‘I’m Doing It for the Babies’: Inside the Ground Game to Reverse Roe v. Wade
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
From MSN News:
AVON, Ind. — Armed with sunscreen, doorknob fliers and a mission 50 years in the making, the team of activists sporting blue “I Vote Pro-Life” T-shirts fanned out into a web of cul-de-sacs in a subdivision just west of Indianapolis, undeterred by towering rain clouds and 90-degree heat. It was exactly a week after President Trump had named Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to be his nominee for the Supreme Court, and the group was joking that they had a new sport: Extreme Canvassing. In short surveys, the teams ask voters about their hopes for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and their opposition to abortion funding. Canvassers have knocked at nearly 1.2 million homes nationwide in recent months, and by November, they are slated to reach their goal of 2 million. “Whenever I’m feeling tired, I say, ‘I’m doing it for the babies,’” said Kaiti Shannon, 19, as she consulted a mobile app to determine which porch with wind chimes to approach.
These are the ground troops of the social conservative movement, who have long dreamed of a nation where abortion is illegal. Ahead of the midterm elections, the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political group, has dispatched hundreds of these canvassers across six battleground states. They aim to galvanize Americans who oppose abortion but who rarely vote outside presidential races, and to pressure red state Democrats, like Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana, to support Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.Leaders of the anti-abortion movement believe they are closer than they have been in 50 years to achieving their goals, and local efforts like these are at the heart of their plan to get there. They see this political moment — a White House that advances anti-abortion priorities, a Supreme Court poised to tilt in a conservative direction, and a possible third Supreme Court seat to fill while Mr. Trump is still in office — as a rare opportunity, and one they have worked for years to create. Some say they feel excited; others are cautiously optimistic. They are all definitely determined. “Abortion is the single most significant rights human rights abuse of our time,” said Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, which has brought tens of thousands of protesters to Washington every year since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973. “I have a lot of hope for incremental laws — for example, a late-term abortion ban.”
While a majority of Americans have long believed abortion should be legal in most or all cases, the vocal anti-abortion movement is pursuing its goals at the local level. In states like Indiana, whose legislature has a Republican supermajority, activists have repeatedly pushed incremental laws that restrict abortion, require parental involvement or limit state funding. Already, anti-abortion activists in Indiana hope that one of their laws, which gave a fetus nondiscrimination protections but was struck down in federal appeals court earlier this year, may be the one to challenge Roe v. Wade — if their attorney general appeals to the Supreme Court in the months ahead. But there are dozens of other cases working their way through the courts nationwide, including one involving an Iowa law banning almost all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, and a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. Seventeen states have laws that ban abortion after about 20 weeks. These efforts reflect “a long-term and sophisticated strategy” to gain the upper hand, says Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion rights organization NARAL. “They’ve been stacking the courts, taking over state legislatures,” she said in an interview, referring to anti-abortion groups. “This has been their plan. This is no doubt the day they have been waiting for.” As the canvassers dodged sprinklers in the Indiana suburbs, it was clear they saw their role as more than just a job for which they are paid $10 an hour: Many said they have opposed abortion most of their lives. Joey Kurucz, 24, a law school student who has knocked on 2,600 Indiana doors, told the story of talking with voters in June when a dog bit his side, leaving a scar. He continued to shout questions at the owner from the safety of a neighbor’s lawn. “They were pro-life!” he recalled with a smile. Debra Minott, 62, said she spends 15 minutes every morning in silent prayer, asking for an end to abortion. She decided to go door-to-door five months ago, after regretting that she had not done more for the cause earlier in her life. “I sometimes pick the worst days to go out, when it is so hot, because I want people to remember that I came to the door to advocate for life,” Ms. Minott said, as she tucked a flier under a doormat.
Their interactions with voters may be the linchpin of a calculated, top-down strategy, but on the streets, it feels more personal. At one house, a woman answered the door and shared her ambivalence about legalized abortion, recounting how she had one years ago. A canvasser asked if she could give her a hug.
A few streets away, a young man at first cracked his door just a few inches, holding it open with his toes to answer the survey. Eventually he stepped outside to say he does not want abortion to be used as birth control. Another woman watching Fox News in her open garage said she wanted Judge Kavanaugh confirmed and Roe reversed, but that she also thought there were other ways to combat abortion, like promoting safe sex and using the morning after pill. No one talked about the pending legal cases, and few discussed Mr. Trump. But their inherent opposition to abortion makes them prime candidates for national groups to organize. The Susan B. Anthony List started its field program in force four years ago, and plans to spend at least $25 million on it ahead of this fall’s midterm elections, up from $18 million in 2016. In some states, like Florida and West Virginia, their canvassers are also targeting persuadable voters, especially Hispanics, who oppose abortion at higher rates than white adults.
Other conservative evangelical and Catholic groups have been pouring money and resources into the battle to confirm Judge Kavanaugh this fall, which abortion rights groups pointed to as a vulnerability of the anti-abortion movement.
“The gains that have been made in the last few years have really come from a very small contingent of special-interest groups and powerful lobbyists,” said Sara Hutchinson Ratcliffe, the vice president of Catholics for Choice, noting that a majority of Catholics believe abortion should be legal. “I don’t think they have as many people in their corner as they think they do. ”But as national attention focuses largely on the Supreme Court confirmation, movement leaders are hoping for political wins as well. In Minnesota, anti-abortion activists are zeroing in on the open governor’s seat, considered a tossup. The Democratic governor, Mark Dayton, has vetoed seven bills supported by abortion opponents during his time in office. “Our House and Senate are willing to pass this stuff,” said Scott Fischbach, executive director of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a group whose political arm helped push the State Legislature to an anti-abortion majority in recent years. “We are going to do more on this governor’s race than we’ve ever done in the past.” Students for Life, a youth movement that calls itself “the pro-life generation,” is starting a van tour in early August to six states — West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Alaska and Maine — to drum up support for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Conservative statewide Christian groups, like the Ohio Christian Alliance, are urging thousands of local churches to have their members contact lawmakers to do the same. Next month, the Susan B. Anthony List plans to host news conferences in front of the offices of vulnerable red-state Democrats, organizing petitions and digital ad campaigns in an attempt to ramp up the political pressure to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
For the activists on the ground in Indiana, there has already been a taste of victory: Former Gov. Mike Pence, champion of anti-abortion measures, is now in the White House.
“We knew that Indiana, our values, would be on the national stage,” Mr. Kurucz, the canvasser who was bitten by the dog, said as he stepped up to another door. “I know we are pushing people to that successful result in November.”
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
It looks as if anti-abortionists can't mind their own business and are getting more 'in-your-face' with their movement. Of course, if they really cared about "babies," they would try to help impoverished children and families more rather that try to push their beliefs onto everyone else, especially in a matter which doesn't concern them in the least.
I look forward to calling the police and having each one of these anti-choice thumpers cited for trespassing where I live.
deleted
Roe v Wade is an established SCOTUS decision for over 40 years. Those that wish to eliminate that right for all Americans, for the sole benefit of the religiously challenged, had better start stockpiling food and weapons in their teavangelical taliban madrasas. The all or nothing stance of thumper scum will guarantee the eventual extinction of fake xtian activists. I will shed no tears for those that have abandoned the Constitution for the bible and later have to be carried out of their non-secular institutions feet first. Good riddance.
I hope Mr Giggles buys that shotgun he's been eyeballing at the BX
These religious morons need to learn to keep their illogical beliefs to themselves and stop trying to force their delusions on others. If the truly want to reduce the number of abortions then support free birth control and comprehensive sex education. Overturning Roe v. Wade will only create a situation where abortion is legal in some states and illegal in others. Abortion will not ever be banned because it didn't start with Roe.
The fact that they want to portray themselves as a pregnancy crisis center but lie to their clients about their option of abortion tells me more then enough about their goals. They often shame women into adoption.
The non-religious morons want to push their illogical beliefs and force their delusions on others and do like having competition.
Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it, you just don't want it to be you.
You don't fucking pay, and its none of your business, its a woman's business, stop trying to force your religious beliefs on women. Do what you want in your own life and live your beliefs and let the rest of us live ours. ABORTION IS NOT MURDER AND NOT YOUR BUSINESS. IT'S ABOUT CONTROLLING WOMEN. You don't pay for abortions, but frankly you should, the same way I'm forced to pay for Trump's golfing and enriching his business while in office. Or wars I don't like. I don't like republicans allowing profits to go the companies but the damages are socialized so we taxpayers are on the hook. When we ALL get to choose where each of our tax dollars you can make that choice.
Somebody does. You don't care who as long as its not you
If it's her business then the costs should come out of her pocket.
