Landmark Report Concludes Abortion In U.S. Is Safe

[beew]

I also take exception with this notion that 'the Left' is flippant about such things. Having supported a friend and my mother through terminations, I can assure you it's not something either they nor I am 'flippant' about. (Adrina and I probably come across as flippant in some of the threads, but that's clearly in response to arguments that are just silly, not the actual issue itself.)

So they both decided to use abortion as a method of contraception?
In that after thaving 2-3 abortions due to forgetting to take their pill or use a condom, they decided: Why should I inconvenience myself with a IUD? I know that I'm the forgetful kind, but abortion is no big deal if I forget to take contraception again.

I highly doubt it that your friend and mother were in that category, Kim. As you said, such cases are the exception.
Because those very rare cases were the ones that we were arguing. At your request.

But as per your modus operandi, in order to villify your opponent you zoom in such exceptions, and then make it look as if you're arguing the general,

(c) If someone want to use abortion as contraception, then really, whatever. Personally, I think it's bit silly because it really doesn't look like a fun process.

This is the attitude that I have an issue with.

Not abortion in the way it's being used by 95% of women, of which I'm fully supportive.

 

[beew]

As I mentioned before, in today's climate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extreme Left or the extreme Right should steer away from political discussions.
Their motto: "Either you're 100% with us, or against us."

In this thread, I got stoned by both of you, Kim and BotBoy.

 

[coachdb18]

I'm critical of the extreme Left's flippant attitude and refusal to ask themselves more questions about what a foetus is.

I'm just as critical of the extreme Right who scream "Abortion is murder". Given that, more often than not, they are also warmongers or don't give two straws when civilians are being killed in their proxy wars.

As to whether killing the fetus is murder, let it be known that too is settled law, as anyone who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder. That's because 'it's a person'.

Perhaps we should invoke the 'New Jersey rule', where you need a very very thorough background check, a set of fingerprints on file, a waiting period, proof of need (not want), a training course of at least 100 hours and a practical exam in understanding of the applicable laws, and she must purchase a permit issued by the state (generally about $100, plus another $50 for the cost of fingerprints, and of course the costs for the classes of about $250). If it's the way we do a conceal carry permit, we should consider that a womans carrying something concealed as well and use the same legal requirements.

 

[adrina]

A bunch of emotional over reactionary control freak fools.

 

[beew]

As to whether killing the fetus is murder, let it be known that too is settled law, as anyone who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder. That's because 'it's a person'.

Interesting…
But I suspect that the legislators came up with very complex arguments that don't butt heads with the ethics and rights to abortion.

Can you give us a link to the piece of legislation that you're referring to?

 

[BotanyBoy]

As I mentioned before, in today's climate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extreme Left or the extreme Right should steer away from political discussions.
Their motto: "Either you're 100% with us, or against us."

In this thread, I got stoned by both of you, Kim and BotBoy.

For suggesting forced sterilization of some and surgery for all men as not to inconvenience a handful of irresponsible women....


Not for being centric....

A bunch of emotional over reactionary control freak fools.

LOL says one of the most emotional control freaks on the board.

 

[beew]

For suggesting forced sterilization of some and surgery for all men as not to inconvenience a handful of irresponsible women....
:

You didn't read my post after that, BB.
My comment was just a tongue in cheek in reaction to your histrionics about women.
*chuckle*

 

[coachdb18]

38 states now have criminal laws against feticide

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Referred to as 'feticide'.

The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates vie for the upper hand in this contentious issue. In recent years, states have expanded this debate to include the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. In some states, legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");

The link has references to the individual state laws for feticide.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You didn't read my post after that, BB.
My comment was just a tongue in cheek in reaction to your histrionics about women.
*chuckle*

Yea I did that's how I know it was a reaction to coach not me, but it still doesn't change the fact that's why I got on your case, not because you weren't far enough to one extreme or the other.

 

[adrina]

LOL says one of the most emotional control freaks on the board.

Sure thing Angry Ascription Man. Did you get your cape yet?

 

[KimGordon67]

So they both decided to use abortion as a method of contraception?
In that after thaving 2-3 abortions due to forgetting to take their pill or use a condom, they decided: Why should I inconvenience myself with a IUD? I know that I'm the forgetful kind, but abortion is no big deal if I forget to take contraception again.

I highly doubt it that your friend and mother were in that category, Kim. As you said, such cases are the exception.
Because those very rare cases were the ones that we were arguing. At your request.

But as per your modus operandi, in order to villify your opponent you zoom in such exceptions, and then make it look as if you're arguing the general,




This is the attitude that I have an issue with.

Not abortion in the way it's being used by 95% of women, of which I'm fully supportive.

You're the one arguing for exceptions based on your personal morality.
I'm arguing for a universal policy that isn't based on the vagaries of individual judgements.
If you don't think people should have three or more abortions, feel free to stop at two yourself. But keep your opinion - because that's all it is - out of other people's uteruses.

