I agree.
Agree’d
::agrees::
Hey look! a Gree!
Well i’m glad we settled on that I’m not evil… in spite of my Slayer collection. In defense of Slayer they just take halloween a bit too far… perpetual halloween. I get sick of all the death, hell and guts but i love that thrash sound and few do it better than Slayer.
Hey i just realized back in 04’ i was an undecided voter… so much so that i didn’t even vote.
Whats screwy about the GOP is the religious right… they seem to be the most inflexible… i don’t know the demographics but if they make up the GOP base then… well… how big is that base? I would think the majority of republicans are not that extreme…
I agree-- 8 is extreme. Hell, getting pregnant 8 times and NOT having abortions is a little extreme.
But we don’t take away the rights of the majority because of a few extreme cases, do we?
I think this is an area where beliefs are so strong it’s hard to see clearly. I’m not a woman and I don’t get pregnant, so I feel slightly inadequate to be making this decision at all. But, from what I have been told by women who have been pregnant, it is entirely possible to not know you are pregnant for 20 weeks or longer-- especially if you never had planned on being pregnant, and even more likely if you are young and unaware of what your body may be telling you. I think you’re assuming a lot by saying 8 weeks should be enough for a rape victim to know she’s pregnant. And the very idea that in some bizarre world that the GOP believes is moderate, women would actually have to prove that they were raped before they were allowed to remove their attacker’s fetus from their body. How does this work exactly? Does the doctor decide if the woman is telling the truth about having been raped? Does the rapist have to admit guilt? Or do they wait until the trial is over-- possibly months? What if they can’t find the attacker at all? How can it be proven rape?
In my opinion-- and it may sound callous (maybe evil) to some-- if something is growing in or on your body and you want to remove it, you should be able to do so. That goes from tumors to extraneous limbs to fetuses to whatever. If you want to remove your own heart and give it to someone else, you should be able to (but you can’t-- it’s illegal). AND, if you require a host to survive and your host rejects you… that is a natural cause of death. That’s how I see it. It’s the mother’s choice up until viability. The mother is the only one who has to carry the baby to term and she should have the choice not to. But, again, we’re not gonna change any minds on this one. I base a whole lot of my vote on this and I know there are plenty of others that do the same.
I will say, regardless of where one stands on the issue-- increased sex education in school, open discussions about sex at home and affordable, shame-free access to birth control and health services at a young age will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Seems like we should be able to agree on that much.
Wow, I’m a lot more chill now than in my teens/20s. I thought everything was BS back then and got so annoyed. Now I figure that folks always have reasons for how they think/act. Everyone’s been affected by experiences in some way or another…we’re all slaves to our environment in a way. Nowadays I see all the differences as just the way of the world and it’s neat to see the world spin. A lot of the complaining these days seems like much ado about nothing but I understand how others see it differently. The beat goes on.
A little Satan never hurt anybody.
And yeah the whole “right is evil” thing is really just focusing on the really bigoted parts of it. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-weed…the tie-ins with the religious right don’t help…I know all Conservatives don’t believe in these things but they’re, sadly, part of the whole package. Then there’s the perception that the right wants to kill social programs (not really true, since they don’t have the balls to) and this is seen as folks saying “screw you” to poor folks. Which is basically what it is but, hey, you can’t save the world and these folks’ situation will never improve if you’re always giving them handouts. Is all this heartless? Probably, but the difference to me is the anti-gay/abortion stuff just seems just being a jerk for no reason while cutting social programs is being a jerk but with a fiscal and sociological reason behind them.
It’s funny…this is the first prez election I’m not going to bother. I just felt so dirty every time I did it before just because everyone said I had to. Just don’t need that feeling anymore.
The one thing that bugs me about the anti-abortion thing is this thing about how it’s a soul and a life and it’s precious. Folks saying this are the same folks who crush flies without thinking about it because they annoy them, poison or kill mice or bats that invade their house, or cut down trees because they’re an eyesore and tear up flowers because they don’t like the color and such. They believe God made all life and all creatures but only the human ones deserve this “every life is sacred” moniker like we’re somehow more important. I know no one here is really taking this stand but some do but it’s the basis of the whole anti-abortion thing and from history and life in general we can see that life is not sacred and life is fleeting and common and not rare and “precious” at all. At least not in a general sense.
Because, that’s the time limit. You have a time limit to get rid of your kid. Once the time limit is up, then it’s a crime. That’s the ground rules set. Seems fair enough to me. There doesn’t have to be a moral reason behind them. Why do batters in baseball get three strikes instead of four? Because those are the rules. Either way, there needs to be a way to not force women to have a kid they don’t want because that seems worse than anything.
I’m glad Glenn is here because he articulates my views much better than I can. But to put a metaphysical spin on things, to the pro choice folks do you believe in karma? And if so do you think abortion causes negative, neutral or positive karma?
Btw this is not a set uP, genuinely curious.
I read the scenario. The earliest surviving premature baby ever was born at 22 weeks. In that case, which was extremely rare, the mother had to lie to doctors to get them to save the baby, which was far from viable at that point. So, in your scenario, the obvious answer is that the woman being charged with murder should have had an abortion instead of taking a medical procedure into her own hands. And, if she was unaware she was pregnant before giving birth to the 22 week old fetus, she should have left the fetus at a hospital, church or fire department, as is legal in most states (not sure how that works in the UK).
But a lot of what we’re doing here is assuming we know what goes through a woman’s head when she becomes pregnant-- especially after rape. You do understand that many rape victims block out the event entirely, right? For you to assume you know what a rape victim should and should not be thinking or doing after they’ve been raped is further proof that you (and men, in general) really have no business making these decisions at all.
Leave the choice of what a woman does with her own body up to the woman. That’s all I can say about that.
EDIT: I’ve never really put a whole ton of thought into karma. I mean, yeah, I believe in the whole “what goes around, comes around” thing… but in terms of abortion, I don’t see it much differently than having a tumor removed. So, whatever “karma points” you get or get taken away from removing a tumor, I say is about equal with abortions.
I definitely don’t have the whole religious guilt thing that karma or hell are supposed to trigger.
Isn’t the question down to whether or not the government should be more involved in our lives, via the abortion issue? Shouldn’t the GOP be all about power to the individual or the state?
I agree w/teh Dooj here, but I have to point out that the hole in the argument is that there are TWO bodies, making a legit argument for one murdering the other. I think it’s perhaps a bit insensitive to compare a fetus to a tumor.
I know you’re playing devil’s advocate here… but the science makes things pretty simple. Until the point of viability, we’re looking at an organism that is completely dependent on attachment to its host. IMO, that is vastly different than 2 independent organisms. Removing a dependent organism from one’s body is not murder, according to U.S. law-- and that’s the way it should be.
Ah, welp. Back to this agreeing bullshit again.
See, that’s the kind of thinking that I feel is unrealistic. You can armchair quarterback other people’s decisions all day long, but at the end of the day legislation has to be realistic.
‘Get your tubes tied if you like fucking and don’t want children’ is not only unrealistic, but it’s also the epitome of the ignorance of men telling woman what to do with their bodies, even moreso than the abortion thing is.
I agree that it’s shitty the way people fail to consider others - the expectant father, the baby itself, their own future … but I point again to the “more government” contradiction. I thought the right felt it was a good idea to allow people the freedom to make their bad decisions.
But again, it’s about perception of what is real and what isn’t. One side says murder, the other says tumor removal, so how can you agree on anything, working with different realities?
You need to go back and read the rest of what I wrote:
The mother charged with murder had a legally viable way of terminating her pregnancy without facing a murder charge, which is all I’m arguing for.
And to compare a male’s role in child birth to a female’s role is pretty silly. The fact is, a man squirts some sperm and he’s done. A woman has 9 months of work to do after that… it should be her decision whether or not to do that work. I see no scenario in which it would be acceptable for a man to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term.
And, yes, it is the responsible thing to tie one’s tubes or have a vasectomy after it’s clear one doesn’t want anymore children. But, I think it’s fair to say this issue goes a little deeper than that… ask a 17 year-old girl to head down to her local OBGYN and ask to have her tubes tied and see how far she gets. She’d be lucky if she’s even able to find an adult that’s willing to utter the word “condom” in her presence.
Again, I think it’s clear by the posts here that men should not be making this decision.
Abortion is complicated.
