Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
my in laws are roman catholic. my wife has two aunts who are nuns. my father in law is a knight of columbus.
that said, even at 80 and staunchly with the church, my FIL is progressive in many ways. not too sure about abortion, but he believes in marriage equality.
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
You may actually be on to something. Just the other day, I heard a diehard conservative say that they would support an assault weapon ban if an abortion ban was also tied to it...
Wonderful. Let's just throw women under the bus again. I'm sure that for a conservative, that makes some sort of sense.
and this is the inner workings of the brain of some conservatives. Ban a SMALL PORTION of guns and ban ALL abortions. Take away the rights of all women to have control over their own bodies, but let all the 2A-ers potentially have control over someone else's right to LIFE for their stupid need for larger penis.
Is that why women own guns, because they wish they had a large penis? I never knew. I forgot to mention that the person that made the statement was, in fact, a woman.
LOL. just in good fun in case you or mcgruff saw it.
Of course, “bro” . All joking aside, though, I hear this get thrown out quite a bit as if the only people that own guns or are anti-abortion are men. Some of the most outspoken gun rights and anti-abortion people I know are women. Knowing this, it always struck me as ironic when people go on about anti-abortion activists, portraying them as “old white men” or gun owners are said to have small penises. Maybe the women are compensating for dry vaginas or? Lol
because the vast majority are from that group. not to mention that group founded both of those movements. of course there is going to be some crossover, but by and large, you haven't seen any women of that ilk rise to power like say Mike Pence.
Possibly, I guess I always saw it as more of a conservative vs liberal battle than a male vs female. And there are plenty of female conservatives out there that aided in the rise to power of people like Pence.
of course, because many of them believe that a woman "has her place", and promote it. I would say that the abortion issue has become more of a con v lib battle, whereas it started as a lib female v most males battle.
Right, and you beat me in your reply before I made my last edit. I wonder how a “woman only vote” would turn out on the abortion issue. I bet it would have some surprising outcomes, but I could be wrong.
I think it would be a landslide victory for the pro-choice side.
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
You may actually be on to something. Just the other day, I heard a diehard conservative say that they would support an assault weapon ban if an abortion ban was also tied to it...
Wonderful. Let's just throw women under the bus again. I'm sure that for a conservative, that makes some sort of sense.
and this is the inner workings of the brain of some conservatives. Ban a SMALL PORTION of guns and ban ALL abortions. Take away the rights of all women to have control over their own bodies, but let all the 2A-ers potentially have control over someone else's right to LIFE for their stupid need for larger penis.
Is that why women own guns, because they wish they had a large penis? I never knew. I forgot to mention that the person that made the statement was, in fact, a woman.
LOL. just in good fun in case you or mcgruff saw it.
Of course, “bro” . All joking aside, though, I hear this get thrown out quite a bit as if the only people that own guns or are anti-abortion are men. Some of the most outspoken gun rights and anti-abortion people I know are women. Knowing this, it always struck me as ironic when people go on about anti-abortion activists, portraying them as “old white men” or gun owners are said to have small penises. Maybe the women are compensating for dry vaginas or? Lol
because the vast majority are from that group. not to mention that group founded both of those movements. of course there is going to be some crossover, but by and large, you haven't seen any women of that ilk rise to power like say Mike Pence.
Possibly, I guess I always saw it as more of a conservative vs liberal battle than a male vs female. And there are plenty of female conservatives out there that aided in the rise to power of people like Pence.
of course, because many of them believe that a woman "has her place", and promote it. I would say that the abortion issue has become more of a con v lib battle, whereas it started as a lib female v most males battle.
Right, and you beat me in your reply before I made my last edit. I wonder how a “woman only vote” would turn out on the abortion issue. I bet it would have some surprising outcomes, but I could be wrong.
I think it would be a landslide victory for the pro-choice side.
Possibly, all I have to go off of is demographics and here in TX, it would most likely swing the other way if I had a guess.
A major step step backward for women’s health, especially given that many women don’t even know they are pregnant until close to that mark. I can’t help but assume that Mississippi also puts a bunch of roadblocks in the way that makes it even harder to access abortion prior to the deadline.
What do you define as "many?" I really don't think it is that common. I haven't looked up any stats on what percentage of women that would be, but we're talking 2-3 weeks into the second trimester. I think very few wouldn't know several weeks prior to that deadline that is well into the second trimester.