What idea am I or any other believer pushing on you? What illogical beliefs do I hold?
I have no problem paying for it with my tax dollars. I support taxpayer-subsidized birth control and abortion because it is fiscally pragmatic. Free birth control and abortion is much cheaper than a live birth and 18 years of social service costs for a child that isn't wanted or cannot be supported by the parents. Forcing a teen to become a parent and forego continuing her education causes very expensive problems for her and others in the future. The fact that the Earth is already overpopulated so having fewer offspring will help us survive.
We must start thinking as a integrated and interdependent society and not just what is in the best interests of any one person. Your shortsighted ideas are a case of you cannot see the forrst for the trees syndrome. You need to focus on the bigger picture.
Stop trying to penalize single women and the poor for being poor by putting an anchor around their neck that they cannot overcome. This is how generational poverty begins.
We are a complex and interdependent society and we must work together to solve these complex problems. Teaching children to Just Say No to sex doesn't work and it has never worked because it is an overly simplistic religious solution to a complex biologic and economic problem.
And you hope to convince simple minds?
I am a strange person. One one hand I have a Ph.D. in cynicism and a M.A in sarcasm, but on the other I might be the most idealistic person you will ever meet. I see the current morass of partisan and religious BS, but I still have hope that these problems can be solved and that we can move forward as an interdependent society for the benefit of all.
Yeah, you're logical and rational in a sea of irrationality. I'd say being "strange" is a good thing.
Your ad hom attack aside, what "illogical beliefs" and "delusions" are you referring to?
Whom?
Considering I and others pay taxes, we all seem to pay for something regardless.
It already does, as elective abortions are paid for out of pocket. So what's the problem?
This attack is OK by your standards
By what I wrote is subject to attack by you. Interesting .
Ever heard of the Hyde Agreement? Look it up.
There are more and more situations where logic has become a foreign language. I thought that it was far more common.
What about it . It was stated that contraception should be free and I correct said that someone had to pay for it so it was not free ever. What's your point?
Did I say it was, or anything about it?
Where did I attack you? What you wrote was an ad hom attack. I simply called you out on it.
But it's generally not.
Even if it's not free, it's still far cheaper than costs associated with pregnancy, childbirth, child rearing, or any associated health issues and complications.
What's yours?
It also says taxpayer funds cannot be used for abortions. There are lots of taxpayer funded entities out there, PP is one, but the funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. 97% of what PP does has nothing to do with abortions. Why are you for more government intrusion into our lives?
Which is an unfortunate and frightening trend.
I wish it were. unfortunately, it is not. If anything, I see the exact opposite.
cheaper in the long run
I never said anything about taxpayer funds. I just said someone other than the person using the service had to pay .
I have never had to use the services of FEMA, but I have to help pay for it.
different animal entirely
You never specified whom that might be? If it's not taxpayers, then whom?
I have. Lets just say I know what MREs taste like.
But yeah, we all pay for things for the greater good. Why some people want to nit pick some smaller things I don't get.
True, and let me be clear...I have zero problems with my dollars going to FEMA, I was just using it as an example.
How is it different?
We all pay for public schools, despite the fact that some of us don't have children in the school system because it is in our societal best interest to educate our citizens. I don't think that we go far enough in public education for the 21st century. I'd like to see another year added to the K-12 curriculum because there are many subjects that are not being covered adequately.
I've never used the services of fire, EMS or the Coast Guard but I have no problem pay for them. I happily pay for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
and that's what I like about you
You'll go right on thinking that way until the rest of us start making decisions about you.
So what makes anti-abortionists think they can start making decisions of whether can have an abortion or not?
We cannot exist as a society unless we accept that we are interdependent. The federal Constitution is the rules for the American society. As we get more and more advanced with more people we are also more and more interdependent. The study of economics is how money functions in a society.
What decisions do you have in mind? What are you afraid of happening if you admit that we are interdependent?
Their God told them that was their duty as believers.
No.
Their preachers told them.
Their preachers bear false witness in the name of the Lord... which, unless I am mistaken, is kinda sorts banned by one of the Ten Commandments...
I noticed they frequently invoke god to some degree in their arguments.
The belief that abortion is murder and the knowledge that we already outlaw that.
Many "believe" abortion is not murder. So why should the anti-abortionists "beliefs" override another's beliefs to the contrary? Of course, that also shows how irrational belief really is, as many people can have different beliefs. That's why mere belief should not be used as a basis! But then, the "belief" that abortion is murder is factually incorrect and outright wrong. I suppose some people just can't deal with that fact!
You're conflating religious belief and legal analysis. I'm not talking about religion. I'm using the word "belief" in the same way that Supreme Court justices "believe" there is a right to privacy in the Constitution even though factually, it doesn't say "the people have a right to privacy." It's an opinion.
Not at all. I said religious belief should have no place in legal analysis.
Many people do when they use "belief," especially when it comes to arguments against abortion. And when you reference "God's moral law" in an argument, that is most certainly a religious basis, regardless if you yourself are using it or not.
The difference is, it's not so much a "belief" as it is an interpretation of the Constitution in matters of law. And their "opinion" is what carries weight in that regard.
Right. Exactly. In the same way, many people interpret abortion as satisfying the legal definition of murder. And that opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with religious belief.
Except abortion does not meet the legal definition or designation of murder. That's a matter of legal fact.
I never said it did. I am saying the argument can reasonably be made that it should. (Just like some people felt gay marriage should be legal even when it wasn't). Laws change.
I'm also saying that holding that opinion is a legal point of view, not a religious one.
I never said you said it did.
I have yet to hear any such reasonable argument. Especially when any significant change would limit or eliminate individual rights.
Except that legal view lacks any legal basis or weight. Abortion is not considered murder under the law. That is legal FACT! So mere opinion doesn't hold water to established fact. Religious point of views isn't even worthy of any serious consideration.
The opinion may be a legal one... but it's justification is totally religious.
Contending that a two-cell zygote is a person is unreasonable. That contention is possible only by invoking some magical quality such as a "soul". The religious position is defendable, but not by reason.
This is bothersome. So many anti-abortion people refuse to recognize that they are religiously motivated.
Indeed.
Or they are simply lying when they say they are not.
Don't abort.
He needs a son.
Anyone who has been in the top floor "special" ward at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, seeing the monsters being cared for until they soon die, would know why the right to abortion is a necessity.
I gave you a vote up just for the "Rosemary's Baby" reference.
But no baby is a monster.
Yeah, they don't turn into monsters until they're 2 years old or *gasp* teenagers.
I'll take a Terrible Toddler over a Touchy Teenager any day
I see you prefer smaller monsters then.
I know there will never be public forum where 'these activist' will have to answer this question. "Doing what for the babies."
Any answer they give would probably smack of self righteous sanctimony.
That is emotional BS because it is a fetus and not a baby at 20 weeks. These religious nuts don't care about the babies physical needs once it is born, until they can try to convert it to their brand of religious idiocy and carry on that social disease.
That's the only argument anti-abortionists seem able to make: one based on emotional appeals, ignorance, or outright lying. I haven't seen anyone make a logical and well reasoned argument as to why abortion should be illegal.
These people often claim to be small government people who support religious freedoms, but what they don't say that the religion in question is only their own. I have a 6th sense for their BS because I grew up among these hypocrites. My father was a staunch anti-abortion type. My mom worked in medicine and say the back-alley results of banning abortion, so she has always been pro-choice, despite also being Catholic.
Many opposed to abortion cite religion as one, if not the only reason why they oppose abortion. So attempts to ban abortion or try to sway others into being anti-abortion is essentially no different than them trying to push their religious BS on the rest of us or through law. Abortion is just the face of it.
This is exactly why we have the strict separation of church and state and a prohibition on laws that do not have a vast majority of secular concept and solution.
Sometimes, separation doesn't seem strict enough.
The wall is showing signs of stress cracks lately. We need many more intelligent judges on the SCOTUS who are both logical and pragmatic rather than religious.
It does seem to be chipped away more and more lately.
Agreed. unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case anytime soon.
Doesn't matter. Bottom line, not everyone needs a baby. Actually, most might be better off without one. Especially a baby the taxpayers will be forced to support. This issue should be economic.
Economics is certainly a factor. Or at the very least, a consideration.
Birth control should be the default action until someone desires to conceive a child. The idea that a woman's life is ruined because of failed birth control or the religious beliefs of others is outrageous
you got that right
This issue should be economic. Religion or religious dogma should have no say unless ( it ) is willing to ante up. And we all know that simply will not happen.
This issue must be economic. It is futile to argue with religious grounds when those same 'religious grounds' ignore every tenant of New Testament teachings. This issue must be economic.
