What is your general opinion on laws restricting abortion?

I know I'm a bit late on this one but there is a wave of states passing laws against abortion such as the heartbeat bill.

I do not care about "a woman's right to choose."

I am in favor of free abortion on demand for two reasons. First, I think human population growth is the single most serious problem we have. Problems like global warming and the extinction of other animal species are caused by too many people having too many children.

Second, abortion has a beneficial eugenic effect. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything of value to contribute to the human gene pool. I worry about an undergraduate at Vassar who aborts the result of an encounter with a Rhodes Scholar. That seldom happens however.

I do not pretend to be "pro life." I do not see how anything as plentiful as human life can have any intrinsic value to it. I value my own life, the lives of people I love, the lives of people I like, and the lives of people I am able to identify with. That's about it.

I am not "pro choice" either.

In addition to favoring free abortion on demand I am an enthusiast for capital punishment and long prison sentences at hard labor, enforced by the whip. That is the only way we can get any value out of people who should have been aborted.

Pre birth, there should be NO government restrictions at all!
Post birth, after close examination, very limited government restrictions should exist.

Note: I didn't cast a poll vote as I found no suitable choice available. Perhaps "other" instead of "not sure" should have been available.

I think they're stupid and smelly.

Just like babies.

Masterhawk said:

I know I'm a bit late on this one but there is a wave of states passing laws against abortion such as the heartbeat bill.

Click to expand...

I could not pick among your options because none of them apply. The essence of Roe v Wade is consistent with my views, but the state by state efforts to micromanage the clinics, harass the clinicians, and force the women through a series of physical, tactical and emotional minefields via the moving target of 'safety' and consumer regulations superimposed and re-interpreted by bureaucratic ideological warriors is effectively denying access without ever winning a battle against Roe. Clinics are now few and far between, funding is corked, and the pro life forces are strangling Abortion rights to death.

SmartCat said:

I do not care about "a woman's right to choose."

I am in favor of free abortion on demand for two reasons. First, I think human population growth is the single most serious problem we have. Problems like global warming and the extinction of other animal species are caused by too many people having too many children.

Second, abortion has a beneficial eugenic effect. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything of value to contribute to the human gene pool. I worry about an undergraduate at Vassar who aborts the result of an encounter with a Rhodes Scholar. That seldom happens however.

I do not pretend to be "pro life." I do not see how anything as plentiful as human life can have any intrinsic value to it. I value my own life, the lives of people I love, the lives of people I like, and the lives of people I am able to identify with. That's about it.

I am not "pro choice" either.

In addition to favoring free abortion on demand I am an enthusiast for capital punishment and long prison sentences at hard labor, enforced by the whip. That is the only way we can get any value out of people who should have been aborted.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder how this post would read differently if you gradually moved from 'slightly liberal' to not liberal at all. What might you replace that whip with?

At the very least, I find abortion distasteful. But I will not ignore that such an act has it's own place in our society, and that it is a necessary one at that.

I believe that the woman should have the final word in ALL cases.

Abortion, in my view, is second only to birth control when it comes to population control.

I personally believe that one is being especially humane in preventing births, since we all know how horrible a human being's life is. By not giving birth, many potential human beings are spared the suffering that has been endured by the billions that had the bad luck of having been born.

As with any moral quandary, there's the concomitant intellectual cowardice

The decision to interpret the right to abortion within legality seems to derive from the mother's intentions, whereby her desire to keep it makes it a 'baby', while her desire to terminate/murder it makes it a 'foetus/bunch of cells'.

Playing it safe necessitates providing for the pro-choice option. BS issue for BSers.

Masterhawk said:

I know I'm a bit late on this one but there is a wave of states passing laws against abortion such as the heartbeat bill.

Click to expand...

The recent wave of state laws seem to be designed to generate legal challenges which can ultimately be appealed to the Supreme Court so they can push to try to overturn Roe vs Wade. The states could then ban abortion in most or even all circumstances if they wanted (which some people clearly do).

The wider question if abortion is much more complex and multi-faceted, one which doesn’t have a simple “right” answer, especially not in general terms. If it were easy, it wouldn’t be such a long-running debate in the first place.

