PDA

View Full Version : The Beginning of the End for Abortion?


boxcar
05-13-2017, 09:28 AM
Oklahoma House declares abortion murder

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/332496-oklahoma-house-declares-abortion-murder

Jess Hawsen Arown
05-13-2017, 11:11 AM
Americans have been 50-50 on abortion for decades.

chadk66
05-13-2017, 02:18 PM
I doubt we could get that lucky. If murdering an unborn child while driving under the influence gets you prison time then a mother killing her unborn child certainly should also.

Inner Dirt
05-13-2017, 02:24 PM
I would be curious how many people cross party lines on their opinion of abortion and how many people have changed their minds on the issue over the course of time?

Count me as one disagreeing on the party platform here as someone who votes Republican 99.9% of the time. I see nothing good coming out of forcing a women to have a child she does not want. I do believe abortion should be a last resort, and birth control should be readily available even at no cost if necessary. I am not religious so that does not effect my opinion.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-13-2017, 02:26 PM
Americans have been 50-50 on abortion for decades.

Just to be precise, Americans are 50-50 on choice. About 50% of Americans are unequivocally anti-abortion. About 33% are pro-abortion in accordance with Roe v. Wade. About 17% are anti-abortion but pro-choice. In other words, they oppose abortion but won't support laws that limit a woman's ability to choose abortion. That's where the 50-50 comes from.

Show Me the Wire
05-13-2017, 02:37 PM
I would be curious how many people cross party lines on their opinion of abortion and how many people have changed their minds on the issue over the course of time?

Count me as one disagreeing on the party platform here as someone who votes Republican 99.9% of the time. I see nothing good coming out of forcing a women to have a child she does not want. I do believe abortion should be a last resort, and birth control should be readily available even at no cost if necessary. I am not religious so that does not effect my opinion.

I have. I believe abortion is an error. Even atheist agree that the function of life is to generate new life. Natural selection through new life causing life to evolve to adapt to the environment. Is it socially correct to give priority an individual member of the human race, selfish wants to the harm of the entire race?

Abortion, is man made interference by definition in the process of evolution by denying natural selection through new life. Who knows how man's interference will impact evolution and the future of humanity.

Clocker
05-13-2017, 02:54 PM
The Beginning of the End for Abortion?

No. SCOTUS said that abortion is a human right under the Constitution. :rolleyes:

The resolution, passed on a voice vote without any debate, carries no force of law. But it takes the remarkable step of specifically accusing the Supreme Court of “overstepp[ing] its authority and jurisdiction” in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two landmark decisions that protected a woman’s right to seek an abortion.It's not the beginning because they didn't really do anything. A beginning would require a state to pass an out-right ban and have it challenged in court. Not likely to happen.

Tom
05-13-2017, 03:20 PM
No. SCOTUS said that abortion is a human right under the Constitution.

I think we should allowed to abort members of SCOTUS.

xtb
05-13-2017, 03:35 PM
About 17% are anti-abortion but pro-choice. In other words, they oppose abortion but won't support laws that limit a woman's ability to choose abortion.

To me this is like saying "I think it's wrong to kill someone if they are harmless but annoying, and I would never do it, but I don't think there should be a law preventing me from doing it if I wanted to."

Inner Dirt
05-13-2017, 03:41 PM
I think we should allowed to abort members of SCOTUS.

If you ever met my 23 year old nephew serving 2-5 for trying to strangle his girlfriend in front of their kid you would believe abortion should be legal and retroactive.

Jess Hawsen Arown
05-13-2017, 06:53 PM
Just to be precise, Americans are 50-50 on choice. About 50% of Americans are unequivocally anti-abortion. About 33% are pro-abortion in accordance with Roe v. Wade. About 17% are anti-abortion but pro-choice. In other words, they oppose abortion but won't support laws that limit a woman's ability to choose abortion. That's where the 50-50 comes from.

Interesting that 50 percent of Americans consider themselves "Pro-Choice" while less than a third consider it should be legal under all circumstances. What do they think "Pro choice" means? If you are Pro Choice, then you believe that a woman can have an abortion if she is having a bad hair day.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Marshall Bennett
05-13-2017, 07:00 PM
As conservative as I am, I'd hate being a woman and forced by law to give birth to a child I do not want. Newborns need that closeness with its mother to insure natural means to evolve. While adoptive mothers can be a successful alternative, the unconditional love is never the same. Having situational circumstances decide whether abortion is legal or not isn't any good either imo. This requires drawing a defined line to what is right and wrong. There will always exist a grey area to stir emotions and offer confusion. I doubt course will ever change much with regards to abortion. People have their beliefs and seldom veer very much.

Jess Hawsen Arown
05-13-2017, 07:09 PM
I doubt course will ever change much with regards to abortion. People have their beliefs and seldom veer very much.

