New Abortion Law Wave

[D34DL1N3R]

Banning guns would work in giving the Government almost complete control over us and then they could force us to do a lot worse than just outlawing abortions. Gun bans also wouldn't stop violence as guns aren't the only tools required for violence to take place.

So you only want complete control when it suits your own beliefs. Typical far right RepubliCON.

 

[kuwanger]

If there was a vote to start getting rid of laws and reducing the size of the Government I'd definitely vote for that.

Yea, about that: US Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants by State. Does not include federal prisoners, so it's not merely being shifted by placement of them. Clearly, either the South has a lot more criminals, it has a lot more invasive government that makes things crimes, or it has overly long prison terms. Point is, you obviously have a vote on who you elect. Casting down on Democrats seems absurd. Casting down on all legislators, regardless of party, who enlarge government power would be the thing.

Since it is forced on me I choose life over murder.

None of this was referendum votes but to the extent that you could vote on such things, you could obviously vote on the individual who would never abuse their power in government to interfere with others lives. It's not a question of "choose life over murder", as much as you want to present it that way.

 

[Xzi]

I still think the Patriot act is bullshit.

On that we completely agree. And Obama didn't do enough to completely rid us of it either, though he did tame it down a bit.

Larger Government isn't inclusive to Democrats, but it's one of their main points on their agenda and not so much with the Republicans. I think we all should be getting rid of laws and voting to stop the law making processes all together.

Larger government to Democrats means more social safety nets, more movement against climate change, and more globally-standard human rights, such as healthcare for all (whatever form it might take). Republicans are no longer the party of small government, if you're being honest with yourself. Trump is outspending Obama year-to-year, and GWB was insanely spendy after Clinton had budget surpluses and had paid down national debt a ton.

Regardless, you sound more like an anarchist than someone who would rightly belong to either mainstream party. I'm more progressive/Socialist than Democrat myself, but there are at least candidates/Congresspeople that more closely represent my views in the party.

 

[Fates-Blade-900]

Abortion is murder so it's wrong no matter the circumstances, as for rapist... to avoid victims, people should trust no one with their lives, even family members, with out CONSIDERABLE testing of the individual (teach THAT in school), while the government finds some way to send all the rapists to prison, problem solved.

 

[Jayro]

Nope. Doesn't look anything like murder to me.

Good, glad we're on the same page.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Abortion is murder so it's wrong no matter the circumstances, as for rapist... to avoid victims, people should trust no one with their lives, even family members, with out CONSIDERABLE testing of the individual (teach THAT in school), while the government finds some way to send all the rapists to prison, problem solved.

You've GOT to be joking...

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Good luck getting Republican lawmakers to understand sex ed and/or biology. This wave of anti-intellectualism that's responsible for flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers is just as responsible for these draconian abortion laws. This shit never would've passed if there was a single doctor or scientist involved in the process.

Interesting claim, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers are fairly balanced, if Republicans were responsible you'd think that wasn't the case.
Meh, I guess you're just pulling shit out of your ass again.

 

[FAST6191]

We did have that big thread ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/how-do-you-feel-about-abortion.501574/ ) but as I suppose this counts as a fairly big development (one of the bigger countries in the world with it as a fairly core issue seems to actually have it as more of an issue with movement than a ceaseless talking/distraction point) I will leave this rather than merging it. Would have preferred a more objective opener that actually states the sorts of developments that have led to today, maybe a bit of history, and the likely options for progression from here but eh we are getting there.

because it has LITERALLY nothing to do with us. We're guys, we don't have a uterus to plop babies out of, so why should it be our decision?

I have never quite understood this line of thought. Do I also have to exclude menopausal, sterile, underage (pending fertility being achieved, or theoretically achieved -- do I have to test such people first?) and such women from the discussion? Do we exclude anybody else that does not have the equipment from other discussions of ethics and morality anywhere else -- so a make child is born, do we tell the woman to fuck off as she does not have a dick and thus has nothing to say on circumcision? If people have a mind and care to comprehend the concepts involved then it seems like they should have the option to form a judgement and otherwise contribute to the discussion, personally I would care to hear the most from those that understand the science, have considered some of the moral philosophies at play, have understood the legal positions and can elaborate on the previous concepts to a decent degree, and at least one of those to a serious degree (I would not expect a lawyer dealing with bodily autonomy type law to also be a midwife, never mind a relevant field doctor, though it would not be a bad thing either).
Moreover we have artificial wombs a very real possibility in the near enough future -- complex mammalian life has already been done https://www.newscientist.com/articl...elps-premature-lamb-fetuses-grow-for-4-weeks/ . Upon their introduction for humans do we suddenly have to train up half the population (plus those potentially excluded from the other groups) to understand, and possible contemplate the implications of such technology upon existing concepts?

Nope. Doesn't look anything like murder to me.

Looks tasty. Got some apple sauce?