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
You may actually be on to something. Just the other day, I heard a diehard conservative say that they would support an assault weapon ban if an abortion ban was also tied to it...
But handguns kill the most people.
??? Your point is? Is there a big push to ban handguns right now that I’m not aware of?
No, just pointing out that giving up abortion rights in exchange for banning one type of firearm wouldn’t be a fair trade, IMHO. Relax.
Oh, okay. Just repeating what I overheard...relax.
Wow.
You stated this three times to really get him lol.
Lol, I didn’t realize it triple posted! Take that Halifax2TheMax, lol
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.
I don't know. I'm pro choice by default for the most part, although I don't really have in-depth knowledge on the issue as far as timing, when it is OK, etc. I have always just supported choice
While my 'scenario' is just fantasy-world, after this election I have given that thought, if the Democrat platform just gave into banning (or severely restricting) abortion. I think it would create a seismic shift in our national politics. Trump doesn't sniff his electoral win if the divide didn't exist, and GW Bush doesn't get elected (IMO).
And I think to myself, is this abortion hill the one I want to die on? If it costs our national and cultural progress, gives life to the "belief" that teachers (and students) should be allowed (to purchase) and carry guns into schools, rapes our environment/wildlife and pulls back restrictions for polluters to do whatever the hell they want. It also has taken numerous protections that consumers had. Also has played a dangerous game with our economy as well as the geopolitical economy/balance. Opposing (or pretending to oppose) abortion has given a free ticket to do all these things.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way). I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice. To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then? I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.
I don't know. I'm pro choice by default for the most part, although I don't really have in-depth knowledge on the issue as far as timing, when it is OK, etc. I have always just supported choice
While my 'scenario' is just fantasy-world, after this election I have given that thought, if the Democrat platform just gave into banning (or severely restricting) abortion. I think it would create a seismic shift in our national politics. Trump doesn't sniff his electoral win if the divide didn't exist, and GW Bush doesn't get elected (IMO).
And I think to myself, is this abortion hill the one I want to die on? If it costs our national and cultural progress, gives life to the "belief" that teachers (and students) should be allowed (to purchase) and carry guns into schools, rapes our environment/wildlife and pulls back restrictions for polluters to do whatever the hell they want. It also has taken numerous protections that consumers had. Also has played a dangerous game with our economy as well as the geopolitical economy/balance. Opposing (or pretending to oppose) abortion has given a free ticket to do all these things.
So I don't know.
Conservatives would just find the next divisive issue to bash liberals with. In fact they would just be emboldened. There would still be a FOX News and a Hannity to push people apart. Nothing would change, the tribal lines would still be there.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
No, the crux of it is that she believes that nobody has the right to take a human life with a beating heart (just like the life of a newborn). Her concern is not about the woman’s body, but about the body of the individual temporarily living inside of her that has equal rights to their body. That’s where the moral/ethical limits come into play. Some people think it is killing a human being, some people believe it is aborting a fetus (non-human being). That is the dividing line in my observation.
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way). I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice. To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then? I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
I don't believe it is as simplistic as wanting to control women. I do believe there is that aspect to it, however, from the Mike Pences of the world. The other side of it is that people have an issue with terminating what they believe to be a living human, among other reasons, but one main one is, "inconvenience". I'm pretty sure my parents in law are pro-life, but not because they want to subjugate women, but because they believe life begins at conception.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
so when someone says "it is a moral debate", is this suggesting that those who are pro-choice lack those morals?
this is mere conjecture, but I would imagine that your friend is probably pro life becuase she doesn't have that choice to begin with. if she did, she might sing a different tune. I would imagine those types of people are rather rare.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
No, the crux of it is that she believes that nobody has the right to take a human life with a beating heart (just like the life of a newborn). Her concern is not about the woman’s body, but about the body of the individual living inside of her that has equal rights to their body. That’s where the moral/ethical limits come into play. Some people think it is killing a human being, some people believe it is aborting a fetus (non-human being). That is the dividing line in my observation.
Well, she can believe that but that fetus isn't viable until around 24 weeks so by law it is not a person. You will always have people believing one way or the other but your friend is the only one trying to make decisions for a complete stranger when they have no skin in the game. I'm really not concerned about how they feel when they won't have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. The point is it's none of her business.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
so when someone says "it is a moral debate", is this suggesting that those who are pro-choice lack those morals?
this is mere conjecture, but I would imagine that your friend is probably pro life becuase she doesn't have that choice to begin with. if she did, she might sing a different tune. I would imagine those types of people are rather rare.
I’m not sure what her opinion would be if in a difference situation. There are plenty of women, liberal and conservative, that are pro-life regardless of religion and infertility issues. And by “it’s a moral debate”, I’m not saying that one side lacks morals, just that their morals are different. They obviously have morals because they care about the life and body of the woman, but their morals are out of the equation because they do not believe it is a life being taken or a human being being killed. Maybe a difference in definition/view of life would be more appropriate. Both believe it is morally incomprehensible to kill another human, some believe that a growing baby in the womb is not a human and some believe that they are. Therefor some believe that it is not murder and some believe that is.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
No, the crux of it is that she believes that nobody has the right to take a human life with a beating heart (just like the life of a newborn). Her concern is not about the woman’s body, but about the body of the individual living inside of her that has equal rights to their body. That’s where the moral/ethical limits come into play. Some people think it is killing a human being, some people believe it is aborting a fetus (non-human being). That is the dividing line in my observation.
Well, she can believe that but that fetus isn't viable until around 24 weeks so by law it is not a person. You will always have people believing one way or the other but your friend is the only one trying to make decisions for a complete stranger when they have no skin in the game. I'm really not concerned about how they feel when they won't have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. The point is it's none of her business.
Would you say that you have any skin in the game after the baby is born or after viability? From what I’ve observed, everyone has a different measuring stick when it comes to what constitutes a human being with human rights and what doesn’t. The whole issue is a matter of public opinion/personal viewpoints on life and what constitutes a life. And the age of viability changes with scientific advancement, does that mean that the measure of life changes? Anyways, my whole point is that this debate goes well beyond a woman’s health only discussion, and probably more of an ethical one.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
No, the crux of it is that she believes that nobody has the right to take a human life with a beating heart (just like the life of a newborn). Her concern is not about the woman’s body, but about the body of the individual living inside of her that has equal rights to their body. That’s where the moral/ethical limits come into play. Some people think it is killing a human being, some people believe it is aborting a fetus (non-human being). That is the dividing line in my observation.
Well, she can believe that but that fetus isn't viable until around 24 weeks so by law it is not a person. You will always have people believing one way or the other but your friend is the only one trying to make decisions for a complete stranger when they have no skin in the game. I'm really not concerned about how they feel when they won't have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. The point is it's none of her business.
Only not a person by law depending on which law you are reading. So what about feticide and the unborn victims of violence act? Does the law not contradict itself on those cases? One case its a human with rights and you can be charged with manslaughter or murder, but if it is the mother then it's a different story? How is this not a complete contradiction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
No, the crux of it is that she believes that nobody has the right to take a human life with a beating heart (just like the life of a newborn). Her concern is not about the woman’s body, but about the body of the individual living inside of her that has equal rights to their body. That’s where the moral/ethical limits come into play. Some people think it is killing a human being, some people believe it is aborting a fetus (non-human being). That is the dividing line in my observation.
Well, she can believe that but that fetus isn't viable until around 24 weeks so by law it is not a person. You will always have people believing one way or the other but your friend is the only one trying to make decisions for a complete stranger when they have no skin in the game. I'm really not concerned about how they feel when they won't have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. The point is it's none of her business.
Only not a person by law depending on which law you are reading. So what about feticide and the unborn victims of violence act? Does the law not contradict itself on those cases? One case its a human with rights and you can be charged with manslaughter or murder, but if it is the mother then it's a different story? How is this not a complete contradiction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
No, the crux of it is that she believes that nobody has the right to take a human life with a beating heart (just like the life of a newborn). Her concern is not about the woman’s body, but about the body of the individual living inside of her that has equal rights to their body. That’s where the moral/ethical limits come into play. Some people think it is killing a human being, some people believe it is aborting a fetus (non-human being). That is the dividing line in my observation.
Well, she can believe that but that fetus isn't viable until around 24 weeks so by law it is not a person. You will always have people believing one way or the other but your friend is the only one trying to make decisions for a complete stranger when they have no skin in the game. I'm really not concerned about how they feel when they won't have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. The point is it's none of her business.
