Abortion Commentary

[wmw999 2,155]

Yeah, dogpiling is the absolute best way to get someone to do something.

Wendy P. 

[winsor 187]

17 hours ago, johnhking1 said:

Does that let Jerry Lee Lewis off the hook.

Muhammad would still have to register as a pervert.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Muhammad would still have to register as a pervert.

Your "family" has a tradition of sucking foreskin off penises of boys under 18....not sure you really get to take the moral high ground.

[billvon 2,436]

20 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Your "family" has a tradition of sucking foreskin off penises of boys under 18....not sure you really get to take the moral high ground.

And who can forget Moses, who told his troops to kill all the women and kill all the children in a city, but keep the younger virgin girls "for their use."

But he looks upon that with fond forbearance, just a historical quirk of years gone by.  And sucking little boys' penises has a long tradition, and you have to understand X and Y and Z, and if you don't, you don't get to have an opinion.  It's very nuanced, requiring a lot of study to understand the context.

Muslims, though, worship a sick pedophile, and they're all mentally ill, period.

[BIGUN 1,079]

On 4/10/2024 at 11:17 AM, JoeWeber said:

In all fairness, aren't you of the mind that erring too far in the direction of no abortions is better than erring too far in the direction of allowing women to have 100% control over the choice?

I have answered this many times. Perhaps your fellow democrat; Bill Burr can elucidate my position more clearly . . . but, you know he's just one of them thar "Kennedy Democrats."

 

[JoeWeber 2,331]

58 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I have answered this many times. Perhaps your fellow democrat; Bill Burr can elucidate my position more clearly . . . but, you know he's just one of them thar "Kennedy Democrats."

 

I don’t think you’ve answered the question. Simple: given there won’t ever be a perfect solution on which side would you err?

[wmw999 2,155]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I don’t think you’ve answered the question. Simple: given there won’t ever be a perfect solution on which side would you err?

I know that if (as an example) Trump were the one who was pro-choice, and the Democrats against, I'd weigh the damage that Trump could otherwise do very heavily against choice, because the country is a whole lot harder to put back together if its basic tenets are no longer generally respected (e.g. constitution, rule of law, law applying equally to everyone, depending on money of course) than if one thing that I find to be relatively heinous happens (state-by-state choice, which is the only really likely thing now).

But each candidate would change the equation.

And why do I say that? Because I hate those "make a choice so I can beat you up about it" questions. It's like asking someone if they've quit beating their kids yet, leaving no room between a swat and an actual beating.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,079]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I don’t think you’ve answered the question.

I answered it. You just don't like the answer. 

[JoeWeber 2,331]

39 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I know that if (as an example) Trump were the one who was pro-choice, and the Democrats against, I'd weigh the damage that Trump could otherwise do very heavily against choice, because the country is a whole lot harder to put back together if its basic tenets are no longer generally respected (e.g. constitution, rule of law, law applying equally to everyone, depending on money of course) than if one thing that I find to be relatively heinous happens (state-by-state choice, which is the only really likely thing now).

But each candidate would change the equation.

And why do I say that? Because I hate those "make a choice so I can beat you up about it" questions. It's like asking someone if they've quit beating their kids yet, leaving no room between a swat and an actual beating.

Wendy P.

Could you answer the question? Sure. You are consistent in your opinions and, consequently, not a LINO.

[JoeWeber 2,331]

27 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I answered it. You just don't like the answer. 

If the answer was in the video, I don't watch those generally. I don't fault you for not wanting to say the icky part out loud which is that you would willingly sacrifice a women's agency in the name of a religious belief. Nothing moderate about that.

[BIGUN 1,079]

28 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I don't fault you for not wanting to say the icky part out loud which is that you would willingly sacrifice a women's agency in the name of a religious belief.

Slander

[JoeWeber 2,331]

5 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Slander

That's one interpretation. 

[gowlerk 1,930]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

If the answer was in the video, I don't watch those generally. I don't fault you for not wanting to say the icky part out loud which is that you would willingly sacrifice a women's agency in the name of a religious belief. Nothing moderate about that.

Posting a video and claiming it answers your question is such an obvious cop out as to be hard to respect. Canada essentially has had no abortion law for decades now. Society has not collapsed, but it seems to have led to low defense spending.

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I answered it. You just don't like the answer. 

Well, then please answer it again.

I don't watch random videos. 

I know you're in favor of 'heartbeat' restrictions, even though it's just cells with electrical impulses, not an actual heart.

Personally, I absolutely hate the idea that some people feel it's their prerogative to make medical decisions for other people.

The 'funny' part about it is all the 'anti' crowd who pretended to accept abortion if 'the woman's life is in danger', who pretended that the state wouldn't let a woman die when an abortion was desperately needed.

And then Texas goes ahead and does it. Or at least tries.

[BIGUN 1,079]

11 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

even though it's just cells with electrical impulses, not an actual heart.

Personally, I absolutely hate the idea that some people feel it's their prerogative to make medical decisions for other people.

Case in point. 

