Siri is against abortion... are you?

[bdrensch]

---

Members do not see this ad.

nvm

 

[bdrensch]

If a bum breaks in and leaves an infant in her house, does she have the right to kill it? That seems a more apt analogy; the fetus, after all, isn't aware of its own existence, much less the circumstances of its creation.

Again, I'm pro-choice, I just think the rape clause is a fig leaf that can't be rationally justified as the ONLY instance where abortion is permissible.

....

That said, the fact that such people exist is a reason in and of itself to never yield an inch on abortion rights. She will never compromise, and she isn't alone. Why should I? What common ground can we ever possibly have? This is why I'm deeply suspicious of the Solomonic Compromises like "no abortion except for XYZ" because the moment you agree to it, they start gunning for XYZ. They never give up, because they really do mean what they say, unlike the "centrist" quislings who perpetually insist that women's rights be ritually sacrificed to "take this issue off the table once and for all".

I understand your argument and felt that way for a long time. I felt that definitively it only makes sense to assume that life begins at conception, but it also seems unfair to force a woman to forgo a pregnancy that will result in her her or with a child that was forced upon her. Making exceptions to rape or harm to mother, though, seems to ignore the previously held assumption that life begins at conception.

I think I can argue for exceptions and still act in accordance with common law, while remaining secular, and having a clear definition of life.
1.) All humans, when participating in voluntary actions must assume the risk of such actions. Basic principle of free will.
2.) Genetically speaking, life starts at conception and remains essentially the same until death. If life is only considered life after birth, it leaves too many 'whys', 'what ifs', and grey areas.
3.) All humans have the right to their bodies and resources and to do with them as they please so as long as they do not violate the rights of others.
4.) In acts of intrusion or aggression, humans have the right to appropriate and reasonable defense to herself and her resources.

Under voluntary circumstances a woman should have to forgo a pregnancy, if it should occur. Of course, her and her partner should have absolute access to all preventive measures. The fetus, according to the definition above, would be life and cannot be eliminated at will.

Under the issue of rape, the fetus had been introduced involuntarily to the woman. The only reasonable manner with which to remove the fetus will ultimately result in death to the fetus, this fetus is still life but was not murder, as it is the only appropriate response in defense of her resources.

Under the instance of a voluntary pregnancy that would be otherwise life-threatening to the woman, the woman has a right to again defend her life against the fetus.

 

[bdrensch]

Fundamentally, what we disagree upon is whether this unborn thing deserves to be treated as a fully realized human life. I kind of have to disregard your last argument because given my view of a conceived fetus, the analogy is completely ridiculous. There is no argument to the contrary that I can conceive (har har.) that would convince me otherwise.

And while abortion is not preventative in terms of pregnancy, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about preventing someone from being forced to go through labor, a far more dangerous endeavor than terminating the pregnancy. No one (Well, some people are, obviously.) is arguing that people shouldn't use contraception, but the notion that having a rare and unintentional event occur while you're having protected sex must necessarily mean that you are responsible for maintaining a pregnancy that might ultimately kill you is ridiculous.

And believe it or not, I love the seatbelt analogy for this one. Driving has a poor chance of injuring you if done safely. If you're not wearing a seat belt, the chances go way up. In the rare event that you have a life-threatening, doctors wouldn't deny you care and friends wouldn't deny you sympathy if they found out that you weren't wearing a seat belt. They would try to make sure that you return to normal, not tell you that you broke your own leg and that you can make the cast yourself.

That's how I view the termination of a pregnancy, whether it's because of a lack of or failure of contraception (although I support abortion unilaterally, this is what we're really talking about). My council wouldn't be that you shouldn't drive or that you shouldn't have sex; they're both extremely rewarding endeavors when done well. There are risks. And if one of those risks becomes a reality, and there's any way to fix it, it should be done. The driver might have scars from his injuries, and the mother might suffer psychological damage (Feel free to provide data on suicide rates post-termination. It would be compelling if the chance of post-termination suicide were greater than the percent of post-childbirth suicide.), but unless those things are worse than living with poorly mended limbs or having an unwanted childbirth respectively, the treatment needs to be given out.

