that such freedoms should be superseded by religious beliefs, feel free to make your case.

I can think of quite a few experiences that I do not want to go through every time that I see a doctor. "What is the rubber glove for?"

You'd probably be more alarmed if he skipped the glove.

 

[F1fan]

I was 'pro-choice' for most of my adult life, fervently so.

It's the only rational option. I am pro-choice because it is the natural position for a nation that allows liberty and personal responsibility. That doesn't mean I like abortion. No one does. Women aren't getting deliberately pregnant so they can exprience the thrill of an abortion. It is just a necessary option for a free society. The alternative is destructive and deadly, as we have observed in red states.

So there nothing you have said, or could say, that I have not already rejected to get to where I am now. That is why the topic is pointless to debate.

OK, you have your religious beliefs. But you've offered no reason why your religious beliefs should be imposed on all citizens in a nation that supposedly values liberty. Where's the argument? Where's the God that your side assumes exists as a moral basis?

 

[Regiomontanus]

OK. I'd prefer that it were 100%, that is, that there were no pregnancies due to rape or incest. Wouldn't you?

They're fetuses or earlier, not children.

Legal abortion isn't murder.

You really like the emotional appeal and tugging at the old heartstrings approach, don't you, but that's not effective unless one feels that abortion is immoral. Most people that object to abortion have spent a lot of time in churches, where they are taught that their god objects to abortion and expects them to intercede on its behalf in the lives of pregnant women wanting abortions. Those not subjected to that religious indoctrination generally have no such feeling, which is how we know that the outrage is manufactured. If it were an inherent human intuition, it would exist in large numbers in people who were not indoctrinated by a religion.

Then you don't understand the pro-choicer's argument.

By my reckoning, the value of the conceptus is the potential mother's assessment - nobody else's What pro-choicers value that YOU completely discount is bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom, as well as secular government that doesn't impose and enforce the will of the church on people who aren't interested in what they believe.

Many advocate for freedom from religion. The US Constitution guarantees it, but those are just words on paper that can't enforce themselves from the forces who don't respect freedom from religion - or at least not freedom from THEIR religion - and who will impose it on the unwilling anyway if they can. They are NOT good neighbors, and neither is the church that makes them think that.

If you think that anything I've written there is incorrect or that such freedoms should be superseded by religious beliefs, feel free to make your case.

You'd probably be more alarmed if he skipped the glove.

^^ A good example of how we (both sides) keep talking past each other. You will not change my mind and I will not change yours - because we have fundamental differences on the value of human life and morality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

^^ A good example of how we (both sides) keep talking past each other. You will not change my mind and I will not change yours - because we have fundamental differences on the value of human life and morality.

Sounds like pro-choice is the way to go then.
So that everyone gets to make their own choices about their own life.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I notice you say "life is at risk." So, I assume that means only when assured that death is imminent, a woman gets to choose, right?

Kamala Harris -- and I -- say when a woman's "personal well-being" are at risk, she has the right to make her own decisions.

Now, your turn. Set down your complete set of rules -- that accomodate every possible circumstance -- in such a way that there can be no confusion about what portion of a woman's life she is permitted to make and under what circumstances, and which will be made for her by government.

What does "personal well being" mean? That is very vague.

No, I never said I had the answer, all I asked what what are Kamala's restrictions.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And that just pushes the question back one step. I agree there should be guidelines, but who should write those guidelines? Should medical guidelines be written by Congress or The American Medical Association?

Both

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What does "personal well being" mean? That is very vague.

No, I never said I had the answer, all I asked what what are Kamala's restrictions.

The same as were there in Roe v Wade, which she says she wishes to reinstate. And Roe includes restrictions, based on the "trimester" system.

During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Supreme Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians. From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health. From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.

And Harris has plainly said she would restore Roe v Wade. And that includes restrictions that were in place for 50 years -- until 2 years ago.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But women are dying because 'health risk' is too strictly defined

What is the definition?

 

[Pogo]

What is the definition?

That is exactly the problem, under Roe, it was decided by the doctors and the patient, now we have the situation that it is in the hands of legislators and lawyers who are totally unqualified to make a decision and have no definition or understanding of the problem who are now in charge of whatever they think the definition should be.

Health risks and our decisions should be made by the affected parties, Doctors to explain and implement procedures and patients who get to make decisions as to what they wish to accept, not uninvolved parties.

 

[crossfire]

That answers nothing. Surely there should be a definition of what a health risk means before we end a life.

Women's lives are being ended because politicians are not health care professionals.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

They do, but they don't need to define it for you. What you want is to monitor their decisions. You don't require physicians to specify the health risks with diabetes or alcohol consumption because you understand that those are of interest to physicians and their patients, but not to you. You don't care what physicians consider to be too high a glucose until it affects you personally, and if that happened to you or a loved one, you wouldn't want government supervising that process. You would resent some buttinsky with zero medical knowledge who thinks that what you and your physician decide is his business and needs to be supervised to meet his approval.

Yes, the government has an interest in protecting the unborn. We will never see eye to eye and because I think the unborn has value worth protecting, you don't so we will never agree.

But you want to know that doctor's standards and want them stated explicitly as if you should have any say about what goes on in the exam room.

Not me but the government. We have regulations about what goes on in the exam room today. You are special pleading for abortion.

Conservatives used to bemoan nanny statism, but now, they lead the charge. They want to dictate who can say gay, what books can be read, who can have what gender related medical procedure, who can marry whom, and who can get an abortion. None of it is your business, but your religion teaches you that it is.

No, we are for limited government not no government. We feel protecting the unborn is a good use of government.

I am an atheist by the way.

There is, but you don't need to know what it is. It's none of your business. You're not qualified to have an opinion on what physicians decide, and you have no legitimate role in such decision-making. If some physicians don't meet the medical community's standards, it will discipline them - not you or the government acting on behalf of the church

I have never said I would define any terms or make any regulations. But informed people between the doctors and legislators should be able to discuss teh issue.

Don't believe Trump when he seems to show concern for somebody other than himself. Trump is a liar without compunction.

Uh huh, convenient. Trump said he will not sign a national abortion ban, that means to you whatever you want it to mean. Ok.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sounds like pro-choice is the way to go then.
So that everyone gets to make their own choices about their own life.

Unless you are a conservative, in which case it's obvious that you should be able to make other people's choices for them. This is called, in their parlance, "freedom" -- completely without any sense of irony.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Good question. And who best to answer it, a politician, you, me .... or maybe a medical professional?

Both medical professionals and legislators.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That is exactly the problem, under Roe, it was decided by the doctors and the patient, now we have the situation that it is in the hands of legislators and lawyers who are totally unqualified to make a decision and have no definition or understanding of the problem who are now in charge of whatever they think the definition should be.

Health risks and our decisions should be made by the affected parties, Doctors to explain and implement procedures and patients who get to make decisions as to what they wish to accept, not uninvolved parties.

We don't allow doctors to make decisions free from government laws. You want a special case for abortion.