 

[DBlaze]

Abortion is murder so it's wrong no matter the circumstances, as for rapist... to avoid victims, people should trust no one with their lives, even family members, with out CONSIDERABLE testing of the individual (teach THAT in school), while the government finds some way to send all the rapists to prison, problem solved.

Try telling that to someone who's just riding a bike somewhere, just to be pulled off her bike and raped.
Has little to do with trusting people or not, does it?

Abortion is ok under certain circumstances, it's how i've always thought about it and that won't change anytime soon, because we live in a way too messed up world that is just too far gone.
It's not ok to be forced to have a child as a result of rape.

 

[Taleweaver]

Ah...another day in banana republic USA. I couldn't be bothered to read the 2 pages (sorry), but I'll just take a stab at the OP for lulz sake.

I mean, if you're protesting to protect a tree why not protect a human life?

Trees are full grown. You probably didn't mean to imply that others don't want to protect full grown humans, so Ill brush that of as being a dumb analogy. The correct analogy would be "if you're protesting to protect a weed, why not protect a fetus?".

...to which I would reply: this is 'weed' in the sense of those starting plants that crop up anywhere, not 'weed' as in marihuana. Nobody's protecting the former kind.

If you are having sexual relationships then your are usually taking the risk of becoming pregnant. Not ready to be a parent - keep your pants on. Of course, there is the minority of people who are impregnated against their own will. Rape sucks, but murder is murder. Rape usually doesn't result in the baby being mis-figured or deformed (which is the case if someone in your immediate gene pool - which happens in even less of the situations).

I...Honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate here. Considering you make the statement that women are better positioned to judge on the matter, I'd think so. But then why add that sense of twisted logic?

We already fail children in so many ways, but at least give them a fighting chance!

The idea is that if you get rid of the unwanted children, the actually wanted children have a better fighting chance. You repeat the "it's murder"-line a lot, but considering you trip up on your opening statement (even if you consider fetuses life, at least acknowledge that it's not an universally shared belief) I don't think it'll convince anyone thinking otherwise.

Here is what our President said about the issue ...

Sorry, but this is where I tune out. This is a triple whammy of strong skepticism:
1) republicans never really cared for abortion, but use it as an argument to draw in votes with religious folk that are too dumb to realise that republican's main goal is to lower taxes on the rich.
2) Trump is a known liar. That doesn't make him wrong per se, but you really want to dig up someone more credible if you want to make a statement.
3) Trump is also a crook, and on the brink of being exposed as such. As a result, anything controversial that gets thrown in the ether is more likely to be because of "this way, less attention is spend on my government" reasons than "I actually adore life, no matter how early" reasons.

 

[zxr750j]

Pro choice, pro condoms, pro education
Against rapist, against hate, against telling others how they should live their lives.
More love and respect towards others and their opinions would be nice.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Trees are full grown. You probably didn't mean to imply that others don't want to protect full grown humans, so Ill brush that of as being a dumb analogy. The correct analogy would be "if you're protesting to protect a weed, why not protect a fetus?".

...to which I would reply: this is 'weed' in the sense of those starting plants that crop up anywhere, not 'weed' as in marihuana. Nobody's protecting the former kind.

Consider the following:
A fetus stops being a fetus at the moment of birth then it's a baby, isn't that a bit arbitrary? A baby born after 25 weeks of gestation (6 and a half months) has an above 50% chance of survival.

I don't want to call you out on the absurdity of calling a viable human life weed and give you the benefit of the doubt here but your analogy is quite disgusting taken at face value.

The question is: At what point does the fetus' life become worthy of protection? I disagree that it's the moment of birth, it's far more nuanced than that!

 

[Xzi]

Interesting claim, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers are fairly balanced, if Republicans were responsible you'd think that wasn't the case.
Meh, I guess you're just pulling shit out of your ass again.

The right-wing is responsible for the anti-intellectual movement. I never said the fallout from that hasn't hit both parties equally hard. With Betsy DeVos as secretary of education, we're raising a whole new generation of idiots right now. Which side of the political aisle they land on is irrelevant to the larger problem.

 

[YamiZee]

When abortion is legal, that doesn't mean everyone is coming in crowds to get them. Accidents happen, no matter how careful you are. Not to mention rape etc. No one would ever use abortion as their contraception. It's not as easy as people are assuming.

 

[Taleweaver]

Consider the following:
A fetus stops being a fetus at the moment of birth then it's a baby, isn't that a bit arbitrary? A baby born after 25 weeks of gestation (6 and a half months) has an above 50% chance of survival.

Erm...if your current laws allowed for abortion at any moment before birth, then I wouldn't mind regulating them a bit more. In my country, it's only legal until 3 months after conception, and IIRC it was 4 or 5 in the Netherlands. This is done exactly for what you say: above 6 months, it transforms from being a fetus into an actual baby. There is no one moment where it stops being the one and is exactly the other, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

I don't want to call you out on the absurdity of calling a viable human life weed and give you the benefit of the doubt here but your analogy is quite disgusting taken at face value.

No...by all means: please do. Because when you do, I can point out back at you that you missed on how this analogy works.

