A Progressive Conservative Response to Abortion
We've all heard the pro-choice arguments. The liberal minded argue that a woman has a right to control her body and that abortion is an extension of that right. But abortion involves two lives; that of the woman and that of the unborn. Is abortion a human right - or - is the abortion argument a convenient way to avoid addressing questions of human rights?
Women having control over their own body is correctly identified as a human right. But the valid human rights argument is that too many women are being denied a choice over sex. Women really are being socially conditioned, coerced, and forced into having sex. That's the human right that's being denied. And abortion won't correct that violation of human rights.
Society has glorified women as sex objects. There is a very large commercial market to transform women into sex objects. We've conditioned women into believing that sex is power. And we've conditioned women into believing that promiscuity is liberating. Sex has become socially acceptable entertainment; sex isn't about reproduction.
The phony argument that the unborn isn't a person deliberately sweeps the real human rights violation under the rug. We've allowed ourselves to believe that violating a basic human right is acceptable because it can be corrected later by ending a life created by that human rights violation.
The woman's right to choose an abortion is not enlightened thinking. That's an argument to hide and avoid confronting the real human rights violation of women coerced into becoming sex objects. The pro-choice argument continues the regressive thinking that women are nothing more than baby factories. Women are being objectified and dehumanized to protect a caveman mentality towards women's choice over sex.
Sex is a choice. That is the choice involving human rights. Don't sweep that human rights violation under the rug by killing the unborn. The innocent unborn did not take away the woman's right to choose.
Tags
Who is online
172 visitors
Abortion is a caveman mentality concerning sex.
The unborn haven't violated anyone's human rights. The unborn did not take away the woman's right to choose.
Killing the innocent is a violation of human rights.
It's not abortion that's taking away a woman's right to choose. It is pro-lifers who are trying to do that.
The unborn's crime against humanity is being alive. Liberal minded justice is to condemn the unborn to death for their crime against humanity.
What crime? That makes no sense.
The liberal minded argument is that the unborn is a risk to the life and health of the woman. That means that the unborn being alive is a crime. And the liberal minded are condoning the killing of the unborn for the crime of being alive.
Killing the innocent for simply being alive is a violation of human rights.
I'll raise u one. If you intend to argue for live as the be-all that ends all discussion of abortion: I presume you support court sanctioned death penalty and 2nd amendment rights to take life? Do some hardwork: Explain how any of this is coherent.
Deal with this comment only after responding to the above paragraph, please. The fetus is a 'threshold' issue, not fully functioning, not truly developed, in a fully functioning girl or woman who is already in possession of a fully operating mind, spirit, and body. If there is ever an opportunity to "abort" life this threshold juncture is that moment.
What say you?
You are making a category mistake. The birth of a baby or abortion of a fetus is NOT a legal issue-it is a legislative issue. The federal legislature, tied up and bound by conservative policticking has miserably failed to 'decide' the proper handling of abortions, thus the courts are obliged to "align" and pass rule of law on what signals "threshold" definition and meaning of a reasonable live-birth.
There can be no crime where there is no law against an activity. Rule of Law 101! Therefore, your claim of a crime is invalid and frankly insulting to girls, women, and the courts who allow abortion practices and measures, though with measures and state protections encompassing.
Lastly, a girl or woman, who is alive and of suitable age to carry a fetus, should have reasonable control over the course of her existence as a right.
A female should no sooner be TRAPPED INTO GRANTING A LIVE BIRTH than, a "mature" girl or woman in a MARRIAGE to an insufficient or sufficient boy or man.
Your utterance of human right for fetuses is mis-categorized. Unborn and improperly developed fetuses by definition are not born and have no claim on humanity until passing through its threshold passage into the rule of law.
Where do you come up with this BS? That's quite a stretch of logic too. You do realize a pregnancy can be fraught with all sorts of potential health complications for either the woman and/or the fetus. That's just how it is. There's no accusation or claim of a crime. That's just nonsense invented by you.
And part of the reason for this never ending debate is that those who decided Roe never even recognized the unborn.
There are many laws that regulate abortion.
What about recognizing the rights and autonomy of the already born woman? Some fail to realize that "recognizing" the unborn means ignoring the established rights of the woman. Both cannot be recognized at the same time.
I'm arguing that unwanted pregnancy is the consequence of women being denied human rights before they became pregnant. No means no, remember?
Protecting someone's rights by denying rights to others has precedent in history. History is on the liberals' side.
The 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, so, those who are born have human rights. Do we interpret the 14th amendment to mean natural birth and not cesarean birth? Or birth at term and not premature birth?
Does a pregnant woman own the unborn fetus in her womb? Can a pregnant women sell an unborn fetus on the auction block? And if someone buys an unborn fetus at auction, do they own the baby after birth? If not, why not? What is the auction price of human rights?
How can anyone oppose the death penalty and support abortion? The death penalty punishes the guilty. Abortion punishes the innocent. If taking life as punishment for a crime is wrong then why is taking life for no crime acceptable?
There must be a crime for sanctioned taking of a life. So, the crime of the unborn must be that they are alive since the unborn are not guilty of any other crime.
Why are the unborn being denied the human rights that criminals have?
We humans can rationalize just about anything if we try hard enough.
You lost me completely on this one.
The reason abortion is a "neverending issue" is some conservatives stubbornly won't leave it (and girls and women) alone to the uniqueness of their experiences.
You do understand the meaning implied and established by the use of the word, "threshold" in relation to abortion? Thresholds are crossing points (junctures) where actions ensue.
None of that stubborn commentary has anything to do with a fetus' status as viable apart from its 'host,' Nerm. Try again. There are no citizens of the United States residing in any female wombs! Fetuses are not classified that way, though it is clear you would like definition 'coverage' to extend so.
You are making a zero-sum argument, in this case.
Conservative believe in the importance of family (among other things). Even a dysfunctional family is better than a broken family. Children grow to adults and those adults must live in a world of men and women. Learning to live in that world as an adult requires a father and mother in the family.
Progressives believe in human rights (among other things). Human rights are intrinsic; human rights are not granted. Freedoms are not intrinsic; freedoms are granted. Granting freedoms is coupled with a responsibility to not violate human rights.
Progressive conservatives believe the important issues concerning abortion involve human rights and family. Abortion is not a human right since abortion is a choice; human rights are intrinsic and not a matter of choice. Abortion is a freedom and granting the freedom to choose abortion is coupled with the responsibility to not violate human rights. Abortion weakens the family by allowing both men and women to be irresponsible about pregnancy and rationalizing the killing of fetuses who will become children. Children have a human right to be cared for and the best care for nurturing children is the family. An argument can be made that human rights begins with the family.
Very well said.
Is because, as RBG pointed out wrongly decided. If it was left to the states, there would be no issue.
Yes she favored a more gradual approach centered on the individual states and the lower courts. Pointing directly on a woman's right to choose rather than a grandiose "Right to Privacy"
It was her opinion that Roe froze the debate and centered it on the procedure rather than the woman....
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit
May 15, 2013
I wonder if they are going to argue that she was a woman hater like they tell us we are for repeating her position...
Where do you dare to come up with this 'far out' thinking? I'm sorry, but I have to call you out—bluntly. Enough fiddling around the edges. Let's go deep!
1. Assuming you support the DEATH PENALTY (for a crime or crimes committed), there are other CHOICES available that do not compel termination of the life of a guilty person. Yes or No?
Support those choices whatsoever they are on the basis of sanctity of life. This is not a "EXIT" route for you, Nerm.
2. Nerm, you wrote this: "If taking life as punishment for a crime is wrong then why is taking life for no crime acceptable?" - That is not my argument or my point @1.15. My comment asks this question:
Supporters of both gun usage -which end human life, and court sanctioned death penalty laws -which end human life, why it is consistent to hold those court sanctioned views, but find basis to DENY court-sanctioned abortion?
That is, Nerm, you will never threaten or question the decision of the court in the case of the "two, (no threshold dilemma)" but what is makes the distinction in the case of the "third" (threshold dilemma)?
There must be a crime for sanctioned taking of life? Why? Please elaborate—I insist!
Nerm, you asked this: "Why are the unborn being denied the human rights that criminals have? A category mistake! The girl or woman is the unique holder of the threshold issue or bridge to this world. As you are fully capable of deducing a "criminal" is out and about and by definition beyond threshold or viability language and decision-making.
And this is the crux of conservative raison de etre behind the pro-life reactionism. Conservatives think (falsely) that defining a proper family unit means imposing upon a free people their personal values and worldview. Evidentially, conservatives are upset with justices, legislatures, presidents, leaders, and citizens who get in the way of conservatives chaining girls and women to the tether of conservatism.
Nerm, you are making an argument that you and those who share your self-described "principles" of conservatism are better equipped to raise superior, wholesome, reasonably appropriate children or a child. Where is your data on this? Put it forward for discussion.
Sophistic rhetoric. Human rights are intrinsic but not absolute. Some conservatives know this all too well, because of many strategies utilized by the same to make demons of many groups of their fellow citizens whom they can see with their naked eyes—in this case a specific type of female.
You keep training on this notion that you can somehow EMPOWER a fetus to 'govern' control of the external world through personal advocacy! Well, actually, we have existing humans, courts, and decisions for the living here and now! The girls and women who are contributing day-to-day to the upkeep and make-up of this country and the encompassing world.
These living citizens deserve to choose the values of their wombs! There wombs are not "battlegrounds" for compromise or removal of their control over self! There liberties are not some conservatives, who suffer no loss(es) to curtail. And finally, girls and women deserve to PROSPER on their own terms in how they expend a long life living in the greatest beacon of democracy this world has ever known!
Well, there you go. Tying family, human rights, and fetuses together - improperly, but hey: Here's a bow for ya! /s
Somehow, you conservatives think to deceive foolish people into permitting the unborn have a voice.
Let me straighten this out for you:
1. Conservatives want to CONTROL the 'voice' of the unborn. On unproven grounds they can be 'protectors' of human LIFE, limbs, and amount of distant prosperity.
2. Conservatives want to JUDGE some criminals as worthless and ought to be given over to DEATH. (Though, the criminal will prefer to LIVE.)
