Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Good points. A group that wants to save babies and eliminate abortions should logically be in favor of birth control, better healthcare access for women and children, and improved sex education. I know some are, but the politics definitely are not.

 

 

Part of why I'm not a Republican, even though I'm pro life.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Moiraine

[Big Red 40]

19 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The limitation would make it illegal... that's kinda what the discussion is about. Some people are okay with abortion being legal under certain circumstances, which implies they would prefer if it was illegal under the other circumstances.

But I've already said in the previous post I wasn't talking about abortion when I mentioned murder. I was giving a real life scenario where there are different scenarios that are acceptable or have different consequences. Not all abortion is the same. If a woman was given no choice in the matter and became pregnant, I view that as a lot different than consensual sex.

Ok, I realize there may need to be exceptions to the rules,  for extreme situations outside that 28 week legal zone. Got it . 

Do you support limiting a woman’s choice before that point though? Is it ok for us to decide that woman “A” got raped so she can have a legal procedure,  but woman “B” doesn’t have a good enough reason so we’re going to say she can’t ? Some people seem to think we need to do that,  and I don’t. 

[Moiraine]

16 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

Ok, I realize there may need to be exceptions to the rules,  for extreme situations outside that 28 week legal zone. Got it . 

Do you support limiting a woman’s choice before that point though? Is it ok for us to decide that woman “A” got raped so she can have a legal procedure,  but woman “B” doesn’t have a good enough reason so we’re going to say she can’t ? Some people seem to think we need to do that,  and I don’t. 

 

 

I actually don't have a strong opinion on it. I don't know if my opinion is right, and it's not up there in importance for me. I think it's wrong to have an abortion other than with some exceptions, but I know women are going to have them illegally if the law is changed and I know there are other ways to reduce that number. Also, my best friend had one and it wasn't due to any of those exceptions, and she's still my best friend. I'm kind of a God can judge people, it's not my job type of person.

Also, I don't like the types of people who would be the ones to implement a change. I think most people on the pro-life/GOP side can't be trusted to make any kind of decision about it. (When I say those "types of people" I don't mean all Republicans but the Republican leadership).

Edited February 28, 2018 by Moiraine

[zoogs]

I’m among those who strongly disagree that we can decide what are legitimate reasons and what are not. We’d get into the territory of women having to prove they were legitimately raped, for example, and that isn’t nearly as clear cut as it might seem. And it’s selectively punitive of the decision to have sex, in general. If you aren’t trying to conceive, you’re not consenting to a pregnancy, at least, this mindset should not be mandatory.

 

This is among the reasons anti-abortion dovetails so nicely with strict, moralizing, and regressive attitudes towards sex. There is a deep, deep undecurrent of suspicion that the women who choose to get abortions are careless, frivolous, slutty women who deserve moral condemnation and eternal shame.

 

 

[TheSker]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Good points. A group that wants to save babies and eliminate abortions should logically be in favor of birth control, better healthcare access for women and children, and improved sex education. I know some are, but the politics definitely are not.

A lot of people want a lot of things and a lot of services.

 

.....just all too frequently on someone else's dime.

[NM11046]

Oh boy ....

[RedDenver]

12 hours ago, TheSker said:

A lot of people want a lot of things and a lot of services.

 

.....just all too frequently on someone else's dime.

Or perhaps if we mostly agree on something, we can spend our dimes collectively.

[HuskermanMike]

On 2/25/2018 at 6:15 PM, NM11046 said:

So let me challenge you a bit on this Mike ... if a woman is allowed to do anything to her body as long as she "doesn't misuse it with a child inside":

• What should I be eating when I'm pregnant?  Can't my decisions harm a child?
• How many hours of sleep should I be required to get when I'm pregnant?
• Why stop at while a woman is carrying a child - after she has it she should stay healthy to care for it right?  If you're saying that my responsibility is to house a child and do whatever I can to make it healthy does it end at birth?  How will the government monitor how I take care of myself so that I can properly care for a baby?  
• I don't want to wear a seatbelt when I'm pregnant - it hurts.  Are the charges/different different because I'm pregnant?
• What exercise should I do at the gym?  I didn't exercise before I got pregnant, is it a requirement to do so now?
• People say babies can hear through the womb - what tv/radio/music am I not allowed to listen to while pregnant?

 

None of the above are issues that anyone other than the mother and her family and physician should be involved in (many have opinions on what is wrong or right, but no control over what anybody does).  And yet they are all potentially "misuse of my body with a child inside."  You certainly have every right to be involved in a decision involving your significant other and your pregnancies.  I respect your right to apply your opinion to any action you and your partner make.  But you do not have a right to be involved in mine.  That's a discussion for my partner and my physican and me.  NObody else.  

 

Can you see when reading back through your comments how they come across?  

 

"The women can do whatever with her body, so long as she does not misuse it with a child inside."  

"I am not taking anything away from women, I am not trying to control them."  (conflicts a bit with the comment above doesn't it?)

"I respect them and care for them and treat them like they are my daughter."

"They have a voice in this country, which is a great thing. But, I think they are wrong that they can control people with the my body my choice argument on abortion or play the victim to get their way on THIS issue." 

 

You say that you respect women, you're glad they have a voice in the US (? which I have some questions about but that's for another thread) but that on this issue, which effects them to a degree that you will never comprehend they should not have a voice or the respect of the men in this country that make the laws.  And if they speak up to what they think and feel about it, they are "playing the victim" to get their way.

What I meant for misuse is to smoke, take drugs, etc to potentially harm the child inside the womb. It would be like well, I have a person in my house that I don't like, so I can tie them up and make them suffer because they are in my house. My house my choice, you can't tell me what to do in my house,  I do what I want because it's my house, not yours. That is essentially the argument for my body my choice. Let me do something morally wrong and get away with it.

