Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[bad_teammate 13526]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

oh ok so MLK wasn't mad enough because the body total needed to be 6 digits before he turned super saiyan. 

MLK did not oppose violence in defense of life. He was surrounded by armed guards all the time. After his home was firebombed, he applied for a concealed carry license.

If you guys truly believed babies were being murdered, you would do more than yell online and vote for grifters and charlatans.

[gsoda3 3362]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

MLK did not oppose violence in defense of life. He was surrounded by armed guards all the time. After his home was firebombed, he applied for a concealed carry license.

If you guys truly believed babies were being murdered, you would do more than yell online and vote for grifters and charlatans.

MLK opposed proactively assassinating anyone in the kkk.  he also opposed revenge killings.  both of which are what you're proposing pro-life supporters should do as some sort of insane standard of credibility.  

 

what was your name before bad_teammate?  i forget but i need to remember you're one of the ones it's useless to engage with.  

[bad_teammate 13526]

2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

MLK opposed proactively assassinating anyone in the kkk.  he also opposed revenge killings.  both of which are what you're proposing pro-life supporters should do as some sort of insane standard of credibility. 

Knowing where an abortion doctor goes to work and killing him before he performed the job he always does, which (I guess) according to you is literally murdering babies, that would not be a "revenge killing" or "assassination", that would be taking direction action to save a life not yet taken.

Let's say MLK and his friends know where a black man is about to by lynched. They know that Bobby has been kidnapped and is being held at Old Man GSoda's farm. They know that the Klan kidnaps blacks and murders them on GSoda's farm all the time. If MLK knew that, and he knew the police would do nothing, do you believe he would tell his armed supporters that they should do nothing to stop the murder that has not yet happened?

If he believed in pure defensive non-violence, why did he have guns? Why did he have armed security?

All I'm saying is that you clearly do not believe that abortion doctors are literally murdering babies. It's all way more nuanced than that, and you know it.

[wildcat09 29579]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Knowing where an abortion doctor goes to work and killing him before he performed the job he always does, which (I guess) according to you is literally murdering babies, that would not be a "revenge killing" or "assassination", that would be taking direction action to save a life not yet taken.

Let's say MLK and his friends know where a black man is about to by lynched. They know that Bobby has been kidnapped and is being held at Old Man GSoda's farm. They know that the Klan kidnaps blacks and murders them on GSoda's farm all the time. If MLK knew that, and he knew the police would do nothing, do you believe he would tell his armed supporters that they should do nothing to stop the murder that has not yet happened?

If he believed in pure defensive non-violence, why did he have guns? Why did he have armed security?

All I'm saying is that you clearly do not believe that abortion doctors are literally murdering babies. It's all way more nuanced than that, and you know it.

This is all right, but let's take a step back from comparing a bunch of lazy idiots, many of whom are gun nuts that fantasize about situations in which they could get away with shooting someone (usually a minority), to MLK for any purpose whatsoever. The idea that abortion opponents, who overwhelmingly tend to support the death penalty, are committed to nonviolence is laughable.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

And even if it does, we will still have safe and legal abortion in the United States of America. Women in the backward states will just have to suffer.

The backward states would be the ones that allow babies to be butchered in the hundreds of thousands a manner that would cause Josef Mengele to wince.  It takes an evil person to support this practice. 

[gsoda3 3362]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Knowing where an abortion doctor goes to work and killing him before he performed the job he always does, which (I guess) according to you is literally murdering babies, that would not be a "revenge killing" or "assassination", that would be taking direction action to save a life not yet taken.

Let's say MLK and his friends know where a black man is about to by lynched. They know that Bobby has been kidnapped and is being held at Old Man GSoda's farm. They know that the Klan kidnaps blacks and murders them on GSoda's farm all the time. If MLK knew that, and he knew the police would do nothing, do you believe he would tell his armed supporters that they should do nothing to stop the murder that has not yet happened?

If he believed in pure defensive non-violence, why did he have guns? Why did he have armed security?

All I'm saying is that you clearly do not believe that abortion doctors are literally murdering babies. It's all way more nuanced than that, and you know it.

abortion in the trifecta scenarios is nuanced.  outside of that the more you try to justify abortion the more "nuanced" it gets.  but only because your foolish thinking is trying to excuse the act while marginalizing the baby's life, resulting in confusion, or as you describe it, "nuance".  

