Bucky wrote:well, he also supports capital punishment, so we're not talking absolute morality here

CalvinBall wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Abortion is legal. What's to discuss?

lots of things are legal that are worth discussing.

pacino wrote:i agree it's a compromise situation. to me, i think breaking down the wall between allowing for abortion only in the cases of life of the mother, rape, and incest and allowing it in no circumstances can lead to the public consensus moving on the issue. uncoupling the all or nothing opinion that was the big compromise made by republicans and democrats years ago which allowed both sides to stay in a static state on the topic.

since 2010 it's been quite different in how republicans have gone after the issue, as on the state level republican governors and legislatures have passed more and more legislation to roll back reproductive rights and have many have tried to include these to apply to rape/incest/lom. instead of it simply being their wedge issue for voters, they've acted in was that demonstrably affect women who seek these services. every chip, such as taking away the allowance in the public consciousness to let a rape victim decide to end a pregnancy, moves the conversation and the goalposts.

this is a concerted effort to restrict abortion in all cases. that may be a heartfelt, 'non political' goal of Rubio's, but i highlighted it because i want to go the complete other way and maintain and expand reproductive rights. we hold different views and i think his are wrong. i care about this much more than the robot jokes which are fun but non-consequential.

ultimately, i hope public consensus is stirred by the re-coupling to be closer to my view than to Rubio's.

Doll Is Mine wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Abortion is legal. What's to discuss?

lots of things are legal that are worth discussing.

Fine. Discuss it all you want. But abortion is legal in this country and has been for many decades. We expand people's rights, we don't take them away. It's an issue that's being politicized by the right to score points with their base. Nothing will change.

pacino wrote:since 2010 it's been quite different in how republicans have gone after the issue, as on the state level republican governors and legislatures have passed more and more legislation to roll back reproductive rights and have many have tried to include these to apply to rape/incest/lom. instead of it simply being their wedge issue for voters, they've acted in was that demonstrably affect women who seek these services. every chip, such as taking away the allowance in the public consciousness to let a rape victim decide to end a pregnancy, moves the conversation and the goalposts.

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:i agree it's a compromise situation. to me, i think breaking down the wall between allowing for abortion only in the cases of life of the mother, rape, and incest and allowing it in no circumstances can lead to the public consensus moving on the issue. uncoupling the all or nothing opinion that was the big compromise made by republicans and democrats years ago which allowed both sides to stay in a static state on the topic.

since 2010 it's been quite different in how republicans have gone after the issue, as on the state level republican governors and legislatures have passed more and more legislation to roll back reproductive rights and have many have tried to include these to apply to rape/incest/lom. instead of it simply being their wedge issue for voters, they've acted in was that demonstrably affect women who seek these services. every chip, such as taking away the allowance in the public consciousness to let a rape victim decide to end a pregnancy, moves the conversation and the goalposts.

this is a concerted effort to restrict abortion in all cases. that may be a heartfelt, 'non political' goal of Rubio's, but i highlighted it because i want to go the complete other way and maintain and expand reproductive rights. we hold different views and i think his are wrong. i care about this much more than the robot jokes which are fun but non-consequential.

ultimately, i hope public consensus is stirred by the re-coupling to be closer to my view than to Rubio's.

how do you factor the unborn child into the equation, say when abortion is used as some sort of birth control?

CalvinBall wrote:yeah i thought his answer was pretty well thought out. and he recognizes it is not easy. i mean what is life, ya know? to me it it isnt as black and white as some make it and scoff at those who disagree.

idk!

CalvinBall wrote:i mean things change. humans understand things more through science and learning. i think it is ok to have laws evolve as our understanding of the world does.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:The one thing I dont get about those who life begins at conception is why aren't they going after fertility clinics? The amount of unused embryos that get destroyed at those places far exceeds the number of abortions. They'd save a lot more "lives" by protesting them instead.

drsmooth wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:yeah i thought his answer was pretty well thought out. and he recognizes it is not easy. i mean what is life, ya know? to me it it isnt as black and white as some make it and scoff at those who disagree.

idk!

Calvin, I'm guessing you're confusing understanding that decisions regarding continuing any pregnancy are spiritual, emotional, personal, and difficult - something every competent adult capable of reproducing understands at some level - with understanding that providing adults capable of reproducing the option of making their own decisions about it, with the support of capable clinicians makes sense to reasoning people.


The first is never easy. No laws can make it easy, or make any decision "right". Determining whether people should have the option of sorting the matter out for themselves is, while not elementary, a different order of political decisionmaking altogether.

People who believe their religious doctrines sort all of this out with certainty simply do not understand the foundations of their own, and possibly of any, religion. Humans are uncertain. A deity may be certain. A human that defames his/her deity by claiming the same level of certainty as said deity must certainly be blaspheming.

drsmooth wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:yeah i thought his answer was pretty well thought out. and he recognizes it is not easy. i mean what is life, ya know? to me it it isnt as black and white as some make it and scoff at those who disagree.

idk!

Calvin, I'm guessing you're confusing understanding that decisions regarding continuing any pregnancy are spiritual, emotional, personal, and difficult - something every competent adult capable of reproducing understands at some level - with understanding that providing adults capable of reproducing the option of making their own decisions about it, with the support of capable clinicians makes sense to reasoning people.


The first is never easy. No laws can make it easy, or make any decision "right". Determining whether people should have the option of sorting the matter out for themselves is, while not elementary, a different order of political decisionmaking altogether.

People who believe their religious doctrines sort all of this out with certainty simply do not understand the foundations of their own, and possibly of any, religion. Humans are uncertain. A deity may be certain. A human that defames his/her deity by claiming the same level of certainty as said deity must certainly be blaspheming.

CalvinBall wrote:fwiw i think this has been a reasonable, calm discussion on the topic. which is important bc that doesnt actually happen enough. maybe it is bc we all mostly agree. but hey, good job.

Monkeyboy wrote:see a separate life.