Perhaps a better analogy, which I don't have the energy to write out extremely coherently, is HIV. People who contract HIV are provided treatment for their illness by doctors despite the fact that having sex (sometimes protected) is one of its causes. While HIV negative patients are told to take preventative measures, once the sero-conversion happens, no good doctor would ever give a second thought to prescribing anti-viral medication to prevent the onset of AIDS, which you COULD say they should have to deal with given the fact that they chose to have sex and it led to something that is a risk of having sex. But no reasonable person would do that. Just as I don't think any reasonable person (who believes that a blastocyst or early fetus is not actually human life that merits saving.) would deny a woman an abortion.

But feel free to pick apart these analogies. They're definitely not perfect.

Well there's no way for anyone to argue with someone on abortion if they don't believe that a fetus could be considered life. I personally, feel uncomfortable giving such a "loose" definition to life though. To me it seems clear that all humans grow and develop throughout their life, there's no reason to assume that a fetus has less of a right to its life, than a child would have compared to an adult, simply because it is less developed. That is just my view, if someone disagrees, there is NO counterargument.

On the otherhand, with your risk argument, I have nothing wrong with reducing or fixing the consequences of a materialized risk. So for the seatbelt analogy, if you crash (and it's your fault) and you become injured because you weren't wearing a seatbelt, of course we should offer sympathy and help to heal those injuries. But this never removes the fact that the risk DID already materialize. Fixing a broken bone doesn't undo the crash and doesn't remove the consequences of the crash. He should still be responsible for the damages that his crashing may have caused to other's or their properties. If he crashed someone's car he shouldn't be able to simply eliminate the costs at his own will, he is responsible for restitution. Just as a woman can't eliminate a human life (by my definition) because she believes that she shouldn't have to deal with the costs of bringing a child to term.

This can then be applied to a pregnancy. If a woman unintentionally conceived from voluntary sex, then abortion doesn't remove the materialized risk. It still occurred. When the option becomes available for adoption, then that is acceptable. If the child poses a substantial threat to the mother health, then she also has a right to abortion, in her own defense. During this woman's pregnancies anyone is free to offer her support and make her pregnancy as comfortable as possible until she can give the child up for adoption.

In regards to your HIV argument, again there is nothing wrong with helping people or reducing the discomfort of a materialized risk to an absolute minimum, but only if it does not violate the rights of someone else. I'm not saying anyone should have to put up with misery or suffering because of their actions. That's not what this is about. I'm saying that people must still be responsible for their actions, and one cannot violate someone's else's rights in order to remove the discomfort. My argument is, is it justifiable to eliminate another life because a risk that you assumed voluntarily materialized? Of course if one refuses to allow a fetus to be considered life, then it's a moot point. I just personally can't see a fetus as anything other than a human in it's less developed form, just as we develop up until the day we die.

 

[tantacles]

Well there's no way for anyone to argue with someone on abortion if they don't believe that a fetus could be considered life. I personally, feel uncomfortable giving such a "loose" definition to life though. To me it seems clear that all humans grow and develop throughout their life, there's no reason to assume that a fetus has less of a right to its life, than a child would have compared to an adult, simply because it is less developed. That is just my view, if someone disagrees, there is NO counterargument.

Let's be extremely clear here. I've never said that a fetus isn't alive. If something being alive were the only criteria I was working with, the discussion would be a whole lot easier! A fetus, up to a certain point, is not a fully realized human life. At what point it becomes that is certainly contentious, which is why I'm not particularly interested in arguing on that particular point; my personal views don't actually give every fetus a distinct time that it becomes worthy of rights. However, I use a metric of "what else does the human race kill?" to get a grasp of the earliest possible time that a fetus might deserve significant consideration.

tl;dr: A fetus is alive. But is it worth saving? In my opinion, in some cases.

On the otherhand, with your risk argument, I have nothing wrong with reducing or fixing the consequences of a materialized risk. So for the seatbelt analogy, if you crash (and it's your fault) and you become injured because you weren't wearing a seatbelt, of course we should offer sympathy and help to heal those injuries. But this never removes the fact that the risk DID already materialize. Fixing a broken bone doesn't undo the crash and doesn't remove the consequences of the crash. He should still be responsible for the damages that his crashing may have caused to other's or their properties. If he crashed someone's car he shouldn't be able to simply eliminate the costs at his own will, he is responsible for restitution. Just as a woman can't eliminate a human life (by my definition) because she believes that she shouldn't have to deal with the costs of bringing a child to term.

