Obama and Abortion

[asleepathewheel]

Personally, if I were in power, I would outlaw abortions after the 1st trimester except for danger to the mother or severe defects (yes, slipperly slope)

This would preserve the right to an early abortion, and give the mother enough time to make a decision. 1.5 months or so assuming the mother found out due to a missed period.

Apparently 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, so later abortions are already relatively unpopular.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So should men be given the leading and primary say in anything dealing with prostate cancer? Women with breast cancer? The rich in banking issues and regulation? The poor in welfare?

Should we have 500 different legislatures so we can make sure that each identity group can be the leading and primary say on each issue that affects them disproportionately?

What a load of crap.

If men have a moral position on the unborn... shelve it, you aren't allowed to have your opinion, women are deciding here! Hmmm... if that was oppositely done, I think there would be an outcry.

1. Medical research is not in any way comparable to discussing the legality of abortion, specially since its not even a legal issue to begin with. So this continues to be a piss poor comparison. Given that the rich and poor are both affected by economic issues (given that economic issues are what determined whether they are rich or poor), their interests in government economic and social policy are equal, so this is another poor comparison.

2. Men should be adult and rational enough to acknowledge the fact that abortion is an issue that affects women far more than them, and thus defer to them on this issue as much as they can within their own moral guidelines. That most adults are far from rational isn't my issue.

[Arrian]

The point at which we decide rights begin is going to be arbitrary. And yes, I understand that many people believe the decision has already been made by God. Let's not get into that debate if we can possibly avoid it.

My position is basically the same as that of Ramo and Patroklos (and JM? edit: and asleep). We come at it from differing angles, but I think we all agree that there is a point prior to birth but some time after conception that rights should be granted to the fetus. Right, so let's wrap this thing up and be done with this issue in American politics, shall we?

edit: generally speaking, my position on abortion has been to be "pro-choice" because, while I do have an opinion on the matter, I don't feel so strongly (for a variety of reasons) about the issue that I feel I have the right (or duty) to force it on others.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, of course it does. An execution is ending a human life, but we don't prosecute executioners because they did their killing with the backing of the Law. Murder is unlawful killing. Killing done with the support of the Law is be definition not murder.

So abortion doctors are really executioners?

The trouble with your analogy is that whereas capital punishment is forced to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there are no such restrictions with respect to abortion.

Does the unborn child get to have a trial? Or is she summarily executed without one? If abortion is merely state sanctioned murder, then what stops the state from killing any one of us, just because we are inconvenient or unwanted or a burden on society?

[Patroklos]

Men have stronger muscles, and weaker immune systems and can stand less pain. Wow, so you are a muscle headed moron who thinks raw physical strenght is all that matters. Good to know.

I am glad you have finally admitted the obvious. Now, that you have masterd this basic skill most of us achieve at 5, your self pawnage is complete.

Last time I checked, child support laws can only be enforced if paternity is settled. For paternity to be settled, a man must have acknowledged their paternity, or the woman must have been able to gain evidence of paternity.

Hey, its all about natural differences, like you said. If a man has no volunary perogative to raise his children, then according to you who is a women to mandate it? What do they know about fatherhood?

and thus defer to them on this issue as much as they can within their own moral guidelines.

And since most of us have a moral guideline to not allow human death to occur for mere conviencence all around us if it is our belief that is what is happening, you have just justified our inclusion in the decision. Thanks for contridicting yourself. This would be easier on you if you just stoped typing.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Lancer
Here's a woman that was so ****ed up by her being aborted that she can't hold a train of thought very well

See, if they'd done the job right to begin with, she wouldn't be having this problem...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So abortion doctors are really executioners?

The trouble with your analogy is that whereas capital punishment is forced to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there are no such restrictions with respect to abortion.

Individuals accused of crimes have acknowledge rights, and therefore only after a trial can those rights be removed and their life terminated. Fetuses have few if any rights.

If abortion is merely state sanctioned murder, then what stops the state from killing any one of us, just because we are inconvenient or unwanted or a burden on society?

In a democracy, its called A VOTE. You may want to look into it.

[Arrian]

See, if they'd done the job right to begin with, she wouldn't be having this problem...

Malpractice suit?