3. Conservatives DECIDE old-aged and sickly citizens can not ASSENT TO DIE through EUTHANASIA. This is not allowed. (Though, the individual wishs to DIE.)
It is clear that conservatives have a great deal to say and obsess over about the lives of others with different worldviews.
What say you?
We left situational politics up to the states. . .culminating in a damaging Civil War and all the bad feelings and dark history besides that continues today! BTW, there are inherent limits to what a unified set of states can do selectively and individually.There are practical matters that must be settled for the good of the whole - if not the component parts. Else, interstate commerce and full faith in governance of necessity breaks down and dissolve themselves! Ultimately, the outcome would be the framing for a new civil war. Such a war would surely bring destruction down upon us all! And in the end of that 'day,' we will have accomplished all the bad feelings and dark history added to us as a nation twice-over.
Additionally, RBG is correct in assessment and we all likely agree. The problem for us as a nation is conservatives are reactionaries who will not support legislative change and concede constitutional acceptance (through signing) of abortion. Thus, 'battle' was won through constitutional "privacy" silencing of the matter.
Additionally, RBG is correct in assessment and we all likely agree. The problem for us as a nation is liberals are elites who are impatient and afraid of legislative change and demanded instant constitutional acceptance of abortion. Thus, 'battle' was engaged through supreme court legislation of "privacy" forcing the matter to the exclusion of opposing voices.
Ginsburg was a brilliant jurist, Liberal to the core.... She saw that instead of settling the matter, Roe, started the war.... It didn't end it and it had nothing to do with what was good for women... Roe was a failure of government... This government is based upon the individual, individual citizen, individual states, the federal government serves at the pleasure of the citizens and states.. It is not the other way around... The civil war was a result of compromise made to get a government in place and rights vs commerce... The unwillingness of the states to compromise over commerce led governments to pick up weapons and the citizens who didn't have a choice suffered...
This nation ALWAYS suffers when choice is taken away from it's citizens by government... But unfortunately for the liberal progressive, citizen choice is anathema to good government in their opinion.... If there is a civil war coming, it is coming cause the impatient liberal progressives want it... They desire the quick and easy way, the citizens on the other side, conservatives and libertarians are used to the long hard and difficult way...
We understand the choice, we don't want to make it, but if your side does, be assured we will defend when you attack... The last one started with the south, the impatient ones, firing on the north the patient ones... the next one (if there is one) will start exactly the same way...
If destruction be our lot, it is ourselves who will be the architects of it...
You just got Ginsberg'd
In the United States, the death penalty is punishment for a crime. A crime has been committed. Someone accused of a crime goes through a judicial process to determine guilt. Once guilt has been established, the guilty criminal has opportunities to reestablish innocence and plead for their life. The death penalty is applied to someone who has been determined guilty of committing a crime.
In the United States, the woman chooses abortion which is the killing of the fetus. That's it. There isn't any opportunity for the fetus to plead for its life. The woman chooses, the fetus is put to death. And the fetus is not killed in a humane manner. The convicted criminal has human rights whereas the fetus is denied human rights.
The courts have sanctioned denying fetuses human rights. The Roe v. Wade ruling determined that physicians performing elective abortions cannot be prosecuted for the capital offense of murder. And the justification for the ruling was to square the circle of human rights by declaring that a fetus is not a person based upon common belief of the English people 400 years ago.
In the United States, a physician can be prosecuted for deliberately killing a fetus the pregnant woman does not want aborted. Abortion is illegal and is a capital offense without the woman's consent. A physician can go through the judicial process to determine guilt and can, theoretically at least, be punished with the death penalty for killing a fetus without the woman's consent. The physician would be prosecuted for a crime against the fetus.
The woman's consent determines the legality of abortion. And the woman's freedom of choice decides whether or not the fetus is a person that has human rights. Human rights depends upon what the woman chooses which is a dangerous precedent because that means a person's human rights are granted and are subject to choice of those who grant human rights.
Freedom of choice, obviously, is exercising a freedom. The pro-choice argument is that freedom of choice is a right. Does freedom of choice, even as a right, allow violating intrinsic human rights?
The core question is whether human rights are intrinsic - or - human rights are granted by choice.
The woman's consent determines the legality of abortion. A woman consenting to abortion determines that the fetus is not a person and killing the fetus is not a crime. Deliberately killing the fetus without the woman's consent is a crime against the fetus. The woman's freedom of choice determines whether or not the fetus is a person and determines whether or not the fetus has human rights.
The pro-choice argument is regressive in depending upon humans rights being rights granted by choice. That was the same argument used to continue the institution of slavery. Slaves were denied human rights by choice. The American Civil War concerning slavery was a struggle for intrinsic human rights. The American Civil War settled the question of whether or not the human rights enumerated by Thomas Jefferson and the founders of the United States were granted rights or intrinsic rights. Human rights are intrinsic rights.
The pro-choice argument reopens that can of worms. The pro-choice argument is regressing to the notion that human rights are rights granted by choice.
Agreed, another thing to realize about the law in many jurisdictions...
When a murderer kills a pregnant woman and is caught, he is usually charged with two murders, the woman and her unborn child...
So the law holds two different position on the life of a child in the womb.. in the one case(murder) it is a human life, and in the other case (abortion) it isn't...
The implications of choice go a lot farther than just Roe...
Yes, the pro-choice argument has dangerous implications that extend far beyond protecting physicians performing elective abortions.
Do enemies of the state have human rights? If human rights are granted then that question is answered by choice. Those charged with sedition can be denied human rights by choice of the state.
We are devolving and regressing to judicial granting of human rights on a case by case basis. The courts are sanctioning the notion that humans rights are granted and are not intrinsic. If we continue down this path then we will return to when the divine right of the monarchy allowed doing anything to protect, defend, and maintain the monarchy. Only the monarchy had freedom of choice by divine right.
And from Monarchy, you get to authoritarianism, dictatorship, Emperors... Statism at it's worse...
Where government has choice over a person or citizens life... All the way back to pre 1776 when we finally said no more of that crap in this nation..
Yep. But that's the pro-choice argument that liberals are making. Liberals are regressive and not progressive. It's time to make America progressive again. It's time to make America great again.
Libertarians tell us about Classic Liberals. The European Classic Liberals provided the roots for the founding of the United States. But Americans went beyond what the European Classic Liberals did to create a distinctly American progressivism. American Progressives founded the United States and those American Progressives expanded and built upon the Classic Liberalism of Europe to create something greater. American progressives united the colonies to become the United States; something Classic Liberals failed to accomplish in Europe.
Don't let liberals take away our American Progressive heritage.
It was left to the states once, and there were clearly issues. That's why it made its way to the SCOTUS. Reverting abortion back to the states will only make more issues. The only reason why it's an issue now is because some people do not approve of choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it went to SCOTUS because Congress wouldn't / didn't act and individual lawsuits were filed that eventually made it's way up to SCOTUS. But this could all be solved if Congress would just get off it's ass but I can't see that happening as to pass that would require leadership AND compromise which is sorely lacking in Congress.
Not to derail but I think it would be very interesting to watch if after the 22 elections the R's gain control of the House as well as pick up 11 seats in the Senate. What would they do with that control, would they jump on the bandwagon or would the moderate's come out in defense of abortion?
Thanks to Roe, abortion crippled both the Senate and the federal judiciary. It's ramped up the intensity of the debate 1000%.
AS an attempt to "settle the debate" it was obviously an unmitigated disaster.
State laws which prohibited or severely restricted abortion was challenged, which made its way up the courts until it reached the SCOTUS. When those restrictions was overturned by the SCOTUS, abortion became legal by default, but within the then trimester framework. I think if Congress had passed an abortion law at the time, it would have been challenged by one side or the other, depending if the law was pro or anti choice in nature. I also tend to think that if Republicans control both Housr and Senate, and assuming an abortion bill was presented, they would be likey to pass a law restricting abortion rights to a certain degree. But we can only speculate on that at this time.
Thanks to Roe, women's rights and autonomy were recognized and respected. Thanks to those actively opposed to that, is why the debate continues.
Lol...I'm familiar with your dogma.
The point is that roe made abortion a bigger issue than it was before the Court acted.. I'm sorry that you are too emotional on the topic to admit that obvious fact.
Stop right here! Who has been in the past and is now the arbiters of what becomes crime and punishment in our country? Please answer plainly—if you can.
No dogma, just simple fact. Your attempt to spin it while imying an emotional slant on my part is a weak debate tactic and borderline trolling.
Since you apparently need to go to gross-levels of discussion-let's get it done. A fetus is of human genes, but it is not a living and breathing human being. You stubbornly try to extend humanity to conception with disregard for courts deciding there can be a line of demarcation- a threshold point.
You blow right through the rationale that a woman should have control up to the reasonable point of "thesholding."
Therefore, it is clear to me, that some conservatives simply wish to CONTROL the womb, and through it, the life and resourcefulness of women.
Shame on you. And, girls and women should be damn outraged that you 'labor' to bring them under total conservative power and influence (yet again)!
The pro-choice argument is a concession to the uniqueness of females-girls and women-to birth our humanity.
Your argument implies there is some inherent right (hook or crook) to being born (through the womb of a woman). The girl or woman is simply a vessel for the birth procession. Where is the "humanity" in that?
In giving birth or not giving birth, the sum of a girl or woman is not determined. Ignoring how females perceive childbirth by attempting to "sat" and drown them out with ideological perspectives can not be the end of the account!
If these were men subject to all manners of impregnation: There would be gun-waving in the streets and state capitols being overrun with shouts of liberty, freedom, and prosperity!
Women - what say you?
Can you tell I am 'blushing' right now? (Smile.)
The arbiter of legality is the legislative branch. The arbiter of guilt and innocence is the judicial branch. The executive branch does not arbitrate, the executive branch enforces. And the authority and guiding principles for legislative and judicial arbitration has been the Constitution.
The 5th amendment enumerates the rights of the accused. The presumption of innocence is not explicitly stated in the 5th amendment but has been part of American jurisprudence from the beginning as a progressive extension of the 5th amendment.