If you could have a logical argument with religious people there would be no religious people. Religious belief is the rejection of logical thought.
Well yes. Of course. There is 'that' too.
"rejection of logical thought," is useful for The Money Changers and those who walk in The Shadow.
Are you speaking of all religious people? Are you speaking of everyone with an objection to abortion? What data supports your assertion? For that matter, what are you even talking about? Is it your claim that because someone doesn't support freebies or handouts for children that they don't care about life? They are different things.
And if you aren't speaking of everyone who disagrees with you, then what do you have to say to people who object to abortion AND care about babies after they're born?
The argument against abortion stands on its own. It is neither weakened nor strengthened by what people want for humans outside the womb.
That's pretty arrogant. I'm religious and you lose arguments to me all the time. Just because you believe yourself to be right about something, that doesn't mean you're the only logical person taking part in the discussion.
Why not? What makes the power of money more important than God's moral law?
By the way, you don't have to be religious to answer that question. Just know that that is the choice many people face. What makes your beliefs about the supremacy of economics more important than the morality of how people treat each other?
Consider also, that you or people with similar politics to you often argue that wages and benefits to workers should increase because "it's the morally right thing to do."
Which grounds and which New Testament passages are you referring to?
HAHAHAHAHAHA [deep breath] HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No, but it does mean she is right!
I haven't heard one that stands on logic or reasoning. Only on emotion or mere belief.
"God's moral law?" LOL, that's a good one. What makes god "moral?" And what does god or morality have to do with the legal issue of abortion? Neither god nor his "law" has any say in our secular laws, including abortion laws.
Key words there is "choice," which is what the abortion issue boils down to.
How people treat each other is not the issue.
I don't consider such an argument a moral one. But rather one based on practicality and logical reasoning utilizing economics.
Yes it applies to all people who oppose abortion, especially those religious people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. The decision of any woman to terminate a pregnancy is none of your damn business, so kindly keep your nose and your religious views out of the lives of other people. It is extremely hypocritical for conservatives/libertarians or supposed independents to say that they support smaller governments and are pro-freedom and then turn around and want to repeal Roe or Obergfell so they can inject their religious views into the lives of everyone else. They can the right to pray to a rusty hubcap and a busted PEZ dispender if they want to but as soon as some seek to enforce their religious beliefs via the power of the state then others need to pick up baseball bats and torches to defend their secular and religious rights from being trampled by those who claim that their religious beliefs give them that power.
Those aren't freebies because we all pay for them because they are needed for many people at some stage of their life and they are a guarantee of social stability in times of crisis. I would much rather pay for the social safety net than I would pay for the bloated military or corporate handouts such as tax cuts for the richest 10% or businesses.
Please refresh my memory as to when that happened. Religious belief is illogial because it is the overt rejection of empirical logic in favor of emotional belief and unsupported faith. Fundamentalist religious belief borders on being delusional.
I didn't know that I was logical because I assumed that logic was universal. Unfortunately, I have discovered that logical thought is far from universal.
Yeah, I'm wondering that too. I certainly cannot recall a time when that has ever happened.
I guess some people just need the emotional comfort and/or delusions that religion provides, as opposed to logic and reasoning.
That might be the one thing you assumed wrong.
I'm reminded of something Albert Einstein once said: "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
“God has placed clear limits on Man’s intelligence, but none on his stupidity.”
— John Corapi
Are you serious? No it doesn't! Believing she is right is not proof that she is. Think about it.
The only belief involved in being anti-abortion is the belief that human life has value. That's not really a controversial or fringe belief.
Biological science informs us that a pregnant woman is not filled with some kind of mysterious aether. We know that she holds inside her a developing human person. That's not emotion or belief. It's hard science.
You're not getting it. It doesn't matter. What matters is one group of people base their decision on the idea that their morality should be the basis for important decisions about life and death while others say it should be economic. My question was what makes economics more important than morality. If it's not your point of view, perhaps you shouldn't be addressing it.
I'm telling you that it is. I know it is because I know what anti-abortion people believe. They don't see it as an issue of a woman's choice about what to do with her own body. They see it as saving the life of someone else's body. Your priorities may be different, but that doesn't mean you get to dismiss what other people actually believe. They believe what they believe whether you like to admit it or not.
You might personally think that, but that is not usually the argument offered by people who support those kinds of things.
You don't need to be religious to think that a human life should be protected.
Well, then you're wrong. I know of a great many people who oppose abortion (at varying levels) and also care a great deal about live babies and little children.
It's not hypocritical at all because those people universally think that a fundamental and necessary role of a limited government is to protect the lives of its people. They see the developing human in the womb as one of those people. The value of that life overrides the choice a woman might make to end that life. They feel the same way about that fetus as they do about a newborn baby or a toddler.
Absolutely!
I have, and she's still right!
Biological science informs us that it is just a zygote or embryo, little more than a single or clump of undifferentiated cells. Hard science! Pretending it's more than that is emotion!
Speak for yourself!
Exactly! So why even bring it up?
Morality is subjective and certainly cannot be legislated. Abortion is simply a woman's personal choice and/or medical issue. Personal "morality" might factor into her decision process, but it is not an excuse to determine if she has that right or not, especially under the law!
Some people have to worry about economics and how it affects them. Money is an issue in many people's lives, especially if they have limited means or resources. That's simple reality.
Why not? Whether I hold a different view or not doesn't disqualify me from addressing anything.
So? That's supposed to mean what exactly?
Yes, they do make that abundantly clear. part of the problem is, they prefer to go by mere belief and try to impose their beliefs onto others.
And they are wrong! It's also none of their business!
It's about the priorities of the woman in question regarding a choice to have an abortion or not. Anyone else's priorities is irrelevant to that!
People can believe whatever they like, which is part of the problem. They lack rationality and objectivity. As I said, some try to impose their beliefs onto others. And yes, I will dismiss other beliefs, especially if they are idiotic! What makes mere belief free from scrutiny or dismissal, or worthy of automatic respect?
Every time. Although, I suspect there is no proof you would accept.
You keep talking about religious belief. I have not made a religious argument against abortion. Certainly many religious people oppose it, but that's not based on a biblical passage against abortion. As far as I know off the top of my head, there is no such passage that addresses the issue directly. People tend to oppose abortion because of a combination of 1) their belief that human life should be protected and 2) science tells us a pregnant woman has a human life inside of her.
Not even a little.
I suspect you have no proof to provide!
You did when you brought up "God's moral law."
Many people use a religious argument and/or belief to oppose abortion. Catholics are famous for it.
Funny how many people cite and/or interpret biblical passages in their opposition to abortion.
People tend to be (to use a kind term) nosy busybodies who can't mind their own business, much less understand that abortion is a woman's right and that they have no say in that right or choice!
You can have the opinion that she is right, but believing it doesn't make it so.
I didn't use it to argue against abortion. Go back and look. I asked for an explanation as to why one system of beliefs was more valid than the other. I still haven't seen it.
It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Not my problem if you can't accept that.
That's just it: no system of belief is valid when discussing or determining legal issues like abortion and choice. Mere belief should not be part of the equation. Unfortunately, some people cling to silly beliefs, which makes their arguments more subjective and emotionally based, as well as irrational.
Where is your proof of that claim? The fact that you agree with your argument is not proof that your argument was logically superior. I doubt that you know what logic is if you can make that claim.
You have made religious arguments against abortion when you said that abortion was immoral according to your God. What about the mother's life or are we just baby-making receptacles with no control over our bodies? It is extremely arrogant that you believe that you can make medical decisions for other people according to your beliefs when that other person has the right to her beliefs and her medical choices, even when they disagree with yours or any other man. We are not second-class citizens to any man
The fetus isn't alive until it is born so you cannot force your views on us. According to your Bible a person is not alive until it can breathe air. That doesn't happen until birth.
I can't remember even one time when you've won an argument with epistte or anyone else on NT.......ESPECIALLY when it comes to religion.
Maybe because it probably has never happened. Just look at his so-called arguments here: an illogical mess that's all over the place. It's obvious he's just struggling to stay afloat, and failing miserably.
A simple reason is that one set supports the civil rights of women while the other relies on Bronze-age superstitions to suppress the civil rights of women.
That's a very good reason.
ok... so if that baby threatens the mother's life for her to bear it - then what ? which human life do you feel should be protected - the already born human life or the possible human life inside of her ? quite a conundrum huh ?
Thank goodness we have your memory to rely on. You've solved the mystery!
Do you even comprehend the difference between fact and opinion?
It's no mystery. It's well known you haven't won an argument. You're doing quite abysmal in this discussion alone.
Far more than you!
Feel free to cite a thread to support your claim.
