CalvinBall wrote:the science proves it isn't a life thing or whatever. A newborn can't survive without someone to take care of it. My grandmom would probably die too without someone to help her. I don't believe that is justification for making it morally okay to kill a person.

And I think it is more complicated than let the woman decide. Abortions can be scarring. I think I have already mentioned it is despicable when used as some sort of form of birth control. But then there is the rape cases which I have no idea how many abortions are because of that.

Ultimately what in saying is it is complicated to me. It's more than yes or no. I don't know the answer though.

there's a pretty damn big difference between your grandmother and a fetus, calvin. i'm not an expert on brain development, but i'm sure fetuses(fetii?) don't have the same kind of mental capacity your grandmother has. i mean, there's an argument to be made that a farm animal is closer to your grandmother than a developing fetus since the fetus has a hugely limited ability to think. just because the fetus has the same DNA as us does that make it our duty to protect?

i get really irritated when someone breaks this debate down to "it's a human life!" or "it's a woman's choice". there are deep moral implications here. lets not reduce the debate to a slogan.

i agree that it's really complicated and I can understand people who want to outlaw it, but having the choice is probably the best option at this point because like pacino says, at least this way it's safe.

if it's an unplanned pregnancy (and i assume most abortions probably are) and the girl doesn't wanna have the kid but the guy does, sorry i don't really feel for the guy.

if it was a planned pregnancy, then it's more complicated yeah. but how common is a girl wanting to abort a planned pregnancy?

obviously this is a very sensitive topic and i respect everyone's right to their opinion.

i don't often talk about politics because they frighten me and i'm not insanely informed on it, but i don't even understand how the topic is sensitive beyond guys essentially controlling a womens body and her right decide what she feels is right to do with her own flesh. beyond the religious aspect, i don't understand why it's a taboo topic and hated practice, when an abortion itself is no more than cleaning out some cells. we all do that everytime we drink alcohol

I understand both sides of the argument. It's a horrible thing but unfortunately, it's also a necessity for many women in this country, whether it'd be a medical issue or a matter of rape or simply an unwanted pregnancy terminated due to finances.

At the end of the day, however, I can not tell someone how to plan their families or judge them for doing what they feel is right for them. Neither should the government.

And let's not forget, it's legal. Opening this can of worms will ultimately backfire on the Republicans, especially if they continue to pursue it.

The worms have escaped

holy shit guys what the fuck. why couldn't you just let me crack a couple shitty jokes and move on like adults

i was bored sorry

can't believe people were discussing politics in the politics thread.

When does the life begin, when the DNA is assembled, beginning the road to birth, or is it at birth when the first breaths are taken? Or is it at the end of the 2nd trimester or the 1st (I hate the trimester arguments because they make the least sense of all). I don't know the answer, but I do know that science hasn't decided anything on the issue.

My problem with the pro-life argument is that these people don't care much about the child once it is born, which is a time we should all be able to agree is a time when a child is alive and needing our help. These people want to control a woman's body, not just when she is having an abortion, but when she is doing anything else with it that they think goes against God's will or their own particular belief system. And so the battle line is drawn at abortion because that's where we sit at the moment. If abortion was illegal, the hyper conservatives would be fighting to keep women off birth control or some other line that's been drawn by them to fit their agenda.

Personally, I would gladly trade abortion for all the other things being blocked by the child haters. But that's, like, just my opinion, man.

Full disclosure: I used to be 100% pro-choice, but after spending a few years researching neural development and whatnot, I find myself firmly on the fence.

Monkeyboy wrote:Full disclosure: I used to be 100% pro-choice, but after spending a few years researching neural development and whatnot, I find myself firmly on the fence.

I'm def still pro-choice, bc i could never make that decision for someone else, but from the second my wife became pregnant, and we saw a heartbeat and everything well within the timeframe of a legal abortion, my views changed on it drastically.

pacino wrote:for you to be against the legality of abortion would belie your supposed libertarian views.

LOL.


Best for you to take breaks while reading this to prevent your mind from being completely blown: In defense of Infanticide

After reading this, perhaps you'll see how a reasonable person who considers himself a libertarian can take the opposite stance and oppose abortion.

pacino wrote:there is no legal argument that there is a human life there. there is no scientific argument that there is a human life. there is purely a spiritual one. good luck bringing up spiritual arguments in court.

Actually, the Supreme Court said in Roe v Wade that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting prenatal life.

How about this: we can outlaw abortion, but every man who impregnates a woman who'd prefer not to have the child must undergo vasectomy and/or make a two-decade financial commitment to the child. Skin in the game, so to speak.

dajafi wrote:How about this: we can outlaw abortion, but every man who impregnates a woman who'd prefer not to have the child must undergo vasectomy and/or make a two-decade financial commitment to the child. Skin in the game, so to speak.

yeah

pacino wrote:black guy said it in a black guy voice. hes black and we're not, so he hates us. he hates his mother. he hates his grandparents. he hates his friends and coworkers. dont you get it?

What the hell is this about?

It's funny, I was kind of kidding when I wrote that but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

The hilarious part would be to watch anti-choice libertarians--whom I'm guessing are about 100 percent men--argue that the State mandating dudes get their tubes tied or their earnings garnisheed forever is the definition of big gummit tyranny, but that dictating women's reproductive decisions is morally justified.

To be clear, I'm pro choice within certain parameters; all things being equal, I think it's evident that life is the preferred option, and that abortion absolutely should not be used as a form of birth control. I doubt that I could stand being with a partner who ended a pregnancy. But that's my choice, as a well educated white guy with steady income and all that stuff. I wouldn't presume to make it for others, and I think it's fair to ask of those who would to consider how to more equitably distribute the pain of the mandate.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Gerald Ford? He kind of had a shitty hand dealt.

Jimmy Carter, GHWB. Ford lost in 1976, 2 years before I was born.

I take the point about Roosevelt/Truman/Eisenhower, but hey, technically accurate is technically accurate.

dajafi wrote:How about this: we can outlaw abortion, but every man who impregnates a woman who'd prefer not to have the child must undergo vasectomy and/or make a two-decade financial commitment to the child. Skin in the game, so to speak.

Forgive my naivete, but isn't that how it is today?

Monkeyboy wrote:When does the life begin, when the DNA is assembled, beginning the road to birth, or is it at birth when the first breaths are taken? Or is it at the end of the 2nd trimester or the 1st (I hate the trimester arguments because they make the least sense of all). I don't know the answer, but I do know that science hasn't decided anything on the issue.

My problem with the pro-life argument is that these people don't care much about the child once it is born, which is a time we should all be able to agree is a time when a child is alive and needing our help. These people want to control a woman's body, not just when she is having an abortion, but when she is doing anything else with it that they think goes against God's will or their own particular belief system. And so the battle line is drawn at abortion because that's where we sit at the moment. If abortion was illegal, the hyper conservatives would be fighting to keep women off birth control or some other line that's been drawn by them to fit their agenda.

Personally, I would gladly trade abortion for all the other things being blocked by the child haters. But that's, like, just my opinion, man.

Full disclosure: I used to be 100% pro-choice, but after spending a few years researching neural development and whatnot, I find myself firmly on the fence.

It's must be my Catholic upbringing, but I agree: I would trade abortion for single-payer health care and other safety net measures that would help support all this new population in a heartbeat. Frankly I wish the Dems had the guts to make that offer to Republicans - make them quite literally put their money where their mouths are, or else shut up about it forever.