Whether or not a fetus is a human being depends entirely upon the woman's choice. The humanity of the fetus is what the woman chooses it to be. If the woman chooses the fetus to be a human being then the law treats the fetus as a human being.
Aborting a fetus without the woman's consent is a crime against the fetus.
Why do you 'charge' females who abort fetuses with philosophical guilt and crimes against humanity?
The federal system can't agree upon passage of a law affirming or condemning the practice of abortion into a crime and punishment event; and, the courts positively concede to girl's/woman's right to choose, and do not proscribe against abortion.
The issue is too important to the nation as a whole to allow it to be determined by state governments acting alone or in blocs of states!
Of course it is. Your positions are the perfect example of dogma. You deny the reality that any rational person can see (Roe made abortion a bigger issue) and blame the devil, I mean pro lifers, for anything and everything and while obsessviely attacking them with the same unthought out talking points. Dogma is dogma.
Such argument is ridiculous to the absurd. Human rights are "human" and subsequently subject to nuance and distinctions. It is why we have laws and "gray-area" in laws (ad nauseum in many cases).
And don't get me started on the violations well into the last (and this) century of human and civil rights in this 'fine' country some say we are situated!
Damn right! If our congress can not legislate as it should, that is, rendering a decision as the law of the land or added to the constitution-yes, courts ("black-robed unelected officials) will be 'enticed' to judge congress (it can not) or pass opinions on matters touching on the lives and times of the citizenry.
Conservatives do not deserve to make liberals live in unsatisfied states of existence in this country. Only a fool would sanction or concede that going forward!
Correct! This brings up something I believe it was Majority Leader M. McConnell stated at the time before cameras in the Capitol hallway about Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation: 'The court has been in the hands of liberals up to now and now it is time for a conservative court.' (Paraphrased.) It seemed like a throwaway line at the time but now with Justice Barrett we can see the state of play.
Conservatives see abortion not as an amendment to the constitution issue (for they know that 'liberal' states won't add to the numbers to pass/ban); but, as a time issue for which they want to 'pump the brakes' on indefinitely through control of government as long as possible.)
Yes. A girl or woman's prerogative owing to her uniqueness among our species. On a separate note, females have done 'right' by everybody on this planet don't you agree?
Stop trying to have it all—man. Stop 'scouting' around for taking over control of girls and women unfamiliar to your worldview.
Don't be modest. Your post earned the praise.
Apparently you do not understand what dogma is, then make erroneous presumptons.
Your legal rhetoric has no relevance to the abortion issue where women's rights are concerned.
Uh no. Whether a woman remains pregnant or not depends on her choice.
The fetus is either something the woman choose to keep, or chooses not too. Plain and simple. You're the one trying to assign something to a fetus while speaking of women.
No, it's a crime against the woman, as she didn't give consent.
Your argument is regressive; returning us to the caveman thinking of 40,000 years ago with woman as the goddess.
Yours has been just plain absurd and all over the map.
You don't think women are goddesses?
The legal rhetoric, as you call it, was an answer to a question by CB. CB accused me of not answering his question. The answer was relevant to CB's question and relevant to CB's accusation.
Defending of abortion is clear proof of that…
Sean is exactly right about everything he said here.
Exactly. Very well stated!
But it is ok for liberals to make conservatives live in unsatisfied states of existence?
Trust me we aren't...
Which means absolutely nothing.
Seans words are not the ones “which means absolutely nothing” here.
Yours do too!
Abortion concerns ending a pregnancy, not sex.
The unborn did not have sex. The unborn did not cause the pregnancy.
That is not relevant
The unborn did not cause the pregnancy but are to be killed because of the pregnancy. That's what abortion does. Abortion ends an innocent life because they are a consequence of the woman's choice. The liberal minded are blaming the innocent for choices made by others.
Yes Nerm, we all know abortion ends a pregnancy. Nothing new there. Nothing relevant either. Obtalining an abortion is a woman's choice too. Your appeals to emotion doesn't change that either.
So? Still irrelevant.
Yes, indeed, a woman has a human right to choose. A woman has a right to choose to drive drunk. If a drunk woman driver injures a pedestrian then that is a consequence of the woman's choice. We do not blame the pedestrian for the consequences of the woman's choice. The pedestrian is innocent and we do not blame the innocent. The innocent have a human right to not be punished for the choices of others. We don't kill the pedestrian because the woman made a poor choice.
If a woman freely chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant that is a consequence of the woman's choice. We do not blame the innocent for the consequences of the woman's choice. The unborn did not choose, the unborn did not have sex, and the unborn did not cause the pregnancy. The pregnancy is a consequence of the woman's choice. The choice was already made by the woman.
There is a valid argument that women are being denied the basic human right to control their bodies when making choices about sex. That's the issue of human rights and that's where the woman's right to choose needs protection.
Abortion sweeps the issue of human rights under the rug by killing the innocent to undo the consequences of the woman having sex. Killing the innocent just because they are alive is a human rights violation. And those who are violating human rights are claiming to be the victim.
If a woman chooses to drive drunk and injures someone in an accident, that woman cannot be legally compelled to donate blood to save the victim, despite having been the cause of injury necessitating a blood transfusion.
Why?
Bodily autonomy.
The same applies to a man.
Same for pregnancy - forcing pregnancy compels a woman to give the use of her organs and tissues for the benefit of another, as a "consequence" for choosing to have sex.
And many of your comments here seem to focus on women being subject to consequences for sex. That is informative.
There was a lot of woman splaining there...from a man....
Really? I could refuse to be drafted and fight in a war because, as a male, I have bodily autonomy?
Have you had blood forcefully removed from your body for the treatment of another person, Sean?
I could legally have been forced to kill or be killed against my will. Much rather be forced to give blood.
But again, the right to take someone else's life is not the same as giving blood, is it?
Have you had one single person judged to have more right to the use of your body for their own health than you do, yourself?
You have not.
"The right to take someone's life" includes forced pregnancy. Pregnant women are at greater risk of health issues than nonpregnant women. Because their bodies are being used as life support for others.
I can be forced to take vaccines. I can be taken and sent to foreign countries and possibly killed against my will.
Tell me again how men have bodily autonomy.
When were you last required by the state to give the use of your body to another being, because they were judged to have more right to use of your body than you, Sean?
You weren't.
You haven't been drafted. You have not been forced to take a vaccine as an adult. You have not had any medical procedure forced upon you as an adult. You have never had your body made available for another's use by decree.
Hasn't happened.
ou haven't been drafted.
so what? WTF difference does that make? Have you been forced to raise a baby against your will ? If not, do you think you have the right to talk about woman not having bodily autonomy?
Your point obviously is false, and adding restrictions and qualifications doesn't make it any more so. Men don't have total autonomy over their bodies, and their are thousands upon thousands of Americans who've died after being conscripted that should drive that home.
You have never had your body made available for another's use by decree.
Sure it was. I was legally compelled to register with selective service, which made by body subject to being used by the US government for it's own purposes. Just because it didn't choose to draft me doesn't mean it didn't have the right to take my body if it saw fit to do so.
Pregnancy may be a consequence of sex, but choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to become pregnant. And if a woman does become pregnant, she also has the choice to continue the pregnancy or not.
That's an issue of consent, not abortion.
No, abortion solve the issue if the woman chooses to use it.
Innocent of what? Spare me the emotional bleeding heart tripe!
Not until you've had to involuntarily give up tissues or organs for the use of another.
Which you haven't.
Pregnancy isn't forced; pregnancy is a consequence.
If women are being forced to have sex then that's the human rights violation that needs to be addressed. Women having control over their body is the human right and abortion won't correct violation of that human right. Abortion is a convenient way to avoid addressing the real human rights issue. The unborn did not take away the woman's human rights.
Pregnancy is forced when a woman is denied the choice to end it. You also seem quite hung up on sex. But sex isn't really the issue. You're just repeating your nonsense.
Tell that to victims of rape and incest.
Do you support forced organ or tissue donation?
Yes, pregnancy is a consequence of sex. Sex causes pregnancy. That's the causal relationship explained by science. It's only necessary to follow the science. So, exerting control over sex prevents pregnancy.
One problem is that, as a society, we have made sex socially acceptable entertainment rather than a means of reproduction. We have not empowered women with control of their bodies to prevent pregnancy. Society has transformed women into sex objects. Society has conditioned women into believe sex is power and sex is liberating and sex is entertainment. But the causal relationship remains the same. Sex still causes pregnancy.
Abortion protects sex as entertainment by denying human rights to the innocent unborn that are the consequence of that entertainment.
Nothing wrong with that.
Society for the most part has always seen women as sex objects. The men controlling that society just didn't care if there were unfortunate consequences for women having sex, so long as those women weren't their wives or daughters. Society blamed women for getting pregnant, but men got off scot-free.
So with contraception, and yes, occasionally abortion, women are still sex objects to many (no change there), but are not punished for a lifetime for having sex.
Women are not weak individuals who need societal approval or empowerment concerning their own bodies.
We can think for ourselves and are quit capable of deciding what sex means to us personally.
I have to say Nerm that your statement is quit condescending. You may have not meant it that way but it is.
But it seems that many of your compatriots disagree with this viewpoint, as stopping this is what started the whole abortion thing anyway.. (and one has to recognize that if the depiction of women being sex objects is objectionable, then with the free sex March and Roe, they have to take some responsibility for such don't they?)
It wasn't right how society viewed such women for their natural biological functions, and standing up against such treatment for something they could not change any other way is admirable...
They seem to want to argue it incessantly...
I guess it must be cause of who posts it... Right? I post it I'm all wrong, you post it and it's right on...
Interesting isn't it?
"The whole abortion thing" has been going on for millennia. Government only recently decided it had any say in the matter.
Is this discussion occurring in a vacuum? Or are they arguing in response to those who want to argue incessantly?
That's the human rights issue, isn't it? Abortion is an easy, convenient way to avoid addressing the real human rights issues.
Throughout history it's been easy to protect certain rights by denying others human rights. The 'pro-choice' argument is based upon that historical precedent. 'Pro-choice' is a regressive human rights rationalization and NOT a progressive human rights argument.