Restricting abortion is like restricting alcohol or drug use. You can't force people to have respect for themselves or stop people from destroying themselves if they want to.

Masterhawk said:

I know I'm a bit late on this one but there is a wave of states passing laws against abortion such as the heartbeat bill.

Click to expand...

What these efforts are really about is state social conservatives taking the arguably right leaning federal courts for a spin, and the target is some challenge to these heartbeat bills that puts a decision in front of the Supreme Court that might change Roe v Wade.

Within the confines of the polling options we can go back and forth on any one option, but "the sanctity of life" is a political goal no matter how failed the idea may be in legislative practice.

We all know abortion will not end no matter how restrictive the legislation, and we also know these laws will be applied unequally (as just about all other laws along these lines are.)

In my opinion this is one of the last hurrahs for social conservatism as our social and political pendulum is probably headed back towards the left. Where things get tricky is while everyone is talking about Trump's tweets and this trade war, in the background the courts are being stacked as far right as possible.

Again, the ultimate point of all this... taking that far right lean for a spin.

IMO, abortion for convenience sake is premeditated murder. Exceptions would be to save the life of the mother or cases of a child being impregnated by an adult.

Otherwise "I cast all my cares on him for he cares for me"

God will sort it out in the end.

I have always been very pro-choice.

This weekend I happened to be at an oddity show where they had a human fetus about 110 days gestation. I could not get over how perfectly formed it was, truly already like a little baby.

You see pictures and all that but actually seeing it like that kinda shook me. I still lean towards letting people make their own good or bad decisions but I honestly am re-thinking my positions on this subject.

Roe V Wade was instituted in 1973. If you were around back then, this was in the middle of the sexual revolution. The men had finally found a way to make the females easy, without being materialistic; free sex. This led to unwanted pregnancies. Men could have sex with women, without any commitment since it was all free. It was OK for women to act like hot dogging men and both men/women get to pay. The trick was to tell the women what they wanted to hear; women can be like men if they wanted to.

In many ways abortion was similar to the push by the Humane Society, fixing dogs, so neither dogs or humans would over produce unwanted puppies. The ladies, trying to act like men, did not want to be mothers. Spaying or neutering was considered for humans, at the time of abortion, but it was not considered acceptable for humans. Abortion became the primary way to control population of stray human dogs.

This situation was not perfect and was supplemented with other proactive provisions, such as sex education and birth control pills. The latter precautions, should have been enough, but stray dogs in heat cannot always control themselves. The prospect of millions of homeless human puppies, on the public dole, was not a suitable solution. Abortion was expanded. The problem must be getting worse since the expansion has gone even further in recent years.

The push today is to get the stray dogs on psychological leashes, since there is no real need for abortion, if you use half a brain and learn not to think with the lower brain. There are many other proactive precautions available. For example, leash laws have decreased stray dogs and litters of unwanted puppies.

I would revisit spay and neuter. ASPCA and the Humane Society have found that the spaying and neutering has resulted in the numbers of dogs being euthanized decreasing with time. This would be also be the case of abortion. This has the advantages of dealing with the dumbest of the dumb in a proactive way. The dumbest of the dumb, once spayed or neutered can fail sex education and be irresponsible with precautions like condoms and birth control, and still not make stray pups. Too many stray pups can lead to ferrel behavior and other social behavior problems. I would allow one abortion and then a free spay and/or neutering, all on the same day. Some dogs cannot learn new skills, so we need to help them coexist.

Abortion kills an unborn life, while spay and neuter does not kill anything more than birth control. It is more humane but equally effective and can also reduce the stray and ferrel population.

btthegreat said:

I have to wonder how this post would read differently if you gradually moved from 'slightly liberal' to not liberal at all. What might you replace that whip with?

Click to expand...

I am liberal on issues that benefit me and conservative on issues that benefit me. I want a government that protects my interests, not the interests of rich people, and not the interests of the underclass. I define the underclass as the unemployable class of welfare recipients who supplement their welfare checks with the gains from criminal activity. I am also liberal on environmental issues.

