Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[B.B. Hemingway]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Here's the rub. Every cell of your body is "an innocent life" (and human life at that). Every plant or animal is also "life". There's no debate that the fetus is a life, and I doubt there's any debate that's it's also "innocent".

 

However, that's not the debate at all, or we'd all starve because we wouldn't be able to take a life. The debate is whether it's a "person". Most pro-life people I know consider conception to be the moment when the cells somehow become a person. But that doesn't seem any different than when any other cells in the human body reproduce. For me at least, the ability to think is what makes us people, so before there are brain waves, I don't consider an abortion any different than having a gall badder, appendix, or fat removed.

 

The fact you consider that bunch of cells a person doesn't give your argument any more weight when debating with people that don't.

 

Many abortions are performed long after the fetus has grown into more than a group of cells. They're performed when they have a heartbeat, even when their sex is identifiable. 

I've always respected your opinions in this forum, but there are better arguments for pro-choice than "Well, we eat plants".

[zoogs]

15 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

You keep trying to turn the pro-life movement into an indictment on women and their ability to make a decision. It's a savvy political move, but it's also bulls#!t. It has much less ( not at all) to do with women and their decision making, and everything to do with saving an innocent life that, as of right now, has no say in whether they live or die. More times than not (by some margin) you get pregnant because of a decision that YOU (man and woman) made. With decisions come responsibility.

 

It's interesting that you speak to the possible inconvenience a child may bring to a woman for the rest of her life, and how she should be able to avoid that inconvenience at all cost, even if she's already conceived. So, I'd assume that you're in support of a father who chooses not to be a father, even if the woman chooses to have the child? Didn't think so. The father is inconvenienced, at the mother's will.... And in no way am I advocating for dead beat father's,just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy here, that you'll no doubt explain away, or completely ignore.

 

In more detail: 

- anti-choice has everything to do with women and their decision-making. In particular, it's about removing it. This is not difficult to see, and we should all be honest about what we're trying to accomplish.

- having sex is not a decision to become pregnant. I suspect we simply don't share the same moralistic view of recreational sex.

- not all people have the knowledge, or the resources, to use effective means of avoiding pregnancy. I suspect (or hope) we have the same views on improving this situation with the use of efforts both private and especially public. 

- even on top of that, there are a million different reasons a pregnancy can happen anyway. you, nor I, are in the shoes of the women placed in each of those situations. If we were, we may choose differently. We may consider it not even a choice. But I believe it's not for us to say, for them.

- given this, it is to me wholly monstrous to say what is in effect "since you conceived, you've brought this on yourself, unless you were raped."

 

I've already taken exception to the minimizing language often used in this debate to describe the woman's situation. A pregnancy is no mere inconvenience, it's enormous, life-changing, and risky. What galls me most about this language is the way it casually casts aspersions on the woman's motivations, in a way that I don't think is necessarily conscious to the people who use it. How could she, this vile witch, treat such a precious thing as a potential life as just a bother? How dare she not, for the sake of society at least, shoulder the minor burden and just go through with it? 

 

To this:  "So, I'd assume that you're in support of a father who chooses not to be a father, even if the woman chooses to have the child?"

 

If you mean a man who chooses not to be around as the father, then of course. That's not something that ought to be forbidden by law, nor is it even up for discussion. If you mean a father being able to compel a woman to go through with an abortion, then the answer is, obviously, no -- because it's not his body. The contours of this debate might be very, very different if all babies were incubated in external machines, but this is not the case. 

[TheSker]

23 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

You keep trying to turn the pro-life movement into an indictment on women and their ability to make a decision. It's a savvy political move, but it's also bulls#!t. It has much less ( not at all) to do with women and their decision making, and everything to do with saving an innocent life that, as of right now, has no say in whether they live or die. More times than not (by some margin) you get pregnant because of a decision that YOU (man and woman) made. With decisions come responsibility.

 

It's interesting that you speak to the possible inconvenience a child may bring to a woman for the rest of her life, and how she should be able to avoid that inconvenience at all cost, even if she's already conceived. So, I'd assume that you're in support of a father who chooses not to be a father, even if the woman chooses to have the child? Didn't think so. The father is inconvenienced, at the mother's will.... And in no way am I advocating for dead beat father's,just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy here, that you'll no doubt explain away, or completely ignore.

Valid points BB....And here's where the rubber meets the road.  While debates continue (as they always will) about legislating moral issues, I think the economic moves are going to be what gets most attention at election time.

 

The tax cuts, while perhaps not extremely significant, are making a short term difference....which is what they were designed to do.  And the hope is the deregulatory moves along with an increase in import tariffs will make it more desirable to be producers in this country.

 

So let the morality debates continue.....

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Many abortions are performed long after the fetus has grown into more than a group of cells. They're performed when they have a heartbeat, even when their sex is identifiable. 

I've always respected your opinions in this forum, but there are better arguments for pro-choice than "Well, we eat plants".

"Well, we eat plants" is obviously not the point of what I was saying. My point is that we kill lots of things that are alive, so the fetus being alive is a terribly weak argument. I even gave my own very specific moment of brain waves as when I'd put the demarcation of becoming a person. Being a group of cells, having a heartbeat, or an identifiable sex aren't persuasive to me.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

having a heartbeat, or an identifiable sex aren't persuasive to me.

 

A barbaric statement, in my opinion.

[RedDenver]

12 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

A barbaric statement, in my opinion.

Having a heartbeat and an identifiable sex don't persuade me to think dogs or cows are people.