Once past their teens, few people who were Pro-abortion become Pro-choice. Personally, I have met many people who have changed to Pro-life (including Norma McCorvey who was the anonymous Roe v Wade instigator.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/obituaries/norma-mccorvey-dead-roe-v-wade.html?_r=0

She also switched sides, from abortion rights advocate to anti-abortion campaigner. She underwent two religious conversions, as a born-again Christian and as a Roman Catholic, and became in her last decades a staunch foe of abortion, vowing to undo Roe v. Wade, testifying in Congress and bitterly attacking Barack Obama when he ran for president and then re-election.

She was never the idealized Jane Roe crusader many Americans visualized. Some observers said she became a pawn used by both sides in the maelstrom of the abortion wars as her public views shifted from one side to the other. In her first book, “I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice” (1994, with Andy Meisler), she offered what was perhaps her own most objective self-assessment.

“I wasn’t the wrong person to become Jane Roe,” she said. “I wasn’t the right person to become Jane Roe. I was just the person who became Jane Roe, of Roe v. Wade. And my life story, warts and all, was a little piece of history.”

Plucked from obscurity in 1970 by Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, two young Dallas lawyers who wanted to challenge Texas laws that prohibited abortions except to save a mother’s life, Ms. McCorvey, five months pregnant with her third child, signed an affidavit she claimed she did not read. She just wanted a quick abortion and had no inkling that the case would become a cause célèbre.

boxcar
05-13-2017, 07:39 PM
No. SCOTUS said that abortion is a human right under the Constitution. :rolleyes:

It's not the beginning because they didn't really do anything. A beginning would require a state to pass an out-right ban and have it challenged in court. Not likely to happen.

Yeah, I get that. It was more of a symbolic gesture than anything else. But hey...every marathon begins with the first step. :coffee:

boxcar
05-13-2017, 07:50 PM
As conservative as I am, I'd hate being a woman and forced by law to give birth to a child I do not want. Newborns need that closeness with its mother to insure natural means to evolve. While adoptive mothers can be a successful alternative, the unconditional love is never the same. Having situational circumstances decide whether abortion is legal or not isn't any good either imo. This requires drawing a defined line to what is right and wrong. There will always exist a grey area to stir emotions and offer confusion. I doubt course will ever change much with regards to abortion. People have their beliefs and seldom veer very much.

I think true unconditional love is demonstrated toward another when one doesn't have any emotional connections to the object of that love. Mothers and fathers love their children precisely for the reason that their kids are their flesh and blood. That kind of love is conditioned on that kind of attachment. But someone who takes in a total little stranger and is willing to care, nurture and love the child because it seems to be the good thing to do manifests love that is much closer to unconditional in nature than it can be with natural parents. Natural parents love their children because they are theirs; Adoptive parents love their adoptive children because....?

HalvOnHorseracing
05-13-2017, 07:54 PM
Interesting that 50 percent of Americans consider themselves "Pro-Choice" while less than a third consider it should be legal under all circumstances. What do they think "Pro choice" means? If you are Pro Choice, then you believe that a woman can have an abortion if she is having a bad hair day.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

It's a statistic not an argument.

Jess Hawsen Arown
05-14-2017, 01:22 PM
It's a statistic not an argument.

Correct. As it was intended.

Actor
05-14-2017, 07:15 PM
Abortion, is man made interference by definition in the process of evolution by denying natural selection through new life.Natural selection operates on populations, not individuals. If a population limits the number of offspring, by whatever means, and that limit carries a survival advantage for that population (say through more efficient use of resources) then that population will survive.

What would be great would be a means of sterilization that is easily reversible. Individuals could be sterilized before puberty and the operation reversed when offspring are desired. The abortion question then become moot.

Unfortunately such a means of sterilization does not yet exist but I think all it would require is money. How much money? I don't know but I would hazard a guess that NASA's budget for one year would get it done. It would be a good investment since it could be recouped by the lower government spending on impoverished children.

Show Me the Wire
05-14-2017, 07:32 PM
Natural selection operates on populations, not individuals. If a population limits the number of offspring, by whatever means, and that limit carries a survival advantage for that population (say through more efficient use of resources) then that population will survive.

What would be great would be a means of sterilization that is easily reversible. Individuals could be sterilized before puberty and the operation reversed when offspring are desired. The abortion question then become moot.

Unfortunately such a means of sterilization does not yet exist but I think all it would require is money. How much money? I don't know but I would hazard a guess that NASA's budget for one year would get it done. It would be a good investment since it could be recouped by the lower government spending on impoverished children.

Agreed about populations. If we intentionally interfere in the size of the population we do not know what harm we may have done.

Take for example the genetics of Henrietta Lacks. If she was aborted research medicine would not have the progress made possible by her cells. There is no guarantee another Mrs. Lacks would have been produced.

anotherCAfan
05-14-2017, 09:08 PM
I pose a question to those who are anti-abortion:

What are your thoughts about birth control? Isn't birth control also a sort of error or interference? Should it not be made illegal also?