Men and women have been having sex since there have been men and women. Somehow the responsibility for the consequences of sex has been shifted onto women. And the liberal solution was to make women as irresponsible as men for the consequences of sex. So, abortion is really about protecting men's irresponsible attitude toward the consequences of sex. If a man impregnates a woman then kill the fetus; the man doesn't have to take any responsibility. Abortion is a rationalized justification for protecting men's access to sex as entertainment; it's not about women's rights.
Abortion is a caveman mentality concerning sex. Abortion protects the irresponsibility of men for the consequences of sex. Abortion makes sex entertainment without consequences. Abortion is NOT about planning a family.
Human rights suffers when there is freedom without responsibility.
Of course it's not, I agreed with the march and it's purpose... I can state exactly the same as you did and they are all over me... I know what the march was for I was there... At the time there was only one way to deal with the risk to women who wanted the apparent sexual freedom men enjoyed... Hence Roe... Since then there are many more ways other than abortion to do the same thing...
They hate that, like abortion is the only way for them to be able to have the same sexual freedom as men... I'm not the one arguing over it they are arguing with me... So I guess they will soon be arguing with you as well correct?
Since we said the same thing... Stands to reason don't ya think?
Lol. You have almost a millennia of common law of the government "having a say in the matter."
No it doesn't stand to reason {chuckle}
Nothing you say does {chuckle}
until you've had to involuntarily give up tissues or organs for the use of another.
As I predicted you would be keep narrowing and narrowing the claim of "bodily autonomy " until it was meaningless. But now that men can get pregnant, even that narrow claim fails.
I just love it when you make my points for me... You know something else?
{chuckle} imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... {chuckle}
I appreciate it..
Military members aren't forced to donate tissues or organs, either. Because it is recognized that your right to health, or even survival, is subordinate to my right not to donate body parts.
Who has made sexual entertainment acceptable? There is yet a stigma on prostitution! And women are pejoratively and (among themselves) labeled, "whore," "ho," and "skank." Moreover, you can not be critical of sexual relations in a marriage relationship? Do you mean singles and dating?
Sex does not cause pregnancy, directly. What causes pregnancy is sperm interacting with a female 'egg.'
Again I request the use of more precise language and proper word definitions and meanings so we can communicate together! That is, don't be lackadaisical in writing and putting ideas across.
I am willing to be forward to state Nerm meant it the way it was delivered. Great thought (may be not as much reflection) goes into the politicking of pro-life "doctrine." These kinds of pronouncements and statements done by "lifers" are well-rehearsed and "baked in" with intention of a "winning strategy" impact! Usually, there is no push-back to the patronizing, and so the "effect" is accepted without any merit(s) attached.
The true bottom line here..
Killing the baby is the emotional response here…
👍👏🥳
Sean is the one who is correct here
outside of a one man one woman marriage relationship there is a lot wrong with that.
And typical too
Many liberal men prefer abortion as a tool to avoid 18 years of child support for having sex outside of any meaningful relationship. Abortion is the the ultimate act of irresponsibility
Merely your opinion.
Whining about "killing the baby" when that is not the case is what is emotional.
Not even a little.
He is completely and totally right beyond all doubt or any question whatsoever.
What other people do in their bedrooms (or anywhere else), so long as both partners are consenting adults, is not your concern. Conservativism is supposed to be about government not intruding in our lives, and that includes between our bedsheets.
A conservative Republican congressman whom conservative organizations have praised for being an anti-abortion crusader sent text messages to his married lover in January, urging her to get an abortion after believing she was pregnant, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.
Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, who has a strong anti-abortion voting history, acknowledged last month he had an affair with Shannon Edwards, a forensic psychologist in Pittsburgh. Text messages sent between Murphy's phone number and Edwards in January show the two discussing the pregnancy scare, and Edwards pointed out Murphy's hypocrisy in pressuring her to get an abortion.
Typical.
Some conservatives are living hypocrisy and lies out-loud. Such individuals and groups are walking, talking, frauds. That is, some conservatives want to be obeyed—by everyone.
See post 1.1.66.
why is it any of your business?
The issue concerns human rights.
Then you should support the woman's right to choose to continue a pregnancy or not.
That's why they have to argue so hard against the baby actually being a life.
The talk spools up and the rationalizations they need to feel good about their position really ramps up
A woman having a right to choose is a human right but the unborn is a consequence of violating that human right. The unborn did not violate women's human rights and the unborn did not take away the woman's right to choose. No rationalization can shift blame for violating human rights onto the unborn.
Even the most Libertarian of conservatives reject the notion of blaming the innocent for choices made by others. The most stalwart defenders of liberty and freedom will not condone shifting blame onto the innocent.
The unborn did not choose. The unborn are the most innocent of innocent. Killing the innocent for the crime of being alive is a violation of human rights. Killing the innocent violates the very idea of liberty and freedom. Allowing the innocent to be punished for the choices of others is repugnant to Libertarians.
The woman chose to have sex. And if the woman has been indoctrinated, coerced, or forced rather than being allowed to freely choose then that is a violation of human rights that is repugnant to the very idea of liberty and freedom. The humans rights issue is about a woman's right to freely make choices about sex. If women are being denied the human right to choose control over their sexual activity then women are being denied the most fundament freedom and liberty.
And if a woman freely chooses to have sex that results in a pregnancy then the crime is hers'. Shifting blame onto the unborn and punishing the unborn is a violation of human rights that is contrary to the very idea of liberty and freedom.
what crime?
The crime of being alive.
The liberal argument has been that the unborn do not have human rights. There's certainly historical precedent for denying human rights. History is on the side of liberals.
What a load. Stop acting like a fetus has more rights than the mother that has to carry it.
You really have gone completely trumper haven't you.
Shame really. I use to think there was something there. Now no.
Lol Who said that? Just because you can't kill someone that means they have more rights than you?
how can something be unborn and alive at the same time?
Definition of unborn
If that made sense to me I might be able to respond in a proper manner.
Since when is that a crime? Good grief Nerm, do you just make this shit up as you go along?
That's not a "liberal" argument. That is just a statement of fact.
There are those who want to deny women their right to choose. And they are probably not liberals.
There never really was something there.
Wow, there is so much of the issue today on this topic and others, drilled down into a couple short comments
And that is the crux of it. The left believes the mother has more rights than the baby. Like many believe criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens .... The ice cream base on that haters sundae.
The requisite insult to self-establish moral superiority. The fudge and sprinkles on top of the ice cream .....
And one final superiority slap. The whipped cream with a cherry on top.
Dig in!
So, by that definition it should be fine to dig in there and abort that baby anytime before it was born right?
Even the day before birth?
No, terminations are highly limited after the first trimester and late term abortions are very rare and usually only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest...
Not by that definition.
Unborn by that definition means right up until the moment before birth.
Don't be ridiculous. Abortion is highly regulated.
Don't be obtuse, i was responding a specific post.
You are not involved, why is it any of your business?
Simple, it's not. A woman's choice to continue a pregnancy or not is nobody's business. That's a matter between herself and possibly her doctor. But certainly nobody else's.
For the same reason you think it's yours charger.
I'm simply asking an honest question.
If you are going to offer the definition of "unborn" out there to define "not a life" then do you find it acceptable to abort a baby up to the moment before it is born?
This is why you can't use "unborn" in this discussion. Everyone recoils at that thought.
Everyone.
No more or less than it is yours.
I never said it was mine. Neither would I presume, much less actively make it my business.
Stop kidding yourself.
You are making it your business just as much as anyone else here.
Otherwise you wouldn't be commenting.
Nope. Simply commenting on a topic of discussion is not intruding in anyone else's business. I'm not telling women what they can or cannot do. I'm not protesting or demanding certain laws be put into place and such. Whether a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy or not has nothing to do with me nor is it any of my concern or business.
Unborn does not bother me at all
Where is the point of no return?
but I am not taking the choice and freedom away
Unborn, life, fetus, gestational parasite, ect., take your pick. Makes no difference.
Indeed. We are not telling women what they can or cannot do. At most, we're telling them it's their (and only their) decision. That's not getting in someone's business. That's avoiding it entirely.
Agreed, and if you really believe that thx for admitting i'm not making it my business here in that manner either
Neither am i
Then why bother posting about it here every time the topic comes up? You seem pretty concerned about it.
Then you have no problem aborting the baby minutes before it is born?
Second or third time i've asked that question
That a better question for pro choicers.
I don't believe it is any of my business personally but i do abhor the thought of abortion in general
What do you think it is?
Neither am i
I do not, it is not my decision or problem.
That's a cop-out imo.
Sure, it's none of your business. Neither is random murder i guess if you aren't involved.
Maybe random murder should be legalized eh?
This all comes down to the topic of when the baby becomes a life. Opinions on that range from inception to ...... i guess moments before birth according to you.
I never accused you of making it your business. But there are those who clearly think it's somehow their business.
When it's a "life" is not the issue nor relevant. It's when it becomes a person that is.
What scares liberals is the fetus having the same rights as the woman carrying the fetus. Equal rights is what scares liberals. Liberals want equity and not equality. Equity protects the rights of some by denying rights to others.
I think the Bible says first breath in one place and of a certain age somewhere else
Does a person have a right to quit a job? not finish doing something?
Bullshit.
Opinions do vary but nice rationalization regardless
What one considers "life" or its relevance may be opinion. But life is irrelevant to abortion rights in regards to the law.
You do realize there's no wat to grant fetal rights without removing the established rights of the woman, right? When you cam adequately resolve that issue, then you may be in a position to speak of equality, preferably without the political slant and bias.
Magical thinking.
The law. You mean Roe v Wade i suppose.
I find it interesting that pro choicers rarely discussion all aspects of "that law."
Like the aspect of "that law" that went to great lengths to rule that a woman's right to an abortion was not absolute.
Rarely hear about that part of "that law" here.
Rarely indeed.
Sorry, I'll try and dumb it down. You claim that by not allowing a fetus to be killed, you somehow give the fetus more rights than the mother. You don't have the right to kill a stranger on the street. Because you can't kill the stranger, does it mean the stranger has more rights than you?
