The outrage of this based on the slippery slope argument is so silly. This isn’t the end of the world and the United States isn’t going to become Saudi Arabia despite the hyperbole out there. Personally I like the idea of counter arguments for and against this ruling. You have to draw the line somewhere on that you establish life. And despite the argument that men are determining womens rights the question to me is there are consequences for the man as well. Child support payments. With reference to rape and incest situations, what percentage of those are there? Should there be exemptions for this type situations? I really wish people went back to debating these subjects because lines have to be drawn somewhere. Can’t have people aborting at 5 months or something. I’ve recently spoke to a few people who did have them and the reasoning seemed pretty Willynilly which really perked up my ears and made me think hard. There should be consequences to actions for men and women equally, no?
The outrage of this based on the slippery slope argument is so silly. This isn’t the end of the world and the United States isn’t going to become Saudi Arabia despite the hyperbole out there. Personally I like the idea of counter arguments for and against this ruling. You have to draw the line somewhere on that you establish life. And despite the argument that men are determining womens rights the question to me is there are consequences for the man as well. Child support payments. With reference to rape and incest situations, what percentage of those are there? Should there be exemptions for this type situations? I really wish people went back to debating these subjects because lines have to be drawn somewhere. Can’t have people aborting at 5 months or something. I’ve recently spoke to a few people who did have them and the reasoning seemed pretty Willynilly which really perked up my ears and made me think hard. There should be consequences to actions for men and women equally, no?
Maybe they just didn't want to get into details of what I assume is probably a pretty heart wrenching topic with you.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
So you support the Robert’s compromise. The Mississippi law banning abortion post 15 weeks should have been permitted without overturning the principles of Roe.
Roe v Wade should not have been overturned. If for nothing else, because it was a precedent set by the SCOTUS 50 years ago. This means that everything is on the table now - everything. Even mixed-race marriages.
Should there be restrictions on abortion? I don't know. It seems to be working OK in Europe with restrictions, but Europe has functioning democracies and the US is flawed. Hard to say what the right answer is, but I hope we can continue honest discussion about it.
The outrage of this based on the slippery slope argument is so silly. This isn’t the end of the world and the United States isn’t going to become Saudi Arabia despite the hyperbole out there. Personally I like the idea of counter arguments for and against this ruling. You have to draw the line somewhere on that you establish life. And despite the argument that men are determining womens rights the question to me is there are consequences for the man as well. Child support payments. With reference to rape and incest situations, what percentage of those are there? Should there be exemptions for this type situations? I really wish people went back to debating these subjects because lines have to be drawn somewhere. Can’t have people aborting at 5 months or something. I’ve recently spoke to a few people who did have them and the reasoning seemed pretty Willynilly which really perked up my ears and made me think hard. There should be consequences to actions for men and women equally, no?
Okay, so if you were a 19-year-old woman and became pregnant, you would choose to keep the baby. Fair enough. What isn't fair is taking away the ability for somebody else to choose. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. But STFU about deciding what somebody else chooses to do with their uterus. It's none of your business.
Nobody is pro abortion, necessarily. They are pro choice.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
The outrage of this based on the slippery slope argument is so silly. This isn’t the end of the world and the United States isn’t going to become Saudi Arabia despite the hyperbole out there.
If you want robust and permanent protection of rights to choose then any time restriction is problematic. It’s basically saying your body is the property of the fetus and the state after a certain time period.
It effectively creates a sunset clause on abortion.
The problem is that you’re blending up rights, laws, and morals and acting like they should be perfectly consistent with each other. They never are. Just because someone states abortion is morally wrong after 26 weeks doesn’t mean they believe the government should make it illegal after 26 weeks.
The government should place no restrictions on abortion. Choice should be the woman’s, and any restrictions should come from the medical side, based on knowledge, technology, and ethics. Any problem with that?
People keep raising points (or hypotheticals!) and you keep leaping into “oh so you agree with/believe/think THIS other thing then??” Just stop. Take a lap. It’s not contributing anything. If you actually care about abortion-rights, which I’m not sure if you do or not, you’re going to have to embrace people who don’t like abortion but are on the same side.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The outrage of this based on the slippery slope argument is so silly. This isn’t the end of the world and the United States isn’t going to become Saudi Arabia despite the hyperbole out there. Personally I like the idea of counter arguments for and against this ruling. You have to draw the line somewhere on that you establish life. And despite the argument that men are determining womens rights the question to me is there are consequences for the man as well. Child support payments. With reference to rape and incest situations, what percentage of those are there? Should there be exemptions for this type situations? I really wish people went back to debating these subjects because lines have to be drawn somewhere. Can’t have people aborting at 5 months or something. I’ve recently spoke to a few people who did have them and the reasoning seemed pretty Willynilly which really perked up my ears and made me think hard. There should be consequences to actions for men and women equally, no?
1. Child support payments are not unique or isolated to men. It is not in any way equivalent to bearing a child to term. Also, again, women can be subjected to child support payments. I am finding it hard to believe you approached this as a rational position to take.
2. Your anecdotal conversations with "a few people" about their reasoning for abortions is not acceptable evidence even for your own opinion formation. As mentioned by another poster, it is very likely they didn't want to discuss these details with you (given the tone of your post I don't think it's any mystery as to why they might not be comfortable doing so.) But, more importantly;
3. Women don't need to give a reason to men about wanting their bodies to be a specific way. There are enormous consequences to making and having a child that go far beyond financial burden, which you seem to indicate by your child support comments is what you believe to be the main problem. Do you have kids?