It doesn't matter if the Baptists and their ilk are paying every woman $1,000,000 a child - forced birth is wrong. The only person, who has a right to make reproductive decisions for a woman, is the woman herself. Period.
I have a feeling you can't remember any time I've lost one either. I'm betting you also can't define what would constitute winning or losing.
I'm amazed at how you have taken a tongue-in-cheek throwaway comment and treated it like it's a real thing.
OK, Prove your point, then. Define winning and losing an argument. How is it scored? Who are the judges? What are the rules? And, most importantly, where is your data to back up your claim that it's "well known?"
What does it take to "not win" or "win" and argument?
There's an old joke (well . . . old by internet age standards) about internet arguments.
So, pat yourself on the back for being a winner, if it's that important to you. I won't stop you.
Oh, is that what that was? Ok, whatever you say >sarc<
I already did. Just read my posts.
Simple: an argument based on rational and logical thought/analysis leading to a similarly based conclusion, able to stand on its own merits, without emotional appeals.
just present your argument.
Let's just ask everyone else here participating in the discussion. Comment votes seems to be a reasonable indicator in this instance. Shall we count them?
All your posts so far in this discussion alone!
Wow. Classy meme there, tacos.
Some people may not be retarded... but they're definitely cretins.
If you like that, then check this out:
That's called moving the goalposts. You previously claimed that your arguments always succeed and then when you have to admit that they do not you try to change the argument.
Why are you taking part in debates when you think that they are retarded?
Indeed
And those who will always take advantage.
I totally agree. Except the $1,000,000 per child from birth to 18 is paid by the taxpayers. And I have no idea how much the taxpayers are on the hook for with some of these children who end up in the judicial system through criminal behavior or just bad luck for simply being born into poor, unequal circumstance.
I think it is 'disrespectful' to speak so openly about the president and vice president.
There's a simple way to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the "Save the babies" people:
Something on the order of ten times as many zygotes "die" as a result of non-implantation than from abortion.
But the "Save the babies" people don't give a flying fuck about this hecatomb.
If "Save the babies" was truly the purpose of their crusade, then they should be doing everything possible to obtain research funding to learn how to ensure that every zygote implants. They should be carrying signs as they demonstrate outside Congress: "Implantation for all babies!"
They don't give a shit.
They don't care about "the babies".
Yes. Naturally. Without interference from people.
How do you know?
The big reason there's no such protesting is because no one imagines - or has ever imagined - that Congress, or anyone else, has the power to do such a thing.
What difference does it make if people interfere or not? The end result is the same.
Exactly. The "babies" are dead.
WTF? Are you really contending that Congress doesn't have the power to finance medical research?
You're joking, right??
It's the difference between "natural causes" and "murder." If I die from sickness, accident, or old age, it's a great tragedy of course, but it's a natural death and no one is responsible. If you cause my death, it's the crime of murder.
Following your logic, all medical treatment is an error because it interferes with natural processes.
Except abortion is not murder. So your argument fails on that point alone!
As bob points out, medical intervention interferes with that process. So I take it you're opposed to medicine then?
Only because you're already born. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, there is no crime committed, much less murder.
Using the term loosely? Lol
Not all medical treatment, but if it's proximately caused by criminal negligence or intentional failure to follow the law, it might be.
You are correct. The term "following" was used very loosely.
More like the term 'logic.' But feel free to believe otherwise if it makes you feel better.
Your argumentation seems unduly complex.
If your concern is for the "babies", then you should be far more concerned by the non-implantated dead "babies" who are vastly more numerous than aborted "babies".
If you make a distinction based on "how they died", then you are not concerned by the babies, but by the behavior of adults.
Not to mention makes no sense.
I have compassion for them, as well. You have no basis for assuming I don't. Important medical work is being done on their behalf, too. But the important difference is that the law and political activists aren't standing in the way, so it's not an argument we are going to have.
Let me repeat: TEN TIMES AS MANY.
But you duck and dodge. You don't really care about "the babies".
turning women into breeding mares just for exercising their liberty and freedom to commit sexual acts with a guy, even if their plan for their own life doesn't include wanting nor having children, right ? isn't that what they are doing for the "babies" ?
But if you become pregnant by that man, you're more than happy to ask courts to garnish his wages the next 18 years to make him pay for your choice, right? Where is the man's choice?
That's assuming a pregnancy completes its course. Then it's an issue of child rearing, not child bearing. you seem to confuse the two.
When the man gets pregnant, he can have a choice.
Oh, now you want to conceptualize it as a natural process that humans don't control. But we know that humans can very much control it through abortion.
If you want to raise a child, go ahead. Why should the man be forced to raise the child just because the woman decided she wanted to make a baby?
I'm not talking about paying for pregnancy. I'm talking about raising a child because a woman unilaterally decided to carry that baby to term and deliver it. You want the man to pay for it without his consent and you'll force him to do it. Is this what male privilege looks like?
Humans also control many other natural processes, good or ill, through medicine or personal action. What's your point?
Once again, you confuse child bearing with child rearing. They are two separate issues with a different set of laws in place. Why should the man get to decide if a woman has an abortion or not? Why sho0uld the woman be forced to carry a pregnancy or not just because the man decides she can or not?
Like I said, those are two separate issues. It's no wonder you're confused and your arguments fall apart! Here, let me help you: the current topic is about abortion, which relates to pregnancy, not child rearing.
Why should the woman get to decide that the man has to pay for her child?
It didn't say she should. I'm just saying that if it's going to be a woman's choice, she shouldn't have the right to force the consequences of her choice on other people.
Child rearing is a logical consequence of not having an abortion. You want me to consider the consequences of criminalizing abortion. I'm asking you to consider the consequences of legalizing it and giving the woman the sole authority over it. I'm saying go ahead and do that, but don't make men pay for the consequences of it.
Humans aren't asexual, so unless there was an agreement that he was just a sperm donor then he is the child's father and there are responsibilities for such.
Because it takes two people to create a fetus that then becomes a child. Keep it in your pants, wear a condom or get snipped.
or
e date Lorraina
Once again, you confuse child bearing with child rearing.
She already does face the "consequences." She's not forcing anything on anyone.
And at that point, both parents assume responsibility. Again, a different set of circumstances and laws.
Where did I ask you to consider it?
Women have sole authority over the decision to have an abortion or not, as it's their bodies, autonomy, and they are the ones enduring a pregnancy.
If birth occurs, then BOTH deal with the 'consequences." Laws are in place to address such a situation. You don't seem to get that.
So you're all "for the babies", until they're born.
Then you consider the costs of raising a child, and think it should be all on the woman.
"God's moral law", my ass.
If a woman does not want to be a mother she should keep her panties on, stay out-of the sack, use contraceptives (that she paid for) or have her tubes tied.
His god is supposed to be both omniscient and omnipotent so he is at fault for every spontaneous miscarriage, failed implantation or stillbirth. That doesn't sound l like a very moral person.
You don't get to determine the private life of others, despite your fake moral outrage.
Birth control has a known failure rate, even when used properly.
If you are going to force her to carry and give birth to that child then you need to pay for the costs of the birth and to raise it. Abortion is cheaper than to raise a child by a factor of 10,000, so what is your choice? Subsidized birth control is far cheaper than either of the latter and much safer.
She can have an abortion. Problem solved!
But you do? You basically said that if a man doesn't want to be a father, he should abstain from sex, take precautions or get sterilized. Why is that not also a woman's choice?
She has the right to terminate. I also support subsidized birth control, unlike you.
It's a choice for both of them. Although, women may have greater difficulty obtaining sterilization, as some doctors are afraid or refuse to perform them, especially if a woman does not have children. But abortion is and should be a choice as well. They're all intended to have the same end result.
wasn't the man's choice to also commit sexual acts with that woman knowing the possible outcome (as much as she did) ? If that man doesn't want to have children - he has a choice as well, he can pay for the child for 18 years that he helped create that the woman obviously wanted to keep. Which way do you want it ? you scream that the woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion (because you state you value human life), yet you don't want the man to pay for the child he helped create that you are forcing the woman to bear (which doesn't show much for valuing human life, shows more of punishing women) ?
Not at all. It's not what I personally believe. The point of my devil's advocacy is to show how one-sided the thinking is here. I'm merely arguing the point to shine a light on the consequences of the concept that the only issue here is a woman's choice about what to do with her body. All the talk of raising a child demonstrates that there is more going on than that.
Then you don't get to demand that others subsidize your choices.
And he doesn't. That's why it's unfair. She gets to have consequence-free sex, but he has to commit to a lifetime of fatherhood every time he has sex - even if birth control fails.
It's not about what I would do. I'm arguing the logical consequences of the situation. You want a woman to be able to have consequence-free sex, but you don't want the same for men.