[David Dennison 19543]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The backward states would be the ones that allow babies to be butchered in the hundreds of thousands a manner that would cause Josef Mengele to wince.  It takes an evil person to support this practice. 

Gentlemen, to evil!

[bad_teammate 13526]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The backward states would be the ones that allow babies to be butchered in the hundreds of thousands a manner that would cause Josef Mengele to wince.  It takes an evil person to support this practice. 

It takes an evil person to do nothing in the face of such an atrocity, no?

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

abortion in the trifecta scenarios is nuanced.  outside of that the more you try to justify abortion the more "nuanced" it gets.  but only because your foolish thinking is trying to excuse the act while marginalizing the baby's life, resulting in confusion, or as you describe it, "nuance".  

Why are you not actively killing abortion doctors who you know for a fact will be killing babies in the future?

Also, why the hell would a woman being raped make the life of the baby any more or less worth saving?

(It's because the vast majority of us do not actually believe that a 8-week-old fetus is a baby.)

[Brian Fantana 6867]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The backward states would be the ones that allow babies to be butchered in the hundreds of thousands a manner that would cause Josef Mengele to wince.  It takes an evil person to support this practice. 

Well we've officially Godwin'd

[gsoda3 3362]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It takes an evil person to do nothing in the face of such an atrocity, no?

Why are you not actively killing abortion doctors who you know for a fact will be killing babies in the future?

Also, why the hell would a woman being raped make the life of the baby any more or less worth saving?

(It's because the vast majority of us do not actually believe that a 8-week-old fetus is a baby.)

so if you were me and you believed abortion was the active murdering of babies and you believed in the sanctity of life, you would murder doctors to stop that from happening?  even though you believe in the sanctity of life?  

[wildcat09 29579]

16 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

so if you were me and you believed abortion was the active murdering of babies and you believed in the sanctity of life, you would murder doctors to stop that from happening?  even though you believe in the sanctity of life?  

If you could go back in time and kill Hitler to stop WW2, would you?

[bad_teammate 13526]

25 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

so if you were me and you believed abortion was the active murdering of babies and you believed in the sanctity of life, you would murder doctors to stop that from happening?  even though you believe in the sanctity of life?  

Absolutely. You wouldn't?

[gsoda3 3362]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If you could go back in time and kill Hitler to stop WW2, would you?

 

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Absolutely. You wouldn't?

no i wouldn't.  in the name of greater good doesn't justify the evil of murdering someone.  there are other ways.  

[HenryJames 67373]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If you could go back in time and kill Hitler to stop WW2, would you?

What about abort fetus Hitler?

[wildcat09 29579]

23 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

no i wouldn't.  in the name of greater good doesn't justify the evil of murdering someone.  there are other ways.  

Well that puts you in what I think is an incredibly minority position. Nobody should be purely utilitarian on stuff like this, but I'm pretty sure 99.9999% of people would consider it morally just to kill one person in order to save more than fifty million others.

[bad_teammate 13526]

45 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

no i wouldn't.  in the name of greater good doesn't justify the evil of murdering someone.  there are other ways.  

Those other ways must suck, because apparently hundreds of thousands of American babies are murdered each year.

Also, you are against all taking of human life, yes? Anti-war, anti-death-penalty? Yes?

[NoRagrets 1141]

Anyone changed their mind yet?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Those other ways must suck, because apparently hundreds of thousands of American babies are murdered each year.

Also, you are against all taking of human life, yes? Anti-war, anti-death-penalty? Yes?

I'm pro choice, but I get where gsoda is coming from.  He can truly believe a genocide is occurring without doing anything about it except trying to change the law.  Comparing it to the Holocaust relies on the assumption that you would have done something if you were a German citizen seeing Jews get taken to concentration camps.  I hate to break the bad news to you, but you likely would have done nothing more than shed a tear in the comfort of your own home.  You wouldn't have even tried to "change the law" because that would have meant certain death for you.  Instead, you would have minded your own business and worried about your own family's wellbeing.  You would have been decidedly "anti-Holocaust" while doing nothing about it.  Or you would have been dead.

Edited April 25, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[DixonHur 11960]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I cited it because it was overturned.  Showing the Supreme Court can change its mind.  

Editor's Note: It wasn't

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Editor's Note: It wasn't

So Separate But Equal is still good law?

[David Dennison 19543]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

So Separate But Equal is still good law?

He's technically correct. The Court never actually overturned Plessy. 