Like the aspect of "that law"
What's really amusing is they treat the "law" as if it's a definitive answer to the issue. But if the law changes, suddenly it's not.
It seems there is no dumbing down of a already dumb comment.
If you equate an abortion to someone killing someone on the street, there is zero reason to try to have any dialogue.
It is just bullshit.
Roe dealt with establishing a woman's right to choose, not specifically with "life."
The law definitively established abortion rights. It's the attempt to overturn the law and revoke those rights that's the issue.
Probably not, but I'm an optimist. One thing that these endless abortion seeds makes clear is that many abortion supporters are too close minded to understand or even deal honestly with the pro life argument. I know and understand the argument for abortion rights better than many of the most fanatical abortion protesters here. But the ignorance of so many of the abortion rights proponents is something to behold, just name calling, treating obvious opinions treated as fact, and unsupported conclusion that can't withstand logical scrutiny.
Get out in the world. Leave your bubble and try and understand what those who disagree with you are saying rather then recycling the same old talking points whether they apply or not.
Try to address the entire post without taking it out of context. You might appear more honest that way.
Try to address the entire post without taking it out of context.
I didn't. Admitting that might make you appear more honest.
Do tell, what is the pro-life argument? I've heard many such "arguments" and they all rely on personal opinons/beliefs or appeals to emotion. So provide a logical and rational argument for the pro-life side. I'm listening.
My post is there for all to see. Cherry picking it only makes you appear dishonest, not me.
What's that got to do with the Roe v Wade, specifically ruling that a womans right to an abortion is not an absolute right?
That would be nice if you actually said anything worthwhile.
And for the thousandth time, there is not such thing as 'pro-abortion'.
Tw definitively established abortion rights. It's the attempt to overturn the law and revoke those rights that's the iss
So what? "Laws" change all the time. They aren't magical things, they are just the moral sentiments of the majority of a legislature (or in this case, unelected lawyers).
Owning a gun is not an absolute right either, contrary to what some believe.
Deflector shields up .....
No one believes that is an absolute right because it is not in the USA.
I've given plenty of examples in the past demonstrating LEGAL exclusions to that right for certain individuals.
Just posted another one in a different seed.
Roe established the right to an abortion and it has its limitations like most rights do. That right has only been expanded on in later years, but still has limits.
I saw that and it appears that some of your right leaning people do not agree. You think it should be a state issue where others do not.
Specifics please.
What was done was there was basically standards put forth.
In trying to change those standards they are effectively trying to overturn.
Not to hear some people here talk.
It seems to be certain "moral sentiments" which are trying to overturn Roe. The problem is it would (or lead to) effectively reduce or nullify an established right. That is something which has never occurred.
On what? I actually was trying to give you a compliment and you get suspicious.
I think everyone knows there are limits to abortion. So I'm not worried about abortion becoming something with zero restrictions.
It's been nearly 50 years. A lot has changed in that time. Specifically medical advances in Neonatal care.
Why not revisit the ruling? I mean, you folks on the left say you like to follow the science right?
From what I gather the science has not changed much.
A fetus cannot survive at 15 weeks.
I was sincerely asking you for specifics so who's getting snippy now.
How is that being snippy? Holy cow.
Ok, you were saying you think the SC case should be left to states to decide. NWM said no, it should be a national standard.
Medical advances may have improved the survival chances of a fetus born at viability. But viability itself has not significantly changed. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, there's no reason to limit elective abortions to before viability.
I have some friends who work in our NICU. The older the baby gets the better it's chances but 15 weeks is still very early. From what they've told me they need to be closer to the 20+ week range to have a good chance today. That was more like the late 20's to mid 30's range in the 70's when Roe v Wade was past. Two three months later than now.
So yeah, Neonatal care has improved quite a bit since 1973
The youngest surviving one was a little over 21 weeks. And from what I gather, had a lot of problems.
Still blaming the fetus.
Addressing the issue of equal rights requires imposing equal responsibility. The issue concerns women AND men engaging in sex with the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. The unborn is innocent. And the unborn is being denied human rights to protect the freedoms of women AND men.
The issue is not a woman's right to choose. The issue is a woman's freedom without responsibility for consequences. Granting the woman the same freedom as men doesn't really have anything to do with rights. The denial of human rights is being rationalized to protect equal freedom without responsibility for consequences.
Equal rights would require men to bear the same responsibility as women for protecting human rights. But the rationalization has been to deny human rights to the unborn as a way to provide equal freedom without responsibility for women and men.
Uh, you accused me of being suspicious when i was being sincere ...... that's being snippy in my book. Perhaps you are reading a different book .....
I though that might be it but wasn't sure. You jumped to a different topic when i had responded with people who could not legally own a gun.
When in doubt, i'm a states rights guy and could care less what anyone thinks about that. State are so different and diverse in this country who better to decide what's best for them. Not a congressman from San Francisco for the rural Upper Peninsula in Michigan that's for sure and vice versa.
Where did I jump on you for that?
It must have been an article from some time ago.
I am not necessarily a 'state rights' person but there I do agree with you.
Manhattan would have different needs than farm country.
Bad choice of words, already changed
There is a place and a time for the Fed. Gun rights is not one of them imo. You said it, trying to get a politician/bureaucrat who grew up in DC to understand a rural state like Michigan where most kids grow up shooting, hunting and fishing is a fools errand and will not end well if attempted. Michigan is by far not the only state that is like that.
Follow the science.
Unfit rhetoric. All girls and women deserve equality, equity, and more besides. Every (of age to conceive) girl or woman has more freedom, more liberties, and more prosperity (or capability to prosper) than any fetus locked inside its womb unaware of its surroundings.
Equity, which allows avenues to rights and privileges otherwise non-existent to some girls and women does not deny rights to those already possessors of them.
Just stop it!
Oh cut the crap Nerm. Blame has nothing to do with anything. If a woman becomes pregnant, she has the right to choose to continue or end the pregnancy. That's the right that matters and is applicable. It's that simple. Anything else is just a smokescreen or a distraction.
That is the irrational minds bottom line…
And government funded until then too according to the irrational and irresponsible
Rape and incest victims don’t wait into the 3rd trimester whether to visit capital punishment upon their child for the evil sons of the father
Not nearly highly enough!
Definitely not the father of the child’s business unless he’s providing the cash to get the abortion to get out of 18 years of child support.
The bottom line! 👍🏅🥳
Just the life itself of one of the humans involved.
That and religion…
The law may well be very different 6 months from now.
Exactly! As if there is ever a moment from the point of conception that the life is not a human person inside a human mother.
Abortion is killing. There is nothing else to say on the subject. Since Jan 1973 it has been the single greatest moral evil in the nation. That Supreme Court decision was every bit as bad as Dred Scott was
One million
Actually, there is…
The so called “right” was never legitimately “ established” in the first place. The courts foundation for it was irrationally decided and is and always has been illegitimate
Not on this issue they don’t.
Definitely leave it with the states or better yet the local county
Ca is like that too and in the outlying rural areas we openly defy what the big city people mandate upon us and do it right in front of them when they come up here as tourists
Exactly. No one denies that a female pig or cow carrying its offspring that their babies are alive during their early stages of development or that they ever were or would be anything other than a baby make or female pig or cow.
States Laws prohibiting abortion were challenged and went through due process of the courts until it reached the SCOTUS, which subsequently struck those laws down as unconstitutional thereby making abortion legal by default. That's how the system works.
Abortion was left to the states (and still is to a degree) and that didn't work out too well.
But they were not "babies" until they were born. At early stages of gestation, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference between a pig, cow, or human embryo.
So is taking antibiotics to treat an infection. What's your point?
Such hyperbole.
Dred restricted rights. Roe provided rights. They're polar opposites.
Neither does anyone else.
What an asinine post. It's no one else's business period!
DNA provides definitive evidence that a zygote (which is nothing more than clump of cells) is human. DNA also provides substantive evidence of the parties responsible for the pregnancy.
The evidence of responsibility is available at any time during gestation and can be obtained without harming the zygote, embryo, or fetus. At the least, abortion should include a requirement for both responsible parties to receive training on how to prevent pregnancy. Training to prevent pregnancy would be family planning which has been the stated purpose of abortion. And a repeat occurrence by either party should be subject to a criminal penalty.
Abortion should not allow either party to avoid responsibility for denying human rights to a fetus. And the fetus, itself, provides the evidence for who is responsible for its destruction. Once can be an accident corrected by education. But a repeat occurrence by either responsible party should be a criminal offense.
not at all. It is the view of a great many people across the nation and the world. It was wrongly decided and went way too far.
both gave some people “rights” at the expense of the rights of other people. Both denied the very humanity of those
(Continued)
they took rights from.
proof positive that my post is 100% right!
A zygote is a single, undifferentiated cell.
So? DNA is nothing more than a genetic blueprint.
Why? Is the man the one getting pregnant or have to deal with pregnancy and its issue too?
Sex education and birth control are great and should be freely provided and used. But abortion is also an option when the other 2 methods fail or are not used.
Based on what and why
Abortion is taking responsibility for an unwanted or unanticipated pregnancy. A fetus does not have rights and cannot be conferred rights without forcibly removing the established rights of the already born and autonomous woman in question.
Again, so what? I think everyone knows it's the pregnant woman who chooses to have an abortion. What's your point?
Many people also support abortion rights and choice. The majority of people in this country support abortion rights.
As I said to Nerm, a fetus does not have rights. You want to forcibly remove the established rights of women, which is just as bad as the Dred decision.
Only in your mind.
And the majority wants to ban them except for severe deformity or life of the mother after the 1st trimester.
Wrong again! According to the Pew Research Cente r, 59% of adults want abortion legal in all or most cases. This is also supported by a Forbes poll showing 57% of adults favoring abortion in all or most cases. There are plenty of other polls with similar results. There is also no reason why abortion should be restricted before the point of viability.
Within the first trimester your 100% correct, in the second trimester support falls to less than half that, somewhere between 27-29%, in the third trimester support falls to less than a quarter of the overall 12-14% depending on who takes the poll .... And only the real rabid abortionists, (less than 5%) support the banned Partial Birth Abortion.... And those percentages have held pretty steady for the last 3-5 years... Fluctuating a little yes year to year, but not by much...
