Zone1 The abortion debate - Understanding Both Sides

[JoeMoma]

Do you want to know where we on the other side are "coming from," or do you want to change us? Any attempt at persuasion will answer that question and not in a good way.

I come from belief that the anti-abortion side, at least the predominantly male-dominated part of it (most women are pro-choice in this country) comes from a strong male desire to control all women. In the case of anti-abortionism it's a theoretical one because if the male is directly involved, often he wants to control the woman to HAVE an abortion so he doesn't have to pay child support! And men have forever been dominant in the far more common infanticide through the ages, I read in the book that analyzes this issue, Bare Branches.

This new take on anti-abortionism is another control-of-women effort, but not women these men know: sort of an all women all the time control effort, a fantasy of control. Naturally, most women deplore giving into this sort of control by men.

Another place I come from, metaphorically, is that the world is grossly overpopulated and the fewer people the better at this point.

Another place I come from is that most abortions are done to blacks, and that is well-known to be a major crime prevention. States that outlaw abortion and yet have blacks living there will have a big upsurge in crime starting in about 15 years, as the statistics show in that 15 years after Roe v. Wade crime plummeted because of the newly legalized abortions.

No persuasion, now.

Most people have already made up their minds, especially those posting to this thread so trying to persuade is futile. That said, I may post whether I agree or disagree with something. For example, I don't think that most men that are pro-life are so because the want to control women. I believe that are pro-life because they believe that the preborn are individuals that deserve life and deserve protecting. However, I can see how to someone that believes that the pre-born isn't a "person" that deserves protection but simply a clump of cells, it would seem that pro-life men want to control women.

To a person that believes the preborn are people, human life, the pro-life position makes sense. To a person that believes that the preborn are not people or not yet human life, the pro-choice position makes sense. Also, some people find a lot of wiggle room in between.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm sorry ,but, there's nothing controversial about legal abortion. Whether reproductive conservatives like it or not a women has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy ,Including rape or incest.

You may want to look up the word "controversial". You apparently don't know what the word means.

 

[martybegan]

What happens if both fails?
Pre-cum can impregnate a woman.
So if you live in an insane red state, just stop having sex?

Rhythm method.

 

[martybegan]

Are you a Christian?

Lapsed Catholic at best.

 

[martybegan]

Well, the obvious difference is that I'm pretty sure that the SYA crowd is perfectly fine with a woman deciding to carry a pregnancy to term, whereas the extreme pro-life crowd thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a baby killer, which is so monumentally stupid it's silly...

Um, have you seen some of the protesters claiming they would get an abortion just for the sake of it?

The abortion rights people had Roe for 5 decades to keep them sane. with it gone, expect them to go far more nutty than the anti-abortion rights people.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Lapsed Catholic at best.

I just find it interesting that someone who says something like this: "I can see in a rape case the gestation being forced, but in other cases, the gestation can be avoided by 1) avoiding sex..." is someone who subscribes to a religion which literally teaches that a woman got pregnant without having intercourse...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Um, have you seen some of the protesters claiming they would get an abortion just for the sake of it?

The abortion rights people had Roe for 5 decades to keep them sane. with it gone, expect them to go far more nutty than the anti-abortion rights people.

I haven't, but that's sort of beside the point, because it's not relevant.

The pro-life people wish to impose their will on the populace. The pro-choice crowd does not. If a woman in California has an abortion, there's no impact whatsoever to someone living in Florida...

 

[martybegan]

I just find it interesting that someone who says something like this: "I can see in a rape case the gestation being forced, but in other cases, the gestation can be avoided by 1) avoiding sex..." is someone who subscribes to a religion which literally teaches that a woman got pregnant without having intercourse...

You cut out the part where I talked about birth control, was that intentional or just a mistake?

One woman got pregnant without intercourse, and that took divine intervention. If you are going to mock a religion, at least get the facts right.

And I am a lapsed Catholic at best, not an Evangelical, so many of your assumptions are not correct.

 

[martybegan]

I haven't, but that's sort of beside the point, because it's not relevant.

The pro-life people wish to impose their will on the populace. The pro-choice crowd does not. If a woman in California has an abortion, there's no impact whatsoever to someone living in Florida...