This can then be applied to a pregnancy. If a woman unintentionally conceived from voluntary sex, then abortion doesn't remove the materialized risk. It still occurred. When the option becomes available for adoption, then that is acceptable. If the child poses a substantial threat to the mother health, then she also has a right to abortion, in her own defense. During this woman's pregnancies anyone is free to offer her support and make her pregnancy as comfortable as possible until she can give the child up for adoption.

Yeah, this is another one on which our ideologies are really incompatible. To me, that fetus is not a life worthy of protecting at the expense of the woman, even if the actual expense is trivial. It's an imperfect analogy, definitely, but notably, custodial parents are, in fact, responsible for any damage their children cause. Damage that can be mitigated (read: eliminated) through the termination of a pregnancy.

And again, childbirth, when compared to abortion, poses a significantly greater risk to the mother's health. And note that I'm not considering the

In regards to your HIV argument, again there is nothing wrong with helping people or reducing the discomfort of a materialized risk to an absolute minimum, but only if it does not violate the rights of someone else. I'm not saying anyone should have to put up with misery or suffering because of their actions. That's not what this is about. I'm saying that people must still be responsible for their actions, and one cannot violate someone's else's rights in order to remove the discomfort. My argument is, is it justifiable to eliminate another life because a risk that you assumed voluntarily materialized? Of course if one refuses to allow a fetus to be considered life, then it's a moot point. I just personally can't see a fetus as anything other than a human in it's less developed form, just as we develop up until the day we die.

A fetus is life just as a virus . . . Oh, wait. That's under contention scientifically. But it's definitely arguable that a virus has the same level of SENTIENCE that a fetus has, namely none, which has been my reason for not particularly caring about saving an early developing blastocyst. Because really, that's what we're fighting about; not fetuses that are six months old and could live outside of the womb with support and grow into actual children independent of the carrying mother. Most people at this point understand that those fetuses are viable, and that induction past that point can often be more dangerous than childbirth. So it's much harder to justify and really isn't the point I want to argue.

 

[tantacles]

[YOUTUBE]DEEncVt0wyo[/YOUTUBE]

Ok, I'm tired of having this thread be a serious one. Here's a great vlog about pregnancy.

 

[bdrensch]

Let's be extremely clear here. I've never said that a fetus isn't alive. If something being alive were the only criteria I was working with, the discussion would be a whole lot easier! A fetus, up to a certain point, is not a fully realized human life. At what point it becomes that is certainly contentious, which is why I'm not particularly interested in arguing on that particular point; my personal views don't actually give every fetus a distinct time that it becomes worthy of rights. However, I use a metric of "what else does the human race kill?" to get a grasp of the earliest possible time that a fetus might deserve significant consideration.

tl;dr: A fetus is alive. But is it worth saving? In my opinion, in some cases.

Yeah, this is another one on which our ideologies are really incompatible. To me, that fetus is not a life worthy of protecting at the expense of the woman, even if the actual expense is trivial. It's an imperfect analogy, definitely, but notably, custodial parents are, in fact, responsible for any damage their children cause. Damage that can be mitigated (read: eliminated) through the termination of a pregnancy.

And again, childbirth, when compared to abortion, poses a significantly greater risk to the mother's health. And note that I'm not considering the

A fetus is life just as a virus . . . Oh, wait. That's under contention scientifically. But it's definitely arguable that a virus has the same level of SENTIENCE that a fetus has, namely none, which has been my reason for not particularly caring about saving an early developing blastocyst. Because really, that's what we're fighting about; not fetuses that are six months old and could live outside of the womb with support and grow into actual children independent of the carrying mother. Most people at this point understand that those fetuses are viable, and that induction past that point can often be more dangerous than childbirth. So it's much harder to justify and really isn't the point I want to argue.

This is just something we must agree to disagree with. I just feel that all human life is worth protecting, no matter the stage of development or "full human realized-ness". Sentience creates an impossible and immeasurable definition of life, that leaves the door open questioning the worth of individuals with handicaps, the very young or the very old. I don't see any need for abortion, other than in the instance of rape or harm to the mother, if contraceptions are readily available. I believe my argument is both secular and consistent with common law, but I understand there will always be disagreements and I can respect that!

 

[watchntv]

and in most circumstances it costs more to kill them, than to imprison them..

thats why I said in theory

. A painless death is an easier way out, and the determent argument is wrong, at least in terms of comparing countries with and without the death penalty. Not to mention the ethical argument of deciding who gets to kill the killer, and the consequences of giving the government the legal right to kill someone, despite historically getting it wrong on many occasion and a judicial system that statistically is biased against minority groups.