I believe I would benefit from a much lower human population, in the United States and internationally.

Those who claim to be pro life are usually opposed to universal health care. This would reduce infant mortality and the number of women who die in childbirth.

Those who claim to be pro choice are usually anti choice when it comes to gun ownership.

That is why I claim to be pro abortion and anti life. I am also anti choice because I believe that those who are biologically inferior should be sterilized. I agree with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. that, "Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough.”

During most of history the widespread use of capital punishment reduced the number of crime genes in the populations of civilized countries. That is why races that have practiced civilization the longest have lower crime rates than races that have been recently introduced.

None of the above.

The pro life crowd

We will get you born but from then on you are on your own

The only reason republican politicians expound a pro life stance is votes. After elected they never address the issue until campaign time again

Masterhawk said:

I know I'm a bit late on this one but there is a wave of states passing laws against abortion such as the heartbeat bill.

Click to expand...

I care about womens issues as much as they care about mens issues which is zilch.

I dont agree with outlawing abortions but dont care if they are

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Masterhawk said:

I know I'm a bit late on this one but there is a wave of states passing laws against abortion such as the heartbeat bill.

Click to expand...

And so far, all of them have been blocked in the higher courts from being enacted.

Because they are unConstitutional. The Constitution protects women's rights to bodily sovereignty, self-determination, their own medical and reproductive decisions (our health), due process, and privacy.

Individual said:

Pre birth, there should be NO government restrictions at all!
Post birth, after close examination, very limited government restrictions should exist.

Note: I didn't cast a poll vote as I found no suitable choice available. Perhaps "other" instead of "not sure" should have been available.

Click to expand...

Please explain how abortions are performed "post-birth?"

NoC_T said:

As with any moral quandary, there's the concomitant intellectual cowardice

The decision to interpret the right to abortion within legality seems to derive from the mother's intentions, whereby her desire to keep it makes it a 'baby', while her desire to terminate/murder it makes it a 'foetus/bunch of cells'.

Playing it safe necessitates providing for the pro-choice option. BS issue for BSers.

Click to expand...

Since a baby is a fetus and an embryo and a zygote before birth (And then a toddler, teen, etc after), it seems you would denigrate all those other earlier stages...while they are merely valuable steps along the way to personhood.

It's interesting you seem able to judge that for people...and devalue the earlier stages yourself.

wellwisher said:

This situation was not perfect and was supplemented with other proactive provisions, such as sex education and birth control pills. The latter precautions, should have been enough, but stray dogs in heat cannot always control themselves. The prospect of millions of homeless human puppies, on the public dole, was not a suitable solution. Abortion was expanded. The problem must be getting worse since the expansion has gone even further in recent years.

Abortion kills an unborn life, while spay and neuter does not kill anything more than birth control. It is more humane but equally effective and can also reduce the stray and ferrel population.

Click to expand...

Most women, by far, choose to give birth, and the abortion rate goes down every year. So the first bold statement is incorrect.

And there is no pain involved for the unborn...by law lethal injection/anesthetic is required so it's not 'inhumane.' There is no suffering or awareness...please dont use emotional manipulation in the argument.

SmartCat said:

I do not care about "a woman's right to choose."

I am in favor of free abortion on demand for two reasons. First, I think human population growth is the single most serious problem we have. Problems like global warming and the extinction of other animal species are caused by too many people having too many children.

Second, abortion has a beneficial eugenic effect. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything of value to contribute to the human gene pool. I worry about an undergraduate at Vassar who aborts the result of an encounter with a Rhodes Scholar. That seldom happens however.

I do not pretend to be "pro life." I do not see how anything as plentiful as human life can have any intrinsic value to it. I value my own life, the lives of people I love, the lives of people I like, and the lives of people I am able to identify with. That's about it.

I am not "pro choice" either.

In addition to favoring free abortion on demand I am an enthusiast for capital punishment and long prison sentences at hard labor, enforced by the whip. That is the only way we can get any value out of people who should have been aborted.

Click to expand...

You sound like the progressives from the 1920's and early 30"s.