How do you figure that?
Abortions are walks in the park, huh?
When it comes to the issue of pregnancy and abortion, it is the woman and her choice with regards to her body that is paramount. you seem to think someone else should have a say in that.
That's relevant only after a pregnancy is completed, assuming the woman chose to go that path. You're the one making more out of it than there is with respect to abortion choices.
No one is subsidizing anything.
There is nothing fair about pregnancy. it's all on the woman. That's why she has a choice and say regarding her pregnancy and the man doesn't!
Guess what: the woman has to commit to a lifetime of motherhood should she choose to continue a pregnancy. Do you think she gives birth and then her job is done?
No, you're just arguing.
As I already explained, there is no such thing as consequence free for either man or woman if a pregnancy continues. If a woman has an abortion, that too is a consequence she must endure for sexual activity. So spare us the phony 'men are the victims' mentality of your posts. They don't have to deal with "consequences" anything near what the woman has to deal with.
A 24 week abortion is much cheaper and safer than a full term birth if you are going to force her to carry to term?
When do you plan to accept that we are an interdependent society?
He made his choice when he unzipped his fly
In the bedroom, he can chose not to have sex with her or, he can chose to use a rubber, either one is a good choice and, it will save him money in the long run.
so getting pregnant and dealing with having an abortion is "consequence-free sex" ?? do you think the majority of women who get abortions pretend it's like a drive-thru window and order abortions along with a medium french fries on their lunch break ? there are consequences on both sides of the situation, no matter who it is - the only permanent 100% solution is to make sure nobody ever has sex ever again, then there would be no unintended pregnancies, right ?
She made her choice when she took off her bra and panties and hopped in the sack with him.
That is the only choice you seem to want to allow men.
Good thing her choices do not end there.
So what other choices should they be allowed exactly?
Having sex doesn't mean that she consented to get pregnant.
What choice do you want and why should we allow it?
His having sex does not mean that he agreed to 21 years of financial support either.
Ah-HA!!!!!!
A women consenting to sex doesn't mean that she agrees to carrying a pregnancy for 9 months! Or the 21 years of financial support, either!
But according to you she has a choice if pregnancy occurs. A man has no such choice.
Men are more than welcome to commit sexual acts with a woman - i never stated they shouldn't be allowed. Are you stating that Men should be able to commit sexual acts with women, help create babies that are later born and then never take care of those children they helped create ? You want to put all the burden on the woman - stating she should use birth control or give birth as her only options, i've even heard the suggestion of just "closing her legs" to solve her problems, so where does the man's responsibility enter into all of this since he is required as well to create a baby through committing sexual acts ? it seems you want to punish women for having sex and reward men.
it absolutely does - just like she has agreed to possibly become pregnant and decide to have the child or not (since if she has the child she is the one that has to nourish and host that child until it is born - not the man). they both also agree to the possibility of getting STD's (one or both may not be honest about their status for STD's), they also both agree to many of the other possibilities that can happen when committing sexual acts.
Fair enough. Let's call it minimal consequences, then. Certainly, the #1 cause of abortions is the desire to avoid the much much much much larger consequence of raising a child. It is well documented that about 98% of abortions are elective, i.e. the purpose of the abortion is to avoid larger consequences - consequences that are almost always not about the woman's physical health.
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States
Until men can pregnant, they have no say, that's a fact and there's nothing you can say or do to change it. He can give his opinion but other than that the final choice will always be up to the woman.
Weren't you one of those last week that kept saying if woman chooses to have sex, she chooses the possibility of a pregnancy?
You can't have your cake and eat it, too
Oh please, Giggles!
Do you really hope to apply the same standards to men as to women?
Nonsense!
Men can't help themselves, so women must adapt their behavior. Obviously.
But giving birth does! Not to mention at that point, it becomes an issue of child rearing, not child bearing. Those are two entirely different circumstances with different set of laws. BTW, the woman also must financially support or provide for a child too. She doesn't get a free pass in that regard.
When the man gets pregnant, then he will have a choice. He certainly doesn't get to choose for the woman regarding pregnancy.
So what? What difference does that make? A woman has the right to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. Who cares what the reason is? It's certainly no one else's business.
It is also well documented that 92% of all abortions occur at or before 12 weeks when the zygote is the size of a kidney bean.
If the question is "Should women be able to have as much sex as they want virtually consequence free, like men do?", then the answer is yes, they should. Get your religion and morality out of other peoples lives, you worry about you and stop worrying about everyone else and whether they're being righteous little followers. If you don't approve of abortion, don't get one. It's as simple as that. Just keep your nose out of other women's business and we'd all be a lot happier.
Silly me!
Please try to remain more lucid in the future.
Because it's her body which gets pregnant not his. Duh.
No, let's not.
Running a gauntlet at an abortion clinic, possibly risking one's life at the hands of "pro-life" terrorists, and having a medical procedure for which one will likely be guilt-tripped for years by any "pro-lifer" who gets the chance is not a minimal consequence.
and just what is wrong with saving money?
Reading thru these comments by some the "men" here...I'm glad I'm past child-bearing age. The attitudes towards women and sex are archaic at best and frightening at worst
Scary that in 2018 there is still patriarchal and misogynistic attitudes, like women can't make a decision on their own, that we still need to be bare foot and pregnant, and punished for having recreational sex.
and Kathleen
What I truly don't understand is who are these men going to have sex with if all the women they know suddenly say..."No. I might get pregnant and you don't want to be responsible for a child for 21 years. I've heard you say it. You've said that I'm responsible for myself if I don't want to get pregnant. Well, there is only one sure method of not getting pregnant and that's by keeping my legs closed. I've heard you say it and now I'm taking you at your word."
Does that about sum it up?
I didn't mean to say you did, Kathleen. I meant the men here who keep saying "keep your legs shut". In other words, I'm telling men how I feel. I've heard them say, keep your legs closed, I'm responsible for my own birth control. No, you have never said "keep your legs shut>'
Very wise, indeed.
Or get the damn thing snipped if they don't want to "pay" or whine and complain that "she" aborted "his child"
Depends on why you're doing it. We could execute the poor and save a lot of money on welfare. We could also save a lot of money by no longer funding Medicare and just let sick people past a certain age die if they can't afford treatment.
But I hope you'll agree with me that when faced with those choices, we should choose the moral course.
We can just as easily say she made her choice when she opened her legs.
Same for her.
Then why should his choices end there if you expect him to pay for it?
Well then we can say having sex doesn't mean he consented to be a father or pay for raising a child.
An obligation she can easily avoid by choosing to have an abortion. The man has no such choice.
Would you please re-read your sentence?
A man has no choice? He can
- abstain,
- use a condom.
Not if she was raped
Is he the one getting pregnant?
It doesn't, at least not until she gives birth.
So if the woman has an abortion, they both avoid such an obligation. Sounds like you just made an argument in favor of abortion.
See first statement.
taking healthcare off of Wall Street and implementing a single payer healthcare system.
It is not moral to deny people access to healthcare so an insurance company can make a profit and pay their execs tens of millions of dollars.
There is absolutely nothing moral about the current US healthcare system.
Really? You think women should have to be the only ones to regulate sexual relations, even when told by some religious faction they must be submit to their husbands?
Yes, men DO have choices.....
Keeping their penis in their own pants
Using a condom
Getting a vesectomy
And learning to respect a woman's right to say NO!
Your misogynistic view of how men should be allowed to do as they please and it is all on the woman to prevent a pregnancy is out dated. It does not float in the world of today.
And women have other choices other that killing their babies.
Keeping their panties on and stay out if the bed
Using contraception properly
Getting their Fallopian tubes tied.
You said.
Why is it you think that is the option for men but that it is totally unthinkable for women
Oh, I don't think it's only an option for men. I openly advocate for women to stop having sex with men.
Well...with men who think that women shouldn't do what they want with their own bodies
I am not suggesting anything for men that you are not demanding for women.
Are you suggesting men stop having sex with women?
Killing babies is illegal and no babies are killed in an abortion. But abortion is also a choice women have.
Your excuses only put the burden back on the women, most of whom are already doing their part with what is currently available today, WHILE THEY STILL CAN. Before the GOP and their religious extremists deny them their rights to their own bodies and they can no longer get contraceptives. Although, Condoms and Viagra will be widely available for men.
Then I think it only fair that women have equally as much control over men's bodies as they insist on having over women's bodies simply because they are men and they think they should have that right. Your excuse lights the little one.
Well, same-sex sex does carry zero risk for unwanted pregnancy.
What about in the cases of rape and, incest? Do you think those women have a choice?