 

I agree the government does not need to know what goes on, but that doesn't mean the murder of an innocent child is okay because it is in private. Just like human trafficking is not okay and it is done in secret. Abortion also should not be allowed because of its prevention of a person right to life. I do not mean to refer playing the victim to you specifically, others I have talked to on this issue is where this comes from. When they say, well I am a woman so do not tell me what to do, that in my opinion is playing the victim. Yes, it is their body, but again are we going to ignore the innocent child inside like it is some mere object?

 

I will have some more info later as I will again be away,  but by the morning I should have a reply if I have time.

This is a good discussion to have, I need to see where the other side comes from and challenge that, so sorry my responses are late. 

[NM11046]

Interesting report out today on this topic by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine.   One thing that they touch upon that we've discussed here before, 

Quote

about 90 percent of all abortions happen in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. And complications for all abortions are "rare," the report says.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

Interesting report out today on this topic by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine.   One thing that they touch upon that we've discussed here before, 

 

 

 

This was an interesting read. Thanks!
 

As usual, something that is backed by science (in this case, a medical procedure) is based on evidence and very carefully administered. It's found to be safe. Then ideology gets infused into it, and the outcomes just get worse. 

If we just followed the science free of partisan ideology, things would work better a lot of the time. I'm glad a giant wave of scientists are finally deciding to run for office. Hopefully they win.

[Landlord]

On 2/26/2018 at 7:26 PM, 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.

 

That is absolutely the intention. And it is absolutely argued as being just and necessary. No dancing around. Because, per the perspective that there is a living human person inside of another, not only is that person granted zero autonomy in whether they live or die, that person also isn't responsible for the pregnancy of themselves, and shouldn't be the party that suffers for it. Not only that, what happens when a boyfriend/husband objects to their partner getting an abortion, but it's done anyways? The child in that woman's womb is half that person's. What about if a 13 year old gets pregnant in a state that allows parents to make the decision - the 13 year old wants to keep the baby, the parents decide to abort. Just, or no?

 

There are all kinds of scenarios where people's autonomy is justifiably and necessarily limited in life, with good cause. The dancing around is on your end, where you paint that desire as automatically and inherently insidious, regressive, and anti-woman.

 

 

 

 

On 2/27/2018 at 2:40 PM, zoogs said:

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.

 

Yeah, because that perspective is informed by the belief that the alternative is murdering a human being. Talking with you about this is like when people respond to #BlackLivesMatter with, "Oh yeah, well #AllLivesMater".

 

"The unborn's lives matter!"

"No, women's lives matter!"

 

"Right...exactly, right...i'm not disputing that? But unborn babies need to start to matter more because they don't in our current cultural zietgeist."

 

"So you want to control women?"

 

"N-no...I'm trying to point out that the unborn do not matter enough to us."

 

 

 

On 2/27/2018 at 5:19 PM, zoogs said:

There are, fair enough, complex and maybe philosophical questions surrounding this debate. But why do the bad outcomes named above occur? Whose direct advocacy is responsible for these effects? Where do those people want to go? There is a simple answer here. It is no mystery.

 

The biggest reason would be because of conservative/republican powers halting helpful steps like contraceptive access, good healthcare, sex education, and so on.

 

But another contributing factor is 'the opposition' painting them as unreasonable, backwards idiots with archaic and oppressive ideas and making them dig their heels in even further.

 

 

 

On 2/27/2018 at 7:22 PM, zoogs said:

I’m among those who strongly disagree that we can decide what are legitimate reasons and what are not. We’d get into the territory of women having to prove they were legitimately raped, for example, and that isn’t nearly as clear cut as it might seem. And it’s selectively punitive of the decision to have sex, in general. If you aren’t trying to conceive, you’re not consenting to a pregnancy, at least, this mindset should not be mandatory.

 

Legally I completely agree with this. 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Landlord

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

They are completely different. 

 

With an abortion, the death is not of natural causes and the death is produced on purpose and an industry begins it that financially benefits from it. 

 

A death from someone older has none of that. Most would be dead from natural causes. The only thing similar would be if someone died from capital punishment. 

 

The only reason to equate the two the two is to fit into an agenda. 

Response from this post: 

 

As I've said multiple times, I'm opposed to medical research that's not independent of the death that allows for the research, including profit motives that would directly or indirectly result in more deaths.

 

Medical research on aborted fetuses (or aborted babies if you prefer) isn't any different than any other medical research on a dead body. Unless you're also against medical research on all bodies as a result of non-natural causes, but that's a different issue that doesn't have to do with abortion.

 

The only reason to think abortions are different than other deaths is to fit an agenda.

 

[Big Red 40]

Set a federal point of fetus viability so you take the “murder” aspect out of it  and let the women choose  if they want to deal with the moral /religious ramifications of their choice . Banning abortions doesn’t stop them it only makes a safe medical procedure unavailable and forces women to other even worse alternatives . I’m Firmly against forcing my religious or moral choices on anyone else . 

[Oade]

Here's one result of taking the word "murder" out of it. Man I hope this un-person gets an appropriate funeral or memorial service.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43273/man-charged-killing-pregnant-woman-wont-be-charged-ashe-schow

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Oade said:

Here's one result of taking the word "murder" out of it. Man I hope this un-person gets an appropriate funeral or memorial service.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43273/man-charged-killing-pregnant-woman-wont-be-charged-ashe-schow

First, the only thing that got dropped was the "abortion" charge, not any murder charge. But it still doesn't make any sense as the law still requires a legal practitioner to perform the abortion and that the abortion can only be done to protect a patient's life or health. So this is still against the law in NY. Not to mention the guy is still being charged with murder of the woman.