Pro-choice vs Abortion

[Kangaroo Feathers]

NO IT IS NOT-- you are using RELIGION to re-define "murder".

NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


YOU DO NOT GET TO FORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEW ONTO OTHERS.

FORBIDDEN.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And a whole lot more misunderstanding the point, but anyhoo...

I understood you perfectly, handwave as you will.

 

[Shantanu]

Actually, humanity needs a strategy to avoid overpopulation.

The human population of the planet will sort itself out according to resources available. There is no over population problem currently and it does not need to be socially engineered.

And what's wrong with feminists crusading in the interests of women? I support that as well.

The human species consists of a male and a female, the combined effect of which is described as humanity. There is nothing to be gained in splitting the sexes as if they are in conflict with one another.

Also, I support abortion on demand, but only early in the pregnancy. No reasons need be given, and nobody's approval sought.Like buying milk on demand, or taking a shower on demand.

If you want to kill an unborn baby why do you restrict it to a stage in the pregnancy. Killing is killing. Murder.

 

[Shantanu]

High profile leaders of Planned Parenthood didn't mind using those phrases

· Faye Wattleton, former President of Planned Parenthood, told MS Magazine in 1997, “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus” (“Speaking Frankly,” May/June 1997).

In Their Own Words: Pro-Lifers Aren’t the Only Ones Who Call Abortion Killing

Killing has to be defined in law.

 

[Shantanu]

It is called eugenics and it did not fair to well.

Eugenics is practiced in India through the arranged marriage system in which the boy and the girl are matched for compatibility and abilities. It therefore works fine and has generated a massive population so is a very successful country.

 

[Shantanu]

Medical knowledge is saving people that would otherwise die thus weaker genes are reproduced in the next generation.

I personally do not believe in medicine as a way of prolonging human life for that very reason. If one's time is up one has to go. What a waste of resources to use medical facilities to save and prolong lives. I live to reality. One does preventative lifestyle measures to protect the body from illnesses, and leave the rest to God.

 

[Shantanu]

So, the girl getting raped should be denied abortion because she didn't use contraception. Tell us all about how this would play out..."oh, before you rape me, could you please put this bit of latex on..." How well do you think that's going to work.

It is her baby: she has to give birth and leave the baby to be cared for by the State who make the laws.

 

[Koldo]

Just because you don't recognize the rights doesn't mean you don't have them.

Of course. Now, can you show me that I do have them ?

 

[Koldo]

It gets straight to the point. Why isn't that helpful.

Why should the state dictate to women whether they'll continue the fetus to term? When does the fetus get rights? Doe v Wade gave answers that make sense.

And as I said, the bible's views are far more pro-abortion and infanticide than mine are ─ to repeat myself:

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.​

Because regarding women as cows and as public property doesn't accurately, in any way whatsoever, represent the reality of pro-life's point of view.

 

[blü 2]

Because regarding women as cows and as public property doesn't accurately, in any way whatsoever, represent the reality of pro-life's point of view.

The "pro-life" point of view claims the right to tell women that once pregnant they must proceed to term, like it or not. Breeding cattle are in exactly that position. I say Roe v Wade got the balance right.

And once again all "pro-life" laws do is single out the least advantaged and penalize them. Women who can afford it will still travel over state lines and have legal abortions. I also notice "pro-life" folk don't offer to pay the costs of raising the resulting child either.

Women in all cultures in all ages have sought abortions. They still will. I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember the dreadful death toll due to illegal untrained or undertrained abortion practitioners ─ the practice went by names like 'back-yard abortion'.All that "pro-life" laws will do is make all those horrors real and present again.

Very bad idea on many fronts.

 

[Koldo]

The "pro-life" point of view claims the right to tell women that once pregnant they must proceed to term, like it or not. Breeding cattle are in exactly that position. I say Roe v Wade got the balance right.

And once again all "pro-life" laws do is single out the least advantaged and penalize them. Women who can afford it will still travel over state lines and have legal abortions. I also notice "pro-life" folk don't offer to pay the costs of raising the resulting child either.

Women in all cultures in all ages have sought abortions. They still will. I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember the dreadful death toll due to illegal untrained or undertrained abortion practitioners ─ the practice went by names like 'back-yard abortion'.All that "pro-life" laws will do is make all those horrors real and present again.

Very bad idea on many fronts.

1) So you see the similarity of one characteristic and then proceed to say that women are like cattle to pro-life ? Don't you see the problem with that ?

2) Isn't it to be expected that it should be a hassle to break the law ? Isn't it only natural that people with enough money will have an easier time breaking some laws ?

Try placing yourself in the shoes of someone that holds the view that women are doing something abhorrent when they willingly have an abortion. Consider also that you view them as literally killing their children while doing so. Would it come as a surprise if you ceased to feel so much compassion towards those women if you were to hold those views ?

 

[blü 2]

1) So you see the similarity of one characteristic and then proceed to say that women are like cattle to pro-life ? Don't you see the problem with that ?

The problem with that is that it deprives women of the right to choose, which is exactly the situation that breeding cows and breeding sows are in.

2) Isn't it to be expected that it should be a hassle to break the law ?