I am actually gobsmacked reading your comment. Were it so easy right?? Why shouldn't there be equal consequences!! So next time you want to have sex, just think about ending your career for 1-2 years, losing all of your physical health for that time, dealing with the potential fall out of standing with your own family or friends, crippling anxiety and stress, AND THEN consider the financial implications on top of all of that. Then you will be like 10% of the way towards understanding what a woman facing an unchangeable pregnancy will face.
I think things are working out OK in western Europe, and all those countries have restrictions.
Go with the UK model then, which is unlimited access to abortion up to the end of week 24 and then access to abortion if needed to protect the mother. That is pretty much what the practice was in the states before the recent Supreme Court decision, so go with that.
The outrage of this based on the slippery slope argument is so silly. This isn’t the end of the world and the United States isn’t going to become Saudi Arabia despite the hyperbole out there. Personally I like the idea of counter arguments for and against this ruling. You have to draw the line somewhere on that you establish life. And despite the argument that men are determining womens rights the question to me is there are consequences for the man as well. Child support payments. With reference to rape and incest situations, what percentage of those are there? Should there be exemptions for this type situations? I really wish people went back to debating these subjects because lines have to be drawn somewhere. Can’t have people aborting at 5 months or something. I’ve recently spoke to a few people who did have them and the reasoning seemed pretty Willynilly which really perked up my ears and made me think hard. There should be consequences to actions for men and women equally, no?
I’m not calling you a liar, but really? You think a coupon of women who have had late term abortion are going to confide in you, explaining themselves for what is likely to be the most difficult and traumatic experience of their lives? More realistically, it’s none of your ####ing business and they weren’t going to go down that long, intense road with you.
Equal consequences for men and women? There is no such thing. The woman will always have more severe, more dire and more demanding consequences of a pregnancy. Men walk away all the time, and moan about child and spousal support.
A woman carries the physiological and physiological reminders with them in ways that no male could.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
The Following User Says Thank You to 81MC For This Useful Post:
Okay, so if you were a 19-year-old woman and became pregnant, you would choose to keep the baby. Fair enough. What isn't fair is taking away the ability for somebody else to choose. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. But STFU about deciding what somebody else chooses to do with their uterus. It's none of your business.
Nobody is pro abortion, necessarily. They are pro choice.
The question being asked, and that PsYcNeT and I and others are discussing is. Does the fetus have any rights? Or are abortions 100% the women's right at any time, no questions asked?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Go with the UK model then, which is unlimited access to abortion up to the end of week 24 and then access to abortion if needed to protect the mother. That is pretty much what the practice was in the states before the recent Supreme Court decision, so go with that.
But obviously in the States, people aren't okay with that, they've been fighting it 50 years. Now you can say election fraud, demographics blah blah, but the GOP is getting elected at all levels of government and this is one of their core issues.
And as an aside, also it's not just men's issue, men controlling women, women don't want other women getting abortions as well.
The problem is that you’re blending up rights, laws, and morals and acting like they should be perfectly consistent with each other. They never are. Just because someone states abortion is morally wrong after 26 weeks doesn’t mean they believe the government should make it illegal after 26 weeks.
The government should place no restrictions on abortion. Choice should be the woman’s, and any restrictions should come from the medical side, based on knowledge, technology, and ethics. Any problem with that?
People keep raising points (or hypotheticals!) and you keep leaping into “oh so you agree with/believe/think THIS other thing then??” Just stop. Take a lap. It’s not contributing anything. If you actually care about abortion-rights, which I’m not sure if you do or not, you’re going to have to embrace people who don’t like abortion but are on the same side.
I agree with most of your second paragraph. People who want time limits do not. But allowing a doctor to decide based on technology and ethics I do not. Either you believe that a person has a right to remove a foreign object from their body or you don’t.
A part of the hostility towards those who are against abortions on religious grounds is that the same group typically does not support up stream determinants of abortions IE comprehensive sex education and increased access to contraceptives.
These folks are not making solutions based arguments, they are offering wishful thinking.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheIronMaiden For This Useful Post:
I agree with most of your second paragraph. People who want time limits do not. But allowing a doctor to decide based on technology and ethics I do not. Either you believe that a person has a right to remove a foreign object from their body or you don’t.
I agree the Moral question is far more ambiguous.
A time limit can logically make sense if you are at a point where the kid can survive without the 'host' if you assume abortion = death of the fetus. If the fetus can survive - then you can 'abort' the pregnancy and potentially have the fetus survive.
If the time-limit is set around some heartbeat or whatever other definition - then yes - it doesn't follow logic to have it place.
The Following User Says Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
I'm sure it will piss people off, anger them, I'll be told how horrible I am but I think there should be zero limits on abortion - IOW, no time limits at all, for whatever reason or no reason at all, and they should be free. I am pro-choice. If restrictions are placed, then it's not choice.
I've not had an abortion, nor would I have likely had one when I still had reproductive organs. That was my choice. My right. I'm not interested in hearing about the unicorn everyone says is out there, that uses abortions like birth control or is out there having a termination at 39 weeks for fun and giggles. Frankly, even if they were actually doing this, I'm not going to object - that's what choice is. It's not my body, it's not my business. It's a conversation they need to have with their doctor. Unless it’s my specific uterus under discussion, anyone else's uterus/conversation with their doctor, doesn’t involve me. EVER. The end.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
