Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

I think it's perfect logic when you remember to factor in reality, and in this case, reality is that the fetus, at least up to the point of viability outside of it, is literally a part of another human being's body. That's what it is before anything else, including the man's baby.

HesCalledDyer

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.

Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.

riley540

HesCalledDyer said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.

Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.

That is false. Any quick search will show that tax dollars infact do pay a few “dimes” towards abortion 

PJ_Soul

Tax dollars certainly pay for it in Canada, thank goodness.

oftenreading

I personally am happy that abortion is safe, legal, and paid for under our medical services plan in Canada. Not that availability is perfect, but it’s not perfect for any medical service. If you live in the boonies you get fewer services. 

Non-surgical abortion via RU-486 is also available and covered now in many of our provinces, though not all. 

wobbler_kitty

riley540 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.

Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.

That is false. Any quick search will show that tax dollars infact do pay a few “dimes” towards abortion 

Links?

If you’re going to make that kind of claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence. And no, Youtube vids and conservative news sources don’t count.

oftenreading

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 

HughFreakingDillon

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 

I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 

I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  

You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.

PJPOWER

HesCalledDyer said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.

Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.

Good point, I think that the Hyde Amendment should stay in place and there should be no taxpayer funds going towards it (although it’s easy to argue that they do indirectly).

jnimhaoileoin

I am, quite simply, pro-choice. This is an ongoing subject of discussion in Ireland with a referendum on the 8th Amendment to be held this year

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 

I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  

You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't not have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.

ah, fuck it. no point. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 

I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  

You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't not have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.

ah, fuck it. no point. 

Degeneratefk

Who  cares if tax dollars are used? If you knew half of what our tax money is wasted on, abortion would be at the bottom of your concerns.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 

I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  

You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't not have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.

ah, fuck it. no point. 

funny, my sentiments exactly. 

PJ_Soul

I don't understand why you do that HFD. All I did was disagree with you, with actual points, and you are completely (and ironically, given your previous post) dismissive of what I have to say, plus you just kind of wuss out of the conversation.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

Isn't that really what everyone does? Try to push their beliefs on them? Isn't that really what politics is?
You don't see the need for guns so you try to push your beliefs through gun bans.
If you don't think people should do certain drugs people vote for a drug ban.
If you don't believe a fetus is a human life you push for the legalization of abortion. If you believe it is a life then you push for pro-life laws.

I never get that argument of "believe what you want, just don't expect me to" angle, because isnt that what we all really try to do? Isn't that the whole point of voting?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

I don't understand why you do that HFD. All I did was disagree with you, with actual points, and you are completely (and ironically, given your previous post) dismissive of what I have to say, plus you just kind of wuss out of the conversation.

there was no dismissiveness on my part. your points weren't the point. 

wuss out of the conversation? what conversation? a conversation has two or more people. 

HughFreakingDillon

I also thoroughly enjoyed "wuss out of the conversation". like we're in 4th grade.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

Isn't that really what everyone does? Try to push their beliefs on them? Isn't that really what politics is?
You don't see the need for guns so you try to push your beliefs through gun bans.
If you don't think people should do certain drugs people vote for a drug ban.
If you don't believe a fetus is a human life you push for the legalization of abortion. If you believe it is a life then you push for pro-life laws.

I never get that argument of "believe what you want, just don't expect me to" angle, because isnt that what we all really try to do? Isn't that the whole point of voting?

I don't think everyone does it, no. There are differences. With abortion, it is a woman OWN body - there is no way to argue, scientifically, that what is inside a woman's body and can't exist outside of it isn't hers and hers alone. With guns, it is about general public safety, and I think that is put before individual rights generally. Just not when it comes to guns.
I think all drugs should be legalized, so that's a good example.
And FWIW, I actually do believe that fetuses are human life - to say otherwise makes no sense to me. I just don't think they are viable human lives until after a certain point, and that is the entire reason abortion has to be legal. Until they're viable, they are literally a part of a woman's body (and a danger to her health).

That argument of "believe what you want, just don't expect me to" is only valid when the law isn't involved.