What is your stance on abortion?

I am both pro-choice and a guy who makes sure that any woman I am in a sexual relationship with is not going to need abortion services.

Personally I oppose abortion except in cases of rape,incest and fatal foetal abnormality.

Colonel Hogan said:

Thanks first of all for clarifying the thrust of Thomson's manifesto that I had previously glossed over and had expressed reservations about -- the degree to which her standard that "abortion is not always permissible" (presumably constrained ONLY by her MDS standard) is appropriately a legal standard.

Click to expand...

No problem. It may be a “good” argument (in that it is not refutable on its terms, a statement I need to qualify later), but it is not necessarily “good” writing.

Your citing of her quotes on "good" and "minimally decent" Samaritanism and her dismissive "we are not here concerned with the law" argue persuasively that she rejects a legal standard.

Click to expand...

Yup. However, her article was written before Roe v. Wade. And in Roe the SCOTUS introduced fetus viability into the minimally decent calculus. That is, many people I know argue that, according to Roe, once a fetus is “viable,” it is then permissible for society to step in and require a pregnant women to carry a baby to term. That’s the point at which Roe says government interest can trump a pregnant woman’s penumbral rights.

And, IMO, it’s fetus viability that will likely doom the Roe decision to obsolescence. The age at which medical science can keep a prematurely born baby alive keeps decreasing. Unfortunately, the price a child pays to be born very premature is not decreasing at a similar rate, as I understand it.

I anticipate the Pro-Choice fight in the future will turn on the definition of “viability” and a parent’s ability to make “quality of life” decisions for their unborn child.

Which is precisely the problem. You're both getting your "MUSTS" confused with your "SHOULDS." If she categorically rejects MDS as a legal standard, then she SHOULD have said, "this is a standard we SHOULD not fall below." That allows both for her opinion as to its importance AND the license for the rest of society to leverage its leniency as it sees fit. The word MUST, however, invokes a binding requirement, wholly appropriate in a legal context and devoid of leniency absent the specific articulation of that leniency. Word. For. Word.

Click to expand...

She’s making an ethical and moral argument, and thus uses “must” to imply a moral imperative. Whether a law can be sufficiently narrowly tailored to enforce that imperative is a different issue.

It does seem possible to me that a law focused on the viability of a fetus, provided it takes into consideration the health of the mother (and not just life-threatening situations), allows a parent to make the decision on risks to the quality of life of the potentially premature infant, coupled with subsidization of the medical and financial costs of bring a viable child to term, can be sufficiently narrowly tailored to not require a pregnant women to go beyond the “minimally decent” standard.

Does that make sense?

Meanwhile, you trip all over this yourself. YOU SAID: Society can only deny a mother’s choice to abort if her choice violates the Minimally Decent Samaritan standard.

Really?? Society can DO that? Doesn't sound very lenient to me. Make up your mind.

Click to expand...

I think you are thinking in absolutes. The MDS standard is lenient, in that I believe it it prevents society and the state from preventing abortion in the majority of circumstances in which real-world abortions take place. It also prevents the state from making invasive laws to discourage abortion, such as the TRAP laws, and things like requiring a pregnant mother to be shown a sonogram of her baby (particularly when such a sonogram requires a wand to be inserted into the woman’s vagina.)

The MDS standard is also, at least theoretically in my mind, enforceable, by (my preferrence) the adoption of formal medical ethical practices concerning viability, and possibly regulation. The problem is, we have people like Pence looking to hold funerals for miscarriages at the forefront of the Pro-Life movement who seek to sabotage abortion clinics rather than work out just what it would really mean for society to step in and say, “We’ll help you take it from here.”

I didn’t mean “lenient” in a “permit everything” sense. (I even looked up the definition online to confirm that’s not what the word meant.) I meant it as the opposite of “strict.” I did not mean a complete absence of societal imposition.

You chastise me for my confrontational language in argumentation and debate, but when people jitterbug around with the very MEANING of language so that they can argue polar opposite concepts out of both sides of their mouths, it is extremely hard for me to be charitable.