[bad_teammate 13526]

14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm pro choice, but I get where gsoda is coming from.  He can truly believe a genocide is occurring without doing anything about it except trying to change the law.  Comparing it to the Holocaust relies on the assumption that you would have done something if you were a German citizen seeing Jews get taken to concentration camps.  I hate to break the bad news to you, but you likely would have done nothing more than shed a tear in the comfort of your own home.  You wouldn't have even tried to "change the law" because that would have meant certain death for you.  Instead, you would have minded your own business and worried about your own family's wellbeing.  You would have been decidedly "anti-Holocaust" while doing nothing about it.  Or you would have been dead.

It's nothing like the Holocaust.

As for the bolded, that is because the entire German military and government apparatus were physically carrying it all out, not some doctor driving up to a clinic in his BMW.

And even more as to how it's a ridiculous comparison, the German people didn't know the Holocaust was happening as a mass-extermination event until it was already far, far too late. The Nazis didn't roll around in 1936 saying, "All right, guys, we've got some nice death camps set up ready to murder millions and millions of Jews!"

The policy of outright genocide was not widespread until '41 and even then it wasn't exactly front page news.

It'd be great if people stopped comparing things to the Holocaust that are nothing like the Holocaust.

[DixonHur 11960]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So Separate But Equal is still good law?

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Plessy vs. Ferguson.  I'm merely pointing out that, as David noted, it was never officially overturned.

[Spankytoes 1748]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

And even if it does, we will still have safe and legal abortion in the United States of America. Women in the backward states will just have to suffer.

Or travel to a state that will accommodate them. CA and NY aren’t ever getting rid of abortion.

[Spankytoes 1748]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Well that puts you in what I think is an incredibly minority position. Nobody should be purely utilitarian on stuff like this, but I'm pretty sure 99.9999% of people would consider it morally just to kill one person in order to save more than fifty million others.

To be fair, it’s a bullshit question. There are millions of people that think Obama and Trump have had direct impacts on millions of lives for the worse. No sane person would assasinate the sitting President, even if the vast majority of deaths are titled “collateral damage”.

[bad_teammate 13526]

1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

To be fair, it’s a bullshit question. There are millions of people that think Obama and Trump have had direct impacts on millions of lives for the worse. No sane person would assasinate the sitting President, even if the vast majority of deaths are titled “collateral damage”.

literal murder of infant babies

vs.

"direct impacts ... for the worse"

🤔

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

[Spankytoes 1748]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

literal murder of infant babies fetuses 

vs.

"direct impacts ... for the worse"

🤔

FIFY

[Johnny Sack 8397]

45 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Plessy vs. Ferguson.  I'm merely pointing out that, as David noted, it was never officially overturned.

It has been implicitly overruled by Brown and pretty much every SCOTUS case applying the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It is not good law.  SCOTUS changes their mind.  You ever read Obergefell?

Not sure why you are getting technical when you know damn well Plessy is not good law.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[David Dennison 19543]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

It has been implicitly overruled by Brown and by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It is not good law.

Yeah, but you used it as an example of the Supreme Court changing its mind.

[DixonHur 11960]

2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

 

no i wouldn't.  in the name of greater good doesn't justify the evil of murdering someone.  there are other ways.  

How do you feel about killing in self-defense?

[Brian Fantana 6867]

Argue about it with a Vulcan, bitch.

[Mole 4341]

The tortured logic that declares prolifers as disingenuous if they don't start slaughtering abortion providers is insane. I knew the right has embraced the scandal of the evangelical mind (the scandal is that there is none), but this is some of the most intellectually bankrupt nonsense I've ever run across.

[bad_teammate 13526]

30 minutes ago, Mole said:

The tortured logic that declares prolifers as disingenuous if they don't start slaughtering abortion providers is insane.

It depends on what the pro-lifer claims to believe. Not all pro-lifers believe fetuses have the same status as a born infant. Most don't, I would wager.

[edit]

The point, really, is that pro-lifers should mitigate the level of their moralistic outrage and realize that those who have a different view of abortion rights are not cold to the plight of infants, they simply acknowledge the nuance of the situation and it is a nuance that pro-lifers themselves actually feel but too-often pretend not to feel.