So where does that put the statement "In all or most cases"? It makes it a mostly false claim... Based upon the same studies your claiming establishes your statement as fact
Hi Gordy, it is important to establish that polls are not the determinant factor for whether or not abortion is "in" or "out." After-all. We can all agree an abortive procedure is not the best situation to be in or planning. And in 99.99 percent of cases, having had an abortion, will have an outsized impact on girls and women involved over the course of their lives.
Those are not reasons to forego the procedure, nevertheless. It is surely a decision between a girl or woman and physician. I really believe this.
My statement in 3.1.107 stands…
And it's still wrong.
I agree polls are not the be all end all. But multiple polls do reflect similarities, which reinforces the premise. But whether abortion is the best choice or not is entirely up to the individual contemplating it. It is not for anyone else to say or demand otherwise. Neither is it anyone else's business or concern.
... for everyone to see how wrong it it.
That you disagree with what I said doesn’t make it in any way wrong at all. If anything that proves me right about the issue we are discussing.
No it’s not. Majority support for Abortion disappears after the 1st trimester except as I stated.
Of course not. My disagreement does not make what you write wrong. Your comments are wrong regardless of whether or not I point this out.
Sex is a choice.
It is certainly a choice, by someone. Not always the woman though. So what then shall be done about those cases where the woman had no choice. Shall another life then be terminated because it was not the woman's choice. Shall a woman's rights then be subordinated to another? And if it is fair and good then to relegate the woman to second-class citizenship, why stop there?
Let's extend this argument. NO MORE SEX, because it dehumanizes women, makes them slaves to a man's desire. From now on, the human race is to be propagated by men masturbating into vessels to be preserved for in vitro fertilization. Women should be allowed to choose whose sperm they wish for insemination. Fuck marriage. Fuck fucking. The best investment will be dildo manufacturers.
Axlotl Tanks from Dune
LOL. We don't need any gholas.
I remember you making this comment before. I didn't know you were a Dune fan.
I liked the books and the movie. Hope the new movie is good
I liked the books. The movie not so much. I'm hoping the new one is worth watching.
I liked both the books and the movies, but I don't think Frank Herbert's son, who carried on the series, was as good as his father. Even after Star Trek and Star Wars, the original Dune novel and original movie are my Sci-Fi favourites
Ok we will just have to use the language of this as well shouldn't we?
Men are Bulls and women are.... (you finish it)
The best investment would be stud services.... Seeing as human beings are now cattle to be bred...
You do understand that the women's lib marches in the '70's was for free sex... The ability to engage in copulation as freely as men? No stigma attached for fucking to their hearts content? Women had a right to be sexually free? It was led by women for women?
In reality they wanted to be free from the responsibility of pregnancy's if nature took it's inevitable course ...
Do you remember that? I sure do...
So what?
That is a fucked up take on the fight for equality!
{Chuckle} I was there... you going to tell me what I experienced, saw with my own eyes wasn't real?
Try to find some video of it.. Try to find some interviews with the marchers, there were journalists all over it... Talking to everyone.. you won't find much in the way of recording of those interviews.. And I know why...
Equality? Men don't have vaginas... how can they ever be equal to women physiologically?
It was a march over prevailing societal attitudes concerning sex and responsibility... Remember the old adage that if women didn't want to get pregnant they should keep their legs closed? THAT was what they were fighting... {chuckle} I helped them demonstrate as much as I was physically capable of...
Hell it was the beginnings of the free love 70's for christ sakes... You had to be there to know what it was really about...
I had no problem with it, I helped them as much as I could... {chuckle}
Of course it is no surprise your perception of the long struggle for gender equality is only of how it affected you personally and from an entirely chauvinistic and skewed perspective.
Fucked up then and still all fucked up today!
Fortunately, birth control and abortion rights levels the playing field.
Real disgusting too.
Yeah, I bet you did! {chuckle}
Splat .... right over your head .....
As if gender equality is all about sex and isn't about equal opportunities in everything else?
Why don't you explain it for us all then? Huh?
You obviously a young man, younger than me at least.. YOU understand what it has been politically morphed into.. YOU do not understand the actual motivations of the people that participated...
I can't fault you for that or your beliefs of what it represented... All I can do is present the truth of what I experienced, and it had nothing to do with gender equality... It had everything to do with women wanting the same sexual freedom as men seem to enjoy... Basically a man could get it on at the drop of a hat and then disappear into the void with no repercussions.. Women on the other hand took a huge risk with that behavior in those days even using the prophylactic's available... they couldn't just drop their pants and get up afterwards and walk away free... There was a risk...
Women were objecting to the societal stigma attached to that risk if it grabbed them... To such women, it was dehumanizing and that stigma extended to all women no matter if they were into free sex or not... You got preggers, you weren't married you were ostracized in society...
That's what the fight was about, society treated women who chose to exercise one of natures basic human functions as pariah's, sluts, fallen women, the weren't entitled to any respect, not only from other women but the men that were laying them and walking away.... It wasn't right but that's the way it was... And to call attention to it they decided to hold a free sex march...
Absolutely nothing wrong with that...
It's already been explained. I understood the point just fine.
If you're having trouble with his explanation, you should ask Nowhere Man about it.
Absolutely! into every vacuum a solution presents itself when the need for a solution is demanded... the pill took care of most , abortion took care of the rest.... It's been a political struggle ever since...
So you have no expectation and were sniping.
You are wrong and, I am a senior citizen BTW.
the truth blows their narrative right out of the water... so much for being about nothing but the truth...
We'll let you know when you provide anything bearing a resemblance to the truth.
Really? then you have fallen victim to brainwashing... The rewriting of history to suit a political agenda...
Just one question, were you there?
Now you are just straight up trolling. Go on...
Lol, not even close. I was making a factual post.
It appears you've missed that point as well.
All some have is projection, deflection, and denial.
Then comes the three D's
Deflect
Deny
Delusion
It should never have been a struggle to begin with. But alas, I suppose some just couldn't let it go.
You have learned your passive aggressive skills well from your master.
Kudos to her .....
Your point? You have not articulated one yet.
Nowhere Man says it was all about sex and had nothing to do with pay, jobs, education, opportunities, inheritance or anything else...
That isn't a point. It is a chauvinistic fantasy.
You do know this article is about abortion right? Abortion may be part of the womens rights movement but it isn't THE womens rights movement.
You say you are old enough to remember what NM is talking about but based on your responses here i can conclude one of two things.
You really aren't old enough to remember or you are old enough to remember and are in deep denial about what was really happening back then and when.
Reproductive rights are women's rights.
"Dorothy Day with her prison dress. In November 1917, Day went to prison for being one of forty women in front of the White House protesting women's exclusion from the electorate. She's one of the reasons why women can vote and a reminder that voting and other women's rights should never be taken for granted".
photo by photo by Chris Payden-Travers
That is so wrongheaded I refuse to respond.
It's okay to admit you've lost the debate.
You have a nice day now ya hear!
You haven't made a point so I haven't lost shit!
Lol .... alrighty then ....
I agree, it shouldn't have been...
Many of those on the supposed "pro-life" side seem to think its important to save every fertilized egg because they believe its not up to humans to determine the fate of that potential human, that once the egg is fertilized it is now in Gods hands. Today between 25% to 35% of all fertilized eggs end in miscarriage so their God is apparently aborting more fertilized eggs than any abortion clinics do.
What these religious pro-life emotional weaklings don't understand is that if it was purely "up to God" we'd be losing FAR more children than just those miscarried. For the last several thousand years of recorded human history infant mortality rates have been insanely high with about half of all children born not making it to their 5th birthday. It's only been through the intervention of humans who developed medical sciences that have dropped that rate to historic lows. In 1800 the rate was 462 child deaths before the age of five out of every 1000 live births. So apparently their God's plan was to kill off one out of two children that had actually made it to birth let alone the far greater numbers of miscarriages that occurred until medical science had improved.
Is it any wonder why most humans can't remember much if anything at all before the age of 4? Our species has evolved to survive with just 1 out of 2 babies growing into adulthood likely for hundreds of thousand if not millions of years. But now, because HUMANS developed medical sciences that can keep those babies alive that in the past their supposed God would have eliminated we have experienced huge increases in human populations that far exceed anything we've seen through the previous several thousand years of recorded human history.
That alone should be enough reason to allow abortion at least up until viability. If science and human intervention has saved hundreds of millions of children that would normally have died apparently due to Gods will in previous eras, then what is so wrong with science and human intervention stepping in to counter the unnatural survival rates of humans today? Abortion is the only responsible option for a woman who is unprepared and ill-equipped to bring another child into this world. Just dumping another unwanted child onto the State or some adoption agency is beyond irresponsible.
Very informative. I am not sure that it is appropriate to bring God in a general sense of what some conservatives are doing politically speaking about abortion, nevertheless. After all, people are notorious for blaming their behavior/s on God and demons alike-when the "credit" is all so human in its offing.
Considering peoples faith seems to have a lot to do with their views on abortion and how many have been pushing for bans as early as conception and claim to be so concerned with humans not being allowed to have a say once the egg is fertilized because from then on it's supposedly "up to God", I think bringing in the fact that for almost all of human history other than the last hundred years or so just keeping a child alive to the age of five was a fifty fifty shot. For those who believe everything is Gods plan and he should be the sole arbiter of whether a fertilized egg should be given a chance to live or not, I have to wonder why he was apparently taking the life of half of the children born let alone still in the womb for thousand and thousands of years even if you're a Young Earth Creationist.
It seems it was humans intervention in the last two hundred years which has brought the infant mortality rate down to 5.6 deaths per 1000 live births from 462 deaths per 1000 that it was back in 1880. If humans had just decided to leave our health and children's welfare up to their Gods we would have had 1,802,600 children who had been born last year die before their 5th birthday. Perhaps that was their Gods plan for thousands of years to keep human populations manageable, but we humans decided we wanted to know what's right and wrong and ate of the tree and eventually developed medical science that has saved 455 children per 1000 live births creating the heavily populated earth, resource scarcity, climate change and wars over scarce resources. You would think the worshipers of that God who was making sure half of all children born wouldn't make it would be on the side of abortion which is at least preventing some unwanted children being born into this world. It doesn't seem like their God cared very much about those supposedly immortal souls being snuffed out.
