Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[r9etb]

BTW, my anatomy isn't zipped behind pants.

Um.  Ma'am....?

[Hoodat]

What annoys me the most about this thread is that we have at least 3 women who are saying abortion is basically murder, and yet we have jazz head "mansplaining" to us why we are wrong and he is right on something he calls a women's issue

DING DING DING !!!  NO MORE CALLS, PLEASE.  WE HAVE A WINNER !!!

[Jazzhead]

I see.  You think abortion is morally wrong because, "if left alone the fetus will be born as a human being."

I'm really not sure what you're saying.

Are you saying that you don't think the "fetus" is human yet? 

Or are you saying that the "fetus" is a human being, but one eligible to be killed at the mother's discretion?

I'm saying exactly what I said - if left alone the fetus will be born as a human being.   For that reason,  I feel that abortion cannot be morally justified in most circumstances.  But again, my feelings aren't the issue.  I will never bear the burden of an unplanned/unexpected pregnancy.   It is up to the woman to decide what to do.   

[Silver Pines]

Um.  Ma'am....?

@r9etb

That is correct, lol.

[chae]

Ok, we've got male barrier birth control like condoms and spemicides, there are various type of female birth control out there including sponges and the like.  And at Planned Parenthood, you can get a month's supply of birth control pills for $20, that's if you don't have insurance because they are damn near free if you do.  And you can go to just about any drug store and get "Plan B" gain, i have issues with that.  So why do we need abortion?
If you answered convenience, you are correct.

[Jazzhead]

No presumption required.  I am advocating the liberty of individuals to shape their society by passing laws as they see fit.  That doesn't automatically equate with banning abortion.  It equates with the right to establish their own laws regarding abortion that reflect of shape the values of that society.  If the members of that society vote to make abortion legal always up until two years after birth, then so be it.  Or if they ban it all together and implement the death penalty for anyone who has one, then they should have that right under the Constitution of the United States of America.  But what you would have instead is states making allowances for when one can and cannot have one, possibly even giving men child-support-abortion rights.  Again, it should be left to that unit of society, whether nation, state, county, or city.

You are advocating the tyranny of the majority.   This is a matter of personal conscience and individual liberty.   No government should have the power to force a woman to reproduce. 

Thank God the Constitution protects us from this sort of coercive thinking.     

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But again, my feelings aren't the issue.  I will never bear the burden of an unplanned/unexpected pregnancy.   It is up to the woman to decide what to do.

By that logic, childless people have no right to support legislation protecting the rights of children period because they will never bear the burden of raising them.  Or what about a woman who was born or became sterile, or has hit menopause?  Do they also lose the right to be involved on the issue?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You are advocating the tyranny of the majority.   This is a matter of personal conscience and individual liberty.   No government should have the power to force a woman to reproduce. 

Thank God the Constitution protects us from this sort of coercive thinking.   

By the absolutist principle you identified here, a woman should be able to have an abortion at 38 weeks.  Or even as soon as she goes into labor.

Moreover, I think calling it "forcing a woman to reproduce" is a misnomer.  Reproduction begins (in the vast majority of cases), with an affirmative, voluntary act by the woman.  Nobody is advocated strapping her down and raping her to force her to reproduce.

[dfwgator]

You are advocating the tyranny of the majority.   This is a matter of personal conscience and individual liberty.   No government should have the power to force a woman to reproduce. 

 

What do you mean?  A woman reproduces by CHOOSING to engage in an act.  You cannot separate the act from the consequence of said act.

Now if you want to talk about cases of Rape, then that's a separate discussion. But I still think you are punishing a child in that case for something that is totally not their fault.

[Jazzhead]

Ok, we've got male barrier birth control like condoms and spemicides, there are various type of female birth control out there including sponges and the like.  And at Planned Parenthood, you can get a month's supply of birth control pills for $20, that's if you don't have insurance because they are damn near free if you do.  And you can go to just about any drug store and get "Plan B" gain, i have issues with that.  So why do we need abortion?
If you answered convenience, you are correct.

I'm not saying that "convenience" is a good reason, only that it is a lawful reason.   No government should be able to force a woman to reproduce.   

Abortion is, btw, at its lowest level since 1973.  A large part of the reason for that is increased access to contraceptives, which occasionally fail.   Why do you have "issues" with Plan B?      And more fundamentally, what gives you the arrogance to impose your version of morality on others?   

[chae]

Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder, one of his pregnant wife Laci, and one of his unborn son Conner.  The state of California recognized that Conner was a living being...

[Jazzhead]

By the absolutist principle you identified here, a woman should be able to have an abortion at 38 weeks.  Or even as soon as she goes into labor.

Moreover, I think calling it "forcing a woman to reproduce" is a misnomer.  Reproduction begins (in the vast majority of cases), with an affirmative, voluntary act by the woman.  Nobody is advocated strapping her down and raping her to force her to reproduce.