Edited April 25, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Mole 4341]

I hope this is disingenuous. I know it's easier to argue against a caricature of a fundamentalist, but to question the sincerity of their beliefs because they don't subscribe to your own hyper-fundamentalist mindset is intellectually dishonest. You're either trolling, more interested in "winning" a debate than having an honest discussion, or lacking in basic critical thinking skills. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mole

[bad_teammate 13526]

13 hours ago, Mole said:

I hope this is disingenuous. I know it's easier to argue against a caricature of a fundamentalist, but to question the sincerity of their beliefs because they don't subscribe to your own hyper-fundamentalist mindset is intellectually dishonest. You're either trolling, more interested in "winning" a debate than having an honest discussion, or lacking in basic critical thinking skills. 

I am only talking about people who say that an inviable fetus is exactly the same as a baby. If they don't believe that, then there's no issue. If you don't believe that, then why the hell are you so defensive?

If someone claims that a, say, 7-week-old fetus is literally the same from an ethical and moral standpoint as a baby and that aborting that 7-week-old fetus is morally and ethically the same as stabbing a 3-month-old baby to death in a crib, then I am curious as to why those same people are not doing more to stop the killing those 7-week-old fetuses.

All I am contending is that very few people actually believe the 7-week-old fetus is the same, ethically and morally, as a 3-month-old baby. I don't think that's actually a controversial claim on my part. I think many people are claiming to believe something that they do not actually believe.

I think virtually everyone follows a gradient:
Abortion at 1-week: meh ---------------> Murder of 3-month-old in crib: RED ALERT

I think many CLAIM they follow:
Abortion at 1-week: RED ALERT ---------------> Murder of 3-month-old in crib: RED ALERT

This is a huge problem because if you claim a belief that you don't actually have, discussion is impossible.

 

 

[hpslugga 4097]

14 hours ago, Mole said:

The tortured logic that declares prolifers as disingenuous if they don't start slaughtering abortion providers is insane. I knew the right has embraced the scandal of the evangelical mind (the scandal is that there is none), but this is some of the most intellectually bankrupt nonsense I've ever run across.

They're disingenuous for a myriad of reasons. That one is just either at the bottom of the totem pole, or not on it at all.

[Anastasis 23721]

have we ruled out that BT is linux redux?

[formermav43 4630]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

have we ruled out that BT is linux redux?

I thought he was groverat.

[JBJ 3827]

2 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I thought he was groverat.

That and several others.

The dilemma here is the concept of personhood.  Groverat appears to subscribe to the thought that personhood is developmental. That, as a fetus develops, the moral hazard becomes greater until at some point (birth/viability/sensory), it becomes a full person. I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that killing a sub-person (however defined) is more in a grey area than killing a full person. 

One can still agree that personhood is developmental AND see a 7-week fetus as an equitable person to a toddler.  Not everyone will have the same benchmarks for development.  And some people will see personhood as inherent in human beings.

The Hitler, self-defense, execution, and war arguments might be informative to your position on abortion, but they are not determinant.  Each have separate justifications.  If you agree with preemptively killing Hitler, your reasons for that don't need to be informative on abortion.

I think the best analogy for abortion is the human artificial heart example.  It goes that you and a passenger are in a near-fatal car accident.  The doctors save both of you but they have wired your circularory systems together so that you are functioning as an artificial heart for your passenger.  If you remain hooked together, the passenger will slowly recover and be able to be unhooked from you in about 9 months.  The doctors can unwire you; but they have to kill the passenger in doing so.

That's the best analogy I've seen but it still has a few fatal flaws: (1) the passenger has a previous "personhood" status and to many a fetus will not have the same status as an incapacitated person. (2) being wired together after a car accident isn't directly analogous to conceiving in terms of fault, responsibility, and third party involvement. (3) the level and kind of incapacitation is different being hooked on to an adult person than when pregnant.

It's a great analogy because you can nuance it effectively: what if there's a medical risk to one or both of you? What if instead of a car accident someone attacked you? What if the other person recovers a certain function (awareness, pain reception) at a certain point?  What if the other person has a good chance to be permanently mentally disabled? Even if there is a clear moral answer, should you be bound by law to perform it?

Edited April 26, 2018 by JBJ

[Spankytoes 1748]

Are the pro-lifers here also against circumcision? Obviously, this isn't an apples to apples comparison as you believe that abortion is murder. I'm just curious if a body altering religious practice performed on an actual birthed baby, that has legal rights and no say so in the matter, is OK. Where do we draw the line for parental rights versus physical violence and "murder"? 

