The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[JoeD80]

(and they do so, curiously, at a point in time when a majority of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life.

"Would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life" isn't really the important question. The one farther down the page is: "Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" The numbers are almost exactly the same in 2009 as they were in 1975.

[Jan]

I refuse to deal in the euphemisms people use to avoid telling the truth. Too little saying what you mean, IMO. It's pro-choice and anti-choice because that's exactly what the options are.

Thanks for pointing that out, JoeD80. And to answer "Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" , I'm sollidly for the first option.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

What do you base the right to "choice" upon?

This isn't a rhetorical question; I will go somewhere with it once you answer.

[Der Mike]

I'm not going to argue; I don't care enough to do the research myself so I'll accept your figure. So the question is, why?

Could it perhaps have something to do with the fact we have a proposed Supreme Court Justice beginning the grilling process and abortion is almost certainly going to be one of the topics? Could it also partly be because of the timing, with Obama having commented about it recently?

'Fraid I don't see anything more sinister than that. What's popular is what gets the press because that's what gets people looking at the pages with the ads. There's nothing linking the soldiers being gunned down to any other 'hot' story this week and, sad to say, nuts opening fire on people for whatever reason is simply becoming too commonplace.

Jan

It could be because the press has never been terribly fond of the military and doesn't view abortion as a "necessary evil" at all, but instead, as a good thing.

Perhaps if the COMMANDER IN CHIEF didn't take several days to issue a statement about the murder of one of his subordinates...I notice he didn't take a heck of a lot of time to mourn over a dead abortionist.

[Der Mike]

I refuse to deal in the euphemisms people use to avoid telling the truth. Too little saying what you mean, IMO. It's pro-choice and anti-choice because that's exactly what the options are.

Thanks for pointing that out, JoeD80. And to answer "Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" , I'm sollidly for the first option.

Jan

So, you hate euphemisms --- unless you invent them?

So, would it be just to call the War Between the States as a battle between people who support state rights and those who oppose state rights?

And you support abortion for the purpose of gender selection? Not sure there is a more barbaric position one can take that is currently on the table.

[Jan]

What do you base the right to "choice" upon?

This isn't a rhetorical question; I will go somewhere with it once you answer.

I'm not certain I understand the question. The right of law? Natural order of things? Doesn't matter. Here's the answer:

Nobody and nothing, under any circumstances has the right to enslave another human being.

So, you hate euphemisms --- unless you invent them?

What euphemism did I invent? I don't care if you use pro/anti-abortion. Just keep the same term for what's being debated.

So, would it be just to call the War Between the States as a battle between people who support state rights and those who oppose state rights?

Wasn't it? Regardless of any other reasons or rhetoric, that's what it boiled down to.

And you support abortion for the purpose of gender selection? Not sure there is a more barbaric position one can take that is currently on the table.

I support a person's right to choose what happens with their own body, period. That doesn't just apply to abortion, either.

Jan

[circularREASON]

Quote by Jan

"I support a person's right to choose what happens with their own body, period. That doesn't just apply to abortion either"


My view for what its worth is to the contrary. Please dont flame me for this as it is not a personal dig in any way shape or form. I've just seen things which would make you think twice.

I am pro-life, as is my right. I am finding myself completely opposed to that tbh. Abortion is not something to take lightly (which an increasing number of women seem to be doing nowadays) and the thought of a women being able to abort a life I find abhorent in the extreme. Why this is even legal is beyond me.

The choice has been made.. The woman knows the possible outcome will be childbirth and yet she still requests a way out of it with no blame to herself because it's "her body". WTF?!?!?! Responsibility is thrown out of the window at a whim. Does the child have no rights? It should have rights as soon as the urge takes 2 people to have sex, and therefore acknowledge the possibility of creating a life. Abortion is the pre-meditated murder of an unborn child.

Now before anyone comes along and says, "oh well you are a man - you would say that", or "you dont know anything about it...", I have seen a child born at very early gestation (my daughter who was born by emergency c section at 23 1/2 weeks after my wife went into labor early) and for a woman to abort a child is disgraceful in my opinion. (And yes before anyone says otherwise, my wife is of the same opinion as me). It should be illegal in all respects (apart from there being circumstances which necessitate the removal of the child ,like extreme disability or the threat to the womans life if she proceeds with the pregnancy).

My daughter is now 8 years old. She suffers from many things (deafness, CP, Partial Blindness etc...) but she is an angel, and we could not imagine life without her. Sure we struggle, but isn't that what life is?. To think someone else would terminate something as precious as her makes me sick.

[I love Lyta]

I support a person's right to choose what happens with their own body, period.