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Medical research is not in any way comparable to discussing the legality of abortion, specially since its not even a legal issue to begin with.

It's an issue of facts. You cannot rule on a legal issue without access to correct facts. If there is no difference between an unborn child in terms of identity between the 3rd month and the 6th month, then it makes no sense to split hairs by considering one to be a person, and the other not a legal person.

2. Men should be adult and rational enough to acknowledge the fact that abortion is an issue that affects women far more than them, and thus defer to them on this issue as much as they can within their own moral guidelines. That most adults are far from rational isn't my issue.

Then why are men forced to pay child support for the child they helped to create if men are forced to defer to women on the issue of procreation? If the man is held to be equally responsible in one arena, he must also be held to be equally responsible in another. You cannot hold a man responsible for the creation of the child, if the woman is given absolute control over whether the child lives or dies.

It's that simple. I think men are equally responsible for the child they helped to create, and that it is a man's responsiblity to step up for that child. One of the reasons we have so many abortions is because the fathers are not stepping up to their newfound responsibility and giving the mother the support she craves. Rather then sloughing off responsibility to the mother, the fathers need to be stepping up.

[Patroklos]

edit: generally speaking, my position on abortion has been to be "pro-choice" because, while I do have an opinion on the matter, I don't feel so strongly (for a variety of reasons) about the issue that I feel I have the right (or duty) to force it on others.

If you do feel that there is a time when rights should be bestowed and thus the existance of a human being recognized, and we know that thousands plus are being killed after that (murdered if you believe they were human), how can you not feel strongly about that?

[Ben Kenobi]

Individuals accused of crimes have acknowledge rights, and therefore only after a trial can those rights be removed and their life terminated. Fetuses have few if any rights.

So it was ok to kill a slave that you owned because they did not possess 'acknowledged' rights? It was wrong then and it was wrong now.

Just because the unborn child is not currently acknowledged to be a person, does not make it right to kill her.

In a democracy, its called A VOTE. You may want to look into it.

You didn't answer my question. What stops the state from killing someone without a trial, if we follow your logic that says that unborn children can be killed without trial.

My point is that this is removing one of the fundamental checks against the power of the government, which we will already see manifest. The state has taken upon itself the power to kill its own wards, and has already successfully done so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I am glad you have finally admitted the obvious. Now, that you have masterd this basic skill most of us achieve at 5, your self pawnage is complete.

Wait, so you just admitted to being a muscle-headed moron and stated that any five year old could understand that?

Hey, its all about natural differences, like you said. If a man has no volunary perogative to raise his children, then according to you who is a women to mandate it? What do they know about fatherhood?

A guy who doesn't take responsibility for his offspring is equally clueless about fatherhood as any woman, given they chose not to experience it.

If as a guy you admitted paternity, that is a different matter, specially if you had entered into a social contract (marriage) with a woman, maiking you socially liable for any offspring you create.

And since most of us have a moral guideline to not allow human death to occur for mere conviencence all around us if it is our belief that is what is happening, you have just justified our inclusion in the decision. Thanks for contridicting yourself. This would be easier on you if you just stoped typing.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Arrian


Malpractice suit?

-Arrian

Absolutely.

[Riesstiu IV]

Obama supports abortion cuz he wants to kill white babies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So it was ok to kill a slave that you owned because they did not possess 'acknowledged' rights? It was wrong then and it was wrong now.

Just because the unborn child is not currently acknowledged to be a person, does not make it right to kill her.

They used to hang horse thiefs. Is it right to hang horse thiefs now?

You are a bible thumping man, were the God mandated Genocides of old morally good things?

Morals change, and along with it the Law changes as well. What is and isn't considered murder changes with it.

You didn't answer my question. What stops the state from killing someone without a trial, if we follow your logic that says that unborn children can be killed without trial.

Theoretically, following legal procedures set upon and agreed by all members of society. History shows us that in reality, nothing but the good will and self-interests of your neighbors protects you from them, or them from you.

My point is that this is removing one of the fundamental checks against the power of the government, which we will already see manifest. The state has taken upon itself the power to kill its own wards, and has already successfully done so.

Given the STATE the power to make abortion illegal does nothing to diminish the power of said STATE. Are you for or against capital punishment?