[JoeWeber 2,331]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Case in point. 

Please tell us you aren't suggesting the medical decision is being made for the "unborn".

[gowlerk 1,930]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Case in point. 

Why can't you just come out and say that you regard a zygote as a person instead of beating around the bush? It is a valid posistion. But of course it requires you to state where your line is. If you feel that a human life is created at conception and should be afforded all the protections of a person just say so. If you want to be wishy washy and merely imply that without saying so, why not? Abortion kills a lifeform that is seperate from the woman who is carrying it. We know that much. We also know that it is parasitic upon that woman and potentially can kill her or change her life. Those are conflicting facts that affect rights and require that society deal with the tough questions that you won't answer here. Of course you can play coy and dance around, that is your right. But it is not a good look. Perhaps you are struggling and don't know what is right and what is wrong. 

[BIGUN 1,079]

12 hours ago, gowlerk said:

 But of course it requires you to state where your line is.  Perhaps you are struggling and don't know what is right and what is wrong. 

It's been almost a year, so maybe you forgot . . . 

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/270888-president-biden-critics-corner/page/133/?tab=comments#comment-5009458

That's my line in the sand. I will not waver. 

https://lozierinstitute.org/the-science-behind-embryonic-heartbeats-a-fact-sheet/ 

[JoeWeber 2,331]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

It's been almost a year, so maybe you forgot . . . 

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/270888-president-biden-critics-corner/page/133/?tab=comments#comment-5009458

That's my line in the sand. I will not waver. 

https://lozierinstitute.org/the-science-behind-embryonic-heartbeats-a-fact-sheet/ 

And you'll recall my response: "Yes, it would. But the position is based on logic, science, common sense, and a belief in self determination. Being pro-abortion keeps no woman from not having the procedure. It does not make abortion mandatory; the anti-abortion position can make no similar claim."

Sorry man but the bottom line is that you are reducing a woman's agency over her body and her life with your position. Just admit it out loud rather than doing the dance.

[gowlerk 1,930]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

It's been almost a year, so maybe you forgot . . . 

You can count on that. I don't keep track of stuff like that. My read then is that you do feel that a life starts at a much earlier time than abortions are generally done and are therefore immoral. But you are willing to allow them anyway even though you don't much like it. There are a lot of implications and contradictions there but we all have to draw a line and deal with it somehow. 

Edited April 28 by gowlerk

[gowlerk 1,930]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Sorry man but the bottom line is that you are reducing a woman's agency over her body and her life with your position. Just admit it out loud rather than doing the dance.

There does seem to be a reluctance to come out and deal with the implications for women. I mean, if it is murder why not punish it as murder? When the hard realities come home to roost many anti-abortionists are unwilling to follow through because it never is as black and white as they would like it to be.

Edited April 28 by gowlerk

[jakee 1,262]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

It's been almost a year, so maybe you forgot . . . 

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/270888-president-biden-critics-corner/page/133/?tab=comments#comment-5009458

That's my line in the sand. I will not waver. 

https://lozierinstitute.org/the-science-behind-embryonic-heartbeats-a-fact-sheet/ 

Unless you’re some kind of hard line fundamentalist I’m pretty sure you will waver. I’m sure you already do. Because that post says nothing about health risks to mother or fetus. You can’t save the life of a fetus by denying an abortion to a woman whose pregnancy will kill her. It’s not pro life to deny an abortion to a woman when her fetus will not survive regardless, and the resulting complications are likely to make her barren.

So how far do you waver? How often are you in favour of abortion once here is a fetal heartbeat? 

Edited April 28 by jakee

[BIGUN 1,079]

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Sorry man but the bottom line is that you are reducing a woman's agency over her body and her life with your position. Just admit it out loud rather than doing the dance.

I do not believe in abortion after there is a fetal heartbeat.

After that, if there is imminent physical or psychological danger to the mother; then it is between her and the doctor. 

Now, you use the word "Agency" as a sword in the all-encompassing liberal way. Swing the label and hope the one in front of you ducks. Agency is not so much about abortion as it is about empowering her with contraceptive tools. 

gender_womens-agency-review_2020-march-05.pdf

[gowlerk 1,930]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

After that, if there is imminent physical or psychological danger to the mother; then it is between her and the doctor. 

Sure, and then you have to adjudicate who does and does not meet those requirements. In Canada that used to require a committee of 3 doctors for each case. It was difficult and unworkable in practice and resulted in long waits with the pregnancy progressing. If you make it a choice between her and her doctor then the doctor risks being judged as wrong and prosecuted. In the end it is best to acknowledge that women are not intrinsically evil and are capable of deciding for themselves. 

[jakee 1,262]

19 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I do not believe in abortion after there is a fetal heartbeat.

After that, if there is imminent physical or psychological danger to the mother; then it is between her and the doctor. 

Ok, so we’ve established that you do believe in abortion after a fetal heartbeat. 
 

It also sounds like you’re opposed to any anti-abortion law that would attempt to second guess any abortion signed off by a doctor, which correct me if I’m wrong is probably all of them?