 

Like I said before, the rub in all of this is where the fetus becomes a person. It's not easily defined in a way that's convincing for everyone.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

- anti-choice has everything to do with women and their decision-making. In particular, it's about removing it. This is not difficult to see, and we should all be honest about what we're trying to accomplish.

What you are not getting is that you and the Democrats have successfully used this argument against pro-life politics.....but, it's misleading.

 

What you are implying is that people sit around and think...."hmmm....how can we reduce women's right to choose what they do with their bodies?  We have got to figure out how to restrict women more".

 

When in reality, that is not the case.  The motivation behind a pro-life stance is NOT to restrict women's rights.  The motivation is to save what people believe on that side believe to be a live baby.

 

There is a huge difference between these two.  Just like how pro-life people scream "murder" about abortion to keep people on their plantation, this "There motive is to restrict women's rights" is how the other side keeps people on the plantation.

 

The problem is, both statements restricts actually solving the problem.....which.....is the true motive of many in politics.

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

It's interesting that you speak to the possible inconvenience a child may bring to a woman for the rest of her life, and how she should be able to avoid that inconvenience at all cost, even if she's already conceived. So, I'd assume that you're in support of a father who chooses not to be a father, even if the woman chooses to have the child? Didn't think so. The father is inconvenienced, at the mother's will.... And in no way am I advocating for dead beat father's,just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy here, that you'll no doubt explain away, or completely ignore.

 

A pretty interesting take, but it still goes back to the biological difference between men and women, the profoundly different roles child-bearers face in our society, and the suspicion that abortion would be much less debated if men's lives were restricted by pregnancy and they were given no choice in the matter.  

[zoogs]

Motivations are defined by outcomes. “But that’s not really the intent” is a completely inadequate response to the actual restrictions that are imposed, through every possible avenue, as sought by the movement. 

 

This isn’t “screaming.” It’s calling it what it is. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

14 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

A pretty interesting take, but it still goes back to the biological difference between men and women, the profoundly different roles child-bearers face in our society, and the suspicion that abortion would be much less debated if men's lives were restricted by pregnancy and they were given no choice in the matter.  

 

 

I would agree with you, but I thought we weren't concerned with the biological differences between men and women anymore? Or is it a matter of liberal convenience?

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, TheSker said:

Valid points BB....And here's where the rubber meets the road.  While debates continue (as they always will) about legislating moral issues, I think the economic moves are going to be what gets most attention at election time.

 

The tax cuts, while perhaps not extremely significant, are making a short term difference....which is what they were designed to do.  And the hope is the deregulatory moves along with an increase in import tariffs will make it more desirable to be producers in this country.

 

So let the morality debates continue.....

 

Correct. The tax cuts were designed to make a short term difference for a crucial election. That's not exactly moral, nor conservative, an ideology that once preferred long-term solutions over immediate gratification. 

 

Economists across the spectrum are skeptical that the numbers will add up to anything as projected, , and almost no one will openly deny that the 2018 Tax Reform is not a gift to the extremely wealthy in this country. The trickle down theory remains the best case scenario, and having failed to work for the past 30 years, it is unlikely to do so now.

 

While Paul Ryan was heralding some woman pleased about the $1.50 a week she was already reaping, major businesses were already taking their billions in windfall and plowing it in to factory shutdowns, investments in robotics, and the overseas workforce. It's what they do. It will benefit a handful of Americans. It won't benefit America.

 

I've heard there was a time when America was Great that we need to Make Again. But back when America was great, we had a much higher tax rate on the wealthy. Let's not pretend taxes have been holding America back.

 

You can say the same about deregulation. It always feels good to get the government off the back of business. Until business starts poisoning your air and water. Or looks to expand into child labor (Newt Gingrich actually broached that one in the last election). Whether it's Scott Pruitt at the EPA or Betsy DeVos in Education, the new administration is definitely in the legislating morality business -- just with a different and disturbing angle.

 

If you actually parse the recent Tax Reform bill, it's among the most immoral acts our government has executed in years. 

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I would agree with you, but I thought we weren't concerned with the biological differences between men and women anymore? Or is it a matter of liberal convenience?

Are any liberals saying that's there's no biological differences? If they are, that's pretty silly. I think your remark is more of a right-wing convenient strawman.

 

If you're talking about equality, then that's an argument of social, political, and rights differences. AFAIK there's no law or social norm we can adapt to allow men to bear children, but we can, for example, allow equal pay for equal work.

[Guy Chamberlin]

17 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

I would agree with you, but I thought we weren't concerned with the biological differences between men and women anymore? Or is it a matter of liberal convenience?

 

 

 

I honestly don't know the  liberal you have in your head, the one who succumbs to your impeccable logic, but I don't know anyone unwilling to acknowledge that women get pregnant and men don't.

[knapplc]

23 hours ago, zoogs said:

The desire to control a woman’s body is what makes a monster. Right to choose, full stop.

 

Except you need to specify which woman you're talking about. Is that woman the pregnant woman, or the baby inside her who will grow to be a woman?

 

It's not so black-and-white. You need to establish when that thing becomes a who, because at that point the who starts having rights. 

 

This is why the abortion discussion is so difficult. Establishing where life begins, and thus when it has rights, is crucial. There's absolutely going to be an overlap between baby's rights & woman's rights.  Whose rights get trampled on is the problem. 

[BigRedBuster]

36 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Motivations are defined by outcomes.

 

No, they aren't.

 

If I get into my car and drive 120 mph and lose control, crashing into someone else and killing them, my intent was not to kill someone else.