Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

g5jamz

Blood on the hands of pro-abortionists... "deal with it"

200 posts in this topic

here's another twist to the debate i'd be interested in.

Most people already agree that there is a certain point at which abortions shouldn't be allowed. Even though i have seen accusations to the contrary, i haven't actually seen any pro-choice people say they disagree with that.

If that's the case, then what is the process we should use for drawing the line at which an abortion becomes not allowed.

Science hasn't been able to produce an answer.

I think we can't look to religion just due to the fact that we shouldn't force any one religion's views on all.

So how do you go about setting the criteria? Not really looking for "I believe the line should be XXX because......."

Looking for how do you develop the rules coming up with the line

Higher brain function, viability outside of the womb, pretty much what we in America use now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am truly willing to do anything to make something like this never happen again, anything short of trading a child's life for someone else's comfort.

it's the reality we live in. chicago's cook county hospiital had an entire ward dedicated to women who had mangled themselves with coat hangers and had kermit gosnell style botched abortions.

what i think would turn the tide on abortion is real sex education, universal healthcare, and a robust social safety net because countries that have those things tend to have lower abortion rates across the board. of course, those are all "pie in the sky liberal fantasies".

If I misinterpreted I apologize. If I understand you correctly, the logical or "pragmatic solution would be to make it a legitimate medical procedure. Sounds good, only if there is only one patient. Do you disagree? Would it still be a simple procedure if the fetus was considered a patient as well. (fwi the term fetus is applied from week 10 until birth)

legitimate medical procedure in the sense that it's not some weird in-between thing that can be messed with as politically expedient which probably contributed to kermit gosnell slipping away from regulators.

are you similarly neutral on everything. Gun laws, health care, taxes etc...

i have demonstrated that i'm not neutral on the issue.

Wouldn't we all.

i don't find the notion of the back alley abortion days more comforting than the post-roe era outing and prosecution of the kermit gosnells of our society just because the former was better hidden.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we don't want to just minimize abortions, we want to impose our moral judgement on others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

part of the reason why i don't like to engage in philosophical questions ("when does life begin", "how late is too late", etc.) regarding abortion is actually pretty pathetic: because those are hard, open-ended questions, and i can't come up with an answer that i feel is good enough and makes enough sense that i think it should influence the law.

on the other hand, the practical effects of banning or severely limiting abortion are something that we are aware of. it's been measured and recorded and it's counter intuitive if your goal is to make abortion stop happening. that's why i approach the debate from that angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher brain function, viability outside of the womb, pretty much what we in America use now.

Higher Brain functions dont start for several months, with recent studies suggesting perhaps even a few years, after birth.

Viability outside of the womb begins as early as week 17 of the pregnancy.

The currently law addresses neither of these issues to the satisfaction you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

part of the reason why i don't like to engage in philosophical questions ("when does life begin", "how late is too late", etc.) regarding abortion is actually pretty pathetic: because those are hard, open-ended questions, and i can't come up with an answer that i feel is good enough and makes enough sense that i think it should influence the law.

on the other hand, the practical effects of banning or severely limiting abortion are something that we are aware of. it's been measured and recorded and it's counter intuitive if your goal is to make abortion stop happening. that's why i approach the debate from that angle.

well the consequence of my point of view is that at worse, women will severely maim themselves. They will do things, horrible things to their body in order to excape the mental anguish they feel from having this particular life grow inside them.

The consequence of your point of view is that innocent lives are lost regardless of whether or not you feel they are "living enough to warrant saving"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post-partem occurs too...does that justify Gosnell's actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also everybody needs to imagine that my avatar is engaging in a lengthy abortion debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we don't want to just minimize abortions, we want to impose our moral judgement on others!

This is not imposing moral judgement. We all agree that killing is wrong and killing children is the worst. The debate is when does it become a child. Noone here would allow a woman to kill a newborn, wouldn't matter if she was raped or not. I believe that a child is a child MUCH earlier than 20 weeks (which is what the law allows) Most people on here are not even willing to address it, likely because of some loyalty to the term liberalism or because they are just against anyone that they label as conservatives. But in our hearts killing children is wrong. Why is it not important to determine when a child becomes a child? I realize that we may have to shed party loyalties but right is right. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites