Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

1…3839414344…96

Comments

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,664
    I'm just glad the song is called "Parchman Farm" and not "Masturbation Farm".
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,501
      Shared with permission from a friend’s wall.
    _________________________
    “Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read:
    ‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
    Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.
    Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,664
    mickeyrat said:
      Shared with permission from a friend’s wall.
    _________________________
    “Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read:
    ‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
    Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.
    Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”

    ^^^ Brilliantly worded. 
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mickeyrat said:
      Shared with permission from a friend’s wall.
    _________________________
    “Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read:
    ‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
    Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.
    Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”

    This is exactly my position as well, right up until the last sentence. I don’t view this as being what “pro choice” means; I view this as the only legal, ethical and logical interpretation of the situation. People can choose to be anti-choice but they have no legal, ethical or logical reason for that belief. The fact that it often contradicts other self-professed beliefs makes it even more hypocritical.  
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • RYME
    RYME Wisconsin Posts: 1,904
    edited May 2019
    benjs said:
    RYME said:
    Mabey in very rare circumstances.
    If there is a heartbeat - No!
    Over 60 million abortions in the Unite States since 1973, who knows what that number is worldwide,  Holy moly that's a lot of lives that never had a chance.
    Promote disipline, & responsibility.
    Have control over thy pecker.
    If a mother cannot support the baby herself encourage adoption whenever possible.
    If its not a life in the womb, what is it then a pimple?
    You know, I think you're right, but we need to take it further. I look at the men who swear celibacy and the women who die with unfertilized eggs left inside them, and I think it's just a waste. We should have masturbation farms for men and fertilization farms for women, to prevent the tragedy that is lives that never had a chance.

    As for the life in the womb - you're right, it is life, and I assume your purpose in parroting the "but it's alive!" message is to brutalize the act of abortion. I'll play. I believe in a woman's right to abort, kill, terminate, murder (pick a name, I don't care) a fetus if she so desires because it is her fucking fetus and not yours or mine.

    Finally, I'm embarrassed to see you even suggest that 'peckers' have shown any ability to be controlled, or have acted with any discipline or sense of responsibility. Do your eyes and ears not function? 
    You got me Thinkin benjs.  I'll help you out. You've got the man's seed and the woman's seeds.  And they're just seeds until this happens.
    https://youtu.be/65BV5dXXxzM
    Yes this changes everything.
    So there's no reason to fertilize them all, that's ridiculous.
    Post edited by RYME on
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,379
    RYME said:
    drakeheuer14 said:
    It took two to make that fetus. 
    Yup it takes 2 to tango.
    I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in  agreeance.
    But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh??  nice facetiousness.
    It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized.  Unbelievable responce (benjs)
    I know benjs,  expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
    For a rapist it seems to be too much to ask to show self-control. For every other could-be mother, all it is, is simply none of your fucking business. That should be all we need collectively.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,379
    RYME said:
    drakeheuer14 said:
    It took two to make that fetus. 
    Yup it takes 2 to tango.
    I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in  agreeance.
    But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh??  nice facetiousness.
    It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized.  Unbelievable responce (benjs)
    I know benjs,  expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
    As for your 'not a developing embryo until it's fertilized' - I thought it was abundantly clear that I was joking. Looks like we both have unrealistic expectations of people.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,501
    https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • RYME
    RYME Wisconsin Posts: 1,904
    benjs said:
    RYME said:
    drakeheuer14 said:
    It took two to make that fetus. 
    Yup it takes 2 to tango.
    I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in  agreeance.
    But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh??  nice facetiousness.
    It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized.  Unbelievable responce (benjs)
    I know benjs,  expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
    As for your 'not a developing embryo until it's fertilized' - I thought it was abundantly clear that I was joking. Looks like we both have unrealistic expectations of people.
    I was trying to get you to chuckle.
    I know you were being facetious.
    Masturbation firms made me chuckle.
    It's all good.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,692
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    dignin said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Ha! Just saw this on FB right now. Timely!


    Too true.

    Keep up the good fight pjsoul.