I wasnt sure about the determent part,but that is really moot
I see ethics. determent, who is the killer?huh), giving the government the right to kill?? these are not at all relevant
the law says what it says, if you wish to invoke a Jury nullification then that needs a different thread to take a tangent off a tangent and expand on that

your post is very unclear...please rephrase if you want me to respond better than my attempt above....

Just to challenge your thought a little, killing them does not undo the crime either, and in most circumstances it costs more to kill them, than to imprison them. A painless death is an easier way out, and the determent argument is wrong, at least in terms of comparing countries with and without the death penalty. Not to mention the ethical argument of deciding who gets to kill the killer, and the consequences of giving the government the legal right to kill someone, despite historically getting it wrong on many occasion and a judicial system that statistically is biased against minority groups.[/QUOTE

 

[bdrensch]

thats why I said in theory


I wasnt sure about the determent part,but that is really moot
I see ethics. determent, who is the killer?huh), giving the government the right to kill?? these are not at all relevant
the law says what it says, if you wish to invoke a Jury nullification then that needs a different thread to take a tangent off a tangent and expand on that

your post is very unclear...please rephrase if you want me to respond better than my attempt above....

Wait what?😕

 

[watchntv]

Wait what?😕

ok I'll wait😀

 

[ronaldo23]

http://contraception.about.com/od/abortion/a/RoevWade.htm

I'm sorry, I guess most of you missed the part where a woman has a right to an abortion during the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy... seeing as how abortion is a fundamental right under the US constitution...

LMAO...I suppose I missed that part of the constitution

 

[bdrensch]

LMAO...I suppose I missed that part of the constitution

👍

 

[tantacles]

LMAO...I suppose I missed that part of the constitution

Yeah, it's definitely contentious and not literally laid out like the previous poster described. Technically, the justices of that era DECIDED that the 9th and 14th amendments protected abortion because forcing a woman to become a mother violated her privacy (another contentious issue: the right to privacy).

So technically, until a different decision is passed down in the US supreme court, it is considered constitutionally protected at the local, state, and federal level.

 

[Qrxn]

I'm just going to leave this here...

Unsafe abortion rates on the rise: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/unsafe-abortion-rates-rise/story?id=15387487#.Tx1zmKVQ5Bk

Highlights:
"Despite the decline in the overall abortion rate, the number of abortions increased, from 41.6 million in 2003 to 43.8 million in 2008 because of an increasing global population, according to the report."

"What we clearly know is that making abortion less available does not make it performed less often," said Dr. Lauren Streicher, assistant clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "It's just more unsafe. Condemning abortion is a cruel and failed strategy."

"Fifty percent of undesired pregnancies are due to failed contraception," said Streicher. "Of those unplanned pregnancies, 50 percent resolve in abortion, so the need for abortion is always going to be there. By criminalizing it, you're just increasing the amount of women who have poor and dangerous outcomes.

 

[Qrxn]

Oh, and another recent article:

Study on teen moms; unaware they could get pregnant after their first encounter: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6102a1.htm?s_cid=mm6102a1_w

 

[themaplekind]

Yeah, it's definitely contentious and not literally laid out like the previous poster described. Technically, the justices of that era DECIDED that the 9th and 14th amendments protected abortion because forcing a woman to become a mother violated her privacy (another contentious issue: the right to privacy).

So technically, until a different decision is passed down in the US supreme court, it is considered constitutionally protected at the local, state, and federal level.

yeah, the "right to an abortion" was "found" at the fringe of an already grey issue. At the punumbra of an already nebulus issue is how i've heard it phrased.

 

[tantacles]

yeah, the "right to an abortion" was "found" at the fringe of an already grey issue. At the punumbra of an already nebulus issue is how i've heard it phrased.

Yup. Definitely a grey area. I'm glad it's protected, though. I wish we could just amend the constitution so that it would be protected forever.

 

[themaplekind]

Yup. Definitely a grey area. I'm glad it's protected, though. I wish we could just amend the constitution so that it would be protected forever.

no, I don't think that such a "grey area" should be forced upon the nation as a whole. let each state decide for themselves whether or not they will allow certain procedures to be done within their bounds. just like setting speed limits.