I'll bet you would get a reply (assuming there is one at this point) about how such cases are rare. As if that makes them any less significant.
I'm still getting crickets from that end, as expected.
When it comes to the abortion issue , I have made no secret that I am on the side of choice, and being male I have a different take on it for different reasons.
Back in the summer of 1961, a 19 year old unmarried woman , newly enlisted in the Army , became pregnant . when the pregnancy was discovered , her superiors , decided that she would be best off , if she visited the base gynecologist for a D&C procedure. and she was under orders to get the procedure .
this young lady knew exactly what that would result in , so her choice was to go AWOL the day before the scheduled appointment .
And she spent the next 6-7 months hiding from the military and civilian police with the help of friends and some family. she was eventually caught , court martialed , and received a dishonorable discharge which was later changed to an administrative discharge of other than honorable which in the 70s was also changed to a general discharge.
She went on to have the baby, and 3 others later in life.
the way I see it , right now the uproar is the removal of a womans choice to HAVE an abortion , what if it was the other way around and it was mandated that one be preformed unless the person has permission to bear children? a pretty absurd idea , having to have permission to have children, but that's exactly what happened in 1961-62, she wasn't given a choice so she made a way so she did have a choice.
Now before someone says this is a mythical concoction of an over active imagination, the 19 year old unmarried woman was my mother, what I described were the events that lead up to my birth, and her fight to keep me back then didn't end with the military , which considered her and myself as government property, even before birth, to do with as they saw fit with no choice given to the participants. thankfully , things have changed a lot since then. She being unmarried also had to fight family that determined I should be given up for adoption. I thank the fates she never quit fighting.
maybe some will now understand when I say I stand on the side of choice .
You bring up a good point, and one which might often go overlooked: If the choice to have an abortion can be taken away, as some anti-abortionists want, then what's stopping the choice to not have an abortion from being taken away?
She sounds like a strong woman. Good for her. And fortunately, times have changed. Unfortunately, some people apparently fear change and/or progress.
Because the reasoning for one (preserving life) has nothing to do with the other (whatever the logic was for insisting on an abortion, it apparently had nothing to do with saving anyone's life).
Only the woman in question should have any say if she wants to "preserve life" or not. Forcibly removing a woman's choice (and by extension, her rights) is hardly a valid reason!
That's only true if you believe that there is a significant difference between being inside or outside of the womb. Outside of the womb, the woman would not be able to simply terminate the life of her child.
It's true, period. Belief is irrelevant and I've made no mention of my beliefs.
She already can't! So what's the problem? Other than your absurd arguments and motional appeals?
Of course there is a significant difference, inside it is hooked up and directly drawing on the mother for all needs, controlled environment, transportation, physical security and all needs are provided. Also the certificate of live birth can not be done.
Outside care is needed but bodily functions must start.
So, you would support full term abortions, then.
OK with me
That's between her and her doctor.
Why do you think that you should have a voice in the medical care of anyone but yourself?
I don't. However, 98% of abortions have nothing to do with the medical care of the woman . So, I'm not trying to have a voice in anyone's medical care.
You also don't have a voice in anyone else's personal decisions and choices either. Neither does anyone else!
You are if you are forcing them to carry a pregnancy to term.
Pregnancy is extremely taxing on a woman's health - even a "normal" one.
Hey!
She got herself pregnant! Of course she has to take the consequences.
... What's that you say? She didn't get herself preggers all by herself? Well... I hope you don't expect tbe father to take any responsibility. Silly idea..
A woman's mental health is negatively affected by being forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term.
An excellent point. Not to mention even if a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy, she can still suffer negative mental health issues, i.e. postpartum depression.
Don't you find it ironic that the forced birthers tend to view children as a "consequence"?
You mean children are alternately "precious bundles of joy" and "well, that's what you get for opening your legs"?
Yes, ironic. Not surprising, but ironic.
All treatable without having an abortion, and except for the stretch marks, they go away after delivery.
Any treatments are usually temporary. Abortion is more of a cure-all.
Not always.
It is past time for facts about the dangers of pregnancy to enter this discussion.
The only person who should be making the decision of whether to risk the possibility of enduring lifelong disability, or even death, from pregnancy is the woman whose life will be forever altered by being pregnant.
Sometimes I wonder if doctors are doing their jobs and making sure that their patients are physically up to the challenge of pregnancy. Some women should never get pregnant because of a physical incapability of bearing children. My mother was one of those. Thank goodness she had a good doctor
what about her time?
Many women in the US do not have access to healthcare. This is why shuttering Planned Parenthood clinics will be a death sentence for many of them.
Even "healthy" women can suffer life threatening complications from pregnancy.
I agree on our health care situation. Many rural states rely on midwives but that doesn't mean there won't be complications in the birthing process
Rural areas might also have problems with access to necessary care providers. There are less medical specialties or specialists in rural areas. Not to mention possible distances needed to travel to reach them, which might be unfeasible. Both of those situations also means greater risk if complications develop.
Of course, anti-abortions either don't think of that or they simply don't care. It's all about the fetus. They can't look past abortion.
The dangers of pregnancy, statistically, is not why women get abortions. The vast majority of abortions are related to financial, professional, and social pressures, not the health of the woman. And frankly if pregnancy is as dangerous as you imply, there should be FAR more effort to educate women about the life-threatening complications of having sex.
Also, only a tiny percentage of people oppose abortion when it is necessary to save the life of the mother, so going on about the dangers of pregnancy is a bit of a red herring, isn't it.
Immaterial. Those are as valid reasons for abortion as health issues are.
Where do you get off making medical decisions for others because of your religious beliefs? You need to keep your beliefs to yourself, until you wake up with a uterus and ovaries, because women are not second-class citizens to either men or members of any church.
The US the most dangerous place to give birth in the developed world. Its no accident either. Between screwing over Obamacare (which improves it) to throwing obstacles in women's path to prevent pregnancies and making it all about punishing sex without intent to procreate, the christian taliban enjoys sticking their nose in women's business even when they don't know jack and with no care to women's health.
Whether they're valid or not, the pro-choice crowd never makes the argument that they are. The argument is that abortion is a procedure focused on the medical health and treatment of the woman. The problem is that almost all of abortions performed have nothing to do with that. So the argument is dishonest.
I can't imagine. That would be rude. Fortunately, I'm not doing that and I'm not suggesting that anyone else do that. And even if I were, I wouldn't be doing it because of religious beliefs.
Here's the thing: I have said this multiple times. Religion is not a factor for me. I have offered no religious argument. This has been pointed out enough times now that every time you pretend it's an issue, I think it's fair for me at this point to call you a liar when you claim that it is the reason for my position.
The best pregnancy outcomes occur when a woman has a partner to support her. i.e. the father of the child she is carrying is married to her or otherwise in the house.
Marriage still protects pregnancy
Pregnancy outcome is associated with maternal marital status in Austria — even at the beginning of the 21 st century
***
That's probably because,
1) Legally and illegally, we admit more poor and uneducated people (they typically come from outside the developed world) than any other place in the developed word. They have a tendency to not take care of themselves the way they should and many women come to this country from Latin America unaccompanied by a man. Thus, 49% of Hispanic immigrant births are to unwed mothers .
2) It's even worse for black women. Way back in 1965, when he was working for President Johnson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan produce a report called The Negro Family: The Case For National Action
In this report, Moynihan sounded the alarm about the disintegration of the black nuclear family and that an increasing frequency of black children being born to unwed mothers would hamper black people generally in advancing politically and economically.
At that time, the rate of black unwed motherhood was 25%, already substantially higher than it was for whites. Now, that rate is 77%.
Small wonder, then, that according to the CDC , while death rate in pregnancy is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for white women, it's 40.0 for black women. 3 1/2 times as much.
So, the solution for complications in pregnancy is not abortion. It's getting men to stay with the women they impregnate and to stop telling women they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
Sure,
Number of marriages: 2,245,404
Marriage rate: 6.9 per 1,000 total population
Number of divorces: 827,261 (44 reporting States and D.C.)
Divorce rate: 3.2 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)
That means that in 44 states, which is were this information was taken from, out of 2,245,404 couples that got married in this time frame only, 1,418,143 will stay married, still good odds but, is it good enough.
No, the argument is abortion is a woman's personal choice and her right. That makes it valid! There certainly isn't a valid argument against abortion which doesn't include willful ignorance/dishonesty and/or emotional appeals.
No woman has to defend her decision to terminate a pregnancy to anyone that she doesn't want to, not even her husband/partner. It is her body and only her choice.
Because it's supposed to be an issue of her health held in confidence by a medical provider. This, as I pointed out, according to the data, is not an accurate representation of what happens with abortions.