    I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
    I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
    They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
    This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
    There isn't any setting rape and incest victims down that path, but the laws are making abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest illegal too.
    BTW, IMO it's not pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Those terms seems misleading to me, particularly because nobody is pro-abortion. It's pro-choice and anti-choice.
    Oh and honestly I don’t care what label you want to call it. I didn’t fix it when you use your terms, don’t pretend like yours are the only right ones. That’s fucking narcissistic. 
    What in the hell are you talking about?? I said IN MY OPINION.... that those terms seem misleading TO ME.... How in the fuck did I just get accused of pretending like mine are the only right ones and of being narcissistic using that kind of language?? Are you just looking for reasons to trash me or what?
     Not not looking, just reading.
    Not closely enough I guess? Or are you going to call out everyone for stating their opinions that you don't agree with and call them narcissistic? Or just me?
    Including the entire thread. But fair enough. I’ll own this.  You did say IMO. So it was probably too harsh for that. Letting past discussion here where people focus so much in the labels and arguing what other people should use. So I’m sorry for the comment for that one.

    keep your boy digin in line though. :) 


    That's some solid peacemaking Cincy, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,127

    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,431
    Nevada doing the right thing....


  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,838
    Bentleyspop said:
    Nevada doing the right thing....


    So I know why it’s law to tell people about the “physical and mental” issues with having an abortion. I know it’s meant for a different reason, but in reality every doctor that is performing any procedure should be sharing all that type of information. The fact that religious right felt like they had to put it into their law is pretty crazy, but I wouldn’t use a doctor that wouldn’t cover all aspects of any procedure with me.

    I continue to be torn on the ability to have an abortion without the father knowing. I understand the argument, but it just doesn’t feel right. Likely it’s a small amount of cases where that’s a real issue (in my mind) anyhow.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    cincybearcat said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    Nevada doing the right thing....


    So I know why it’s law to tell people about the “physical and mental” issues with having an abortion. I know it’s meant for a different reason, but in reality every doctor that is performing any procedure should be sharing all that type of information. The fact that religious right felt like they had to put it into their law is pretty crazy, but I wouldn’t use a doctor that wouldn’t cover all aspects of any procedure with me.

    I continue to be torn on the ability to have an abortion without the father knowing. I understand the argument, but it just doesn’t feel right. Likely it’s a small amount of cases where that’s a real issue (in my mind) anyhow.
    What you are talking about in your first paragraph is informed consent, but what these laws have required is misinformed consent. This and similar laws have required doctors to tell women about potential physical and emotional complications for which there is no evidence, all in an attempt to dissuade them from having an abortion. The changes in the law now just require doctors to advise on the potential consequences for which we actually have evidence. 
     
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,480
    Saw some pro-lifers having a small demonstration in the middle of Sergel Square when I was in Stockholm. 



    Felt very weird. Very Alabama I guess.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,379
    cincybearcat said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    Nevada doing the right thing....


    So I know why it’s law to tell people about the “physical and mental” issues with having an abortion. I know it’s meant for a different reason, but in reality every doctor that is performing any procedure should be sharing all that type of information. The fact that religious right felt like they had to put it into their law is pretty crazy, but I wouldn’t use a doctor that wouldn’t cover all aspects of any procedure with me.

    I continue to be torn on the ability to have an abortion without the father knowing. I understand the argument, but it just doesn’t feel right. Likely it’s a small amount of cases where that’s a real issue (in my mind) anyhow.
    Regarding your first paragraph - I know there are a group of doctors absolutely furious because in many cases they're prohibited from even talking about abortion options, and feel that they are effectively being forced to violate their Hippocratic Oaths (especially when an abortion would prevent almost certain harm to a sick pregnant woman), or to break the law. I can't even fathom what that must be like.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,501
    edited May 2019
    cincybearcat said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    Nevada doing the right thing....


    So I know why it’s law to tell people about the “physical and mental” issues with having an abortion. I know it’s meant for a different reason, but in reality every doctor that is performing any procedure should be sharing all that type of information. The fact that religious right felt like they had to put it into their law is pretty crazy, but I wouldn’t use a doctor that wouldn’t cover all aspects of any procedure with me.

