So about that abortion thing..

[Jaguar]

I clearly don't have the right to decide that for anyone. Nor do you.

I think mothers should have the right to choose that - after all it's them who will live with the consequences of that decision not me.

What a morally depraved thing to say. Of course we have the right - no, the obligation - to decide what is murder and what isn't. If you call both "extremist" positions "unreasonable," then you can't allow people to act in accordance with one of those extremist positions. That's what laws are for.

[giblets]

Some Euros on here may not fully understand the depravity of the pro-abortion movement in the US, because they tend to have much more sensible laws. In the US there is a legal right to an abortion up until (more or less) the moment of birth. The only abortion procedure that's actually illegal in the US is partial-birth abortion.

Do you think there's a meaningful moral difference between killing a baby one day before birth vs. one day after? I hope not. The act of coming out of a vagina has no more metaphysical significance than the original fertilization. Both are stupid places to draw the line.

I thought Roe v. Wade authorized restrictions on abortion in the third trimester?

[Hauldren Collider]

I thought Roe v. Wade authorized restrictions on abortion in the third trimester?

The restrictions are paper-thin. Look up George Tiller.

[MikeH]

Doubtful for the same reason you espouse nonempathy with the woman's POV.

A fair point.

[MikeH]

What a morally depraved thing to say. Of course we have the right - no, the obligation - to decide what is murder and what isn't. If you call both "extremist" positions "unreasonable," then you can't allow people to act in accordance with one of those extremist positions. That's what laws are for.

As far as I can tell nothing in this post disagrees with anything I've said or believe in.

edit: Other than the idea that my view is morally depraved.

[DinoDoc]

I think you may not understand the reason why pro-choice groups in the US are so unwilling to give ground at all on the issue. When you set out a stall that all abortion should be banned and refuse to shift on that position no matter what, pro-choice people are left feeling that any ground they cede is simply a step towards a total ban. If you argue from an extreme position then you can hardly criticize your opponents for feeling the need to do the same.

To add to this discussion, before Roe the US was moving toward a more liberalized consensus on the issue instead of the total war both sides have now. So we have the Warren court to thank for the mess our politics find themselves in now.

[kentonio]

Oh, I understand completely that they are afraid of a slippery slope; that doesn't make them any less evil! As you describe it, they are literally murdering babies for their political ends.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Here's a clue, if we're in a debate where you keep describing me as a depraved murderer, the odds on me being willing to trust you to find a reasonable compromise are pretty ****ing slim. Because people like yourself are so determined to hold your perceived moral high ground, you will never end up getting even part of what you want. It's stupid and incredibly counter-productive.

[giblets]

The restrictions are paper-thin. Look up George Tiller.

Okay.

In accordance with Kansas state law Tiller performed late-term abortions, which helped to make him a focal point for anti-abortion protest and violence. Tiller treated patients who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects. He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses, in cases where two doctors certified that carrying the fetus to term would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller

Paper thin? If abortion can be done more safely than childbirth I don't see what is so unreasonable about aborting a child with fatal birth defects. Also, I think forcing women to have their bodily functions severely impaired for the sake of someone else's welfare is pretty extreme. Is there any limit on what the state can ask you to do for someone else's good?

[MikeH]

This thread is now a direct duplicate of the last one I participated in, down to HC telling me about planned parenting and someone blaming Roe vs Wade for preventing the sensible consensus emerging that we have in Europe.

[kentonio]

To add to this discussion, before Roe the US was moving toward a more liberalized consensus on the issue instead of the total war both sides have now. So we have the Warren court to thank for the mess our politics find themselves in now.

Considering it was illegal in more than half the states pre-Wade, I don't think that's particularly true.

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller

Paper thin? If abortion can be done more safely than childbirth I don't see what is so unreasonable about aborting a child with fatal birth defects. Also, I think forcing women to have their bodily functions severely impaired for the sake of someone else's welfare is pretty extreme. Is there any limit on what the state can ask you to do for someone else's good?

Tiller aborted babies who had no defects and posed no threat to the life of the mother. He would rubber-stamp diagnoses for "emotional danger" to the mother and abort them under a psychological justification.

There is a reason he was one of only three doctors in the entire United States willing to perform such abortions. It made him fabulously wealthy, by the way.

[Asher]

Why do we even argue about this anymore?

There's only once sensible argument: mind your own ****ing business, mind your own ****ing body, and **** responsibly.

[Jaguar]

Incidentally, the majority of Americans take the sensible position that abortion should be allowed "only in certain cases." And it is allowed only in certain cases. That's a great thing. It means we've adopted the moral law the majority of people believe in, which is probably a decent approximation of actual right and wrong.

Additionally, it's a much more intellectually consistent position than either of the extremes.

[DinoDoc]

This thread is now a direct duplicate of the last one I participated in, down to HC telling me about planned parenting and someone blaming Roe vs Wade for preventing the sensible consensus emerging that we have in Europe.

I sometimes wonder if you've never seen any of the numerous threads on the topic we've had here. The repetitive nature of the threads makes me wonder why people like ken keep making them.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is it just me or is Asher literally incapable of intelligently participating in any discussion?