There is a flaw in the formulation of the logic above. It stands to reason that "if God" then. . . all (these) things are possible. Furthermore, "if God" then. . . mankind.
Either God is In-Charge and sees the course and path of humanity granting permissions and accesses to all the knowledge that is 'found' supplied within the huma sphere - or "Man did it" all.
A determination is necessary at this point. Because "to scoop" in and out-suggesting humanity holds complete sway and influence over a world literally developed, maintained, and "absolutely powered" by God is faulty-thinking.
That is, for our purposes of discussion, either God made this world and all the good and bad spectrums life courses through; or, mankind is the highest form of life we essentially have to address here and now. If we co-mingle the two it comes with a hierarchy by default (God at its apex.)
That's my point. If there is a God then his plan seems remarkably callous considering the huge numbers of "potential" humans that he culled or allowed to die off thousands of years which would indicate he's not all that concerned with abortion rates. If there is no God then it's all been up to humans to keep their progeny alive or not and thus humans should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full term and give birth or not. If there is no God then we are just the highest form of animal to have evolved on this planet. To justify the killing and eating of thousands of other animal life forms from their egg stage to near the end of their lifespan for our own taste and sustenance but then freak the fuck out if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before viability seems hypocritical at best.
To be trying to save every last fertilized egg, zygote and fetus when faced with the reality of resource scarcity and overpopulation is to be monumentally stupid.
" According to the study, simple supply and demand raises the following problem: If the world's economy and population continues at its current growth rate, the world's natural resources will eventually run out. Then, the economy and population will begin to shrink in order to match its supply."
Then you don't understand self determination very well do you?
If their God didn't bat an eye at one out of two kids born not making to age five but is furious with humans who developed medical science that got that number down to just 5.6 out of 1000 but now allow women to terminate pregnancies up to viability if they're not ready to have children then that is a pretty fucked up God some people worship. Safe and legal abortions could be seen as a core of self determination where it's up to each person's ability to make choices and manage their own life.
We are in agreement as humanity itself "In-charge" goes.
As for God (In-Charge), that agenda would be inclusive of agony and death (and all the 'colors' on the spectrum) as it can be said (and understood) that whatsoever God kills God can make alive again.
That is, whatsoever and whomsoever God says, "Return to Me" it and that shall do so. For how can a thing cease to exist to its 'maker'? It can not.
My point being God is wholly separate and apart from some conservatives' 'fronting' about abortion!
Yeah, you don't understand it but that's okay. Most atheists don't either but usually rationalize that they do.
The really interesting thing about pro choice people is how many of them are against the death penalty.
They would have a proven POS like Dahmer live and feel justified with an innocent baby dying.
It's a fascinating rationalization really ...
Let's be clear: this "baby" you are referring to, getting all emotional about, and insisting we all get emotional over, is not properly in this world as we know it yet. It's called, crossing the "threshold" into viability. To demonstrate I understand your point of view: Yes! A conceived child barring any problems will proceed to develop into a baby birthed, and entering an encompassing world of rule of law.
See? I, we, do understand the order of nature.
However, there are 'crushing' considerations which come into play to halt a future 'mother' from wanting to continue this process. That is, the issue, the right, and the privilege pro-lifers which to deny a girl or woman 'clarity' and respect in regards.
In conclusion, the girl or woman is AWARE and MADE MORE AWARE of the action she is about to take; she takes it anyway. Why? Consider fixing the reasons why!
Instead of just saying to any girl or woman have the child or children anyway; try considering what is wrong with our world and her unique situation that causes her pause or wonder for her fitness to bear and raise up another human being.
Let's be very crystal clear. You can make that rationalization all you want. It doesn't make it so. Opinions on this vary greatly.
Excuse me, but what use is an opinion that accounts for nothing of the facts and problems involved in this? Just stubbornly holding to "it's my opinion" to pontificate or judge that fetus planned in "Dorothy's womb" as someone we can use in the real world and Dorothy, our imaginary female, belies some conservatives' feelings about doing much of any damn things out of their 'routine' once a fetus "rushes in" as an actual living and breathing "baby"!
You wish to force a girl or woman to 'parent.' A title better 'earned' and mentally prepared for, than foisted upon an unwilling girl or woman!
And so let's get down to the "nitty-gritty": What happens when the girl or woman compelled to give birth is not emotionally attached to the child/children? What happens if she abandons the child/chidren? What shall be 'ordered' if she abuses, misuses, or bashes in the head or heads of that child/ren she was not prepared to raise?
What then? Will some conservatives punish her or themselves?
"I" don't wish anything, on anyone. My position on abortion here has always been crystal clear.
Up to a point I think abortion is a necessary evil, even required in some instances but feel that it is an abhorrent practice in all but the absolutely necessary cases.
I leave the purely emotional component of this debate to the pro choicers.
Again, your opinion re:abhorrence is a state for your feelings. Because the fact is, you have nothing to abort nor a container to house anything for one or nine months! So why take a strong stance? Why can't you be persuaded to let girls and women decide this (in or out of their favor)? Temper your judgement. Indulge empathy.
It is decidedly and uniquely the purview of girls and women to "offer eggs" and womb the same. In so much as a girl or woman can't manage a full-on "hard-on" or have an urgent need for help to rush blood into their erections- a man's prerogative-let females decide to accept or reject those "threshold" moments should they arrive in their lives. Without facing your disappointment.
Incidentally, men of a certain age, have the sport of their erection creams and individual ranges. A woman with a good reputation is not given any indulgence of walking away from the child she once birthed and introduced to the world. Inseparably linked for all time. Well, with men that is many times (for whatever reason) not the case.
You can't persuade men to be fathers 'for life' or 'nailed down' to only one woman can you? Of course not. It's that 'frontier' freedom, liberty, and selfishness that some conservatives grant themselves (but lift from liberals).
Yawn .....
Yeah, I know. Fold instead of leaning into it.
Lol ... whatever helps get you through the night .....
Why can't you be persuaded to let girls and women decide this (in or out of their favor)? Temper your judgement. Indulge empathy.
I don't need to be persuaded of anything. I've been clear here on NT that it is none of my business. That doesn't change my opinion on what i think of abortion in general.
I for one find it interesting that many of the same people who are so against putting down a POS like Dahmer , are so unquestioningly pro choice.
Well, let me be clear: I am not for abortion. I am pro-choice (in favor of the girl or woman involved). That is, I do not wish for the death of any fetus through a willful act of a possible 'mother,' but I do realize and accept that there are scores of dynamics involved which have nothing to do with me as a male and personally.
I am not against the death penalty appropriately applied to the worse people in this country. I do take exception to disputed cases of which I have no way of "vetting" for accuracy apart from the system.
The death penalty in felonious (no redeemable value) cases and aborting a fetus, while both involve taking a life, do not begin and end in the same place and time. Note its nuance (as courts have realized and explained comprehensively to all of us).
Dahmer was an extraordinary POS and a CITIZEN of this country. This qualified him POS that he was to be 'argued' for life imprisonment over or versus the death penalty (by those parties involved in the debate).
I have a question: Who in here is trying to sell the room on [A] fetus being a citizen of the United States?
Certainly not the fetus because the fetus has no one but the mother to defend it and an entire movement that has the temerity to rationalize that the fetus is something less than human.
A skin bag of meaningless goo ..... it’s ghoulish .....
Probably those who want to remove a woman's established right to choose.
"Ghoulish" - connoting a feeling as well as the literal obsession with fixating girls and women on so-called, "pro-lifers" concepts and worldview.
Sparty On at @6.1.11 you wrote this: "I leave the purely emotional component of this debate to the pro choicers." Yet, when the 'chips are down' and you can't elicit a reaction sought after, you resort to. . . emotion. Don't be hypocritical (again). Stay with the facts.
FACT:
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Constitutional law. Obviously, the word, "born" here in context connotes "able to survive outside the womb."
Sparty On, if you want courts to redefine the word, "born" to mean "at conception" [A]re you prepared to see citizenship rights and privileges granted by a simply act of pregnancy?
Additionally, do you wish to state affirmative the constitution intends to grant full citizenship to fetuses of any woman 'found with child' in our land stand alone?
Such an attitude should mean these pro-lifers hold that any girl or woman conceiving a child-even foreigners-shall have citizenship rights and privileges bestowed on said individual. Moreover, pro-lifers shall affirm such meaning is stated or garnered in the Constitution.
Children born to foreigners on American soil are American citizens by birth according to the Constitution. Of course, there is no way to grant rights to the unborn which wouldn't suspend or revoke the already established rights of women. Basically, they want to grant rights to one group while denying rights to another. Pregnant women would in effect become second class citizens. And pro-lifers do not care.
My comment @6.1.23 follows the train of thinking @6.1.22 Sparty On: "born" to mean "at conception" [A]re you prepared to see citizenship rights and privileges granted by a simple act of pregnancy?
Months before 'delivery.'
This points out a distinction (demarcation) granted by the courts. Whereas, girls and women have a 'zone of privacy' all between themselves and their doctors. Immediately, after 'thresholding' the interest of the state enters in appropriately to protect personhood and individual rights and privileges of what shall be perceived as a soon-to-be complete citizen.
NOTE: If I have misunderstood your comment in any way; let me know, please.
Defend? How are you going to force a woman to defend something she does not want?
I have no doubt some would see it that way. But that doesn't change my statement either. It only changes the timeframe.
timeframe, this is another thing to consider, Time of birth can be recorded accurately. Time of conception can only be approximated
I know it is late Sunday and all, and where are the pro-life staunch conservatives?
