Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

my2hands said:

If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

MayDay10 said:

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.

No, you’ve totally misunderstood and misconstrued my post. The “placate” comment clearly referred to giving up on fighting for access to health care I’m order to try to get concessions elsewhere. It doesn’t say that’s the reason people may be anti-choice. 

And I’ve certainly spoken with people who are anti-choice whose reasons centre around controlling women’s reproductive options, so don’t try to argue that those people aren’t out there. 

And finally, I didn’t use the term “hate women”.  That’s your term, don’t try to project that as my argument. 

I did not intentionally misconstrue your point, I may have misunderstood it.
I didn't say we "hate women," but said that is a common accusation among politicians pushing their pro-choice agenda, they want everyone to believe we are pro-choice because we mistreat women. Instead of focusing on the real reasons and focus on the science behind life, they just accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being sexist. 

I would not call someone anti-choice, just like I wouldn't label someone anti-life. That gives me the impression that you are not really open to other's opinions, the only reason to give a negative label like that is to try and dismiss them. Which is in line with my example of politicians and their labels.  I could be entirely wrong about that, (and I'm not even trying to say that is really the case) that is just the impression I get from the language used.  I mean, would you think anyone was really sincere if they called everyone else anti-life? Probably not. 
And of course there are those trying to control women's reproductive organs, that's the whole point being pro-life. But it is the motivation behind it. How many do it because they feel women are inferior, and how many because they want to preserve life. I think the latter reason is much, much more common. The first group would be an insignificant portion. The fact that there are as many pro-life women as men would tend to back that statement up, otherwise it would be completely lopsided (even more women according to many polls)..

Anti-choice is accurate, since the defining feature of the argument is removing the choice of abortion for women. I don’t agree with that side identifying themselves as pro-life, because that attempts to claim the moral high ground and define the pro-choice side as anti-life, which it is not. 

No time to respond to the other points right now 

Brings me back to my earlier comment. you don't understand the views of pro-life if you think the defining feature is removing choice. It is not. The defining feature is preserving life. That argument seems to get lost in every abortion discussion. And if you truly believe the defining feature is just removing choice and restricting rights to women then you do not understand that passion or motivation and logic behind anyone who is pro-life. Why else would women make up half of the pro-life group?
I mean no disrespect towards anyone who is pro-choice. I wouldn't ever call them murderers, I know there are some who do, but that isn't helpful or honest. But I recognize that the difference is almost always when does life start. The few suggestions for other reasons like that abortion should be allowed for population control if nothing else is honestly disgusting (which someone suggested a page or two back). 
That is why I think it is as accurate to say anti-choice as it is to say anti-life. 

They may not think that removing a woman's choice is the defining feature of their belief but that is the ultimate end result, I don't know how that can be argued. What someone believes or is their intent is irrelevant, it is the result that matters.

dankind said:

my2hands said:

If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real

But shit like this is happening all over the world: Brexit; Italy's new fascists; the increasing popularity of France's nationalists (National Front party); Merkel's time is up in Germany, paving the way for the nuts in her party to finally come out of the woodwork--the SPD is gasping like a fish out of water--and alter the political bedrock of the continent all while emboldening destructive politicians from other European nations; Costa Rica's (where abortion is illegal) leading presidential candidate is an evangelical whose running on a platform against gay marriage; Brazil's ruling party is executing its opposition; hell, even the Netherlands took a hard right. Where would you go? The cold-as-fuck countries appear to be holding steady to democratic ideals, but who knows how long that will last? The new generation of voters appear to want it this way.

If you figure something out, let me know. We've got all of our passports ready. 

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

my2hands said:

If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real

But shit like this is happening all over the world: Brexit; Italy's new fascists; the increasing popularity of France's nationalists (National Front party); Merkel's time is up in Germany, paving the way for the nuts in her party to finally come out of the woodwork--the SPD is gasping like a fish out of water--and alter the political bedrock of the continent all while emboldening destructive politicians from other European nations; Costa Rica's (where abortion is illegal) leading presidential candidate is an evangelical who's running on a platform against gay marriage; Brazil's ruling party is executing its opposition; hell, even the Netherlands took a hard right. Where would you go? The cold-as-fuck countries appear to be holding steady to democratic ideals, but who knows how long that will last? The new generation of voters appear to want it this way.

If you figure something out, let me know. We've got all of our passports ready. 

We're doing okay in Canada with this shit, and it appears that we will be for the foreseeable future. Banning abortion isn't even really on the Conservative radar, not is fascism, and gay marriage is completely non-controversial here; we've had it for years. Come here. It's not cold in Vancouver.

The warmest spot is also the priciest. Damn you, Canada!

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

https://twitter.com/petemont/status/976086568036429824?s=19

Mississippi goddamn!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ25-U3jNWM


 

dankind said:

https://youtu.be/JkbS2Zrcl6g

oftenreading said:

Some facts for those that would prefer abortion be banned.

Criminalizing abortion does not reduce the rate of abortion; it simply increases the risks to pregnant women.

One salient paragraph out of many in the article, below:

The report found that abortions occur as frequently in the two most restrictive categories of countries – such as Malta, where it is banned outright, or Ireland, where it is allowed only to save the woman’s life – as it does in the least restrictive category, where it is allowed no matter what the reason.

What that means is that banning abortion is known to be ineffective in reducing the rate of abortions, and thus is mostly just done out of spite and misguided moral outrage. We already know how to reduce the rate of abortions - provide easily accessible, low cost or free, effective birth control. When you look at this evidence, and compare it to what the right actually does, it's difficult to believe their stated motivation of protecting unborn children. 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/mar/21/abortion-rates-drop-dramatically-rich-countries-terminations-study

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Yes if it is as a result of rape.
No if you were too irresponsible to use contraceptives.