What is your general opinion on laws restricting abortion?

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...

Abortion will accomplish needed population reduction? Wouldn't vasectomies be more humane and efficient?

MSgt said:

. The issue of anti-abortion has become more about a political stand anymore and for plenty it has much to do with a "woman knowing her place." It makes no sense to force the girl to have the baby, while the boy simply moves on unscathed by his action. Out of this, "she got what she deserved" seems to fit as punishment. It's as irrational as the idea of wanting to protect God's little children...except for those from rape who God apparently doesn't care about.

Click to expand...

It was always a political movement right from its start when Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich grabbed the abortion issue to accomplish two things: political power to effect legislation nationally and, as you mentioned, maintain male dominance in a country that is still in the long process of equality for women.

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 am nominally pro-choice up until the point of viability of the fetus. At which point I believe abortion should be disallowed unless the unborn child would almost certainly be born dead or the health of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. So I take no issue with laws that impose such restrictions.

The problem that I find with most pro-abortion arguments is that they prove too much and, in principle, be used to justify infanticide or involuntary euthanasia. I believe the only decent and logically consistent argument for abortion, and the one that I use, is for provide for the health an welfare of the mother. Unless and until bearing a child can be made 100% safe for a mother, the right to choose whether or not to keep a pregnancy should belong to the mother. But I will not for one moment pretend that being able to kill one's unborn child is some form of beneficial empowerment for women. It is no more empowering than a man being able to legally strangle the life out of his newborn son or daughter minutes after the child has been born.

nitroexpress said:

Abortion will accomplish needed population reduction? Wouldn't vasectomies be more humane and efficient?

Click to expand...

One does not rule out the other. Let's do both.

Felis Leo said:

I am nominally pro-choice up until the point of viability of the fetus. At which point I believe abortion should be disallowed unless the unborn child would almost certainly be born dead or the health of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. So I take no issue with laws that impose such restrictions.

The problem that I find with most pro-abortion arguments is that they prove too much and, in principle, be used to justify infanticide or involuntary euthanasia. I believe the only decent and logically consistent argument for abortion, and the one that I use, is for provide for the health an welfare of the mother. Unless and until bearing a child can be made 100% safe for a mother, the right to choose whether or not to keep a pregnancy should belong to the mother. But I will not for one moment pretend that being able to kill one's unborn child is some form of beneficial empowerment for women. It is no more empowering than a man being able to legally strangle the life out of his newborn son or daughter minutes after the child has been born.

Click to expand...

except for the HUGE difference of the fetus is INSIDE the woman and a risk to her health and life. So your examples are 100% non-analogous and it is a beneficial empowerment.
Denying a woman power over her own body and forcing her against her will to risk her health and life to carry and go through pregnancy is violating her legal rights and human rights if one believes in those making her a second class citzen
Denying a mans want to strangle the life out of his newborn son or daughter minutes after the child has been born does nothing to the man.

Now with that sad i do agree with you about viability. I myself would be fine if RvW moved to 20 weeks since 21 weeks is the earliest possible viability. But i would STILL allow all the current exceptions and it wouldnt be a black/white cut off point.

lastly there are TWO lives but since one resides inside the other ONE life will always lose out when it comes to legal and human rights. Theres no way to grant them equal rights so unfortunately choices have to be made. No matter a persons "side" the only difference between us all is what life we value over the other when and why.

And something else i agree with that you said unless and until bearing a child can be made 100% safe for a mother that choice will have to continue to be made and allowed to a certain point. And actually even if we ever could do it, that laws would also have to change some before i would support it too. Legal pertections to all the mother options for custody, adoptions, releasing custody, deciding if a primary guardian is family etc etc.

BahamaBob said:

A while back, I read an article on a young girl who gave birth in an apartment bathroom then tossed the baby out the window into the snow. The child died and she was charged with murder. I fail to see any difference between this and abortion.

2.)I also note that most of those who are pro abortion are fiercely anti gun on the pretense that every life is precious and must be protected. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Click to expand...