(My personal views on the subject are close to Inner Dirt. I just am very uncomfortable with both sides of the debate.)

Show Me the Wire
05-14-2017, 09:15 PM
I pose a question to those who are anti-abortion:

What are your thoughts about birth control? Isn't birth control also a sort of error or interference? Should it not be made illegal also?


(My personal views on the subject are close to Inner Dirt. I just am very uncomfortable with both sides of the debate.)

It depends. Artificial birth control yes, as it interferes with the fertility cycle. Attempting to follow the natural cycle without artificial methods, then the answer would be no.

Actor
05-14-2017, 11:33 PM
It depends. Artificial birth control yes, as it interferes with the fertility cycle. Attempting to follow the natural cycle without artificial methods, then the answer would be no.Are you saying only the rhythm is permissible?

Show Me the Wire
05-14-2017, 11:39 PM
Are you saying only the rhythm is permissible?

No. I am saying it is the only method which does not artificially interfere.

Good night. Have fun trying to play the gotcha game.

Actor
05-15-2017, 12:09 AM
No. SCOTUS said that abortion is a human right under the Constitution.Not quite correct. SCOTUS ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) that "a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined 'viable' as 'potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.' Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances." The quote is from Wikipedia.

Greyfox
05-15-2017, 12:57 AM
No. I am saying it is the only method which does not artificially interfere.

Good night. Have fun trying to play the gotcha game.

Good night?

I didn't see that as a "gotcha game" question?
But if you are satisfied with your reply, so be it.

chadk66
05-15-2017, 01:17 PM
artificial birth control isn't killing a fetus. pretty simple

ronsmac
05-15-2017, 04:01 PM
Just what we need. More teens having unwanted babies so the liberals can hand out more welfare.

fast4522
05-15-2017, 04:31 PM
How the hell does this thread have legs?

classhandicapper
05-15-2017, 05:52 PM
What would be great would be a means of sterilization that is easily reversible. Individuals could be sterilized before puberty and the operation reversed when offspring are desired. The abortion question then become moot.

Unfortunately such a means of sterilization does not yet exist but I think all it would require is money. How much money? I don't know but I would hazard a guess that NASA's budget for one year would get it done. It would be a good investment since it could be recouped by the lower government spending on impoverished children.

I don't think many people would approve of compulsory sterilization, even if temporary. We can't even get very religious people to agree to birth control and libertarians would go nuts.

The only solution (and it's probably idealistically delusional) is to change the values of people so that unwanted pregnancies become way less frequent.

Tom
05-15-2017, 08:00 PM
SCOTUS is an embarrassment many times.
Defining life.....by a bunch of drunken druggies who wear dresses.
Nowhere in the constitution are they given that power.
They are a bunch of nazis.

Cruse them all to hell. Where they belong.

Actor
05-15-2017, 11:01 PM
We can't even get very religious people to agree to birth control ...There's an old joke about the Catholic who, upon being informed that the Pope was unmarried and celibate, said "He don't play the game. He don't make the rules."

I've been married to a Catholic for 48 years. In my experience they don't give a damn what the Pope says about birth control.

Actor
05-15-2017, 11:10 PM
I don't think many people would approve of compulsory sterilization, even if temporary.On the other hand some parents might voluntarily have their kids temporarily sterilized, particularly if they themselves were sexually active as teens and the procedure were safe and covered by insurance.
The only solution (and it's probably idealistically delusional) is to change the values of people so that unwanted pregnancies become way less frequent.Or (also idealistically delusional) adopt the practice of some primitive cultures where all children are the responsibility of all the people.

Actor
05-15-2017, 11:12 PM
How the hell does this thread have legs?Sex :lol:

barahona44
05-15-2017, 11:26 PM
Natural selection operates on populations, not individuals. If a population limits the number of offspring, by whatever means, and that limit carries a survival advantage for that population (say through more efficient use of resources) then that population will survive.

What would be great would be a means of sterilization that is easily reversible. Individuals could be sterilized before puberty and the operation reversed when offspring are desired. The abortion question then become moot.

Unfortunately such a means of sterilization does not yet exist but I think all it would require is money. How much money? I don't know but I would hazard a guess that NASA's budget for one year would get it done. It would be a good investment since it could be recouped by the lower government spending on impoverished children.

One consequence of sterilization would be STD rates , already too high, would probably increase.Males would be less motivated to use condoms if preventing pregnancy wasn't an issue. It's all a trade-off.

classhandicapper
05-16-2017, 11:52 AM
I've been married to a Catholic for 48 years. In my experience they don't give a damn what the Pope says about birth control.

That's my experience also (not the married part ;).

Yet I often read cases of religious organizations still fighting to not provide birth control or birth control coverage and even in NY the Bishops and Cardinals still toe the party line.