Time of conceiving presents some conservatives with a curious dilemma and further illustrates their insincerity at trying to have their cake and eat it too! Because if a foreign visitor or visitors, say couple or multiplicity of couples, furloughs and vacation in "the states" conceive while in country (not give birth (aka: "born")) some conservatives shall oblige to call the issue at that point a person and citizen of the United States. As we have had put on display before in recent past with Chinese women arriving simply to give birth to a child or children while in country; some conservatives were then, and are now, adamantly against such activity/ities. (Treating it as a breach of the intent and spirit of constitutional law.)
Yet, here we are, with some conservatives hiding the truth of their duplicitous thought processes by arguing for the life of a fetus (to be a person) while in the womb.
A good point, could open an unexpected door
another thing is location, might be difficult to prove what jurisdiction conception took place.
Yes. "The open door 'flaps' in the breeze of legal "headache."
I doubt those who want rights for a fetus or to revoke rights of the woman do not consider anything else except ensuring the fetus gets born.
I think they want to create burden for others which in some way will advance their cause
Nope and opinions do vary. Interestingly the US already has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the developed world
I'll leave it there as this conversation has little to no possibility to be productive in any manner at all.
C'mon man! I never said i was going to force anyone do do anything.
They cause a potential burden, then complain about it after the fact.
Nice rationalization.
Explain to me again how anyone but the person getting pregnant, is creating "a burden."
Forcing the pregnant person to remain pregnant and give birth forces a burden on them and possibly others too.
Drill down to base cause. The base cause is the person getting pregnant.
They cause the burden. From start to finish .... whatever that may be.
Pro choicers always try to skip right past that inconvenient truth ....
are you saying it is not a burden for a woman to be pregnant ?
No but in most cases it is a choice.
Not my choice, not your choice, not the governments choice but only the person getting pregnant choice.
So who again causes the burden?
If the pregnant woman is the cause, all the more reason to allow her the chance to unburden herself and possibly others.
so, if a choice caused the problem there should be a choice to remove it.
Pencils have erasers, computers have backspace and delete keys
Exactly. Unfortunately, there are those who want to eliminate that choice.
it is caused by something unwanted forming
it is caused by something unwanted forming
Indeed. And if something is unwanted, why should someone be forced to keep it?
Unwanted things often do not get proper care and may be abused or neglected.
This is true.
________________________________________________
Sparty On, If you choose to 'abort' discussion that's on you. Courts can't afford themselves such luxury. Either redefine the word, "born" to include "conceiving" or leave it as courts are now as "entered into the world."
Decide. Make your call!
Why should all conceived children be born into an UNCARING world simply as a means to increase surplus populations?
There are Wanted and UNwanted children alike 'everywhere' being starved (we see the non-profit charity solicitations pervasively); shot at and shot down; overwhelmingly impoverished; and majorly lacking in societal justice. Can it be that not being born is better than born for its own sake?
Bad example. Pencils and computers don't bring another sentient life into this world.
I could call an apple, an orange but it still doesn't make it one.
Yeah, i don't like it when i get a hangover from drinking to much. So if i don't want a hangover, i just don't drink as much. Fixed.
The best way not to acquire something unwanted is to not engage in the activity that brings it onto you.
You're the "fact" guy, eh? What is all this "touchy-feely" moralizing coming from you?
Prove me wrong. Speak up now!
The returning silence is quite interesting. And, DEAFENING!!!
Nah, not interesting at all if one remembers some sage advice.
Never confuse silence, with agreement.
Never .....
Explain to me How anyone but the person being pregnant has any business in the matter or removing a burden
Answering a question with a question? C'mon charger ......
Answer mine and i'll be happy to answer yours.
Did she get pregnant by herself?
Does somebody want to deprive her of the means to remove the burden?
Lol ...more questions in answer to a question .... classic.
Questions you're dodging. I believe you claimed elsewhere to have great success in science. So tell us, please, do women get pregnant without male participation? My biology classes say they don't.
Also, most people would be able to read the answer that is contained within my question. Someone other than the person getting pregnant is "creating a burden". The man involved.
So says biology.
Lol ..... I'm dodging nothing. You however are projecting, badly. You're showing bad form by answering a question with question.
You know how it works, so one can conclude you are being intentionally evasive with your responses.
Look in the mirror .....
My question answers your question, Sparty. If you're aware of the birds and the bees, that is.
Spin baby spin.
Answer the question directly or take a hike.
Yeah and a pigs ass isn't pork.
You've answered nothing.
Certainly not my question
Well, I can see why you'd want to evade the question. To answer that women who become pregnant are the only ones "creating a burden" reveals either an appalling lack of knowledge of biology, or places the burden of unwanted pregnancy on only one partner present at conception, which is misogynistic.
Acknowledging that men participate would mean backpedaling.
What to do, what to do?
You're so biased on this topic you are incapable of drilling down to the root cause of the burden. You can't answer the question or rather you refuse to answer it because it doesn't support your preferred narrative in any way. Your interruption, projection, deflection and rediirection speaks volumes.
The answer is, the woman IS the root cause of the burden. The root cause pro choicers usually try to look past and blame someone else other than the person getting pregnant. Now for your lesson in the birds and the bees. I'm surprised you missed this part of your sex ed and in the multitudes PP propaganda you must have perused over the years.
If the woman doesn't open her legs she doesn't get pregnant Sure it takes a man and sure the man is responsible as well but he not the root cause. Not if he doesn't force himself on her. The choice is really all hers. All hers.
So you still never answered the question, you just projected and deflected to the man and played the usual misogyny card we see from pro choicers all the time.
SOSDD considering.
So, misogyny it is.
Nope but not an unexpected answer considering the source.
Ah, the expected ad hom.
[deleted]
Sure, sure. All because you couldn't just acknowledge that women don't get pregnant by themselves.
Those were your words.
And yet you also say
So, either a man is contributing, or (according to you), he is somehow both contributing and simultaneously not contributing, because that would be
being
You contradict yourself. And we can all read you contradicting yourself, and throwing in a bit of misogyny while you do.
Bullshit, i never said that so stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Yes they were and like usual, i stand by them
Never said they weren't
Spin baby spin ..... like a whirling dervish
Nope, not even close on any count.
There is only one time that it supposedly happened.
I didn't put words in your mouth. I literally quoted your comments. And they are contradictory. If you don't like having that pointed out, articulate consistent positions.
Not following that one
Bullshit, i never said that the man wasn't responsible as well. Show me where i said that and be specific. [Deleted]
You asked
Is this loaded question somehow an admission that sperm is necessary?
Untrue. Whether or not the male forces himself on a fertile girl or woman - a WILLING exchange of bodily fluids satisfies this root cause of conceiving. Now then, the girl or woman can be the root cause alone (sensibly, legally, but not technically) if she STEALS male seed and imports it into her 'chamber.'
Explain WHY you think a male does not share in the root cause of sex which leads to conception. THE CHOICE IS ALL THEIRS, in this case.
That is stubborn rhetoric masquerading as 'wisdom.' I'm surprised you can not dignify your opinion with elucidation. That you dismiss remarking on conception (the pro-life platform) as a right of the innocent, because it would mean qualifying fetuses as persons valid enough to hold citizenship in our country is a dodge of the worse kind.
Your silence ignores the wisdom of the courts of the past to leave the matter up to girls and women ("the bearers") and their physicians until such time as the 'threshold' has been met. Triggering states' interest!
Don't waddle in it, paddle on it instead!
It smells a lot like. . .Stark Abandonment.
Nah and It's a simple concept for the unbiased to understand.
They understand that the woman has the first and last word in ALL cases when it comes to getting pregnant that are not forced. She has the ultimate responsibility in this regard. Your silly bird and bees rhetoric is hardly helpful to this conversation since the man, unless he forces himself on the woman, has little to NO say in the matter. None if refused by the woman.. As noted several times, pro choicers love to skip right over that reality and blame something or someone else for the convenience of aborting a new life but that changes nothing.
Final say on getting pregnant and/or getting an abortion lays firmly on the womans shoulders.
Period.
" Final say on getting pregnant and/or getting an abortion lays firmly on the womans shoulders.
Period. "
are we in agreement?
Agreement on what, specifically?
each woman gets to decide what to do in her unique situation?
We all do. Every persons situation is unique to that person
You don't need to be cryptic with me charger if that is what you are doing. Unlike other folks here you don't look down your nose at people who simply disagree with you nor do you play moderator games.
I respect your opinion. Spit it out .... what are you trying to get at?
Hey, it's your question that implied that women get themselves pregnant. If you don't want to be called on such silly questions, don't ask them. You can't ask who else has a role in "creating the burden" and simultaneously claim to hold men responsible (while continually calling out women, and men only when prompted) without those contradictory views passing scrutiny.
Also a bit funny that you call out "pro-choicers" as skipping over reality, but also say that final say on abortion lies with the woman - a pro-choice stance. Yet another contradiction.
There you go again, trying to put words in my mouth.
I implied no such thing and any such implication is entirely yours
Nope, the rhetoric, contradictions, deflections and redirects here are all yours.
Own it.
Oh? Asking
is holding men responsible? Please, do tell us how.
Is. Telling
Asked and answered numerous times.
Own it.
thanks
I think a woman should have choice to have an abortion or make the commit to properly raise a child
I also think children should be raised in a home where they are wanted and loved and their parents have the time, ability and resources for the child to grow up happy, healthy and successful
Not everybody should have a child, dog or gun
No, not really. You have yet to admit that there are two people, one of them male, "creating a burden".
Impasse
[deleted]
Nerm, these states with abortion bans being 'booked,' are these bans de facto outlawing abortion?
How do states passing total bans on abortion planning to enforce bans against girls and women who do not comply but instead make attempts and uses of other forms of self-aborting techniques and methods?
If they do not die from the back alley abortion then they would have to be prosecuted and imprisoned...
Point of clarification: Under what law-making authority? (The sovereign government shall not stand by as girls and women are being prosecuted, jailed, or imprisoned by states.)
When this covid thing is finally over; maybe, some of the research resources can be put to work on improving birth control
To 'close out' this topic for me (since I need to drop this into somebody's spirit for this new year):
Men, women, boys, and girls you have no right or place to INSIST that other girls and women grant your indulgence of more babies. Only to grow up to swaddle in misery and death from humanity's failures to cope with what life demands of us.