Seriously...What is The Deal with Abortion?

[Rigby5]

Abortion is killing, pacifist.

Cripes you're confused

You are confused.
Read it again.
I clearly said I was NOT a pacifist.
I believe in killing.
Lots of people need to be killed.
I just do not believe anyone one person has that authority until their personal rights become infringed upon.
But anti abortion laws do infringe, so then murder not only become legal, but your duty.
The only thing that stops me from armed violence right now is the fact I trust the courts will fix this and make violence unnecessary.
But understand that I think those who would criminalize abortion are a clear and present danger to our whole democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

Sorry for the inconveniences but Vietnam was a demoquack thingy

Not really.
It was Eisenhower who authorized the illegal military coup by Diem that deposed Bau Dai, and started the whole war.
It was also bipartisan congress that was guilty for most of it.
But sure, I do blame Johnson for most of it.

 

[buttercup]

First of all, an unborn fetus is not innocent, it does not yet have consciousness or is self aware, do it does not yet have any emotions good or bad.
And it physically is a parasite, causing harm and pain to the host mother.

Second is that Texas is dictating things is has no authority over or knowledge of.
If the state can legislate the value of children over the wishes of women, then the state could mandate pregnancy as well as preventing abortion.
It is essentially legislating slavery.

Third is that human historically have the high reproductive rate of prey animals, and that will eventually destroy the whole planet and make humans go extinct eventually, unless it is deliberately regulated and controlled.

There’s so much wrong in this post, on numerous levels. I’m just replying here as a placeholder, I’m going to get back to some of the things you said later, if time permits.

 

[Rigby5]

There are deadbeat democrat dads who patronize sex workers and don't want to risk incurring child support obligations.

And what is wrong with that?
People need sex, but we have way too many children.

When fossil fuels run down on about 20 to 100 years, we will only have about 25% of the food production we have now.

 

[SavannahMann]

You are. Now go

No. Now I could say something ugly like take your own advice. Instead I’ll ask this. Why is it in a nation where freedom of speech is first among the rights, do so many detest that right in others?

 

[whitehall]

Late term abortion aka partial birth abortion is a horrific procedure and still in use. When Congress tried to ban it, Clinton vetoed the bill while parading a half dozen women who claimed that partial birth abortion saved their lives but it was a lie. The intent of the procedure is to kill a full term baby who could otherwise survive outside the womb. The procedure actually endangers the life of the mother when the baby is manually turned around in the womb to cause a breach birth where a portion of the head stays in the birth canal and it is technically not born yet while it is stabbed in the back of the head and it's brain sucked out. If a mother's life was in danger they could induce labor and save the life of the child.

 

[Rigby5]

There’s so much wrong in this post, on numerous levels. I’m just replying here as a placeholder, I’m going to get back to some of the things you said later, if time permits.

Looking forward to the more nuanced discussion.

 

[Rigby5]

Late term abortion aka partial birth abortion is a horrific procedure and still in use. When Congress tried to ban it, Clinton vetoed the bill while parading a half dozen women who claimed that partial birth abortion saved their lives but it was a lie. The intent of the procedure is to kill a full term baby who could otherwise survive outside the womb. The procedure actually endangers the life of the mother when the baby is manually turned around in the womb to cause a breach birth where a portion of the head stays in the birth canal and it is technically not born yet while it is stabbed in the back of the head and it's brain sucked out. If a mother's life was in danger they could induce labor and save the life of the child.

Not that you are not making some good points, but that this is still entirely medical decisions that doctors and mothers should be making, not legislators, police, prosecutors, judges, etc.
Government is not licensed for this, so is violating its own laws.

 

[justinacolmena]

And what is wrong with that?
People need sex, but we have way too many children.

No. We need guns to shoot and kill adult rapists and perverts who "need" to have sex.

When fossil fuels run down on about 20 to 100 years, we will only have about 25% of the food production we have now.

And get that prostitution racket off the state highways already, will you? I don't care how how much gunfire it takes to say no to the commercial sex traffic, but enough is enough.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Anyone who would allow government to have that sort of arbitrary control over individuals on such personal and profound issues, is a traitor and imminent threat to the democracy.

You feel the same way about murder and child support?

 

[skews13]

Marjorie Dannenfelser: Left's outcry over Texas abortion ban has little to do with science, protecting women

For the past half century, the pro-abortion Left has attempted to deceive the American people about the science, facts, and the law surrounding abortion.

www.foxnews.com

The abortion issue affects a microscopic percentage of the American public. So far less than one percent that it is virtually un-measurable. And if abortions were totally outlawed (which in Latin one might refer to as the status quo ante - the way things used to be), MOST of the affected women would merely and painlessly change their reproductive behavior to adapt. Aside from rape, there is no reason for any woman to become pregnant in this country, if she actually does not want to get pregnant. And certainly, organizations like Planned Parenthood would make contraception, sterilization, and meaningful advice available to all. The result of an absolute ban on abortions would be a couple thousand "unwanted babies" each year in our nation of more than 330 million - babies for whom adoptive homes could be easily found.

And yet any threat to the Court-given and totally illegitimate "right to abortion" is treated as though it is a threat to ALL WOMEN, and indeed to ALL AMERICANS!

This is bullshit, on steroids.

What is the Real Reason for the hysteria about this matter? Is it just a fundraising tool for Democrats? Do Democrats really suppose that the female population is too stupid and careless to react appropriately to restrictions (or a ban) on abortions?

It's a medical procedure between a woman and a doctor.

It's none of your business.

Stay out of it.

See how easy that was?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

People need sex,

Please share with us a single factual, documented story of someone who died for lack of sex.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Stay out of it.