That also pretty much answers Dr. M's question I guess. You base your right of choice on the fact that pregnancy is something that happens in YOUR body and therefore you're entitled to choose what happens with/inside it.
And I think I know what he is getting at with that question, but I'll bite my tongue until he either proves my assumption right or wrong.

That doesn't just apply to abortion, either.

Absolutely. I for one have signed something that would translate into "patient declaration". It is legally binding and explicily states that in the case that my body can only be kept alive through medical machines I disallow the hospital to keep me alive that way.

@circularreason:
First off: I'm no woman but if I would I'd also say that it is MY body so it is MY choice, period. NOONE has the right to keep me from aborting and NOONE has the right to condemn me for it.
And it's no child when being aborted but a cluster of cells. No more.

But to get into the "murder" thingy anyways:
Saying that a predicted extreme disability of the child is a sufficient reason for abortion is -not just a bit- hippocritical, don't you think? Does a disabled child not have the same right to live as a healthy one? Isn't it "murder" of an unborn child (as "pro-life"rs like to call it) no matter whether the child will be disabled or not?
I find it highly funny that someone who calls himself pro-life states that the choice to abort is abhorent but the choice to not have a disabled child is legitimate (Disclaimer: No personal attack here - just pointing out that people's "pro-life" attitude only goes so far).

But I can give you a REALLY good reason for abortion if you're looking for one (apart from health risk to the woman).
That the pregnancy is a result of a rape.

[Jan]

Just a quick note with me wearing my 'Moderator Hat'. It's been a long time since we've really gotten engaged on a hot topic so let's remember that we have to respect each other's point of view regardless of how much we might disagree. Things can get vigorous, even *very* vigorous but not be attacks but we're mature enough to stay polite.

We now return you to the previously scheduled discussion.

Jan
Moderator

[Jan]

Abortion is not something to take lightly (which an increasing number of women seem to be doing nowadays) and the thought of a women being able to abort a life I find abhorent in the extreme. Why this is even legal is beyond me.

Can you show me your data on that? What poll or study do you base that 'increasing number' on? If you don't have hard data, what do you base that opinion on (not intended as a dig, I'm just curious)?

The choice has been made.. The woman knows the possible outcome will be childbirth and yet she still requests a way out of it with no blame to herself because it's "her body". WTF?!?!?! Responsibility is thrown out of the window at a whim.

Here's a situation where I find it's too black-and-white but I'm not sure we can really cover every situation. I could respond with a dozen 'what if' scenarios but I don't really see that that would be productive. There's an attitude that the choice to have an abortion is a casual one but again, where's the data on that? I've never seen any studys on women's attitudes when they choose to have an abortion and I'd like to examine the data and methodology for gathering it. While I'll grant that there are probably women who use abortion as a primary method of birth control it's my belief that they're a vast minority (if for no other reason than it's not likely to be cost effective even if you discount the risks).

There's also the concept of justice and letting the punishment fit the crime. Even assuming that the pregnancy resulted from carelessnes, does that 'crime' really warrant a *minimum* of nine months slavery to what is for many months nothing more than a growing tumor, the risk of death expelling that growth and the possibility of 18 or more years of slavery after that? And if you think it does, what corresponding and equal slavery/punishment should be inflicted on the second party to that carelessness?

Does the child have no rights? It should have rights as soon as the urge takes 2 people to have sex, and therefore acknowledge the possibility of creating a life. Abortion is the pre-meditated murder of an unborn child.

And here's the crux of the matter. You see the fetus as a child and I don't. While I'll grant the aliveness, it's no more a child than the caterpiller I stepped on yesterday was a butterfly and has no more rights when its life infringes on mine. Yeah, that caterpiller might someday have become a butterfly but it wasn't going to be allowed to do it in my house.

Now before anyone comes along and says, "oh well you are a man - you would say that", or "you dont know anything about it...", I have seen a child born at very early gestation (my daughter who was born by emergency c section at 23 1/2 weeks after my wife went into labor early) and for a woman to abort a child is disgraceful in my opinion. (And yes before anyone says otherwise, my wife is of the same opinion as me). It should be illegal in all respects (apart from there being circumstances which necessitate the removal of the child ,like extreme disability or the threat to the womans life if she proceeds with the pregnancy).

You're welcome to have that opinion, male or female. But with respect, I believe the only one directly effected has the right to make the choice. One of life's little inequalities is that only women get pregnant and give birth.

Absolutely. I for one have signed something that would translate into "patient declaration". It is legally binding and explicily states that in the case that my body can only be kept alive through medical machines I disallow the hospital to keep me alive that way.