Click to expand...

I said, “Let’s both dial back the confrontational language.” I didn’t mean to sound like I was chastising you. In fact, I had first written something snarky and definitely chastising about your posts’ apparant aggressive voice, but realized that was going beyond my usual pomposity, and wrote about us both toning it down instead.

My apologies if my language is sloppy. I really did not think I was speaking in absolutist terms.

If you think most abortion law has no more gravitas or relevance to criminal law than a "public safety ordinance," you REALLY don't understand the law.

Click to expand...

Considering the context of our discussion, I should have used “police power ordinance,” as “police power” is the most widely known Constitutional term. In almost every Constitutional challenge I have ever read, however, the governmental interest that is weighed against the individual right is described as “public safety” or very similar terms. By “public safety ordinance,” I did not mean to trivialize. The regulation of medical procedures are public safety ordinances.

And there is absolutely no difference in a person "taking a specific act" and "committing an act."

Click to expand...

You’re looking at the wrong part of my sentence:

“criminal law punishing a person for taking a specific act, versus a public safety ordinance preventing an innocent person of committing an act.”

The distinction I attempted to draw is this: criminal justice punishes acts that have already occurred. Police power ordinances regulate present/future actions for the health and safety of the public. Criminal justice is based on entirely different principles of jurisprudence (and sources of authority) than health regulations.

You're trying to manufacture criminal guilt or innocence by manipulating the law to your liking. It doesn't work. The laws do that as written. Example: Local ordinances regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages, or whether, in fact, a jurisdiction is "wet" or "dry" are, indeed, public safety ordinances. However, the Volstead Act, under authority of the 18th Amendment, criminalized the matter. Same activity. Vastly different laws and penalties.

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. We’re not talking about criminalizing abortion (are we?), we’re talking about regulating it. So the ability to regulate abortion is not a logical extension of a state’s right to criminalize murder, and penalize it with death. At least, that is what it seemed like you were claiming, and hopefully my rephrasing demonstrates why such a claim makes absolutely no sense. (Yeah, that’s me being chastising. I am a pompous ass. )

But one would think it would not shift as quickly as you and Thomson keep moving the goal posts.

Click to expand...

She doesn’t move goalposts. She advances the argument. A person can only move goal posts in an interactive debate. In the article, she has premises that build to conclusions, she uses those conclusions as premises for further conclusions, and so on.

I might have moved goal posts because I am writing “conversationally,” if that makes any sense, addressing each sentence of your replies as I come to them, in Socratic method fashion, rather than writing this like I am developing a treatise, reading your entire post and then formulating a response. Sorry if I did so.

I'm just trying to find the line in the sand that you and Thomson actually believe abortion to be impermissible WITHOUT turning around and giving back a right(?) or privilege(?) which you purported to take away on legitimate moral grounds WORTHY of legal sanction.

Click to expand...

We hadn’t reached that part of the discussion yet. Hopefully I answered to your satisfaction above.

Since I get no closer to finding it each time you post, I will go with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe that eschews motivations of the mother or Good (vs lukewarm) Samaritanism and simply relies on time within the gestation process as the determining factor as to whether a mother's interest in terminating a pregnancy OR the state's interest in preserving the life of the fetus is compelling.

Click to expand...

Oh, hey, look at that, you reached the fetal viability portion of the discussion at the same time I did. Except you felt the need to shout it for some reason.

Oblimo said:

No problem. It may be a “good” argument (in that it is not refutable on its terms, a statement I need to qualify later), but it is not necessarily “good” writing.



Yup. However, her article was written before Roe v. Wade. And in Roe the SCOTUS introduced fetus viability into the minimally decent calculus. That is, many people I know argue that, according to Roe, once a fetus is “viable,” it is then permissible for society to step in and require a pregnant women to carry a baby to term. That’s the point at which Roe says government interest can trump a pregnant woman’s penumbral rights.