I basically voted for Bush the first time I could vote (2004) because at the time, the Catholics put the issue of abortion on the top of the list, and I was as “devout” as I ever have been. I understand the teachings of the Church. I understand its viewpoint: that the act of killing human life (young, old, or dying) does not support a productive society of living people.
I now know that politics is ugly. Bush used the abortion issue to get more votes, and after he was in office, that was it. Obama used “change” as his cornerstone and won with it. Other politicians do the same thing, and even CHURCH LEADERS use it to advance their own agenda.
The point is that there are other things I believe our country needs to address before attempting to deal with things like abortion which is an issue steeped in confusion, differing definitions of “human life,” how we treat those who do have abortions or those who have children who give them up for adoption, or even how we portray teen pregnancy and sex to our daughters and their friends.
It’s sad that fewer politicians are really paying attention to global climate change, emissions, and consumption on a broad scale, and how America is at the top of the list of culprits. But at the end of the day, it’s going to take something catastrophic that affects every American for us to change the way we live so that our ancestors can have a place to live, too.
Off soapbox.
I think you’re understanding me incorrectly.
I’m a man. And a dad. And a dad of a son that’s not biologically mine. I understand some of the issues you speak of. For a man, walking away from a pregnancy is as easy as turning around and not looking back-- it happens all the time. The only way for a woman to walk away from a pregnancy is abortion. I strongly believe they should have that right.
Obviously, there’s no way I can argue with someone who believes that life begins at conception and that removing a fetus from a womb is murder. That’s just fundamentally different than what I think. And, I agree with delayloop that this should not even be an issue-- I would be fine if we stopped talking about it altogether… but that would mean abortion remains legal and there are too many people who just are not okay with that.
In any case, I have absolutely no doubt on this issue.
Well isn’t that interesting? I have doubt. Not afraid to say it. Ever hear of the Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz? He wrote another book called the Fifth Agreement, which is basically (they’re agreements you make with yourself), doubt everything - even the things you tell yourself.
The fact that the two of you are declaring certainty is - by way of example I mean - half the trouble with our humanity’s failure to cooperate. No wonder people get so heated and never ever get anywhere in political arguments.
We must doubt our own convictions and constantly question them, or we’re basically like turning off our truth seeking mechanisms. I feel it’s this kind of unintentional dishonesty, to conclude you know something for sure when you actually do not. When folks are entirely convicted about these difficult beliefs, I think it takes a leap of arrogance to decide you’re the one who actually knows for certain. No offense, not trying to call either of you arrogant per se.
I’m pro-choice, but I feel it’s my duty to truth and justice and freedom to explore: hey, maybe it’s murder and I’m wrong.
When I said “we” shouldn’t be talking about it, I didn’t mean us here on the Pa. I meant government, in the sense that delayloop was referring to. But, yeah, I do put this over the economy.
And, yeah, Kevin, I hear ya… but some things more than others, ya know? There are a lot of issues I have plenty of doubt on. I don’t claim to know the truth when it comes to religion, for instance. But abortion and civil rights aren’t really that gray for me. Sure, I could say “well, maybe I’m wrong. maybe black people shouldn’t drink from the same drinking fountains as white people…” But, in the end… fuck that, right?
Yeah of course fuck that. But abortion? An issue that’s as heavily debated and divisive gives me pause.
I have no hesitation on some things either, but my quickness on those issues still sometimes requires a little dose of arrogance to draw a final conclusion to jump to.
I guess it’s inevitable, the arrogance thing, the drawing unfounded conclusions thing … hale, we’d never function at all if we didn’t base decisions on something.
But it just struck me that reasonable folks can be totally certain about opposite convictions.
Well, to be fair, Jim Crow laws were just as heavily debated and divisive.
And, I’m not saying I’m totally certain that a fetus isn’t a life-- how could I be? I’m saying that I’m totally certain I support abortion rights, whether or not a fetus is a life.
Which brings me to an extremely fascinating question! Are you ready for it? Okay…
Let’s say a personhood amendment passes. And then, by law, the second an egg is fertilized it becomes an independent thinking human. Now… by that logic… an independent thinking human has occupied a woman’s uterus. Could said woman not kill said independent thinking human and be protected under the Castle Doctrine or one of the various “stand your ground” laws? 
Or are they not that human?
Oh, and I am glad that hale is taking off. It’s a good spelling. Damn it all to hale!