 

[beew]

Yea I did that's how I know it was a reaction to coach not me, but it still doesn't change the fact that's why I got on your case, not because you weren't far enough to one extreme or the other.

Ok, I'm sorry.
Could we make up, pretty please?
I'd hate it if you hated me. Because, even if I disagree with some of your views, you're among the posters that I enjoy reading cause you come up with interesting or amusing things.

 

[beew]

You're the one arguing for exceptions based on your personal morality.
I'm arguing for a universal policy that isn't based on the vagaries of individual judgements.
If you don't think people should have three or more abortions, feel free to stop at two yourself. But keep your opinion - because that's all it is - out of other people's uteruses.

Nice attitude in a debate thread.

Do you support un-free speech as well?

 

[beew]

You're the one arguing for exceptions based on your personal morality.
I'm arguing for a universal policy that isn't based on the vagaries of individual judgements.
If you don't think people should have three or more abortions, feel free to stop at two yourself. But keep your opinion - because that's all it is - out of other people's uteruses.

I was taken aback by your comments about the foetus, "a thing that could be discarded". And that you implied that you're ok with those women who use abortion as contraception.

I'm sure that you don't actually think like that. Neither do most women.
Most women who've had abortions had maximum 2 mayyyybe 3, and were deeply traumatized by the process and asked themselves all sorts of ethical and moral questions prior to that.

In saying that, there is a small category of women who treat abortion as a method of contraception (any young woman who has more than 4 abortions under their belt is not an ok situation).
That category needs to be screened for and targetted more aggressively through education about better or semi-permanent methods of birth control.


The extreme Left's tactic of trying to normalize and sweep the latter cases under the carpet or to claim that the foetus is "a thing or a parasite" is counterproductive.
You think that you're helping women but all you do is you feed into the extreme Right's misconception that all women who undergo abortions are flippant or callous. Which is far from the truth.

 

[Que]

I was taken aback by your comments about the foetus, "a thing that could be discarded". And that you implied that you're ok with those women who use abortion as contraception.

I'm sure that you don't actually think like that. Neither do most women.
Most women who've had abortions had maximum 2 mayyyybe 3, and were deeply traumatized by the process and asked themselves all sorts of ethical and moral questions prior to that.

In saying that, there is a small category of women who treat abortion as a method of contraception (any young woman who has more than 4 abortions under their belt is not an ok situation).
That category needs to be screened for and targetted more aggressively through education about better or semi-permanent methods of birth control.


The extreme Left's tactic of trying to normalize and sweep the latter cases under the carpet or to claim that the foetus is "a thing or a parasite" is counterproductive.
You think that you're helping women but all you do is you feed into the extreme Right's misconception that all women who undergo abortions are flippant or callous. Which is far from the truth.

Geeze.

An actual, cogent, well-balanced argument. . .from Hashtag?!??

 

[Que]

You're the one arguing for exceptions based on your personal morality.
I'm arguing for a universal policy that isn't based on the vagaries of individual judgements.
If you don't think people should have three or more abortions, feel free to stop at two yourself. But keep your opinion - because that's all it is - out of other people's uteruses.

She is advancing a valid medical and psychological concern. Your opinion that it is simply an opinion and not a valid medical and psychological concern is nothing but an uninformed opinion.

 

[Que]

LOL says one of the most emotional control freaks on the board.

The actual, technical term for Adrina is "histrionic."

She seems to parrot that particular line every time the subject of abortion comes up so she must have read that in a Planned Parenthood pamphlet at some point.

The entire argument that one half of society gets to have a say in the morality of all of society because of whatever equipment package they have or lack is rather silly. Since violence is primarily a male on male event, you really can't say that women shouldn't be serving on juries involving male on male violence, for example.

 

[adrina]

The actual, technical term for Adrina is "0histrionic."

She seems to parrot that particular line every time the subject of abortion comes up so she must have read that in a Planned Parenthood pamphlet at some point.

The entire argument that one half of society gets to have a say in the morality of all of society because of whatever equipment package they have or lack is rather silly. Since violence is primarily a male on male event, you really can't say that women shouldn't be serving on juries involving male on male violence, for example.

Men don't have uteruses and face absolutely zero threats to their lives or health from gestation, pregnancy and giving birth.

It defies logic that men who don't face any of the physical risks of pregnancy think they should have a say in what happens with any woman and her pregnancy - unless so asked by said woman.

Your logic is appallingly ridiculous. It's as if you think women never experience violence - as opposed to men never experiencing gestation, pregnancy and giving birth.

You - and people like Coach - are the prime reasons why I say men can't have more than an academic understanding of the risks of pregnancy. You are able to trivialize it because you will never experience it.

Yes you are an illogical, emotional and over reactionary fool.

 

[nowisthetime]

I always shake my head whenever rightist males dictate their opinions on women's bodies.

And it's almost always MALE repugs who express this belief even when their women secretly support a woman's right to choose.

It's so easy to sit on your couch when you are not busting out that baby. Are you going to help that woman? But you bitch about your taxes going up to support her and the spawn.