1.) well at least you properly identified the issue. The failure is definitely with your sight because they are vastly and factually different based on legal rights and laws and reality
2.) please provide a link showing that stat is true and thats also the most common pretense (its one ive barely ever heard except from a few extremists) and next youll have to show the hypocrisy because you haven't provided any

nitroexpress said:

Abortion will accomplish needed population reduction? Wouldn't vasectomies be more humane and efficient?

Click to expand...

not that i agree about human population growth but im curious how would the vasectomies be performed? how would they be more humane? LOL

Choice. That is the law and that is how it should remain.

Carleen said:

Choice. That is the law and that is how it should remain.

Click to expand...

it will

america is a first world country with rights and freedoms. Like the vast majority of first world countries with rights and freedom "laws" are prochoice.

its mostly 3rd world countries and or dictatorships, Theocracies and countries without rights and freedoms that have laws that are mostly prolife

AGENT J said:

not that i agree about human population growth but im curious how would the vasectomies be performed? how would they be more humane? LOL

Click to expand...

You don't agree that vasectomies are more humane and less traumatizing? Hummmm.
Well, you could use the Nazi method. The Nazis had a method of sterilization that was supposed to be painless. They would have the Jews line up and come up to a desk to fill out paperwork. The paperwork took long enough for the radiation pointed at the genitals to do the job of sterilization.

nitroexpress said:

Well, you could use the Nazi method. The Nazis had a method of sterilization that was supposed to be painless. They would have the Jews line up and come up to a desk to fill out paperwork. The paperwork took long enough for the radiation pointed at the genitals to do the job of sterilization.

Click to expand...

So your solution is violate the rights of women by banning abortion AND violate the rights of men . . brilliant!!! more humane indeed LMAO

oh yeah how come you still havent showed all these examples of pro choices saying fetuses arent human? We are waiting! opcorn2:

AGENT J said:

1.) well at least you properly identified the issue. The failure is definitely with your sight because they are vastly and factually different based on legal rights and laws and reality
2.) please provide a link showing that stat is true and thats also the most common pretense (its one ive barely ever heard except from a few extremists) and next youll have to show the hypocrisy because you haven't provided any

Click to expand...

What are you a 9 year old? Do you lack the intelligence to google? I'll help you, google this "girl gives birth and kills baby". You get 26 million results, hundreds of girls have given birth and immediately killed their babies. Results are the same as an abortion. Show me how the results are different. If you can't it just shows you are the hypocrite.

BahamaBob said:

1.) What are you a 9 year old? Do you lack the intelligence to google?
2.) I'll help you, google this "girl gives birth and kills baby". You get 26 million results, hundreds of girls have given birth and immediately killed their babies. Results are the same as an abortion. Show me how the results are different. If you can't it just shows you are the hypocrite.

Click to expand...

1.) LMAO SWEET IRONY! lash out, meltdown and start off with a failed personal attack making your failed claims look even worse, Awesome!!
2.) hey now try a failed starwman . . where did i say nobody has given birth and then killed the baby? oh thats right i never did . . another lie bites the dust
i also notice you totally dodged my request and didnt provide any links backing up your claim "most of those who are pro abortion are fiercely anti gun on the pretense that every life is precious and must be protected." VERY telling

no matter how much you stomp your feet, how many lies you post or how many failed personal attacks you make, It will just further my entertainment.

SO here we are in the same place, your "view" remains exposed and destroyed for the nonsensical and failed claim it was and the two things you tried to compare are factually different based on logic, reality, legal and human rights. This fact wont change.

Disagree? prove they are factually the same, ill be waiting, thanks!

BahamaBob said:

What are you a 9 year old? Do you lack the intelligence to google? I'll help you, google this "girl gives birth and kills baby". You get 26 million results, hundreds of girls have given birth and immediately killed their babies. Results are the same as an abortion. Show me how the results are different. If you can't it just shows you are the hypocrite.

Click to expand...

The baby killed after birth by the mother is murder because the baby is officially a person by law and not part of the woman's body. This is completely different than when a licensed doctor safely ends a pregnancy.

Many so-called pro-lifers are more concerned with saving the unborn but don't give a dog's turd about the rights of the pregnant woman.

I’m pro choice. Would I prefer women choose life, of course. I also understand the reality of outlawing abortion. It is fools errand to do so.