 

[themaplekind]

It is my inclination to believe that the majority of abortions occur due to unwanted pregnancies; nobody wants to be in a position where they are forced to consider an abortion. Prevention, at every level, is key. Contraceptive, birth control and proper sex education should readily be available to anyone.

That said, for a wide array of reasons, prevention does not always occur -- sometimes, of no fault to the woman (nothing is 100%) -- and/or circumstances arise that is out of the women's hands. Due to this, abortions not only need to be legal; but people need to a) have access to objective information about the procedure and b) for those who are uninsured, underinsured and/or in a situation where using their insurance would have a negative impact on their life (ie, an adolescent who lives in a highly conservative household who does not think her parents will react in an acceptable way) there needs to be assistance in paying for the procedure.

As an atheist, no religious faith has influenced these opinions and they were reached after a considerable amount of thought and wrestling with the subject. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that, though everyone has a right to life, nobody has a legal right to force another human being to give them their resources for the purpose of preserving their own life. In other words, even if one was to accept that fetus is a human being equal to you and I -- which is not something I necessarily agree with -- abortion should still be kept legal, as nobody should be forced to give their resources, especially those contained within their body, to another person.

Despite all of this, though I obviously would not know unless I was in that situation, I am not sure I myself would be willing to have one done (I would perform one, however). This does not make me any better than the person who would, it is just a preference.



Being sexually assaulted, for obvious reasons, causes severe distress; carrying the child of one's rapist is likely only to increase said distress. Thus, as there is research suggesting that stress both negatively impacts one's own health and the development and health of the fetus, one could argue that it would fall under the category of serious health issues. If one were to use that argument, however, they would have to extend it to all women experiencing severe stress, including levels of stress that are lower than what one would expect from a rape victim/survivor (as stress in general is what has been studied). What if the pregnancy itself, for example, is causing a woman significant stress? That has the potential to harm both the child and mother. As many, if not most, unwanted pregnancies cause these feelings, you end up having to include those situations in the exemption, as well.

I completely agree! wait, we are talking about wellfare here, right?

 

[tantacles]

no, I don't think that such a "grey area" should be forced upon the nation as a whole. let each state decide for themselves whether or not they will allow certain procedures to be done within their bounds. just like setting speed limits.

I was saying that it was a grey area in THE CONSTITUTION. I don't personally believe this is an incredibly grey area at all otherwise. If individual HOSPITALS don't wish to perform abortions, that should be their right. But I don't think any mandate, state or federal, should restrict access to an abortion in the first trimester.

Furthermore, speeding drivers cause harm to others around them. Thus, the state has a compelling interest to create and enforce anti-speeding laws because one person's speeding can directly harm the life of another person, meaning that it is a matter of PUBLIC interest

 

[bdrensch]

I was saying that it was a grey area in THE CONSTITUTION. I don't personally believe this is an incredibly grey area at all otherwise. If individual HOSPITALS don't wish to perform abortions, that should be their right. But I don't think any mandate, state or federal, should restrict access to an abortion in the first trimester.

Furthermore, speeding drivers cause harm to others around them. Thus, the state has a compelling interest to create and enforce anti-speeding laws because one person's speeding can directly harm the life of another person, meaning that it is a matter of PUBLIC interest

LIke how abortion can directly harm the life of another person, meaning it is a matter of public interest.

I'm a very freedom-oriented person and believe people should be allowed to do with their body as they please... but the question comes to whether you believe a fetus is life, if you do believe such, then the issue's over, and abortions resulting from consensual sex cannot be performed. If you don't believe a fetus is life, then you must grant some governing body the authority to create a solid definition of life, so to reduce conflict, why not give that authority to the states rather than the federal government, so there is reduced conflict between groups at the very least.

 

[tantacles]

LIke how abortion can directly harm the life of another person, meaning it is a matter of public interest.

I'm a very freedom-oriented person and believe people should be allowed to do with their body as they please... but the question comes to whether you believe a fetus is life, if you do believe such, then the issue's over, and abortions resulting from consensual sex cannot be performed. If you don't believe a fetus is life, then you must grant some governing body the authority to create a solid definition of life, so to reduce conflict, why not give that authority to the states rather than the federal government, so there is reduced conflict between groups at the very least.

