The Big Abortion Thread

[Coreece 189]

On 1/7/2022 at 7:36 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

 

 

[billvon 2,380]

This is an attempt to get all the abortion threads from the other threads out there into a thread that makes more sense.

 

My most recent reply:

   3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

But no one does that (very late term abortions) and no Dr. would unless there was a reason. It is a red herring. 

Agreed.  So is "people who are against abortion just want to control women."  True in some cases - certainly not all or even most.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

This is an attempt to get all the abortion threads from the other threads out there into a thread that makes more sense.

 

My most recent reply:

   3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

But no one does that (very late term abortions) and no Dr. would unless there was a reason. It is a red herring. 

Agreed.  So is "people who are against abortion just want to control women."  True in some cases - certainly not all or even most.

I, for one, am pro-abortion thread.

[gowlerk 1,903]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

So is "people who are against abortion just want to control women."  True in some cases - certainly not all or even most.

All you have to do to make it true in all cases is to remove the word "just". In other words control of women may not be the ONLY reason, but it is always the effect of laws that limit or eliminate access to the most safe and effective pregnancy termination methods. 

So, let me state it this way.....People who want to prevent access to abortion services want to control pregnant women.

[billvon 2,380]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

All you have to do to make it true in all cases is to remove the word "just."

Literally true.  But again, that's like saying people who are pro gun laws want to control everyone.  Literally true in a sense - but I have a feeling you would agree that that's not why most gun control advocates are pushing for that.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

But again, that's like saying people who are pro gun laws want to control everyone.

Yes, but the false equivalence here is that there is a good reason for gun laws. Gun laws can help keep everyone safe. Unless you feel that human life begins at conception there is no good reason to exert that control over women. So which is it, is a zygote a human being or not? Where is the line? And who gets to draw it?

[billvon 2,380]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, but the false equivalence here is that there is a good reason for gun laws. Gun laws can help keep everyone safe. Unless you feel that human life begins at conception there is no good reason to exert that control over women.

That's the rub, isn't it?  A lot of people honestly feel that fetuses are human beings, and thus in their calculus the protection of those human beings is more important than the right of women to get an abortion.  (Just as gun control advocates feel that preventing gun deaths is more important.)  I disagree with that definition of when life starts, but it doesn't mean that therefore their goal is the control of women.  It just means we have different definitions.

This would all be a lot easier if both genders could bear children.  A lot of people would suddenly be amenable to a better definition of when human life begins.  And it would go away completely if we were like kangaroos.  Stupid evolution.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

That's the rub, isn't it?  A lot of people honestly feel that fetuses are human beings, and thus in their calculus the protection of those human beings is more important than the right of women to get an abortion.  (Just as gun control advocates feel that preventing gun deaths is more important.)  I disagree with that definition of when life starts, but it doesn't mean that therefore their goal is the control of women.  It just means we have different definitions.

This would all be a lot easier if both genders could bear children.  A lot of people would suddenly be amenable to a better definition of when human life begins.  And it would go away completely if we were like kangaroos.  Stupid evolution.

According to reports he was posting on a forum about abortion.

[gowlerk 1,903]

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

This would all be a lot easier if both genders could bear children.

If wishes were horses......

Yes, it can be an honest disagreement. But it can never be settled without a bottom line. SCOTUS in your nation drew a line. And we all know the story of what led to where we are now with that line about to be erased, or at least moved in some sort of grotesque compromise. 

People use emotional arguments about late term abortions to make it seem as if it is necessary to involve the law in the matter. But it is not. Rape and incest do nothing to change the morality around the act, they only serve to let people know that it is really about whether or not a woman is moral enough or victim enough to deserve a choice. It has little to do with the sanctity of life if there are exceptions. Either it is murder or it is not. And if it is not then the law should not get involved.  

Edited January 8, 2022 by gowlerk

[gowlerk 1,903]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

 

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

And it would go away completely if we were like kangaroos.

Have you ever seen a neonatal ICU?

Edited January 8, 2022 by gowlerk

[gowlerk 1,903]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

According to reports he was posting on a forum about abortion.

I doubt it. He has not quite gone over the edge.

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I doubt it. He has not quite gone over the edge.

 

Him?

[gowlerk 1,903]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

Him?

Yup, men don't give birth and women pay attention to the road when they drive.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yup, men don't give birth and women pay attention to the road when they drive.

I agree that anyone opposed to abortion should be able to draw a real line in the sand. Zero means zero and some requires specific boundaries. If someone is unable to specifically describe those boundaries or their boundaries are changing that's fantastic but don't mumble through it. Instead, join the rest of us in opposing restrictions on others on vague grounds because that's what your gut is telling you that day.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I, for one, am pro-abortion thread.

Hi Joe,

I knew that there was something that I liked about you.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

It has little to do with the sanctity of life if there are exceptions. 

?? An exception for the safety/health of the mother doesn't invalidate that.  It is an attempt to protect both.