I'm pro-life and pro-choice, to put my view in current political jargon.
Elective abortion is immoral unless the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman.
But the woman has a moral right to act immorally if she so chooses and should have the legal right to choose to act immorally in the case of her own pregnancy.
I'd like the immorality of non-life-threatening elective abortion to be recognized and acknowledged by society at large.
I'd like the choice to abort unnecessarily to be made part of an official social record, along the lines of the sexual offender protocol now in place, perhaps a Scarlet "A" appearing on State IDs or passports.

While 100% opposed to abortion, with the exceptions of rape or a threat to the mother's life, I have never, go ahead and search me, I have NEVER called for an out and out ban on abortion. Make no mistake, it is murder, it is the taking of a life pre-meditatively, but I understand that some people have rationalized their behavior, some people have relativized what life is, when it begins, and when we should start caring about it, and as such as a compromise, notice that word that starts with a C, compromise -- I feel that abortions, the legality of the practice should be decided at the local and county level of government.

Someone in Monroe County Florida should not have a say in what goes on in the communities of the North Slope borough of Alaska. Neither should someone in San Diego County, California have hand in the matters that concern Aroostook County, Maine.

The problem with this issue, along with many others is people want everyone to bend to their will. They have a way of thinking and they think that is the only way it should be, and to hell that other's might have an opinion or belief that doesn't coincide, they have their own notions and those are the only one's that matter. If that were to change, if we were to introduce Federalism the way it was intended to be, if we gave Rights traditionally left to the States back to them from the usurping hands of the Federal Government I do believe a lot of this divisiveness we are experiencing today would subside.

ChezC3 said:

While 100% opposed to abortion, with the exceptions of rape or a threat to the mother's life, I have never, go ahead and search me, I have NEVER called for an out and out ban on abortion. Make no mistake, it is murder, it is the taking of a life pre-meditatively, but I understand that some people have rationalized their behavior, some people have relativized what life is, when it begins, and when we should start caring about it, and as such as a compromise, notice that word that starts with a C, compromise -- I feel that abortions, the legality of the practice should be decided at the local and county level of government.

Someone in Monroe County Florida should not have a say in what goes on in the communities of the North Slope borough of Alaska. Neither should someone in San Diego County, California have hand in the matters that concern Aroostook County, Maine.

The problem with this issue, along with many others is people want everyone to bend to their will. They have a way of thinking and they think that is the only way it should be, and to hell that other's might have an opinion or belief that doesn't coincide, they have their own notions and those are the only one's that matter. If that were to change, if we were to introduce Federalism the way it was intended to be, if we gave Rights traditionally left to the States back to them from the usurping hands of the Federal Government I do believe a lot of this divisiveness we are experiencing today would subside.

Click to expand...

Tell me, what makes having your local state legislature trample your rights, preferable to the federal government doing so?

There are some very strange views on abortion on here. How people can support saving seals, trees, snails and advocate for extreme climate change policies to save the planet for our children and then advocate for abortion is remarkable. Everything for the individual seems to be more important than a baby.

Irredentist said:

Tell me, what makes having your local state legislature trample your rights, preferable to the federal government doing so?

Click to expand...

I reject the premise of the question.

Wouldn't the abortion question be better solved if somehow all those in favor of abortion had simply been aborted?

ChezC3 said:

I reject the premise of the question.

Click to expand...

Reject it all you want, but having a state legislature restrict your ability to access medical procedures isn't any better than having the feds do it.

Irredentist said:

Reject it all you want, but having a state legislature restrict your ability to access medical procedures isn't any better than having the feds do it.

Click to expand...

You can call a duck a goose, doesn't mean it will honk...

ChezC3 said:

You can call a duck a goose, doesn't mean it will honk...

Click to expand...

You can use a bad argument, but I'll still call fowl.

No amount of prevaricating is going to change the fact that abortion is a legal medical procedure that women are entitled access to.

Irredentist said:

You can use a bad argument, but I'll still call fowl.

No amount of prevaricating is going to change the fact that abortion is a legal medical procedure that women are entitled access to.

Click to expand...

reverse that, then you're caught up with the rest of the flock...

for now...