Isn't there some principle, written or unwritten, that one shouldn't make stupid selectively punitive laws that won't work anyway and create criminals to suit arbitrary whims of outsiders?

Try placing yourself in the shoes of someone that holds the view that women are doing something abhorrent when they willingly have an abortion. Consider also that you view them as literally killing their children while doing so. Would it come as a surprise if you ceased to feel so much compassion towards those women if you were to hold those views ?

They're free to hold those views. They're not free to stick them up other people's private parts.

 

[syo]

A woman who hates her child, can't raise a child. It's the Law.

 

[Koldo]

The problem with that is that it deprives women of the right to choose, which is exactly the situation that breeding cows and breeding sows are in.

Sure, which still doesn't mean that pro-life treat women like cattle. You can't take one similarity and expand it to mean they are treated in an equal manner.

Isn't there some principle, written or unwritten, that one shouldn't make stupid selectively punitive laws that won't work anyway and create criminals to suit arbitrary whims of outsiders?

Isn't democracy all about doing what people want ? Even if you regard it as stupid, does it achieve what people want ? If it does, you have to accept it.

They're free to hold those views. They're not free to stick them up other people's private parts.

Why not ? People are being forced all the time to do things they don't want to do, or even being prevented to do the things they do want to do. How is this any different ?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is her baby: she has to give birth and leave the baby to be cared for by the State who make the laws.

Not where I life! Fortunately for her...

 

[dianaiad]

I think you entirely understate what 'convenient' means. Convenience doesn't happen because of a whim, like Trump's foreign policy. It happens because people responsibly recognize that they cannot afford to have a child because there just isn't enough money to go around, and never will be; it happens because people responsibly recognize that they are not ready and able to be a parent, unlike those gazillions who have a child and criminally mistreat it; and it happens because people face the daunting prospect of having to raise a child alone, without the support of groups like Planned Parenthood, because the State has put them out of business.

People ought to have the right to not be a parent. It's against their will, which means it is against free will.

I agree with you. People should have the right not to be a parent. Absolutely.

The time to make that decision is BEFORE they engage in the activity that creates the baby.

 

[columbus]

I agree with you. People should have the right not to be a parent. Absolutely.

They do, and everyone knows it. Competent adults know where babies come from, and how to Choose whether or not to make one.

Listening to pro-feticide people, one might think that fetal humans are a sort of free floating parasite drifting around looking for a host to invade.

The time to make that decision is BEFORE they engage in the activity that creates the baby.

They apparently don't think women are capable of making that Choice.
Only men are capable, who are then legally obligated to a couple of decades of child support.
With checks made out to the mother.

Tom

 

[blü 2]

Sure, whic h still doesn't mean that pro-life treat women like cattle. You can't take one similarity and expand it to mean they are treated in an equal manner.

We're talking about choice and anti-choice ("pro-life") in reproductive rights. Female breeding stock are not given choice, and Anti-choice wants to include women in that. If Anti-choice have their way, that's the result they intend. They won't get that result, not to the extent they desire. The burden will fall most heavily on those who can least afford it, and so will the criminality that doesn't presently exist, and so will the deprivation of modern medical facilities and skills as the back-yard abortion makes its woman-killing return.

Isn't democracy all about doing what people want ? Even if you regard it as stupid, does it achieve what people want ? If it does, you have to accept it.

In this case, Roe v Wade is the product of US democratic institutions, and you're the ones not accepting it.

Besides, if you're right, you could carry your desires to their logical conclusion and have a police state and devise ways to bring back slavery too ─ first you convict them of opposing you, then you send them off to build the wall or rent them out to the market ─ and democratically do away with democracy in the name of populism. Get rid of those damned atheists, those invading hispanics, that hateful Asian cuisine! Let this be your slogan: Everything not forbidden is compulsory! We said so! Populism has always loved versions of that.

 

[We Never Know]

Seriously? Who defines this ... ahem... "responsibility" anyway? RELIGION!

It is RELIGION that defines women as "loose" or worse. But boys are encouraged to "sow their wild oats"? WHAT?

RELIGION AGAIN.



Religion! AGAIN-- you draw your harsh judgment against women who want to enjoy sex-- BECAUSE OF RELIGION AND "GAWD DUN LOIKE ITSES"

Leave religious JUDGEMENT out of it-- then maybe you have a point...

.... Religions that teach their followers their god drowned all the babies on the planet, that one time? HAVE NO MORAL STANCE TO MAKE.

Irresponsibility defines it. They don't go have sex without protection for a god, they don't have multiple partners for a god, they dontbget drunk and bang a few in a night for a god. They do it because they know they can always get an abortion.
FYI, a being(a god) that doesn't exist in reality has nothing to do with it.
A mythical being is neither involved, right nor wrong. It's just mythical.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Irresponsibility defines it. They don't go have sex without protection for a god, they don't have multiple partners for a god, they dontbget drunk and bang a few in a night for a god. They do it because they know they can always get an abortion..

So? Who died and let YOU decide for others, if they want to get 100's of abortions a year?

FYI, a being(a god) that doesn't exist in reality has nothing to do with it.
A mythical being is neither involved, right nor wrong. It's just mythical.

Agreed.