This kind of closed-minded prejudice makes it impossible to discuss the topic with you.
Because of the fiction that it's a medical procedure focused on the woman's health.
1.) Abortion is a medical procedure.
2. ) Our mental health is just as important as our physcial health.
3.) Your emotions or religious beliefs do not negate either 1 or 2.
I agree it's not an accurate representation most likely because it's a representation which you created. The claim that "it's supposed to be an issue of her health" is simply false. Why a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy is her own business.
Pregnancy and abortion is a woman's health issue and abortion itself is a medical procedure, regardless of specific reasons why a woman chooses to have one. So if a woman chooses to have an abortion or not, that is an issue between her and her medical provider.
See first statement! Then see my posts 7.1.27 & 7.1.34.
It's neither close minded or prejudice. It's simple fact. You and anyone else has had ample opportunity to provide a rational argument against abortion. So far, there is none. At least none which hasn't been blown out of the water. That might explain why abortion opponents have lost in the courts on this issue over the years too. You're simply whining about it now and laying out baseless assertions.
Absolutely agreed.
Which aspect of a woman's health is at issue?
Yes it is, although interestingly, if a local jurisdiction requires that abortions be performed by doctors or in a hospital on the grounds that it's a medical procedure, then pro-choice advocates cry "foul!" and complain that non-doctors should be allowed to do it in clinics or wherever they like. So you want to make it out to be a serious medical event except when it doesn't suit your politics of the moment.
( Deleted )
All you have to do is scroll through my comments here and you will see actual data and multiple links to authoritative sources including the CDC. There is nothing baseless in my assertions and you already knew that.
Her overall physiological and psychological health. Or are you not aware pregnancy can affect both aspects of health? Or that pregnancy itself is a physiological change? Especially if complications develop during a pregnancy. There's a reason it's called "reproductive health."
Glad you agree.
Abortions are provided by qualified and certified health providers. If someone is not qualified to perform them but does, then there's a problem-medical fraud at the very least. As they are normally outpatient procedures, there is no reason to require them to be performed in a hospital setting, unless a hospital normally provides or offers the service. Abortions are generally performed in an outpatient clinical setting. So your statement is not only absurd, it reeks of desperation.
Removed for context
You asserted I and/or others are close-minded and prejudiced-your words. Since you have nothing to back that assertion up, it's not only baseless, it can also be construed as an ad hom attack. Your comments have nothing to do with that assertion!
The data is clear: This is not why most abortions are performed. You keep ignoring that. Follow the links I provided. You might learn something, if you're willing to accept the idea that some things you believe simply aren't so.
A woman doesn't have to defend to you or anyone else her reason for terminating the pregnancy, so you need to keep your nose out of the lives of others.
Completely irrelevant. Why abortions are performed is not the issue. A woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses, as is her right. She doesn't require anyone's permission or approval. But abortion and pregnancy itself is a healthcare issue and concern. You seem to ignore that. Or simply don't get it.
I've made no mention of my beliefs. I provided simple facts! You seem hung up on why abortions are performed, when it's really irrelevant.
Right to Abortion is same as right to get a haircut, breast enlargement, get a tooth pulled or get a tattoo.
Birth control devices sometimes fail. Been there. It is always the woman's choice.
Indeed. And it's still no one else's business, including the reasons why. Apparently, some do not get that.
I would say that it would not be unheard of. Look at China and the one baby policy.
Of course that has relaxed a bit with an aging workforce and population.
Yes, but an uncontrolled population growth is what caused that particular problem to begin with. A 1-child policy may have helped with that particular problem, but now a new problem emerges as a result.
Applaud your Mother's choice and reflect on her personal cost of that decision. Her extraordinary courage and sacrifice are commendable, truly a flip-side most have never given proper consideration.
The Army wanted to force an illegal medical procedure on her? That sounds fascist to me
This is a problematic claim. Ask people if they think abortion should be legal and a majority say yes. But ask them more probing questions, and their answers change. 2/3 of people think abortion should not be legal in the second trimester, and more than 80% say it should be illegal in the third trimester. Interestingly, only about 50% think it should be legal if the developing baby appears to be physically or mentally impaired.
Clearly, most people see this as more than just an issue of "a fetus." It's not religion, but rather basic biology that teaches everyone that a distinct human person is growing in the womb. The closer it is to being fully developed, the more abortion seems like murder to most people. About half the country feels executing this person because they might be disabled seems cold-blooded, immoral.
Abortion
Abortion is already illegal and not performed in those trimesters once the point of viability is reached. The exception is in cases of medical necessity.
It's really not. People just all emotional and irrational about it.
You said something about "problematic claims?" If people rely on basic biology, they are rather underinformed. Perhaps if they studied basic embryology more? That would tell you it's an embryo/fetus in the womb.
Except abortion is neither murder or an execution.
I'm scratching my head at how a basic education in biology could make people uninformed. I'd say definitions are in order. Now, you said "basic" so I am getting basic definitions by googling the words. I'll bold the important parts.
Here's the actual scientific definition:
Embryo: A developing organism. In humans the term is restricted to the stages between two and eight weeks after conception.
Fetus: 1. The unborn young of a viviparous animal following the embryonic period.
2. In humans, the product of conception from the end of the eighth week of gestation to the moment of birth.
Note that the terms embryo/fetus applies to any organism capable of gestation, including humans. It is not specific or unique to humans.
Why is that significant? Abortion has the same result regardless of species.
Because your boldface attempts to put an emphasis on humans.
So? your point? Or perhaps the better question is, who cares?
Right. Because killing a human is murder. Killing a chicken is just prepping for dinner.
I don't know. You're the one acting like it matters.
That's right. And abortion is just a legal medical procedure. So what's your point?
Not at all. It doesn't matter. Abortion is an abortion. Again, who cares?
No.
That's not the definition.
Thank you for clarifying that. In the legal point of view, according to the Cornell Law School [emphasis mine], "murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being." That is an important distinction, as it often involves malice or intent beforehand. In matters of abortion, abortion fails in the regard to murder because abortion is not illegal and women may not feel malice towards their own embryo/fetus. So whenever anyone tries to equate abortion to murder or claim abortion is murder itself, then they are clearly and factually wrong and possibly do not understand law. Or they may just be espousing such inaccuracy from an emotional platform, which only further invalidates their argument and reasoning.
I looked at several definitions. Some are identical to yours, but others differ in an essential way: they use "person" rather than "human".
I used a definition from an accredited legal source. With respect to the issue of abortion, semantics doesn't change that fact that abortion is not murder nor is a "person" (or human) being killed.
That's especially relevant here because while a blastocyst is a form of human it's not a legal person.
Semantics are always important. Misunderstandings due to differing uses of words are everyday occurrences.
The means for defining "human" and "person" are very different. "Human" is a scientific word, describing our species. All human tissue is "human". It's the DNA. (Not only is a zygote "human", but also the sperm and egg from which it arose.) A "person" is a sociological construct. Societies decide who is to be considered a "person", so the definition has evolved greatly over time and around the world.
"Murder" is a legal concept. It is whatever the current legal code defines it to be. Was Trayvon Martin "murdered" by George Zimmerman?
Fair enough.
As it stands, with respect to abortion, a embryo/fetus is not considered a "person." Attempts to declare it a person by certain states have also failed.
Yes, and it carries legal definitions or conditions.
Which is what I quoted.
Legally, no, he wasn't. he was killed. "Killing" is a broader legal umbrella term, which can also include murder. I suppose you can say the "devil is in the details," as it were.
Many would say Martin was murdered, regardless of technical legal niceties.
It seems to me to be pointless to argue any socially significant topic, on the basis of the law. The law changes to fit whatever society requires. "Right and wrong" are not at all the same as "legal and illegal".
Abortion is a topic where society has not resolved its opinion. The subject is up in the air. Citing the law does not help, since the law follows society.
A serious conversation must attempt to come to conclusions without regard to the law. Only after a social consensus has been reached can the law be brought effectively in line.
Many people don't have an understanding of law.
Many seem to argue based on emotion too.
Abortion is still settled law and not likely to change. Some people may have a problem with it, but that's their problem.
Since the issue is also a legal one with established precedents in place, its probably impossible to not reference the law in any discussion. Clearly there will never be a social consensus.
You are correct, of course. I left that part out intentionally, but since you bring it up, I take it you are making the argument that abortion is ok because it's legal. You are no longer relying on the argument that abortion doesn't kill a human. The eagerness to focus on the legality of the act is tantamount to an admission that abortion kills a human being.
Again, someone who feels the need to rely on a legal definition to justify killing a human being.
Exactly. We get away from an argument about what is right and wrong when we start leaning on more transient legal rulings. I'm a big fan of the law, but it doesn't get everything right.