That's a good example. I also support the right to death. (what the heck, we're already on one hot-button topic ) If I decide calmly and rationally that I don't want to live any longer, I want the means to terminate that doesn't leave some poor slob having to clean up after me.

Here's one example why (though hardly the only one): If I had Alzheimers or some other condition that removes mindfulness, I simply don't want to be around and I'd like the choice to not let it get that far. People talk about how it's a mercy that the afflicted person doesn't realize what's happening but to me that's part of what's so terrifying. That's not life, that's simply being alive and I think it should be my choice whether to endure that.

Jan

[Der Mike]

That also pretty much answers Dr. M's question I guess. You base your right of choice on the fact that pregnancy is something that happens in YOUR body and therefore you're entitled to choose what happens with/inside it.
And I think I know what he is getting at with that question, but I'll bite my tongue until he either proves my assumption right or wrong.


Absolutely. I for one have signed something that would translate into "patient declaration". It is legally binding and explicily states that in the case that my body can only be kept alive through medical machines I disallow the hospital to keep me alive that way.

@circularreason:
First off: I'm no woman but if I would I'd also say that it is MY body so it is MY choice, period. NOONE has the right to keep me from aborting and NOONE has the right to condemn me for it.
And it's no child when being aborted but a cluster of cells. No more.

But to get into the "murder" thingy anyways:
Saying that a predicted extreme disability of the child is a sufficient reason for abortion is -not just a bit- hippocritical, don't you think? Does a disabled child not have the same right to live as a healthy one? Isn't it "murder" of an unborn child (as "pro-life"rs like to call it) no matter whether the child will be disabled or not?
I find it highly funny that someone who calls himself pro-life states that the choice to abort is abhorent but the choice to not have a disabled child is legitimate (Disclaimer: No personal attack here - just pointing out that people's "pro-life" attitude only goes so far).

But I can give you a REALLY good reason for abortion if you're looking for one (apart from health risk to the woman).
That the pregnancy is a result of a rape.

Fair enough.
Do you oppose forcing men to pay child support? Men should have the identical right to walk away from their responsibility that women have, shouldn't they?

[Jan]

Fair enough.
Do you oppose forcing men to pay child support? Men should have the identical right to walk away from their responsibility that women have, shouldn't they?

For the most part, I'd have to say yes.

But that's conditional and I think there has to be a point of accepting or rejecting responsibility for a man. If a child is born in a marriage, I'd generally accept that both parents wanted the pregnancy to proceed and therefore support should be required. By the same token, if a man's name is put on a birth certificate, it should signify an acceptance of responsibility and so support should be required. But for a casual liaison to result in an involuntary indenture, no, I don't believe in that. The woman is the one who gets pregnant and if she decides to carry it through, hers should be the responsibility for the result.

Jan

[I love Lyta]

Well, exactly what Jan wrote.
Can't phrase it any better and it totally covers my p o v.
Also on the result of a liaison: A woman's IQ is the best contraceptive. And if she accepts to have unprotected intercourse it's HER problem.

edit:
There is one addendum I have to make. Before any payments are made or certificates signed a paternity test should be mandatory. How often do alleged fathers find out that the kid they paid and/or cared for isn't actually his these days...?

Btw. I totally agree to what you said about the general death by own wish thing and what you wrote about Alzheimer, Jan.

[Jan]

^^ Thanks IlL.

But I can give you a REALLY good reason for abortion if you're looking for one (apart from health risk to the woman).
That the pregnancy is a result of a rape.

You know...I've always had issues with the anti-abortion folks saying that a pregnancy resulting from rape is an acceptable reason for an abortion. It's not really rational, imo.

I mean, if you accept that the fetus is a child as is often the case they make, isn't that abortion killing the child for the sin of the father? What other crime is there where that's acceptable?

While I can acknowledge that forcing the woman to carry the fruit of that rape would be a horrendous burden, they don't generally seem to acknowledge that being forced to continue *any* unwanted pregnancy would be almost as horrendous.

Jan

[Der Mike]

Well, exactly what Jan wrote.
Can't phrase it any better and it totally covers my p o v.
Also on the result of a liaison: A woman's IQ is the best contraceptive. And if she accepts to have unprotected intercourse it's HER problem.

edit:
There is one addendum I have to make. Before any payments are made or certificates signed a paternity test should be mandatory. How often do alleged fathers find out that the kid they paid and/or cared for isn't actually his these days...?

Btw. I totally agree to what you said about the general death by own wish thing and what you wrote about Alzheimer, Jan.

You act as if being the biological parent is needed to force child support to be paid.

It is not. A man can be legally forced to do so even if the kid isn't his.