Only not a person by law depending on which law you are reading. So what about feticide and the unborn victims of violence act? Does the law not contradict itself on those cases? One case its a human with rights and you can be charged with manslaughter or murder, but if it is the mother then it's a different story? How is this not a complete contradiction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
Definitely a contradiction, otherwise the only charge would be assault to the woman. If they are not a life until after birth, then how can they be a victim before birth? For the record, though, the legal system is full of contradictions and is not overly consistent in many areas.
Exceptions aside... I see this issue as predominantly a religious one where the values espoused by the cult are trying to be imposed on society as a whole.
I think that it probably mostly is, but not 100%. One of my friends that identifies as a non-Christian liberal had some fertility issues and went the route of adopting after trying various other means. She always said that she felt that raising a child was the greatest desire she has in life. We have discussed the topic of abortion on a couple occasions (we talk politics a lot) and she is adamantly against abortion and believes it should only be used as a last resort in life threatening situations. She believed that once a heartbeat is detected that the cells have become a life and deserves the same rights to life that a newborn baby does. I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion. She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
Great, your friend doesn't have to have an abortion then. Nobody will tell her what she can and can't do with her body. She also doesn't have any business telling anyone what they can and can't do with their body. That's the crux of it.
No, the crux of it is that she believes that nobody has the right to take a human life with a beating heart (just like the life of a newborn). Her concern is not about the woman’s body, but about the body of the individual living inside of her that has equal rights to their body. That’s where the moral/ethical limits come into play. Some people think it is killing a human being, some people believe it is aborting a fetus (non-human being). That is the dividing line in my observation.
Well, she can believe that but that fetus isn't viable until around 24 weeks so by law it is not a person. You will always have people believing one way or the other but your friend is the only one trying to make decisions for a complete stranger when they have no skin in the game. I'm really not concerned about how they feel when they won't have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. The point is it's none of her business.
Only not a person by law depending on which law you are reading. So what about feticide and the unborn victims of violence act? Does the law not contradict itself on those cases? One case its a human with rights and you can be charged with manslaughter or murder, but if it is the mother then it's a different story? How is this not a complete contradiction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
Easy, one case has a victim the other doesn't.
I don't see how that has anything to do with it. How can a fetus be a life in one scenario, but the same exact fetus not in another? I don't see how the woman being a victim of assault changes any of that with respect to the fetus.
If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.
Exactly. Goes with my statement earlier of not understand or misrepresenting the other side. No one is pro-life because of women's rights, they are pro-life because of life. Gender would not change that opinion.
If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.
Exactly. Goes with my statement earlier of not understand or misrepresenting the other side. No one is pro-life because of women's rights, they are pro-life because of life. Gender would not change that opinion.
false. while I don't believe it's the majority, that is definitely part of it for some.
Virtually every poll I've seen shows at least half of pro-life supports or more are women. It just doesn't make sense to say its a women's rights issue or even more that this issue wouldn't exist if men conceive. The law that several found disgusting with Mississippi restricting abortions to 15 weeks, well 77% of women would support restricting it to the first trimester which is earlier than that. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/27/poll_finds_most_women_back_abortion_restrictions_132913.html Forgive me if anyone doesn't approve of that source, essential any search had the same data. There's no denying that women make up an equal or greater portion of the pro-life movement.
If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.
Exactly. Goes with my statement earlier of not understand or misrepresenting the other side. No one is pro-life because of women's rights, they are pro-life because of life. Gender would not change that opinion.
false. while I don't believe it's the majority, that is definitely part of it for some.
Maybe not "no one." There's always crazies everywhere. But I think it would be an insignificant portion. I know some didn't vote for Romney because he was mormon. I also believe it was an insignificant portion and didn't impact the results at all. I would chalk up those whoa re pro-life because they feel women are lesser is also an insignificant portion. The overwhelming vast majority has to do with life or not life.
If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.
If that were the case I doubt courts would favor mothers in child custody/support hearings. If laws are made by men to favor men, why is that not the case?
If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.
Virtually every poll I've seen shows at least half of pro-life supports or more are women. It just doesn't make sense to say its a women's rights issue or even more that this issue wouldn't exist if men conceive. The law that several found disgusting with Mississippi restricting abortions to 15 weeks, well 77% of women would support restricting it to the first trimester which is earlier than that. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/27/poll_finds_most_women_back_abortion_restrictions_132913.html Forgive me if anyone doesn't approve of that source, essential any search had the same data. There's no denying that women make up an equal or greater portion of the pro-life movement.