OK, then... Let's try to understand why we believe that abortion is right or wrong, and not be satisfied with "what the law says"...
Experience has taught me that the first thing to do in order to have a genuine discussion is to ensure that everyone is using words in the same way. Otherwise, the weeds are not far away!
It seems to me that everything hinges on "when does a ZEF (zygote-embryo-fetus) become a person?"
No agreement on abortion can be found unless that basic question finds a consensus answer.
Do you agree?
Of course.
Why? An omission of a particularly important detail appear dishonest and weakens your argument.
That's only a part of it. Abortion is ok because it is. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's also concerns a woman's right to choose and her own autonomy. It's a personal decision and no one else's business.
I have never relied on such an argument, especially since no humans are killed in an abortion. It seems your argument relies on an emotional foundation and/or appeal.
A legal based argument is a valid one. Abortion is legal, period! Whether you want to argue of a "human being" is killed or not is just an emotional appeal.
no justification is necessary, especially to anyone else. No one has to justify an abortion to you or anyone else! The legal definition is good enough.
Noting is always so black and white, especially in law.
It did get it right with the rulings regarding the permissibility and legality of abortion.
Without that legal definition the nutty theocrats would be interfering with the lives of even more women and doing so far more intrusively than they already do with waiting periods and forced ultrasounds.
I agree 100%. It's the issue (unless you live Fantasy Island where it's about controlling women). For my part, I honestly don't know what the answer is. I think it can't be before fertilization, but there are reasonable arguments for a later time.
For example, we know that twins can be very different people even though they are genetically identical. Therefore, I think you could argue that the person doesn't exist prior to the development of a brain. Even that isn't a solid line, though, because development is an ongoing process.
Historically, English law drew a line at "a quick fetus," i.e. you could feel the fetus moving in the womb. This has led directly to the viability standard we have now. But that means our current law is based on a standard developed during the Middle Ages. Modern scientific techniques have revealed stages of development that our ancestors could not know.
That's not exactly what I said. I said "everything hinges on". They aren't the same.
It is useful to look a historical precedents, as you have done. The main take-away, I think, is that there have been many different approaches throughout history. I know of none that considered an unborn fetus to be a full person, although many considered pregnancy to be an aggravating circumstance. OTOH, I know of several societies that accorded personhood long after birth (when the infant began to walk or talk).
Personally, I can draw no convincing position from history.
It seems to me that before we can decide "when", we need to decide "what is a person". What list of characteristics describes a "person"?
It seems to me that self-awareness is an essential characteristic... but it presents a problem: it arrives a few months after birth...
If something that might have been is removed was anything ever really lost?
Ask a woman who miscarries.
Many women don't even know they miscarry when initially pregnant, as they may not be aware they're actually pregnant. Many times, they may think they are experiencing a heavy menses. Once a woman realizes she is pregnant and then miscarries, her feelings about it is quite subjective.
I would hope it would be obvious that I was thinking of women who knew they were pregnant and looked forward to having the baby.
That's just a generalization. Not all women share that feeling. Some don't want to have a baby. Some may even dread the idea. How they feel about it is up to them, as is their choices for dealing with the situation.
Stop pretending that all women are the same. Not all women want to be mothers
I didn't say they did, Removed. Why do you keep trying to deflect from the women who do?
I'm not pretending any such thing and you can't show where I have said all women want to be mothers. ( deleted ) name calling
Now, why don't you responding to the fact that there are women who want to have a baby and lose that baby in a miscarriage? They have a sense of actually losing something real, which was the original point I made. You only want to respond by lying about what I said.
( deleted ) name calling & taunting
I don't respond to men who think that their argument is bolstered by insults
Well I find it insulting when you lie about what I have said.
I didn't lie about anything you said. Stop whining
Your personal attack aside, then what is your point?
Why do you keep trying to backtrack?
Just try responding to what I actually wrote instead of deflecting or misrepresenting and we won't have a problem.
You first!
You cannot possibly compare a miscarriage with an abortion that was desired.
Why not? The pro abortion crowd have been doing it for years
"pro-abortion" labels is just disingenuous nonsense and certainly shows your lack of credibility or intellectual integrity.
You should try to put forward an argument that isn't based on a strawman or an emotion.
Nobody is pro-abortion. We are pro-choice because we demand that the decision to terminate is only ours to make and not that of the government or a religion. Despite what you claim, there are many women who are pro-choice who would choose not to have an abortion.
I tell everyone that I too am pro choice,, it's just the timing of when the choice is made is where we differ . In any case either your nor Goody's comments address my comment nor do they negate it.
It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme for you to claim to be pro-choice and then not support a woman's right to an abortion. Your claim of being pro-choice means that she had a choice not to have sex because it is physically impossible to have sex and choose not to get pregnant because if that were possible we would not need to use contraception.
That is the only choice you give to the an that does not want to be a father. That has even been said I this seeds comments.
The man doesn't get to control a woman's body after he chooses to have sex with her. We are not your breeding receptacles. I can only tell you to stop having unprotected sex with women before you ask their stance on abortion and children.
Then that's a lie.
Then you're wrong! Timing does not negate a choice either. Neither is timing all that relevant to that available choice.
Your comment is just disingenuous BS. So there's nothing of relevance to comment on.
Since the man isn't the one getting pregnant, his choices are limited by default. However, when he does get pregnant, then he'll have more choices.
Really? Try deciding you don't want to go sky diving after you have jumped out of the airplane .
I guess you only read part of the comment and went off half cocked as usual
Wow, an apples to truck axles comparison if there ever was one.
Nope, I read the whole thing and my statement stands.
i will answer both you and gordy at the same time , and I think gordy is right that it is subjective , as well as being dependant on the individual. IF the woman desires to be pregnant and have children , AND the pregnancy has been confirmed , any miscarriage is a loss to them individually and personally. and not just to the woman , the man can and does go through the same feelings of loss.
The ex wife and I had 7 pregnancies we both went through , yes I believe the man also goes through it as well as the woman, and only 3 went to term . and I can say it plays a hell of a mind game on couples when a miscarriage happens , especially one after another , doubt creep in , other factors start to come to the surface . after my oldest girl and middle girl were born , it was bandied that maybe we could only have girls , the boy was born last and due to some complications , it was told to us any more pregnancies would be risky , so I chose because it was easier all around to be the one sterilized . So yes even something that might have been , can and usually felt as a loss. and not just for the women.
I'm very sorry for your loss. Wanting a baby and having a miscarriage is very sad.
That's why I find the views of anti-abortion nuts about late-term abortions so despicable because most of the people who need that procedure are women who were trying to have a kid but something went horribly wrong during the pregnancy. So rather than having compassion for those women the anti-abortion freaks want to make life even more difficult for them.
I can't even imagine
I've honestly never understood the objections to it. It's like the opponents have never thought through why a small minority of women need the procedure.
And speaking as a guy I can't imagine carrying a fetus for more than 6 months and then deciding on a "whim" to terminate. Even if that hypothetically might happen in a few cases it's simply not something for the government to worry about.
Thanks to abortion I was able to avoid having four girls before having a son. It makes it much easier to have just a son when you can abort any that are female clumps of cells. I think that right needs to be preserved.
Absolutely.
Well that's new. What's the -1 next to the thumbs up mean on my comment
it can expand (+) or collapse (-) subsequent replies to your comment. The number indicates how many replies there are.
Guide to Threads
Thanks! Missed that in there
Thanks! It took me a second to realize it was collapsing. Hadn't seen that happen yet
It's a new feature. It probably helps to navigate discussions, especially longer ones.
... and to improve performance. If a user collapses a thread, that thread is not loaded next time the article is accessed. Makes for a happier browser.
Always a good thing too.
There is worldwide hysteria because women who have access to education and birth control are choosing to have fewer children in order to provide better economic outcomes for themselves and their offspring.
The religious wrong in the US have even come up with a film about "Demographic Winter". One minute these people are droning on and on about their imminent rapture before their god kills all of mankind that it deems sinful and then the next minute these people are demanding that women have children who have no future because we are living in the end of days.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world's governments/leaders are dealing with less than replacement rate fertility in various ways...
more...
When unemployment rises, people don't want to worry about another mouth to feed.
So if the wealthy countries aren't adding to the population explosion, who is?
Falling birthrate is good, planet is way overpopulated
The absolute poorest countries.
Countries with highest fertility rates at link below...
Alphabetized list of the world's countries and their fertility rates according to our CIA.
Even if unemployment doesn't rise, having children isn't economically feasible for women in most countries.
Wow - that was a long read. Just finished with all the comments. You all did a fine job.