If we are going to go down the "what-if" rabbit hole, then we have to touch on the religious aspect of medical practices. Should a doctor let a baby die because her parent's refuse blood transfusions as Jehovah's Witnesses when clearly the baby cannot declare their beliefs? Why is "Religion is protected" applied towards this scenario but not towards consented assisted suicide due to humanitarian reasons? That seems pretty contradictory that parents are allowed to make medical decisions for their own child but a person of sound mind that consents for an assistant suicide isn't allowed to let their caretaker arrange a dignified exit. Why are we allowed to "pull the plug" on a life that is still breathing but are advocating to force women to have babies like it's an imposed criminal consequence for the action of getting laid? How do you justify birth control through a religious aspect when you are directly contradicting "God's plan" like the bulletproof glass on the Pope-Mobile? Why should you have any say in that decision?

Finally, how many of y'all claimed your unborn child as a dependent on your Federal taxes? How did that work out for you? 

[Mole 4341]

This discussion always tends to focus on competing rights in the abstract rather than the real cost in lives. I'm personally not interested in the philosophical discussion of when legal personhood is reached, but I consider the staggering numbers of abortions performed since Roe vs. Wade a dark reflection on our culture and social values. This is distinct from the legal right to such a procedure, which reflects a mixed bag of values. It's sad that we have so many unwanted pregnancies and it's sad that so many women see abortion as their best option. It's a reflection of our values and it goes well beyond who holds the rights trump card.

I consider myself prolife, but I can't understand why the prolife movement is so fixated on philosophy rather than the human cost.

If I were King, I'd divert money from the defense budget and pay or provide college scholarships to at risk women to stay on birth control. I'd pay them to carry their pregnancies to term and make adoption as easy as possible. On a small scale, I'd be a full blown redistributing commie. 

 

@bad_teammate

it isn't defensiveness about a position but a deep dislike of disingenuous and uncritical thinking. Your posting here thrives on this. It's less that I disagree with your conclusions and more that you take the worst route possible to reach them.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Mole

[bad_teammate 13526]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

One can still agree that personhood is developmental AND see a 7-week fetus as an equitable person to a toddler.

One could, sure, but do you think that is genuinely a common belief among pro-lifers; that a 7-week fetus is an "equitable person" to a toddler?

1 hour ago, Mole said:

it isn't defensiveness about a position but a deep dislike of disingenuous and uncritical thinking.

 

Quote

I consider myself prolife, but I can't understand why the prolife movement is so fixated on philosophy rather than the human cost.

It's because most of them, like the pro-choice, do not actually believe that the abortion of 1st/2nd trimester fetuses is actually a human cost (as JBJ references, virtually all of us ascribe the continuum of personhood). Abortion is an American political and cultural wedge, which is why the everyday pro-life American only cares about this mass murder of infants around election seasons.

Some simple, straight-forward questions:

- Do you believe that an abortion doctor that aborts a 7-weeks-developed fetus is guilty of the same moral and ethical crime as a father who drowns his birthed infant in a bathtub?

- Do you believe that "yes" would be an honest answer from the majority of the pro-life?

Edited April 26, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Spankytoes 1748]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

This discussion always tends to focus on competing rights in the abstract rather than the real cost in lives. I'm personally not interested in the philosophical discussion of when legal personhood is reached, but I consider the staggering numbers of abortions performed since Roe vs. Wade a dark reflection on our culture and social values. This is distinct from the legal right to such a procedure, which reflects a mixed bag of values. It's sad that we have so many unwanted pregnancies and it's sad that so many women see abortion as their best option. It's a reflection of our values and it goes well beyond who holds the rights trump card.

I consider myself prolife, but I can't understand why the prolife movement is so fixated on philosophy rather than the human cost.

If I were King, I'd divert money from the defense budget and pay or provide college scholarships to at risk women to stay on birth control. I'd pay them to carry their pregnancies to term and make adoption as easy as possible. On a small scale, I'd be a full blown redistributing commie. 

 

@bad_teammate

it isn't defensiveness about a position but a deep dislike of disingenuous and uncritical thinking. Your posting here thrives on this. It's less that I disagree with your conclusions and more that you take the worst route possible to reach them.

