Moiraine Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) @B.B. Hemingway, I'ma reply even though you said you're done talking about it The pro-choice argument that this is a women's rights issue and about the Right wanting to tell women what to do with their bodies is just as bad of an argument to me as the baby murdering argument of the pro-life side. The reason it's a bad argument to me is the pro-choice people are ignoring the fact that pro-life people think the fetus is a human. Because pro-lifers think the fetus is a human, it's not a women's rights issue at all. The woman is making a decision for 2 people. Even 3, since the man should at least be part of the decision if nothing untoward happened. It has almost nothing to do with the man/woman and everything to do with the human that's going to be born. A baby potentially getting killed supersedes anything else. What I want is for the pro-life side to get a lot better at arguing this. If we care that much about these babies being murdered, then we should try to reduce the amount of abortions as much as possible. One way to do that is trying to get the people who are pro-choice in all cases to be pro-choice in less cases (e.g. rape, mother's health). Some other ways have been mentioned by other people in this topic. Sex education (scoff if you want - it's been proven to work), advocating birth control (not celibacy like my fellow Christians like to do - obviously pre-marital sex with a condom is preferable to abortion), etc. The way NOT to do it is run around calling people baby-murderers. Edited February 25, 2018 by Moiraine 1 Link to comment
The Dude Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 I think it should be legal, but taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. Link to comment
TheSker Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Dude said: I think it should be legal, but taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. Government attachment to social causes is a slippery slope. My preference would be government grants and funding not be available to non profit organizations. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, TheSker said: Government attachment to social causes is a slippery slope. My preference would be government grants and funding not be available to non profit organizations. Why? Asking in general, not specific to abortion. I think UNL is a non profit, and I'm fairly certain it would cease to exist without government grants and funding. Edited February 25, 2018 by Moiraine Link to comment
TheSker Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, Moiraine said: Why? Asking in general, not specific to abortion. I think UNL is a non profit, and I'm fairly certain it would cease to exist without government grants and funding. Universities are by and large state institutions and yes, have non profit status. There is also federal grant money in different forms....research grants and Pell grants for example. The "why?" comes from my nearly 10 years spent in fundraising. I like seeing private dollars in action for causes people are passionate about. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 16 minutes ago, TheSker said: Universities are by and large state institutions and yes, have non profit status. There is also federal grant money in different forms....research grants and Pell grants for example. The "why?" comes from my nearly 10 years spent in fundraising. I like seeing private dollars in action for causes people are passionate about. Do you think UNL shouldn't get federal grant money? And, what if there is something extremely important for the survival of humans, but doesn't make a lot of money for anyone? That's where the government needs to be involved, imo. Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) The desire to control a woman’s body is what makes a monster. Right to choose, full stop. And often there are cases where it’s medical necessity — this is also a healthcare issue. And there’s so much here, as many people have mentioned, that we can work together on policy to make better. We all want fewer abortions. People who choose or have to get abortions would rather have avoided the situation in the first place. The gray areas and the corner cases of this issue should not be dominating discussion and nor should it be guiding policy. If you’d never choose an abortion under any circumstance unless you had to, great. More power to you! Edited February 25, 2018 by zoogs Link to comment
HuskermanMike Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) I believe every person should have the right to life, liberty, and property. Every human in America has that right, abortion takes away the babies life to any of those. All for women's rights?* What about Native American rights, they could literally be extinct because the US government wanted to rid of them. And killing them back in the day was like not killing a person. Same as a tiny baby child in the womb today. At 8 weeks an unborn baby in the womb can feel pain, actual pain not emotional pain. They can feel physical pain. My last thing on this is that if you see what happens in an abortion you would be opposed to it. *I am not taking anything away from women, I am not trying to control them. 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. Also, many women in this country are pro-life and pro-women. Edited February 25, 2018 by HuskermanMike Link to comment
Making Chimichangas Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 @HuskermanMike, I agree that it is possible to be pro-life AND pro-woman (meaning not viewing women as objects or "toys" whose sole purpose is serving and being obedient to men). I also agree with @Landlord that everyone wants less abortions and no sane person thinks killing children is okay. Abortion is an ugly procedure that can have terrible side effects for a woman including scarring of the uterine wall, heavy and persistent vaginal bleeding, damage to the cervix, etc. These side effects can make it more difficult to get pregnant in the future. But again, as ugly of a procedure as abortion is, it needs to remain a (relatively) safe and viable option. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, HuskermanMike said: I believe every person should have the right to life, liberty, and property. Every human in America has that right, abortion takes away the babies life to any of those. All for women's rights?* What about Native American rights, they could literally be extinct because the US government wanted to rid of them. And killing them back in the day was like not killing a person. Same as a tiny baby child in the womb today. At 8 weeks an unborn baby in the womb can feel pain, actual pain not emotional pain. They can feel physical pain. My last thing on this is that if you see what happens in an abortion you would be opposed to it. *I am not taking anything away from women, I am not trying to control them. 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. Also, many women in this country are pro-life and pro-women. Who is playing the victim to get their way on this issue? Comparing a woman's right to choose what to do with her body (or something in her body) is far different than what was done to the native americans who lived here when the government took over. I see what you're trying to do here, but it's not a comparison at all. And, how was killing them not like "killing a real person"? What would be a more fair comparison would be if the government was able to demand or disallow vascectomies. Or if the government had to weigh in before you were able to have a tumor removed that was cancerous. Many of us are well aware of what happens in a pregnancy termination. My educated opinion does not change with the details. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said: @HuskermanMike, I agree that it is possible to be pro-life AND pro-woman (meaning not viewing women as objects or "toys" whose sole purpose is serving and being obedient to men). I also agree with @Landlord that everyone wants less abortions and no sane person thinks killing children is okay. Abortion is an ugly procedure that can have terrible side effects for a woman including scarring of the uterine wall, heavy and persistent vaginal bleeding, damage to the cervix, etc. These side effects can make it more difficult to get pregnant in the future. But again, as ugly of a procedure as abortion is, it needs to remain a (relatively) safe and viable option. Feel like I need to clarify here. An early term surgical abortion has the same risk of complications as a miscarriage. And medical terminations (i.e. the day after pill) have lower risk than taking antibiotics, or viagra. Many stats show that early term pregnancy terminations are safer/have less risk than a full term pregnancy. And yes, we need to keep them this safe and viable. We also need to continue to educate and assist with birth control to continue the downward trend of elective terminations. Edited February 25, 2018 by NM11046 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 3 hours ago, The Dude said: I think it should be legal, but taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. Totally. So like it is now. No federal funds or taxpayer money goes toward them now. Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 3 hours ago, zoogs said: The desire to control a woman’s body is what makes a monster. The desire to save lives thrown away is entirely commendable. Link to comment
Big Red 40 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Looking at the poll question I saw the “ by request for any reason “ option and thought it meant totally legal . If it was legal to kill a 9 month old fetus I think that would definitely make us monsters yeah . Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) No. It is formed of the patronizing conviction that society can define for women what is a good and what is a “wasteful” use of her life, and results in the dominion over not only her body and will during her pregnancy but also over the course of the entire rest of her life. Most people are happy to become parents, and that’s great. Pregnancy and parenthood should always be by consent, not by the systematic deprivation of agency. Edited February 25, 2018 by zoogs Link to comment
Recommended Posts