I'm definitely pro-choice, but I do think that the earlier the procedure is done... the better. Scraping out 'goop' is better in my mind than extracting a baby almost at full term.
That being said... I'll side with a woman to make whatever choice she decides for herself.
I'll never buy the idea that life begins at the moment of conception. If you're going to argue that... you may as well say sperm cells are life and ban masturbation. Or for that matter... go hard core (like some zealots do already) and cease the unnatural practice of birth control.
Comments
that said, even at 80 and staunchly with the church, my FIL is progressive in many ways. not too sure about abortion, but he believes in marriage equality.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I really don't think it is that common. I haven't looked up any stats on what percentage of women that would be, but we're talking 2-3 weeks into the second trimester. I think very few wouldn't know several weeks prior to that deadline that is well into the second trimester.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I think her life experiences, not religion or politics, has led her to this belief. Pretty sure it’s still not enough of an issue to make her vote republican, but if it was a single issue she was voting for, I would guarantee you that she would vote against abortion.
She may be an anomaly, and the only reason I’m throwing her into this issue is because I think it is a way more complicated than simply religion. It is a morals and ethics debate, and I am told that the religious as well as non-religious can develop their own moral and ethical limits
I'm pro choice by default for the most part, although I don't really have in-depth knowledge on the issue as far as timing, when it is OK, etc. I have always just supported choice
While my 'scenario' is just fantasy-world, after this election I have given that thought, if the Democrat platform just gave into banning (or severely restricting) abortion. I think it would create a seismic shift in our national politics. Trump doesn't sniff his electoral win if the divide didn't exist, and GW Bush doesn't get elected (IMO).
And I think to myself, is this abortion hill the one I want to die on? If it costs our national and cultural progress, gives life to the "belief" that teachers (and students) should be allowed (to purchase) and carry guns into schools, rapes our environment/wildlife and pulls back restrictions for polluters to do whatever the hell they want. It also has taken numerous protections that consumers had. Also has played a dangerous game with our economy as well as the geopolitical economy/balance. Opposing (or pretending to oppose) abortion has given a free ticket to do all these things.
So I don't know.
I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice.
To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then?
I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
www.headstonesband.com
this is mere conjecture, but I would imagine that your friend is probably pro life becuase she doesn't have that choice to begin with. if she did, she might sing a different tune. I would imagine those types of people are rather rare.
www.headstonesband.com
And by “it’s a moral debate”, I’m not saying that one side lacks morals, just that their morals are different. They obviously have morals because they care about the life and body of the woman, but their morals are out of the equation because they do not believe it is a life being taken or a human being being killed. Maybe a difference in definition/view of life would be more appropriate. Both believe it is morally incomprehensible to kill another human, some believe that a growing baby in the womb is not a human and some believe that they are. Therefor some believe that it is not murder and some believe that is.
So what about feticide and the unborn victims of violence act? Does the law not contradict itself on those cases? One case its a human with rights and you can be charged with manslaughter or murder, but if it is the mother then it's a different story? How is this not a complete contradiction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
For the record, though, the legal system is full of contradictions and is not overly consistent in many areas.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
The law that several found disgusting with Mississippi restricting abortions to 15 weeks, well 77% of women would support restricting it to the first trimester which is earlier than that.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/27/poll_finds_most_women_back_abortion_restrictions_132913.html
Forgive me if anyone doesn't approve of that source, essential any search had the same data. There's no denying that women make up an equal or greater portion of the pro-life movement.
I know some didn't vote for Romney because he was mormon. I also believe it was an insignificant portion and didn't impact the results at all.
I would chalk up those whoa re pro-life because they feel women are lesser is also an insignificant portion. The overwhelming vast majority has to do with life or not life.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm definitely pro-choice, but I do think that the earlier the procedure is done... the better. Scraping out 'goop' is better in my mind than extracting a baby almost at full term.
That being said... I'll side with a woman to make whatever choice she decides for herself.
I'll never buy the idea that life begins at the moment of conception. If you're going to argue that... you may as well say sperm cells are life and ban masturbation. Or for that matter... go hard core (like some zealots do already) and cease the unnatural practice of birth control.