Yes, but I don't believe the fetus, at that point, represents life worth saving, and you do. This argument has been hashed out. Under my set of assumptions, my logic flies. Under yours, it doesn't. We're not going to resolve that dispute here. I'm presenting an argument predicated on the idea that a self-sufficient human is more important than a fetus inside a woman's body, not one in which we assume that the fetus has standing.

 

[bdrensch]

Yes, but I don't believe the fetus, at that point, represents life worth saving, and you do. This argument has been hashed out. Under my set of assumptions, my logic flies. Under yours, it doesn't. We're not going to resolve that dispute here. I'm presenting an argument predicated on the idea that a self-sufficient human is more important than a fetus inside a woman's body, not one in which we assume that the fetus has standing.

I realize this, I was talking about the state vs. fed issues. What I was saying is with the US being as incredibly diverse as it is, we could dramatically reduce alot of these conflicts by simply making them state issues, not federal issues. What I got out of your previous posts is that you want to "protect" women's rights to abortion on the federal level, despite obviously different views from state to state. I live in a very strongly pro-life state, and I think we should have the right as a state to define and protect life at conception, with the protection of life being the most important role of government.

Also, do you really not at all find it dubious to entrust the public to legislate whether a life is worth saving or not? I respect your opinion on the matter and all, and maybe it's just my very-strong pro-life family upbringing, but it sounds like a pandora's box to me.

 

[tantacles]

I realize this, I was talking about the state vs. fed issues. What I was saying is with the US being as incredibly diverse as it is, we could dramatically reduce alot of these conflicts by simply making them state issues, not federal issues. What I got out of your previous posts is that you want to "protect" women's rights to abortion on the federal level, despite obviously different views from state to state. I live in a very strongly pro-life state, and I think we should have the right as a state to define and protect life at conception, with the protection of life being the most important role of government.

Also, do you really not at all find it dubious to entrust the public to legislate whether a life is worth saving or not? I respect your opinion on the matter and all, and maybe it's just my very-strong pro-life family upbringing, but it sounds like a pandora's box to me.

When it comes to a fetus, I don't find it dubious at all. In my opinion, it is the woman's right to decide whether the potential child inside her is worth the burden of carrying to term and delivering (assuming adoption is on the table). As long as she makes that decision early enough that the child can't survive on its own and is completely dependent on her womb for survival, it seems perfectly legitimate. I think that the federal government should protect that right to prevent states from taking it away.

Notably, no hospital is required to perform abortions, so hospitals also have some say.

In addition, because it is legal to go another state to obtain an abortion, all that making it a state issue does is force women to go to greater lengths despite the fact that terminating a pregnancy might be in their best interest.

On an aside, just because opinion varies from state to state doesn't mean that making abortion a state's rights issue would cause less conflict. The conflict would just be on a different level.

 

[bdrensch]

When it comes to a fetus, I don't find it dubious at all. In my opinion, it is the woman's right to decide whether the potential child inside her is worth the burden of carrying to term and delivering (assuming adoption is on the table). As long as she makes that decision early enough that the child can't survive on its own and is completely dependent on her womb for survival, it seems perfectly legitimate. I think that the federal government should protect that right to prevent states from taking it away.

Notably, no hospital is required to perform abortions, so hospitals also have some say.

In addition, because it is legal to go another state to obtain an abortion, all that making it a state issue does is force women to go to greater lengths despite the fact that terminating a pregnancy might be in their best interest.

On an aside, just because opinion varies from state to state doesn't mean that making abortion a state's rights issue would cause less conflict. The conflict would just be on a different level.

But that's YOUR belief (...rather spartan belief...jk...but kinda....) and that's where the problem arises. You define life on terms that I believe are ambiguous (and you may believe the same for me), so at the very least allow states with a majority of their population that define life as starting at conception, to protect the lives of these fetuses at least within their border. If someone wished to travel to another state or pursue an illegal potentially dangerous abortion, then there is nothing that can be done. People have free will. This does though at least give comfort to those in those states that mostly believe that abortion is the termination of life; that within its borders their state will do all in its power to protect a life, born or unborn.

There will always be disagreement, but for where I live, here the midwest, we mostly oppose abortion, there would be far less conflict if our state was allowed to protect unborn life.

 

[tantacles]

But that's YOUR belief (...rather spartan belief...jk...but kinda....) and that's where the problem arises. You define life on terms that I believe are ambiguous (and you may believe the same for me), so at the very least allow states with a majority of their population that define life as starting at conception, to protect the lives of these fetuses at least within their border. If someone wished to travel to another state or pursue an illegal potentially dangerous abortion, then there is nothing that can be done. People have free will. This does though at least give comfort to those in those states that mostly believe that abortion is the termination of life; that within its borders their state will do all in its power to protect a life, born or unborn.