@Mole Cost in what respect? There are hundreds of thousands of kids in America available for adoption at this very moment. Who do you think subsidizes their living expenses? You estimate that is less money than the one-time small token sum for abortions that are partially funded by PP? The irony is the amount of red tape one has to go through to willingly adopt a child and care for it. Yet, if you open up your sloppy drunk gash on $1 beer night, we're going to go ahead and deem you a fit parent because "abortion is murder"...and you are a whore that needs a crying scarlet letter. It's an absolutely hypocritical argument Pro-Lifers make on every facet of a decision that has no bearing on their lives. But, as with issues like gay marriage, it's outraged fueled by religious fervor disguised as concern for someone they have never met.

[Mole 4341]

We don't disagree. We have a deeper cultural problem than who holds the rights trump card. Our wallets tell a story of what we value. When it comes to the abortion debate, as a culture we value our respective moral perches above all else. Why else would these discussions always seem to fall into absurd analogies and ridiculous strawmen?

With the proper motivation, safe legal and rare wouldn't look all that different than prolife. The answer is out there, but it won't be found in 40+ year philosophical debates that leave us roughly in the same place as we've been for decades.

[JBJ 3827]

 

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

One could, sure, but do you think that is genuinely a common belief among pro-lifers; that a 7-week fetus is an "equitable person" to a toddler?

I'd say 20%.  It's probably slightly more than the portion of pro-choicers who consider birth to be the end-all for personhood.

But I'll answer your questions personally:

(1) I hold personhood to be inherent.  That is that a zygote should be viewed as a person with the same considerations as an adult. There's some caveats to that, but once someone starts in with with "it's not even a person," I can just about dismiss anything else they say.  If you could force an adult back into the womb, a fetus should be treated the same.

(2) I hold that it's unethical to terminate a pregnancy for convenience.

(3) I hold that the reasons for terminating are an important part of the moral/ethical dilemma.

If you agree me with on those points, we can probably have a productive conversation.

 

Policy-wise, it's best for the state to intervene in the more black-and-white situations.  Protecting the mother's life is black-and-white to me.  Aborting a viable fetus for convenience is black-and-white to me.  I think there's an undeniable greater harm done in both situations.  The government needs to allow or enforce protection against both.

Policy-wise, passing perception and sensory developmental milestones increases the harm done to the fetus.  That being said, I'll admit that this area is grey and there might not be a policy solution that's agreeable.

-------------

The above are ethical or policy aspects.  It's hard for me to post that stuff stoically.  Morally, I think it's degenerate to consider anything but the life of the mother.  It's a life for a life, everything else is philosophical gumbo.  Further, if I were the mother and there's a good chance I'd die but the baby could survive, I'd be out looking for adoptive parents.

Edited April 26, 2018 by JBJ

[bad_teammate 13526]

5 hours ago, Mole said:

With the proper motivation, safe legal and rare wouldn't look all that different than prolife.

This is my entire point. The vast majority of people have fairly consistent views on abortion itself. Most people think it's a bad thing. Virtually everyone is opposed morally to 3rd trimester abortions.

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political labels vaguely revolving around the topic of abortion writ large, but are primarily simple labels of politics and are tied to a host of other worldview disputes that are only tangentially related to abortion. Even those two labels, taken at face value, do not disagree, and they actually tell us very little about the individual beliefs of those with the title. It is literally useless to talk about it in terms of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

 

[EMAWesome 101]

I've gone back and forth with myself on this issue my whole life.  I could counter every argument for abortion as well as every argument against it.  I never have been able to come up with a logical, consistent position on the issue.  On one hand there are too damn many stupid idiots on this planet already.  If having abortions reduces that number I'm good with that.  On the other hand I would love for anyone to explain how a taking a position advocating a procedure that has resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of baby girls since Roe vs. Wade is being pro-feminist.  That is like saying that by promoting eating veal you are being pro cow.

[safe sex 12011]

@JBJ

What is an abortion of convenience? If I got pregnant and didn't feel as though I were ready to be a mother and then went to PP for an abortion, would that be an abortion of convenience? What if I felt I didn't have the money to raise a child? If I were a single mother?

Edited April 27, 2018 by trauma babe
added questions

[bad_teammate 13526]

"Abortion of convenience" is a phrase used to demonize women who get elective abortions; it is an attempt to make them seem uncaring and frivolous. It is easier to advocate for their imprisonment, punishment, or subjugation if you delegitimize their situation.

Quote

On the other hand I would love for anyone to explain how a taking a position advocating a procedure that has resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of baby girls since Roe vs. Wade is being pro-feminist.

What is feminism?