Other exceptions do (partly) invalidate that.  It turns it into a gray area, where one crime (rape) is used as an argument that taking that life is OK.  But what we have now is also a gray area, with the Supreme Court saying it's OK to ban abortions in the third trimester (or, as recently amended, at viability.)  And that is arguably about the importance of life, since the ability to live independently outside the mother is the criterion.

[winsor 185]

I think abortion should be mandatory in a variety of cases.

Since people talk about eliminating poverty, it should be noted that one sure way to take the likelihood of poverty to the next level is to have kids you can't afford.

I have lived in neighborhoods where kids were a cash crop.  A single mother who had been on public assistance since she was a teenager somehow got pregnant right when her daughter was due to turn 18.  I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

At any rate, I would support some kind or rules where, if you have kids and are on the dole, having further kids would disqualify you from any further assistance for life.  Subsidized contraception and free and available abortions should be de rigueur.

Taking it one step further, a condition for public assistance should well be free reversible sterilization for everyone involved.  If you can't afford the procedure to restore fertility during childbearing years, you sure as hell can't afford further children.

Considering how seriously fucked up kids tend to turn out when coming from the welfare baby factories I have witnessed, I would greatly support providing and incentivizing abortion for anyone whose birth control failed.  The same goes for girls who get knocked up and gave the kids up for adoption upon birth - bad juju.

Of course, if I get pregnant I'm keeping the baby, but that's just me.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[gowlerk 1,903]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

An exception for the safety/health of the mother doesn't invalidate that.  It is an attempt to protect both.

Not hardly. It is an attempt to protect one only by definition.

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

It turns it into a gray area, where one crime (rape) is used as an argument that taking that life is OK.

The foetus did not rape anyone. It committed no crime. It is as pure as the driven snow. (unlike the wanton harlots who would find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy after having consensual sex) How can a foetus conceived by force be less worthy than one conceived in love, or at least mutual lust? There is nothing gray here. It is black and white. Either a foetus deserves protection from being aborted or it does not. They argument used in that case is not that "taking life is okay" it is that the woman is innocent and deserves a choice. No one says taking life is okay.

 

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

And that is arguably about the importance of life, since the ability to live independently outside the mother is the criterion.

At the moment that is the quite reasonable compromise. Pregnancies are sometimes terminated in the third trimester, not for birth control reasons but for heartbreaking ones.

[billvon 2,380]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Not hardly. It is an attempt to protect one only by definition.

Right.  It is an attempt to protect life, in this case the life of the mother.   That's not hypocritical if someone believes in the sanctity of all life; making hard choices to save one of two lives is not a hypocritical choice.

Quote

The foetus did not rape anyone. It committed no crime.

Agreed.  I didn't say it was a good argument.

Quote

At the moment that is the quite reasonable compromise. 

Also agreed.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Not hardly. It is an attempt to protect one only by definition.

The foetus did not rape anyone. It committed no crime. It is as pure as the driven snow. (unlike the wanton harlots who would find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy after having consensual sex) How can a foetus conceived by force be less worthy than one conceived in love, or at least mutual lust? There is nothing gray here. It is black and white. Either a foetus deserves protection from being aborted or it does not. They argument used in that case is not that "taking life is okay" it is that the woman is innocent and deserves a choice. No one says taking life is okay.

 

At the moment that is the quite reasonable compromise. Pregnancies are sometimes terminated in the third trimester, not for birth control reasons but for heartbreaking ones.

Hi Ken ( and Bill ),

Re:  the ability to live independently outside the mother is the criterion.

If we were to use this, then I would not be here. *  I was born at the 7-month point & spent about 60 days in an incubator.  Five times the doctor told my mother that he did not expect me to live.

Jerry Baumchen

* Some probably wish I were not here.  

[gowlerk 1,903]

19 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken ( and Bill ),

Re:  the ability to live independently outside the mother is the criterion.

If we were to use this, then I would not be here. *  I was born at the 7-month point & spent about 60 days in an incubator.  Five times the doctor told my mother that he did not expect me to live.

Jerry Baumchen

* Some probably wish I were not here.  

Jerry, I think you would be fine. 25 weeks gestation is the current line usually used for viability. We count living in an incubator as being independent from the mother. At your age you were probably a bit of a miracle to survive given the technology of the day.

Edited January 8, 2022 by gowlerk

[wmw999 2,116]

BTW, everyone, thanks for not taking that nice red meat added to the abortion thread...

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

BTW, everyone, thanks for not taking that nice red meat added to the abortion thread...

Wendy P.

Jawohl, mein Frau. I was just tripping along imagining what it was like to have the world view of someone in a TV show who really was looking at you from inside the tube. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

22 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Jerry, I think you would be fine. 25 weeks gestation is the current line usually used for viability. We count living in an incubator as being independent from the mother. At your age you were probably a bit of a miracle to survive given the technology of the day.

Hi Ken,

Even more of a 'miracle' since I only weighed 3 lb 4 oz at birth.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Just now, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

Even more of a 'miracle' since I only weighed 3 lb 4 oz at birth.

Jerry Baumchen

Makes sense and ends the mystery of where Master Riggers come from.