Abortion stances

[Extant]

Quote by: bullshitdetector The government should have a room where every welfare mother and father should have to show up at a local facility, they each get a desk, and a chair. They don’t have to do anything, that way they wont get hurt, no one gets to cry discrimination and everyone virtually is treated identical. They have to sit there for 8 hours a day 7am to 3:30pm, five days a week. They get a 20 minute break at 10am and a lunch break at 12:30pm and they get to go home at 3:30. If they have kids they get to take them to a daycare during those hours. This is no more inhumane or demoralizing than the average Joe or Jane Doe who has to work everyday, like it or not, take it as it comes day in and day out. If these people were made to do this to earn their handouts, the list of recipients would plummet like a piano dropped out off the 32nd floor.

I have to disagree with you on this. I would say 40th floor.. minimum.

[kingjust]

To those who are prolife:

Who the fuck are you to say that women who get abortions and doctors who do them are murderers. Are you going to take care of the child after imposing your belief, or just put another chalk mark on the wall of ignorant success. Why not worry about those poverty stricken children who are already on this earth, huh, why not worry about them. Because it doesn't fit into your agenda/belief.

How would you feel if I protested in front of your church and said that buddahism is the way, you are all heretics. You would then say who am I to impose my belief onto you. Get the point, it's none of my business and neither is the stance on what women want to do with their pregnancy is yours.

And to add on to the very first sentence, the inquisition, the holocaust, the slaughtering of american indians, all for the sake of imposing someone elses belief, and for those that didn't assymilate, off with their fucking heads!!! I say off with the heads of all fundametalist religious fanatics, they bring no good to the world. Just a thought, Hitler was a christian also, and so were the KKK, the biggest murderes of all time. IMO

Don't like what I wrote, call 1-888-cry a fucking river, it's my opinion.

My apologies to volconvo, I just needed to speak my peace on those who love to impose their ideals. More to come if necessary.

[Heuristic]

My stance on abortion is simple: If you don't want the baby, can't look after it financially or physically, it was a product of rape. Abort it.

[Ganymede]

To those who are prolife: Who the fuck are you to say that women who get abortions and doctors who do them are murderers. Are you going to take care of the child after imposing your belief, or just put another chalk mark on the wall of ignorant success. Why not worry about those poverty stricken children who are already on this earth, huh, why not worry about them.

In response to that, I think you're a little harsh but to a certain extent I know where you're coming from. I consider myself liberal, but I also see the pro-life argument (and agree with quite a bit of it) and I think you've gotten it wrong.

The pro-life argument's strongest asset stems from the basic idea that when you weigh the two sides, there's one that supports life, and one that supports a certain right (a women's right to choose). It's not a legal issue here, it's simply a values issue. In that respect life does (and always should) be favored. In this sense, it doesn't even matter if the fetus is legally alive or not (that's why this argument does not sway minds), in the conservative stance it seems immoral to argue the legality of life because it would appear then that a women's rights trumps a child's life (which it shouldn't).

And when people say that a non-aborted child will just be sent to a homeless shelter or live in an unsafe home, it's not really a good assertion to make. I'm quite insulted to hear it, I'm not sure how anyone can say that just because they'll grow up poor means that their life is not worth living--nobody can make that assertion, and in that sense, its not your right to choose.

Because it doesn't fit into your agenda/belief.

You're right, pro-choice doesn't fit into the pro-life belief. For me personally, who is fairly liberal socially, this is a topic I've never really been able to understand coming from Democrats. As a party with strong values of justice, equality and protection, it doesn't make sense (for me) that instead of favoring a protective, nurturing life stance, people desire a slippery legal civil rights issue involving children's lives.

[blue]

Quote by: Ganymede In response to that, I think you're a little harsh but to a certain extent I know where you're coming from. I consider myself liberal, but I also see the pro-life argument (and agree with quite a bit of it) and I think you've gotten it wrong.

Nice post, Ganymede. I am most definitely a liberal when it comes to politics, but I think it is time for the left to rethink our stances on abortion. Morally it isn't a pro or con issue. We are talking about life here.
I believe the issue should be about birth control and free & easy access to it....for anyone who wants it. I fear the consequences of the conservative agenda when it comes to this abortion and am hopeful that the left will see an opportunity to seize this issue and make it uniquely their own. Hillary tried....we shall see.

[Ganymede]

I think it is time for the left to rethink our stances on abortion.

Blue I agree, this is not an issue that can be resolved with Democrat's current stance. The pro-life argument is much stronger because it easily is relatable to values of life, protection and equality. The pro-choice argument is slippery, and involves a difficult argument that may win legally, but does not fit well with what Democrats should be representing.

I believe the issue should be about birth control and free & easy access to it....for anyone who wants it.

I also agree, birth control should be pushed as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy instead of using an abortion. It skips the messy "is-it-alive" issue, and doesn't make the left resort to tricky legal arguments in order to win.

[Ken Carman]

I've always felt that the strongest argument, but the one the Left would refuse to use because they are often anti-death penalty, is that we have always decided who lives and who dies. I think when the state decides should be severely limited because it's too easy for the state to over use and abuse these powers, especially for political reasons when it comes to rights and what we can, or can't do. As individuals this power should be regulated and limited too, but to me the individual trumps the state. If someone comes into my bedroom in the middle of the night and I kill them, even if they are just some mental case who was wandering the neighborhood aimlessly, and I kill them before asking questions, well the fact I felt my family might have been endangered should be weighed heavily when investigating the incident. If I have something, or someone if you prefer, growing inside me, well, I'm already born, breathing and a functional member of society. I fail to understand why some on the Right who argue parental rights to the point of a child dying from a lack of proper immunization or even some insane form of punishment are often stronly anti-abortion.

This issue goes beyond whether the fetus has the same rights, or greater actually, than those already born. I have heard some supposed christians argue, using quotes from the bible, that the state owns us. Who decides? Yes, there will always be those who abuse the system in a mindless, shallow way: there always will be no matter what we do with the legality issue, just like there will always be abortions. The issue is, who decides, who owns us and what is inside us?

I opt for the individuals, with limitations. Should the rights of the unborn be protected? In a limited way, yes, but not above the born and especially not handed over to the state. Forced abortions and forced births as a general rule are foul, vile concepts.

[blue]

I understand your line of reasoning. Individuals should have power over their bodies and what is inside them. Primarily, though, I think the issue should be focused on birth control. On prevention.

The right, of course, would not agree with my ideas because they don't involve the coercion of abstinence for those who wish to have sex without the fear of pregnancy - including (and perhaps even especially) among teens.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: blue I understand your line of reasoning. Individuals should have power over their bodies and what is inside them. Primarily, though, I think the issue should be focused on birth control. On prevention. The right, of course, would not agree with my ideas because they don't involve the coercion of abstinence for those who wish to have sex without the fear of pregnancy - including (and perhaps even especially) among teens.

Yes, and yes. Agreed. I think good sex ed that has abstinence as a basis, but a strong message about prevention, would help. I think it would cut down the abortion rate and make some limitations on abortion more palatable for those of us more on the fence between the two cliche'd, and often tiresome, positions on this topic. But that will never happen because in reality this has little to do with abortion and a lot to do with those whose agenda is always to use the state to micro-manage the individual combined with puritans who want to force everyone else to follow their interpretations of what they think God demands. Oddly enough they rarely follow their own rules if you investigate the lives of most of those who pursued Clinton or spout their crap to the masses like Pat Robertson or the Bakers.

The teen years are difficult. Hormones are both the raging bull and the red flag raging through those with little experience, especially at self control. It's far too easy for us old folks to talk self control when the gate's getting rusty.