And, IMO, it’s fetus viability that will likely doom the Roe decision to obsolescence. The age at which medical science can keep a prematurely born baby alive keeps decreasing. Unfortunately, the price a child pays to be born very premature is not decreasing at a similar rate, as I understand it.

I anticipate the Pro-Choice fight in the future will turn on the definition of “viability” and a parent’s ability to make “quality of life” decisions for their unborn child.



She’s making an ethical and moral argument, and thus uses “must” to imply a moral imperative. Whether a law can be sufficiently narrowly tailored to enforce that imperative is a different issue.

It does seem possible to me that a law focused on the viability of a fetus, provided it takes into consideration the health of the mother (and not just life-threatening situations), allows a parent to make the decision on risks to the quality of life of the potentially premature infant, coupled with subsidization of the medical and financial costs of bring a viable child to term, can be sufficiently narrowly tailored to not require a pregnant women to go beyond the “minimally decent” standard.

Does that make sense?



I think you are thinking in absolutes. The MDS standard is lenient, in that I believe it it prevents society and the state from preventing abortion in the majority of circumstances in which real-world abortions take place. It also prevents the state from making invasive laws to discourage abortion, such as the TRAP laws, and things like requiring a pregnant mother to be shown a sonogram of her baby (particularly when such a sonogram requires a wand to be inserted into the woman’s vagina.)

The MDS standard is also, at least theoretically in my mind, enforceable, by (my preferrence) the adoption of formal medical ethical practices concerning viability, and possibly regulation. The problem is, we have people like Pence looking to hold funerals for miscarriages at the forefront of the Pro-Life movement who seek to sabotage abortion clinics rather than work out just what it would really mean for society to step in and say, “We’ll help you take it from here.”

I didn’t mean “lenient” in a “permit everything” sense. (I even looked up the definition online to confirm that’s not what the word meant.) I meant it as the opposite of “strict.” I did not mean a complete absence of societal imposition.



I said, “Let’s both dial back the confrontational language.” I didn’t mean to sound like I was chastising you. In fact, I had first written something snarky and definitely chastising about your posts’ apparant aggressive voice, but realized that going beyond my usual pomposity, and wrote about us both toning it down instead.

My apologies if my language is sloppy. I really did not think I was speaking in absolutist terms.



Considering the context of our discussion, I should have used “police power ordinance,” as “police power” is the most widely known Constitutional term. In almost every Constitutional challenge I have ever read, however, the governmental interest that is weighed against the individual right is described as “public safety” or very similar terms. By “public safety ordinance,” I did not mean to trivialize. The regulation of medical procedures are public safety ordinances.



You’re looking at the wrong part of my sentence:

“criminal law punishing a person for taking a specific act, versus a public safety ordinance preventing an innocent person of committing an act.”

The distinction I attempted to draw is this: criminal justice punishes acts that have already occurred. Police power ordinances regulate present/future actions for the health and safety of the public. Criminal justice is based on entirely different principles of jurisprudence (and sources of authority) than health regulations.



Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. We’re not talking about criminalizing abortion (are we?), we’re talking about regulating it. So the ability to regulate abortion is not a logical extension of a state’s right to criminalize murder, and penalize it with death. At least, that is what it seemed like you were claiming, and hopefully my rephrasing demonstrates why such a claim makes absolutely no sense. (Yeah, that’s me being chastising. I am a pompous ass. )



She doesn’t move goalposts. She advances the argument. A person can only move goal posts in an interactive debate. In the article, she has premises that build to conclusions, she uses those conclusions as premises for further conclusions, and so on.

I might have moved goal posts because I am writing “conversationally,” if that makes any sense, addressing each sentence of your replies as I come to them, in Socratic method fashion, rather than writing this like I am developing a treatise, reading your entire post and then formulating a response. Sorry if I did so.



We hadn’t reached that part of the discussion yet. Hopefully I answered to your satisfaction above.



Oh, hey, look at that, you reached the fetal viability portion of the discussion at the same time I did. Except you felt the need to shout it for some reason.

