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

There's a huge difference in what you might see as bad or atrocious or right/wrong and what someone else might see as bad or atrocious or right/wrong..

Abortion is a personal decision that needs no input from anyone other than the person(s) involved. Period.

There's plenty I would fight for. I don't "fight for causes" though. That's terribly cliche in this day and age. It is usually a veiled political front to bleed money from people for lobbying needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference in what you might see as bad or atrocious or right/wrong and what someone else might see as bad or atrocious or right/wrong..

Abortion is a personal decision that needs no input from anyone other than the person(s) involved. Period.

There's plenty I would fight for. I don't "fight for causes" though. That's terribly cliche in this day and age. It is usually a veiled political front to bleed money from people for lobbying needs.

Even though you said that I know you don't believe it. If what you say was true, then what the Dr. did would be okay. If abortion was truly so private a matter there would be no limit to the amount of time a woman has to abort a child. But once again, anyone can see that that would not be right. We all feel that what the Dr. did was wrong. Why is that? He wasn't kidnapping women and aborting their babies. They all sought him out. Why did these women not have the "right" to abort their pregnancy and the other women did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of the risks, or rather the extremes that women will go through IOT have the abortion.

But is a self inflicted wound, no matter how severe, not still self-inflicted. We do not as a society treat suicides, attempted suicides, or assisted suicides as if we are talking about a victim. We get mental help to those we can. We sit with them. We comfort them. We counsel them. We attempt to get them to address, fix, or live with the pain they feel, or show them that it is not worth taking their life. Because their life, no matter how bad is still valuable.

i don't like to play games of philosophical grab ass when it comes to abortion. history has proven that, at least in the context of the US, banning the procedure is useless if your end goal is to make the kermit gosnells of the world vanish.

i want abortion to be treated as a legitimate medical procedure that is subject to tight regulatory oversight. that's the best way to address this problem because it directly hits the main failure that allowed this to happen. had regulators done their jobs, kermit gosnell would have been shut down possibly decades ago. and no, half baked open-ended crap legislation forcing abortion providers to get admitting privileges in an environment where hospitals don't want to be dragged into a "political debate" and trans vaginal wands aren't going to accomplish anything.

In that case what should be the law? Do you really think that 20 weeks is still within acceptable limits. What do you feel should influence the law. I believe it is a question of when life happens. Which is immeasurable so no one has the right to kill it. You stated here that the feelings of the woman should not influence the law. What should?

remember how i talked about not liking philosophical grab ass? well, since you're pushing things in that direction, i'm about to get grab-assey. this is going to be a lot of text. you've been warned.

i was talking about how small my feelings and life experiences are in the general sense compared to the millions of people who are affected by any given law at the federal level. doubly so since i'm a man and will never actually have the procedure performed on me. where on earth did you get the notion that i was implying that the feelings of a woman shouldn't matter? what kind of subtext are you reading in to this?

if anything a woman's opinion on the issue is more qualified than mine. the reason that i mentioned that their experiences don't have any bearing on the issue is because their lives and political power are a drop in the bucket in the wider context of the united states which is in no way arguing that they don't matter in the sense that i/nobody should care. i still have feelings and i still have opinions on the matter. for example, i don't agree with intact dilation and extraction (what pro lifers call "partial birth abortion") but, pragmatically speaking, banning it is little more than a feel-good measure because it represents something like 0.17% of all abortions with a statistically significant number of those likely being medically necessary and not elective. again, see my appeal to pragmatism. of course, someone could easily come back at me with the accusation that i'm "condoning murder" and that .00000000001% of all abortions being "murder" should be too many for any civilized person or the like but you may note that i didn't actually call it that myself. it is, however, too close for me, personally.

my problem with the "WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN HUH ABORTIONISTS???" circle jerk and various offshoot arguments along with fetal personhood bills pushed by social conservatives lies with the enormous legal problems and deep contradictions inherent within the rhetoric. first of all, advocates of such measures still have to point to a time when "life begins" because a law without such parameters is utterly useless and impossible to enforce. second, saying that a fetus is a "baby" or "child" implies that it has rights. duh, right? i mean, this is a right to life debate, isn't it? this is the crux of the miscarriage point i brought up earlier: do we create another category for fetuses where we effectively say that, yeah, they're people but they're subject to spontaneous death for no reason so law enforcement shouldn't investigate every miscarriage as a possible murder/manslaughter? in this situation, you're still making a judgment call on what a "life" is worth and acting accordingly. should a woman who doesn't know she's pregnant and engages in some kind of stressful activity and subsequently miscarries be subject to negligent homicide? could pregnant women claim personal exemptions when filing taxes for unborn children? could they demand social security numbers for them? do we add 9 months to everybody's life? people have a lot more rights outside of the right to not be killed. half of this sounds stupid as poo but they're now plausible at least philosophically if we're bent on fetal personhood.

ultimately, how late in a pregnancy that i feel abortion should be acceptable doesn't matter. truth is, i'd love it if there was never another abortion performed. my main problem is that all of the measures that have been introduced to supposedly make the procedure cease to exist have been complete pieces of poo and would be useless for achieving their stated objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't like to play games of philosophical grab ass when it comes to abortion. history has proven that, at least in the context of the US, banning the procedure is useless if your end goal is to make the kermit gosnells of the world vanish.

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.

where on earth did you get the notion that i was implying that the feelings of a woman shouldn't matter? what kind of subtext are you reading in to this

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)

forgive me for saving page space.

ultimately, how late in a pregnancy that i feel abortion should be acceptable doesn't matter.

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

truth is, i'd love it if there was never another abortion performed. my main problem is that all of the measures that have been introduced to supposedly make the procedure cease to exist have been complete pieces of poo.

Wouldn't we all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but for me it is just not enough.

K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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