NO

See how easy that was?

 

[task0778]

What the abortion argument represents is not the life of an unborn child from conception, but the balancing of fundamental and at times opposing rights.

I think it IS about the right to life for the unborn child. We wouldn't be discussing any other reason for what a woman can and can't do with her own body. But at some point, that unborn child should have it's own right to agency, and since he or she cannot represent themselves it should be up to the rest to do so.

If you are against abortion, why not make as unnecessary as possible? Why not do everything possible to encourage her to make the choice of life with all the necessary support structure? Why slut shame her? Why not use the power of our government to make sure accurate and effective sex education information and contraception are FREELY available?

I got no problem with that, beyond the question of what constitutes 'necessary support structure'. What is really necessary and what isn't? As for slut shaming, frankly that does not belong in this conversation and has nothing to do with whether or not an abortion should be allowed. It is of course the wrong thing to do and those who do it are inconsiderate assholes, but that is beside the point. Should the power of gov't be involved as you suggest? Yes, IMHO. No reason not to; I realize there are some on the religious right who do not want to pay for contraception and morning after pills and such like, so again IMHO that question ought to be a local rather than national issue.

I do not feel the baby inside her has any individual rights until viability. Until then, her rights are and should be paramount regardless of how she got pregnant. I absolutely do not believe that rights begin at conception, a point that can not even be guessed at.

So don't guess, get a pregnancy test asap and find out. The point at which the unborn should assume individual rights is hotly contested, and in my view should be a local or state decision rather than a national one. I have serious moral concerns about the ending of a life, even one that is in the womb. Especially when those responsible could have taken steps to avoid creating that new life in the 1st place, thus creating a morel dilemma for the rest of us. IOW, it's not the baby's fault if mama got knocked up.

You talk about “they” but seriously…look around you at USMB. It is on the woman. She is the “slut”, over and over again. She takes on 100% of the burden, cost, health and mortality risks, job loss and education loss. A man might have to pay child support, but it is dependent on how much he earns. And he can evade it. All her costs and risks? They are the same regardless. If all the consequences, burden and societal condemnation is on her, then so should the power of choice be.

I'm okay with the woman having the power of choice right up to that point of viability. Every woman already knows all that stuff, which is why she should be careful about who she sleeps with. She has the right to that choice and also the bulk of the responsibility that goes with it. Let's not forget that in this day and age we have several methods of birth control and the morning after pill too. And she can require her partner to wear a condom too, so if she doesn't do that and gets pregnant then she carries some responsibility for that, as does the dad. Maybe if the choice becomes a little harder because an abortion is more limited then she might make some better choices.

It is so easy to tell a woman what she has to do when you don’t walk in her shoes. That is problem I have with this.

Nobody is telling women what they have to do. But maybe we should be telling them to be more responsible in the decisions they make and who they sleep with. Maybe we should be encouraging them not to have unprotected sex with an asshole in the 1st place, and if she does then get a pregnancy test ( which should be free) and find out if she is or isn't. And if she is then do something about it. Surely it is easier and cheaper to abort a pregnancy prior to the 6 week point than it is later on, and IMHO that oughta be free too. Nobody has to know, no shaming and no nothing else.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

And what is wrong with ensuring everyone gets to decide what they "small voice" is telling them, instead of forcing the large government voice on people, with guns, clubs, handcuffs, prisons, etc?
If you allow government to dictate personal choice over something like abortion, then we all become slaves to whatever else government decides to start dictating.

If you don't want government to dictate personal choice over something like abortion, then you damn sure better be willing to fight to keep government from dictating that covid jab.

 

[Rigby5]

No. We need guns to shoot and kill adult rapists and perverts who "need" to have sex.

And get that prostitution racket off the state highways already, will you? I don't care how how much gunfire it takes to say no to the commercial sex traffic, but enough is enough.

Wrong.
There are more than enough people who are willing to have consensual sex that there would be no rape if not for government.
Let all women be armed, and rape would instantly end.
Stop arresting prostitution, and rape would end.
Blame the government who is really guilty, not those who are simply doing what is right, having sex.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seriously...What is The Deal with Abortion?

The authoritarian right uses ‘abortion’ as justification to increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

For conservatives it’s a hot button/wedge issue used to energize the base to get them to the polls; it’s also a partisan weapon used by the right to attack political opponents.

It has little to do with ending the practice and everything to do with obtaining political power.

Indeed, if conservatives were truly serious about ending abortion, the last thing they’d try to do is ‘ban’ it.

 

[Rigby5]

Please share with us a single factual, documented story of someone who died for lack of sex.

The body motivates people with pain and pleasure chemicals.
The fact it is not fatal to not have sex does not mean it is not painful and that it is illegal to deprive people of pleasure.

 

[SavannahMann]

Wow, you commies have a history of going to the absurd when you're cornered. You might want to review the 5th and 14th amendments.

.

Excellent. We are on the right document regarding the Constitutional rights I mentioned originally.

My reply was intended to address the unalienable rights the poster queried me about.

At least we are on the Constitution instead of the Declaration of Independence. A real plus.

The OP opines that even if there is a Constitutional Right to Abortion, the numbers harmed if it is banned are insignificant so it doesn’t matter. My opinion is even if only one person has their rights abridged it is an intolerable harm.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion is only done by a small portion of women.

But I get it, you will argue semantics till the death if it means you can feel a cheap sense of self satisfaction at thinking you "really told them". It's cheap and kind of pitiful you knew exactly what he meant yet still tried to force it to be something it wasn't.

Clearly you don’t ‘get it.’

There isn’t a minimum required number of citizens to have their civil rights violated in order to justify opposing that violation of their civil rights.