Weeds are akin to newborns in that they are yet to come into fruition. That's what the analogy is about. I'm not calling humans weeds any more than cots calls humans trees.

Granted: if you want to be completely punctual: weed is indeed not correct. Weeds are actually a form of plants, rather than "the beginning of...". A sprouted seedling would be even more correct, but I had to figure out how to correctly translate that (English isn't my first language).

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Erm...if your current laws allowed for abortion at any moment before birth, then I wouldn't mind regulating them a bit more.

It's important to remember when discussing this issue with Americans that their laws are a lot more liberal than ours.
Someone correct my if I'm wrong but I believe in most states abortion is legal until the 24th week or viability and some have no restrictions at all. As I've said earlier the 24th week is the turning point where the chance of survival becomes 50%+.

In my country, it's only legal until 3 months after conception, and IIRC it was 4 or 5 in the Netherlands. This is done exactly for what you say: above 6 months, it transforms from being a fetus into an actual baby. There is no one moment where it stops being the one and is exactly the other, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

Glad you responded because this is how misunderstandings happen. A fetus stays a fetus until the moment of birth by definition, there's no transformation, at the fetal stage all inner organs are developed. The best distinction you can get is chance of survival really. Here's a Wikipedia article regarding the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Medical_viability

I believe Germany and Belgium is pretty much the same, abortion becomes illegal at the fetal stage (around the 14th week) abortion is legal at the embryonic stage.

No...by all means: please do. Because when you do, I can point out back at you that you missed on how this analogy works.

Weeds are akin to newborns in that they are yet to come into fruition. That's what the analogy is about. I'm not calling humans weeds any more than cots calls humans trees.

I'll chalk that up to linguistic imprecision. A fetus is a fetus until the moment of birth by definition. Also throwing newborns in there makes your suggestions straight up murder, no question, so your attempt to back it up made it much worse.
Here's your quote:

The correct analogy would be "if you're protesting to protect a weed, why not protect a fetus?".

...to which I would reply: this is 'weed' in the sense of those starting plants that crop up anywhere, not 'weed' as in marihuana. Nobody's protecting the former kind.

 

[CORE]

Rape or Complications risk to mother or possible baby's way of life not worth living bad health issues not formed or other physical health factors Exceptional.

There is no other excuse I agree only to these situations and as much as I would agree with that Bill they taking it too far yes all Life is precious until forced on someone I see this as a stab at the Left and will just provoke more arguments.

 

[FAST6191]

Rape or Complications risk to mother or possible baby's way of life not worth living bad health issues not formed or other physical health factors Exceptional.

There is no other excuse I agree only to these situations and as much as I would agree with that Bill they taking it too far yes all Life is precious until forced on someone I see this as a stab at the Left and will just provoke more arguments.

Even in those there are seriously blurry edges.

Simple one might be autism. The ability to scan for it, or at least some forms, in the womb looks to be on the cards. What goes here?
Ultrasound shows one arm is not formed. What do here? Two arms? Just a hand?
Risk to mother? Does this include mental health and wellbeing? If that then what about socio-economic health? Get lumped with a kid at 22 and have to take a year off as it were to sort it and your career prospects take a rather big tumble, even earlier and it gets even more fun.
Incest was not on your list directly, despite it normally being on it in such lists, or does that come under the later things?

Just for giggles where do we draw the line between birth control pills, morning after pills and chemical abortions which can be done up to about 10 weeks at present. Similarly why would you draw it there?

 

[spotanjo3]

I think the new laws are disgusting. No one has the right to force someone to carry a child if they don't want to.

I think women who don't want to carry a child even if they don't want to is disgusting. Use the condom or birth control! Ever heard of it? Why don't they used it?! NO EXCUSED! SMH!

 

[Kunty]

I think women who don't want to carry a child if they don't want to is disgusting. Use the condom or birth control! Ever heard of it? Why don't they used it?! NO EXCUSED! SMH!

Let's make something clear. Condoms are a male item, why don't they use it? Why must it be the woman's fault? As for birth control it can and does fail on occasion, why must the woman pay the price for that? If someone wishes to be rid of a symbiotic organism then they should be able to without persecution. It is no one's business but the person involved, if they want an abortion no one has the right to stop that. This is typical of the care until it's born brigade. I'm sure if that child grew up to be gay and/or transgender they would be the victim of "kill it it's going to hell."

 

[spotanjo3]

Let's make something clear. Condoms are a male item, why don't they use it? Why must it be the woman's fault? As for birth control it can and does fail on occasion, why must the woman pay the price for that? If someone wishes to be rid of a symbiotic organism then they should be able to without persecution. It is no one's business but the person involved, if they want an abortion no one has the right to stop that. This is typical of the care until it's born brigade. I'm sure if that child grew up to be gay and/or transgender they would be the victim of "kill it it's going to hell."

Why don't women closed their legs then ? Yes, there are women condoms. Google it. What are you talking about gay nor transgender ? This is about abortion thread.