You say adoption, are you going to help that woman or girl pay up for expensive appointments as she carries the baby full term for a mistake that occurred?

You all then turn around and support politicians who wish to cut WIC and vital programs which help this child when it is born.

As for my opinion, I do like the idea of abortion, but I do not want that taken away from another female who doesn't have much options in her life.


Rightist males...

 

[beew]

Trivia:

I recently read that Putin is trying to make abortion illegal.
So I googled "Russia abortions", and i came across this: "The Soviet government was the first government in Europe to legalize abortion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia

To which I thought: Whaaaat? It doesn't make sense, because Russian leaders weren't exactly known for being human rights advocates or for caring for the little guy.

But this comment shed a light on the motivations behind Russian leaders' waxing and waning attitudes towards abortion: "[Putin] is worried about his country’s shrinking population. His social-conservative allies say they have the solution."http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/03/putins-next-target-is-russias-abortion-culture/

A controversy on a similar topic still surrounds Bill Gates: Some argue that his proposal for remotely controlled IUDs for women from certain African countries was driven by genuine altruism, others saw him as a racist and eugenicist.


My question:

So the above findings, as well as BotanyBoy's insights earlier in the thread made me ask myself these:

So the motivations of laypeople who get involved in the "abortion conflict" are more clear to me:
For example, as much I disagree with BobBalousky's vicious attacks on women who underwent abortion, his and other conservatives' motivations are genuine, because they see the foetus as a living life form with a right to live.
A few other conservatives are quite callous: "Why should we pay taxes to support women?" or CoachDB sort of lovely comments about female debauchery lol.
Many GB liberals -with the very few exception of those who don't give a fuck and simply want to get laid- are genuine, imo. Unfortunately, a few of their supporting arguments are misguided and misinformed, and make things worse for those women.

But what are the motivations of 'the two competing arms of the Deep State' for fuelling this abortion conflict? Economics, popullation control or growth, divide et impera or what?

 

[beew]

The three BB's:
BotanyBoy, BobBalouski, BBX3.

 

[beew]

But this comment shed a light on the motivations behind Russian leaders' waxing and waning attitudes towards abortion: "[Putin] is worried about his country’s shrinking population. His social-conservative allies say they have the solution."http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/03/putins-next-target-is-russias-abortion-culture/

Apparently Putin managed to enlist the help of the head of their Orthodox Church and other clerics in supporting a ban on abortions.

Regardless of topic, shame on them for colluding with Putin and the State.

The historical attitude of the Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church is different from that of Catholic or Protestant Church or Islam.

With the exception of a few traitors, theirs was the atitude of the oppressed rather than the oppressor, and they served as a beacon of hope for the laypeople against oppression by the State, or against Imperialist or Colonial invasion and attempts to destroy their national identity.

.

 

[Luk]

The three BB's:
BotanyBoy, BobBalouski, BBX3.

Wouldn't trust any of them with a child.

 

[beew]

I also take exception with this notion that 'the Left' is flippant about such things. Having supported a friend and my mother through terminations, I can assure you it's not something either they nor I am 'flippant' about. (Adrina and I probably come across as flippant in some of the threads, but that's clearly in response to arguments that are just silly, not the actual issue itself.)

I Am with you overall.
I'm just critical of some of your guys' argument choices because I feel that they aren't the best ones to support the cause. Just like you are critical of mine.
And my motto is that to achieve credibility, one needs to address the bad alongside the good.


BTW: My mother had an abortion too because she felt that the additional financial burden and time limitations would restrict Our chances in life. I found out later in life that she felt very torn about it. I also know that my parents made many other sacrifices for us and ended having kindof no life.
Did she blame us for it? I will never know because she never showed it.

My parents didn't take it on their kids, but other parents did, and I witnessed firsthand how terribly destructive it is for a kid to feel unwanted or blamed.
Nevermind if the parents can't make ends meet, or the kid ends up in abusive or neglectful care.

So no, you can't force a woman to keep the child and sentence the mother and/or the child to a lifetime of victimhood. Or if you do, you better help them financially and logistically.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sure thing Angry Ascription Man. Did you get your cape yet?

Angry? That's ascription, hypocrite.

And seeing as your posting through this thread has been making borderline hysterical comments about.

Men don't have uteruses and face absolutely zero threats to their lives or health from gestation, pregnancy and giving birth.

It defies logic that men who don't face any of the physical risks of pregnancy think they should have a say in what happens with any woman and her pregnancy - unless so asked by said woman.

Your logic is appallingly ridiculous. It's as if you think women never experience violence - as opposed to men never experiencing gestation, pregnancy and giving birth.

You - and people like Coach - are the prime reasons why I say men can't have more than an academic understanding of the risks of pregnancy. You are able to trivialize it because you will never experience it.

Yes you are an illogical, emotional and over reactionary fool.

Says the woman who just made another largely irrelevant, borderline hysterical and ascription filled post.

LOL you can't help but project and ascribe your emotional bullshit to others, then you run around accusing everyone else of doing that.

Put the PCP down!!! You've had enough.