Abortion (1 Viewer)

[jpl458]

I agree with Denis Miller, when he was describing how the voting on abortion shouls be handled, Quote "One D___k, no vote"

 

[AccessBlaster]

I agree with Trump leave it up to the states.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm a radical on this one, but ... there are three kinds of rights mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. There are federally imposed and managed rights; there are state imposed and managed rights; and there are individual rights. (Actually, described in the 9th and 10th amendments.) I think abortion should be an individual right, a right left to the people.

 

[conception_native_0123]

leave it up to the states

I just saw a front page story in the local paper here tonight. something about arizona banning abortion?

 

[NauticalGent]

I agree with Trump leave it up to the states.

Not just Trump, but the Constitution. I KNOW you know this, that was for some who just don't "get" it.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I think abortion should be an individual right, a right left to the people.

Does that mean that you are OK with late term abortion where they induce labor and kill the fetus by cutting it apart?

At what point does the "growth" become a person with his own rights?

If you were raped or had unprotected sex take the morning after pill.

Most women know they are pregnant by the second month - or at least suspicious enough to take a test. Get an abortion while the fetus is still a "growth".

If, late in the pregnancy, the woman's life is in danger, then the parents have to decide regarding the risk. Most people consider the known life to be more valuable than the unknown but not all.

If, late in the pregnancy, the fetus develops a terminal condition see the previous statement.

That position won't satisfy the left because they think it is absolutely fine to kill the baby after it is born if you decide you don't want it after it is born. It also won't satisfy the Catholic Church which believes that life begins at conception. They also were against birth control but that didn't stop Catholics from using it so perhaps the Church is out of sync with reality.

 

[ebs17]

In the former GDR (East Germany), abortions were allowed up to the twelfth week, and there was not much discussion about it. One did not get the impression that the women decided to have an abortion lightly.
But there was also a welcoming culture in society for the children. For the individual woman, one (more) child was not a catastrophe for personal finances and personal professional career. The state wanted children and backed it up with actions (kindergarten, daycare) and other services.
In your view, the GDR was not only left-wing, but communist.

 

[Pat Hartman]

a right left to the people.

To be perfectly clear, the reason this is left to the state is because at some point in time there are TWO people personally affected by the decision, it is not just the mother which would make it a right of the people.

 

[pbaldy]

I've always shared Pat's viewpoint. At some point in time the clump of cells becomes a life. That life is as worthy of protection before it's born as after. Debating when that point is would be just as productive as the current debates, but at least it would be more on point.

Seen another way, if a pregnant woman was in an accident and was going to die, and doctors could successfully deliver her baby, that baby was beyond a clump of cells.

My wife is very pro-abortion, but shares my view. We were both comfortable with Row v Wade as it at least tried to define that point in time.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Your wife may be pro-choice but she is hardly likely to be pro-abortion

Roe v Wade was bad law because is was not based on the Constitution. It was accepted by the majority because it cut the baby at a place where people could accept the decision. The problem is all the laws that followed which served to weaken Roe v Wade and which were never challenged. My turning point was a few years ago when I watched a video of members of the NY Assembly cheering wildly from the floor as they passed a late term abortion that literally allowed the fetus to be murdered as it was being delivered while the mother was in labor. That law is barbaric and the cheering people downright evil.

 

[Isaac]

I agree with Denis Miller, when he was describing how the voting on abortion shouls be handled, Quote "One D___k, no vote"

The problem is, that's not the way we handle literally ANY other voting on any issues.

I can still vote even though the government makes laws about child support which do not apply to me, makes laws about guns which I don't have, makes laws about types of commerce I am not involved in, etc. We make laws protecting other people's children all day long, and nobody complains that "they're not your children, so don't vote".

It's odd that the only place liberals want such a "invested personal stake required to vote", is in abortion - but are fine with tossing it out the window everywhere else.

If it weren't for double standards, libs would have no standards at all

 

[Pat Hartman]

I agree with Denis Miller, when he was describing how the voting on abortion shouls be handled, Quote "One D___k, no vote"

So, transgender women don't get to vote if they still have their dicks even though they can get pregnant?

 

[moke123]

 

[Pat Hartman]

I think someone needs to fact check that ad. When your water breaks at 18 weeks, you are having a miscarriage and that sometimes requires a D&C which isn't actually an abortion, at least not in this case.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To be perfectly clear, the reason this is left to the state is because at some point in time there are TWO people personally affected by the decision, it is not just the mother which would make it a right of the people.

Please be aware that under "freedom of religion" there is this consideration... not ONLY for Jewish women, but they ARE examples of this: Judaism doesn't consider that there IS a second person until after the umbilicus has been cut. Many of the Evangelical sub-denominations do not consider that there is a second person until first breath. And the state cannot be involved in that discussion because of separation of church and state being a requirement of the constitution. So Pat, your statement is colored by your personal beliefs which don't have to match up with others. Not saying you shouldn't have your beliefs - but you should realize their scope might not be universal. Otherwise there would be no controversy and no states moving to restore at least some rights.

Just for the record, when I got married, my wife and I agreed that we would follow any pregnancy to term - but it never happened and now, with both of us in our 70s, it is long past the point of "ain't gonna happen." But the thing is, we know that our beliefs are not the same as the beliefs of others. When I was still a Christian (Methodist) - a LONG time ago - it came up in a discussion and I asked my minister. He said that abortion was always a matter of conscience.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I pointed out the beliefs of my religion. The Catholic church believes that life begins at conception. So abortion is not allowed at all. No provision for the life of the mother either. That was not the position I took.

My view is a practical one. At what point during gestation is life possible outside of the womb? Modern science has made that possible at around 6 months. If a woman died in an accident, at this point in her pregnancy, doctors would perform a c-section in an attempt to save the baby - because it is a person at this point. Once the fetus can live outside the womb, it is no longer a growth. It is a person and has rights.

Abortion which is not a matter of life or death is always a matter of conscience. I think if you asked your former minister specifically about late term abortions, he might have had a different answer. When we were young, we didn't think about late term abortions. Abortion wasn't legal anywhere until Roe v Wade which was after my daughter was born, not that it mattered.

I think that anyone who is in favor of non-emergency late term abortions should watch a video of one as the doctor cuts the baby to pieces and pulls the pieces out.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Pat, I will re-emphasize that I don't recommend abortion as a decision for anyone. I leave that decision to whoever it is that seeks an abortion. They have enough grief already if they are considering such an action. I don't need to add more.

I will add that those states lacking even therapeutic abortion options are ignoring the rare but non-zero occurrence of congenital conditions such as Tay-Sachs syndrome or perhaps anencephaly. There is also the issue of pregnancy by r.a.p.e. - again, rare but non-zero.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I never argued for non-zero. You are arguing for 100% availability. I am arguing for a more moderate position that even most religious people can live with. If you don't know you don't want the baby by the time it is viable, then carry to term and give it up. We used to have better support for unwed mothers and adoption. But that was before the state became the nanny and took over from charities.

I think 100% is murder. You don't. We can agree to disagree on that point.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The question is not whether I think it is murder. For previously stated reasons, some people think it is not, and it is a belief widely shared within some religions. Actually, I'm not in favor of late-term abortion unless there is a strong medical reason either. My position is that I question whether I have the right to impose my viewpoint on someone else whose viewpoint is shared by a moderately large and well-recognized group, even if not widely held in the overall population. Where do we enter the zone called "the tyranny of the majority"?

 

[conception_native_0123]

We can agree to disagree on that point.

I HATE ending any argument that way. I always have.