The abortion rights people want to impose abortion rights on States that don't want it.

If a person in Mississippi can't get an abortion, it has no impact on someone living in New York.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You cut out the part where I talked about birth control, was that intentional or just a mistake?

It would've been silly for me to mention that, considering the fact that I was addressing something else...

One woman got pregnant without intercourse, and that took divine intervention. If you are going to mock a religion, at least get the facts right.

And, yet, you haven't dispelled my point...

And I am a lapsed Catholic at best, not an Evangelical, so many of your assumptions are not correct.

When did I ever suggest you were an Evangelical?

My assumption, which you've now proven to be 100% correct, is that you believe a woman cannot get pregnant without intercourse, yet your religious beliefs are the result of being taught that a woman got pregnant without intercourse.

Just trying to keep you fair and honest...

 

[Canon Shooter]

The abortion rights people want to impose abortion rights on States that don't want it.

And that'll eventually come down to what voters want.

However the existence of those rights have zero impact on those who would never choose an abortion...

If a person in Mississippi can't get an abortion, it has no impact on someone living in New York.

Quite true.

So, maybe the person in New York should shut the fuck up and let the woman in Mississippi do as she chooses?

See, here's the thing: a woman who is pro-choice and who would choose an abortion (for whatever reason) is adversely affected by a law which states that she cannot obtain one. A woman who's pro-life is not adversely affected by another woman's choice to obtain an abortion.

It really is that simple...

 

[martybegan]

It would've been silly for me to mention that, considering the fact that I was addressing something else...



And, yet, you haven't dispelled my point...



When did I ever suggest you were an Evangelical?

My assumption, which you've now proven to be 100% correct, is that you believe a woman cannot get pregnant without intercourse, yet your religious beliefs are the result of being taught that a woman got pregnant without intercourse.

Just trying to keep you fair and honest...

One case of divine intervention a pattern does not make. And leaving out my 2nd part is intellectually dishonest. Shame.

Your obsessing over the belief in the virgin birth is confusing.

 

[martybegan]

And that'll eventually come down to what voters want.

However the existence of those rights have zero impact on those who would never choose an abortion...



Quite true.

So, maybe the person in New York should shut the fuck up and let the woman in Mississippi do as she chooses?

See, here's the thing: a woman who is pro-choice and who would choose an abortion (for whatever reason) is adversely affected by a law which states that she cannot obtain one. A woman who's pro-life is not adversely affected by another woman's choice to obtain an abortion.

It really is that simple...

These laws won't pass or remain passed without substantial female support in those States that will severely restrict abortions.

That's up to the States to decide, because the Constitution is silent on it. You depended on a crap SC opinion for 50 years, and now you have to fight the fight on the merits.

 

[Canon Shooter]

One case of divine intervention a pattern does not make. And leaving out my 2nd part is intellectually dishonest. Shame.

Your obsessing over the belief in the virgin birth is confusing.

Well, I don't believe it ever really happened.

That's why I'm a recovering Catholic...

 

[Canon Shooter]

These laws won't pass or remain passed without substantial female support in those States that will severely restrict abortions.

That's up to the States to decide, because the Constitution is silent on it. You depended on a crap SC opinion for 50 years, and now you have to fight the fight on the merits.

I didn't depend on anything, and it's unsurprising that you missed my point.

It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court goes after next...

 

[badbob85037]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

What's to understand? When you have an abortion you are ending a life. Not any life but your child's life. A sick murderer. I understand.

 

[martybegan]

Well, I don't believe it ever really happened.

That's why I'm a recovering Catholic...

That's on you. But using it as an attempted "aha-gotcha" moment is kind of silly and not material to the argument.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's on you. But using it as an attempted "aha-gotcha" moment is kind of silly and not material to the argument.

Yeah, but it is...

 

[martybegan]

I didn't depend on anything, and it's unsurprising that you missed my point.

It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court goes after next...

They did a good job across the board so far. Roe done, gun rights improved, Congress told to do their job instead of passing it off onto an unelected bureaucracy. .

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, but it is...

Nope. One divine birth does not equate thinking it can happen again and again and again.