Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

You don't have to look far to find liberals that have trouble acknowledging what makes a man a man, and vice versa.

 

I don't have to look far to find liberals who like busty ladies, red meat and Nebraska football, either. 

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I don't have to look far to find liberals who like busty ladieswell well hung men, red meat and Nebraska football, either. 

FIFY.

Edited February 26, 2018 by NM11046

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

FIFY.

 

But....do you like big butts (and you can't lie)

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry.....had to. 

[NM11046]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

 

But....do you like big butts (and you can't lie)

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry.....had to. 

OMG - Did you see my comment in the "Unpopular Opinion" thread?  If not, you and I BRB, are starting to think too similarly.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, NM11046 said:

OMG - Did you see my comment in the "Unpopular Opinion" thread?  If not, you and I BRB, are starting to think too similarly.

 

That's why I....had to.

 

Well played my fair lady.

Edited February 26, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[Big Red 40]

13 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

FIFY.

 

I don't have to look far to find liberals who like busty ladieswell well hung men, red meat and Nebraska football, 

Lol 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Big Red 40

[zoogs]

There's an absurd amount of dancing around the basic desire to declare that a certain kind of autonomy must not be allowed to women when they get pregnant.

 

The intention is to reduce autonomy. You may argue it's just. You may argue it's necessary. You may defend your policy advocacy on these grounds. You may not argue that you're all for women's rights and freedoms and not for restricting them.

 

Further, it's patently ludicrous to suggest that firmly pro-choice stances are part of the reason why "nothing" gets done. This only makes sense if the requirement for something being done is movement in the restrictive direction. Additionally, all the relatively agreeable middle ground -- expanding access to healthcare, birth control, better and proper sex ed, and so on -- these things are not in the slightest being stopped or impeded by the pro-choice movement. They are in fact being fought to the fullest extent possible by the other side. The one with the supposedly so defensible motivations.

Edited February 27, 2018 by zoogs

[Big Red 40]

5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Again, no one is arguing whether the fetus is alive. In fact the cells that created the fetus were also alive before conception. The measurement in question is when is that life a person.

 

I know it's sort of a semantic detail, but I think the words we use here are important.

The most important question in the whole debate to me . Here’s an interesting chart of laws by state . 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

my opinion is that most of those are far to long and I would favor cutting them down to 10 weeks or less,  but I think, since it is legal,  lines need to be drawn. 

I don’t like the legislating morality parts of this debate myself. To me If it’s legal , it’s legal no matter the circumstances . Trying to tell one woman she can have a legal procedure due to rape, incest, poverty or whatever,  and another woman can’t because we don’t like her reason  is wrong. 

Providing counseling, education , physical and mental support, through the entire process,  on request,  is a good idea but shouldn’t be forced either 

[Guy Chamberlin]

19 hours ago, NM11046 said:

FIFY.

 

My hands are a perfectly normal size!

[Moiraine]

20 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

well hung men, red meat

 

 

redundant

[RedDenver]

18 hours ago, zoogs said:

There's an absurd amount of dancing around the basic desire to declare that a certain kind of autonomy must not be allowed to women when they get pregnant.

 

The intention is to reduce autonomy.

These are hyperbolic statements meant to strawman the opposing side's argument. It's entirely possible (and logical) that people can weigh the rights in a given situation and concluded that full autonomy for one side is not always the best outcome.

[Moiraine]

19 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

The most important question in the whole debate to me . Here’s an interesting chart of laws by state . 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

my opinion is that most of those are far to long and I would favor cutting them down to 10 weeks or less,  but I think, since it is legal,  lines need to be drawn. 

I don’t like the legislating morality parts of this debate myself. To me If it’s legal , it’s legal no matter the circumstances . Trying to tell one woman she can have a legal procedure due to rape, incest, poverty or whatever,  and another woman can’t because we don’t like her reason  is wrong. 

Providing counseling, education , physical and mental support, through the entire process,  on request,  is a good idea but shouldn’t be forced either 

 

 

 

Not sure I agree on your argument here.

 

To give an example, there are different consequences for the why and how you murder someone. If it was in defense there may be no jail time at all. If it wasn't pre-meditated it's not as bad. People are killed accidentally. There are different degrees.

 

I think any woman should be allowed to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy if her life is in danger. I don't at all feel that way if the reason for abortion is she can't afford to raise a child.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Moiraine

[zoogs]

There is no hyperbole there. We're even saying the same thing.

 

One perspective is that there is only the woman's autonomy to consider and that it must be left alone. The other's is precisely that sometimes, this autonomy must be proscribed. Not rendered "partial". Removed in its entirety. It can be argued that this restriction is just, logical, or reasonable, but it is what it is.

[Moiraine]

19 hours ago, zoogs said:

There's an absurd amount of dancing around the basic desire to declare that a certain kind of autonomy must not be allowed to women when they get pregnant.

 

The intention is to reduce autonomy. You may argue it's just. You may argue it's necessary. You may defend your policy advocacy on these grounds. You may not argue that you're all for women's rights and freedoms and not for restricting them.

 

Further, it's patently ludicrous to suggest that firmly pro-choice stances are part of the reason why "nothing" gets done. This only makes sense if the requirement for something being done is movement in the restrictive direction. Additionally, all the relatively agreeable middle ground -- expanding access to healthcare, birth control, better and proper sex ed, and so on -- these things are not in the slightest being stopped or impeded by the pro-choice movement. They are in fact being fought to the fullest extent possible by the other side. The one with the supposedly so defensible motivations.

 

 

 

You're being willfully obtuse here.

 

To someone who thinks there's a human in the womb, abortion is murdering a defenseless person and taking away their right to live. It's not just the woman involved. She's making a decision for another person.

 

Both sides have incredibly stupid arguments, that the other side is being a bunch of monsters, that they go around in circles with. 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Moiraine

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

To someone who thinks there's a human in the womb, abortion is murdering a defenseless person and taking away their right to live. It's not just the woman involved. She's making a decision for another person.

 

The more you understand the pro- & anti-abortion arguments the difficulter the conversation should become. It's when you don't know anything other than one side of the abortion debate that this seems like an easy question.