As I've stated elsewhere in this thread,  my view is that a non-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother.  When the fetus is viable,  the situation is different - in no small part because the woman has had a reasonable opportunity to terminate the pregnancy, and her lack of action can, IMO, under the law create implied consent to carry the child to term.   But some of the cavepersons here insist that the woman has consented to nine months of pregnancy and childbirth by the mere fact of having sex.   That's ridiculous.   

[Jazzhead]

Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder, one of his pregnant wife Laci, and one of his unborn son Conner.  The state of California recognized that Conner was a living being...

The topic is the rights of a fetus vis a vis its mother, not a third party.   No government should be able to force a woman to reproduce.   Woman aren't incubators; they're citizens with natural and Constitutional rights.

[chae]

If you go out and drink, then get in your car and drive home, you have consented to the fact that if caught, you will face lifelong consequences.
Actions may have consequences.  I'm saying this as a former teen mom. 

[r9etb]

I'm saying exactly what I said - if left alone the fetus will be born as a human being.   For that reason,  I feel that abortion cannot be morally justified in most circumstances.  But again, my feelings aren't the issue.  I will never bear the burden of an unplanned/unexpected pregnancy.   It is up to the woman to decide what to do.

Wow.  You just won't commit, will you? 

You apparently refuse to just tell us whether or not you think the unborn child is a human being.

Pathetic.

[chae]

@r9etb


I'm still waiting to hear if he thinks murder is wrong.

[Jazzhead]

If you go out and drink, then get in your car and drive home, you have consented to the fact that if caught, you will face lifelong consequences.
Actions may have consequences.  I'm saying this as a former teen mom.

Did you consider abortion?  Why or why not?   Do you feel that because you chose to give birth, the state should mandate that others do the same thing you did?

This is all a matter of individual conscience.   A teen who is pregnant at age 16 may feel she's in no position (no family or partner support) to raise a child.   It could well be that a child, born into destitution and raised in such circumstances, could become a permanent burden on society.  I'm not saying abortion is right in this situation, only that the woman (a girl, really) have the choice.   Perhaps that same woman will voluntarily become pregnant at age 23 when she's married and has a stable situation,  and would raise a fantastic kid that never would have existed had the woman not gotten an abortion at age 16.

This is such a difficult situation.  I'm not suggesting that one life is more valuable than another, but in the scenario above let's assume this woman is fated to have one child - either one born at age 16 to no family or partner support, or one born at age 23 into an ideal environment.  Are you going to condemn this woman for a making a different decision than you perhaps did?       

[Jazzhead]

@r9etb


I'm still waiting to hear if he thinks murder is wrong.

Abortion is not murder.  I assume you disagree - so why do you not advocate a life in jail for a woman who gets an abortion?   

[txradioguy]

Abortion is not murder.  I assume you disagree - so why do you not advocate a life in jail for a woman who gets an abortion?

Then what exactly do you call what is done to stop a beating heart and brain activity of a baby growing in the womb?

[TomSea]

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/20/san-pablo-man-charged-with-two-murders-in-slaying-of-pregnant-woman/

People are charged with 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Hence, an argument is based on semantics.

[Jazzhead]

Wow.  You just won't commit, will you? 

You apparently refuse to just tell us whether or not you think the unborn child is a human being.

Pathetic.

I have stated exactly what I believe.  A fetus, if left alone, will develop and be born as a human being.   

[Jazzhead]

Then what exactly do you call what is done to stop a beating heart and brain activity of a baby growing in the womb?

An abortion or miscarriage, depending on the circumstances.  I do not advocate abortion.  But I am not going to mischaracterize it as murder,  in part because even the most extreme pro-life advocates refuse to call for punishment of the "murderer".   

[TomSea]

Nonetheless, this may common in how one thinks in New Jersey or New York, but I don't think one has the right to impose that value on the rest of the United States, in North Dakota, Alaska, Utah or wherever.

That may be your understanding but that does not mean it is for everyone else or that that "right" can be defined.

Why not extend that right to two days after a baby is birthed or to partial birth abortion or a week before? It's all arbitrary.

[r9etb]

This is such a difficult situation.  I'm not suggesting that one life is more valuable than another, but in the scenario above let's assume this woman is fated to have one child - either one born at age 16 to no family or partner support, or one born at age 23 into an ideal environment.  Are you going to condemn this woman for a making a different decision than you perhaps did?     

Well, actually, yes you are suggesting precisely that one life is more valuable than the other.

You're defending a rather solipsistic moral system, wherein the perceptions and desires of the mother are the arbiter of whether or not the unborn child has basic human rights.  The child's  life, in that view, is clearly less valuable than the mother's.

[truth_seeker]

I have stated exactly what I believe.  A fetus, if left alone, will develop and be born as a human being.

When it the cutoff, in your view?

Woman gives birth to a child she doesn't really want, so she just abandons it to a trash can.

All of your arguments remain the same, since it was her decision.

So is "viability" 6 months, 7, 8, etc.

A child of 8 hours is no more able to care for itself, a few days before when in the womb.

Define "viability."