There will always be disagreement, but for where I live, here the midwest, we mostly oppose abortion, there would be far less conflict if our state was allowed to protect unborn life.

I think our argument has gone beyond the point where it's productive, so insofar as my browser is concerned, I'm closing this thread permanently. Because I may not be a mod, but I can mod myself pretty damn well. You're clearly an intelligent person with a well-developed cerebral cortex. I'm satisfied to end this argument with that compliment, regardless of its implications on my standing in this argument.

 

[bdrensch]

I think our argument has gone beyond the point where it's productive, so insofar as my browser is concerned, I'm closing this thread permanently. Because I may not be a mod, but I can mod myself pretty damn well. You're clearly an intelligent person with a well-developed cerebral cortex. I'm satisfied to end this argument with that compliment, regardless of its implications on my standing in this argument.

Agreed! Don't get me wrong, it was actually rather enjoyable to have someone challenge my beliefs. You also did a great job defending your own beliefs. I'll admit, coming into this thread I was a little undecided on the issue and you helped me take a more solid stance, so I thank you for that, even if we both know we may never come to terms on the matter! 🙂

 

[scarshapedstar]

Meanwhile, in reality...

Pharmacies may misinform teens about whether they are allowed to buy emergency contraception, which can prevent pregnancy after sex, a new study finds.

Such misinformation is more commonly given by pharmacies in low-income neighborhoods, the study showed.

The researchers called 943 commercial pharmacies in five states. The caller posed as a 17-year-old girl seeking emergency contraception after unprotected sex. Under Food and Drug Administration rules, the emergency contraception drug called Plan B may be sold over the counter (without a prescription) to women ages 17 and older (those ages 16 and younger need a prescription).

But of the pharmacies who said they had emergency contraception available that day, 19 percent said the 17-year-old caller could not buy the emergency contraception under any circumstances. The pharmacies who responded this way usually hung up the phone quickly.

Lying for Jesus. That's just how they roll. I bet they prayed real hard after they lied and hung up, though, so it's all good.

I have never heard of anyone being tricked into ending a pregnancy. I am, however, aware of dozens of efforts to prevent or discourage people from legally accessing contraception and abortions, for example:

72-hour waiting periods.
Mandatory ultrasound viewings via vaginal probe.
Required unscientific scripts about "fetal pain", written by legislators with no medical knowledge whatsoever, that the doctor is required to read to you.

The lying. The humiliation. The straight-up institutionalized rape. Why does nobody ever talk about these issues? Because they don't fit into the desired narrative of good-hearted baby-lovers?

This is the reality of modern anti-choice politics and it would be refreshing to see that acknowledged once in a while amidst the decades-old back-and-forth Kabuki arguments over Roe v Wade.

 

[tantacles]

Meanwhile, in reality...



Lying for Jesus. That's just how they roll. I bet they prayed real hard after they lied and hung up, though, so it's all good.

I have never heard of anyone being tricked into ending a pregnancy. I am, however, aware of dozens of efforts to prevent or discourage people from legally accessing contraception and abortions, for example:

72-hour waiting periods.
Mandatory ultrasound viewings via vaginal probe.
Required unscientific scripts about "fetal pain", written by legislators with no medical knowledge whatsoever, that the doctor is required to read to you.

The lying. The humiliation. The straight-up institutionalized rape. Why does nobody ever talk about these issues? Because they don't fit into the desired narrative of good-hearted baby-lovers?

This is the reality of modern anti-choice politics and it would be refreshing to see that acknowledged once in a while amidst the decades-old back-and-forth Kabuki arguments over Roe v Wade.

Oh, believe me. I'm all over this stuff too. Not to mention the fact that prohibiting abortion doesn't significantly decrease the number performed; just the safety of those that are performed.

And let us not forget that among all this talk of morality, the Catholic Church knowingly hid priests who sexually abused children among their ranks.

I may live in a gay glass house, but sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

[watchntv]

proposed amendment, Proposition 26, to the Mississippi state constitution that would declare any fertilized egg a person with full legal rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-as-abortion/2011/11/02/gIQAT96xgM_blog.html