Click to expand...

Very well said. I wonder how many more times you'll have to show Mr. Knowitall his ass... lol

Que said:

I think the reason why certain people are consistently on the wrong side of every single issue is because they are absolutely incapable of logic.

Click to expand...

Oh Jesus tapdancing Christ, really? I mean, really?

Even BBX-whatever-number-he’s-on-now is fully capable of logic. He’s having fun playing at being a total assbag (new word for me ). I don’t even know if he really is an assbag or just plays one on pornography fora. (But I do suspect he is an actual assbag; sorry, BBX )

Even RightGuide, a total stupid ass, possesses at least enough emotional intelligence to know how piss of the libruls.

You got me to reply, which I guess makes your post a successful troll. But, come on, do you really expect us to believe you mean what you say? Keep this phony high-and-mighty, faux conservative, social media circlejerk nonsense to your low-traffic librul-bashing threads, if you please.

Rightguide said:

I believe all men should be made to accept responsibility for any child they father, but in the case of abortion women on the left have driven men completely out of the equation by insisting the right to terminate a life is exclusively a "woman's right." That is not my belief but it is the prevailing attitude on the left.

Click to expand...

So it is your belief that a father can force a woman to abort his child? Oh, you must mean a father has the right force a woman to carry his child to term. Does the father petition family court to send the woman he knocked up to baby jail where are no stairs or coat hangers?

Stupid ass.

I think a lot of women use abortion as a form of birth control in lieu of personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

I really hope you’re wrong, because that’s a crazy and utterly unnecessary risk to a woman’s health.

Oblimo said:

Oh Jesus tapdancing Christ, really? I mean, really?

Even BBX-whatever-number-he’s-on-now is fully capable of logic. He’s having fun playing at being a total assbag (new word for me ). I don’t even know if he really is an assbag or just plays one on pornography fora. (But I do suspect he is an actual assbag; sorry, BBX )

Even RightGuide, a total stupid ass, possesses at least enough emotional intelligence to know how piss of the libruls.

You got me to reply, which I guess makes your post a successful troll. But, come on, do you really expect us to believe you mean what you say? Keep this phony high-and-mighty, faux conservative, social media circlejerk nonsense to your low-traffic librul-bashing threads, if you please.

Click to expand...

Yes, really.

<insert Spock arched eyebrow gif>

Que said:

<insert Spock arched eyebrow gif>

Click to expand...

I voted unsure at the moment.

I tend to be pro-choice, but I'm not absolutist about it.

For more of my views on the subject I got into a frikin' currently 5 page and still unfinished argument with mostly adrina and KimGorden67.

You can no longer get an abortion as of week 20
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1461814

Evil!

Oblimo said:

So it is your belief that a father can force a woman to abort his child? Oh, you must mean a father has the right force a woman to carry his child to term. Does the father petition family court to send the woman he knocked up to baby jail where are no stairs or coat hangers?

Stupid ass.



I really hope you’re wrong, because that’s a crazy and utterly unnecessary risk to a woman’s health.

Click to expand...

First off, you always shoot off your mouth before you actually read and comprehend what I wrote.

I didn't say a damn thing about men forcing women into abortion or child birth, or into family court. I said they have been removed from the equation in the minds of the women of the left.

You completely misunderstand and mischaracterize my meaning and then call me a stupid ass. This is why I believe you to be intellectually inferior on most subjects and unworthy of a studied reply. You wouldn't understand it anyway, or even try.

HelpImLost said:

Evil!

Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/F6X9KcrXHwg

Rightguide said:

I didn't say a damn thing about men forcing women into abortion or child birth, or into family court. I said they have been removed from the equation in the minds of the women of the left.

Click to expand...

Okay then, smart guy, how does the father fit into the equation of a pregnant woman getting an abortion? Especially legally. I’m all ears to hear you say something that doesn’t involve family court.