    I continue to be torn on the ability to have an abortion without the father knowing. I understand the argument, but it just doesn’t feel right. Likely it’s a small amount of cases where that’s a real issue (in my mind) anyhow.
    To your last , I have personal experience with at least the idea of it. It really went a long way to shaping my thoughts on this specific issue.

    Back a lifetime ago when I was 21(?) or so I was in a hook up with this young woman. I need to preface all this by saying I was an active alcoholic at the time and I had little to no respect for her. Real prize I was.  I wasn't physical or anything like that, but I'm certain she could see I had little respect for her.

    One day in the parking lot of a friends apartment, she stated that if she got pregnant by me she would have an abortion without telling me anything before or after. Stopped me cold. I believed then as I still do now that the potential father should at a minimum be heard on the subject. I dont think that its unreasonable to be heard at least.

    What I came away with though, is that whatever a mans involvement, in a committed relationship, casually dating ,one night stand, that ultimately its her decision, full stop. Really there's nothing a man can do in such a situation, if she chooses to keep that info to herself. Once it becomes known , the legal system might be able to be involved but that leads to serious acrimony between the two. and what kind of life would a child have within that dynamic.

    It also led me to conclude (despite how i was living) that I should be sure of who I was sleeping with, that it was at least half my responsibility for protection against unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. If I went into a sexual relationship with someone I didnt have a modicum of trust, should I reallly expect any kind of consideration in that particular situation?


    In the end with that woman , it was a blessing in disguise. I went on to drink to excess for another 17 years or so, which also included the last 10 with a crack addiction. I was in NO position to be a parent.  To this day I have no idea if she was or wasnt ever pregnant by me. Given how I lived for all those years I feel blessed to not have any kids(to my knowledge). I wouldn't want to have put kids through that bullshit.
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mickeyrat said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    Nevada doing the right thing....


    So I know why it’s law to tell people about the “physical and mental” issues with having an abortion. I know it’s meant for a different reason, but in reality every doctor that is performing any procedure should be sharing all that type of information. The fact that religious right felt like they had to put it into their law is pretty crazy, but I wouldn’t use a doctor that wouldn’t cover all aspects of any procedure with me.

    I continue to be torn on the ability to have an abortion without the father knowing. I understand the argument, but it just doesn’t feel right. Likely it’s a small amount of cases where that’s a real issue (in my mind) anyhow.
    posting to hold. more later.
    Is this a libertarian “later” or an actual later? 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,501
    oftenreading said:
    mickeyrat said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    Nevada doing the right thing....


    So I know why it’s law to tell people about the “physical and mental” issues with having an abortion. I know it’s meant for a different reason, but in reality every doctor that is performing any procedure should be sharing all that type of information. The fact that religious right felt like they had to put it into their law is pretty crazy, but I wouldn’t use a doctor that wouldn’t cover all aspects of any procedure with me.

    I continue to be torn on the ability to have an abortion without the father knowing. I understand the argument, but it just doesn’t feel right. Likely it’s a small amount of cases where that’s a real issue (in my mind) anyhow.
    posting to hold. more later.
    Is this a libertarian “later” or an actual later? 
    actual. needed to get home to the laptop. too much type out on my phone and I was entering rush hour in rain....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,838
    oftenreading said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    Nevada doing the right thing....


    So I know why it’s law to tell people about the “physical and mental” issues with having an abortion. I know it’s meant for a different reason, but in reality every doctor that is performing any procedure should be sharing all that type of information. The fact that religious right felt like they had to put it into their law is pretty crazy, but I wouldn’t use a doctor that wouldn’t cover all aspects of any procedure with me.

    I continue to be torn on the ability to have an abortion without the father knowing. I understand the argument, but it just doesn’t feel right. Likely it’s a small amount of cases where that’s a real issue (in my mind) anyhow.
    What you are talking about in your first paragraph is informed consent, but what these laws have required is misinformed consent. This and similar laws have required doctors to tell women about potential physical and emotional complications for which there is no evidence, all in an attempt to dissuade them from having an abortion. The changes in the law now just require doctors to advise on the potential consequences for which we actually have evidence. 
     
    Yup. My terrible writing skills failed to convey that. But yes I understand.


    hippiemom = goodness

Categories