You completely misunderstand and mischaracterize my meaning and then call me a stupid ass.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I misunderstand things all the time. Help me out here: how does a father legally “fit into the equation” of a woman getting an abortion, that doesn’t involve the father being able to compel the action’s of the woman in some way, other than “he doesn’t fit into the equation at all?”

This is why I believe you to be intellectually inferior on most subjects and unworthy of a studied reply. You wouldn't understand it anyway, or even try.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, the feeling is mutual. And yet, despite your own non-ending stream of insults, to me and anyone who disagrees with you, I am still curious and reaching out to discover what you have to actually say — if I can ever get you to actually engage in substantive discourse at all.

What does that say about the two of us? Other than I’m borderline Sisyphusian?

Free abortions in Ireland!!! +1 for humanity, and companies who make consumer products from those cluster of cells!!!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/break...ices-will-be-free-harris-confirms-870089.html

Libsam said:

Free abortions in Ireland!!! +1 for humanity, and companies who make consumer products from those cluster of cells!!!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/break...ices-will-be-free-harris-confirms-870089.html

Click to expand...

DISGUSTING!

Libsam said:

Free abortions in Ireland!!! +1 for humanity, and companies who make consumer products from those cluster of cells!!!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/break...ices-will-be-free-harris-confirms-870089.html

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt anybody will make any consumer products. What will, hopefully, happen would be stem cell research and maybe organ transplants.

Boxlicker101 said:

I seriously doubt anybody will make any consumer products. What will, hopefully, happen would be stem cell research and maybe organ transplants.

Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/index.html

Kill your baby and then use zher to help you live longer!!!

Libsam said:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/index.html

Kill your baby and then use zher to help you live longer!!!

Click to expand...

"One concern is that women would have more pregnancies or abortions because they*want to donate fetal tissue..."

I think cunts like that need to have their nasty loose vaginas stitched up permantley.

Libsam said:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/index.html

Kill your baby and then use zher to help you live longer!!!

Click to expand...

The aborted fetus would be of no benefit to the woman who had the AB, but others would benefit from the research etc. Some people are repelled by such an idea, but I believe anything else is a waste of resources.

Canadian and Mexican solution.

The USA's neighbors could easily fix the problem by offering free abortions to any American woman. Call it "Foreign Aid" and the relatively cheap procedure would instantly require "moral goodness."

And there would be less Americans.

colddiesel said:

The USA's neighbors could easily fix the problem by offering free abortions to any American woman. Call it "Foreign Aid" and the relatively cheap procedure would instantly require "moral goodness."

And there would be less Americans.

Click to expand...

Feel free to keep them along with our draft dodgers and ilegal aliens.

I believe in a lot of things about women's rights and equality.

I just don't believe that extends to having the right to end another human being's existence. Unfortunately you're not allowed to think that, let alone say it, in today's society because free speech is a dream.

I'm also anti death penalty too. I don't believe anyone can give themselves or others the right to end another human being's life.

Will I get pilloried for it? Probably.

RC

RepressedCatholic said:

I believe in a lot of things about women's rights and equality.

I just don't believe that extends to having the right to end another human being's existence. Unfortunately you're not allowed to think that, let alone say it, in today's society because free speech is a dream.

I'm also anti death penalty too. I don't believe anyone can give themselves or others the right to end another human being's life.

Will I get pilloried for it? Probably.

RC

Click to expand...

I would have gone with "crucified", but that's just me.

RepressedCatholic said:

I believe in a lot of things about women's rights and equality.

I just don't believe that extends to having the right to end another human being's existence. Unfortunately you're not allowed to think that, let alone say it, in today's society because free speech is a dream.

I'm also anti death penalty too. I don't believe anyone can give themselves or others the right to end another human being's life.

Will I get pilloried for it? Probably.

RC

Click to expand...

Sweetie thank you for saying those words of wisdom. God bless you!

HelpImLost said:

"One concern is that women would have more pregnancies or abortions because they*want to donate fetal tissue..."

I think cunts like that need to have their nasty loose vaginas stitched up permantley.

Click to expand...

Genital mutilation, that old favorite.

Creepy.