And yet here I am.
What conservative sites do you belong to?
Call it what you want. In the hierarchy of “human rights”, the right not to be killed should take priority over the right not to be pregnant. Every time.
Don’t really need to, I’ve got enough whack-a-doodle facebook friends and relatives that share and forward everything that smears Obama and the Democrats.
Seriously, is there a right-leaning equivalent to this board that isn’t batshit crazy? If so, I’d gladly go over and begin their education.
So if a dying violinists hooks himself up to my body’s blood supply while I sleep so that he can stay alive, I can’t kill him (by disconnection) if he refuses to disconnect?
What “kid”? This kid? Your entire argument depends on your own arbitrary and artificial definition of what “human life” is, a definition that is frankly ridiculous and has been rejected by courts all over the world. You don’t seem to understand that.
I know we’re repeating ourselves and I will now desist from doing so. But it’s unconscionable in view of this kind of philosophical impasse to presume to impose your desired restrictions on an entire nation just because you think you have a monopoly on righteous truth. This is how theocratic advocates of Sharia law think. Your way of thinking would have so far affected the lives of about 50 million women who have had abortions since Roe v. Wade. My way of thinking would not affect you or your fellow meddling anti-abortionists one single whit. The pro-choice side is arguing something real and measurable that affects the lives and well-being of millions of real people, the anti-choice side is arguing dogma.
By the way, I totally disagree with this statement. The right to bodily autonomy takes priority over the right to life for any individual inside another individual. Every time.
Terr, I mentioned this before, and you didn’t respond. Since we’re already at a total impasse, can we agree to support programs like increased education and access to contraception that correlate (and have strong evidence for causation) with the drop in teen pregnancy and abortion rates over the past decade or two?
The only world in which we can both feel good about this issue is one in which women don’t get pregnant any more except when they really want to.
Access to contraception is already there. Cost of contraceptives is minimal and in a lot of cases free. Education - hell, my 10-year-old just had a sex-ed class in school. How much more education can you get? Teens are bombarded with “safe sex” messages constantly.
I hope technology will catch up with the matter. Now - let’s say there is a theoretical world in which women don’t get pregnant any more except when they really want to. But - at 3 months into pregnancy the woman decides that she doesn’t want the baby. You’d be pro-allowing it. I wouldn’t be. So how would we “both feel good about this issue”?
You can get a lot more education. You can get churches onboard because it reduces abortion. And like you say below, you can get the technology of contraception to continue to improve.
Well I’d feel good, and you’d feel better than you do now (or vice versa, if abortion was illegal but the demand only included women who get pregnant on purpose and then change their minds or have medical difficulties). Maybe that’s as close as we can hope for.
In my view, my side (in general) is making an effort to get to a world like that, while your side (in general) is not.
It may, but it shouldn’t.
Pretty damn rude telling someone else what they do and believe. How do you know this? Have you been spying on others while they vote? Damn shabby argument, really.
That said, I know a few single-issue Democrats and single-issue liberals. Some are focused on immigration, and some on labor. Some environmental activists come close. I’ve never met a single-issue pro-choice voter.
From his post where he gave the situation where he would possibly vote for someone who was pro-banning abortions, and the situation was extreme (and obviously unrealistic).
Cite? I recall a case of a woman knocking on doors in a hurricane. No one opened their doors, her children were blown away. I don’t think anyone was charged.
If there is any reasonable fear of danger to the houseowner, I doubt there is any jury that will convict even if a charge was brought.
And consider the more appropriate scenario – you have the only O negative blood someone else needs urgently in the town, the road to outside is closed due to landslide. If you decline to donate and the person dies, I doubt any charge will be applicable.
Pew has done a detailed study on political “types”. “Solid liberals” are overhwelmingly pro-choice (84-15) and prefer to elect politicians who compromise (70-25) whereas “staunch conservatives” are largely pro-life (72-27) and prefer to elect politicians who “stick to their positions” (79-19). The fact that the latter group is far more religious (and evangelical) may have something to do with it. http://www.people-press.org/files/2011/05/Political-Typology-Detailed-Tables.pdf
I agree we have the right to not be killed. We do not have the right to the use of someone else’s body to help us live. You affirmed this by stating that parents should not be compelled by law to donate organs to their children.
What do you think of pregnancies that carry a 50% chance of death for the woman? 30%? 10%? You mentioned earlier that the doctor alone should decide. Where should the doctor draw the line, assuming that adequate statistical information is available?
Not the same thing. First, she was not already inside, and second, there was no 100% certainty of death if you kicked her out.
As long as we’re doing this retarded hypothetical, how about if we alter it slightly to be more apt - the violinist is dying only because you hooked him up to your body’s blood supply of your own free will and turned off all his vital functions that would allow him to survive by himself, but the condition will correct itself in a few weeks and you’ll both be home free?
Ah, one of those “general principles” which, however, applies only to pregnancy and abortion in any non-fantastic scenario.
I was responding to Terr’s statement that even rape victims should not be allowed to abort their pregnancies.
Kind of like pretty much every argument by either side about abortion, huh? And you’re just wrong anyway, because my argument also applies to rape and other bodily violations. Everyone has the right to expel anything or anyone from their bodies if they don’t want it/them inside.
From http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html and references therein, circa 2008-2011, 51% of US pregnancies are unintended, 40% of these are terminated by abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. 40% of 51% is 20.4%. That means abortions for intended pregnancies are rare, making up ~3% of all abortions. Eliminating unintended pregnancies could prevent ~a million abortions a year. Natural fetal losses would dwarf abortions 30 to 1.
Most abortions for intended pregnancies would likely be due to health/life of the mother or fetus, which account for 3-4% of all abortions each. Assuming that health/life issues occur at the same rate in intended and unintended pregnancies, the statistics is consistent with all abortions of intended pregnancies being due to health/life reasons. But let’s say there are exceptions, and aborting an intended pregnancy for non health/life reasons accounts for 0.1-0.5% of all abortions. That’s 1000-5000 a year.
Meanwhile, by preventing 1.2 million births from unintended pregnancies, ~3000 women’s lives are saved who would have died during pregnancy or childbirth, and ~300,000 natural fetal losses are avoided.
Are you saying that you’re unhappy with a million avoided abortions, 300,000 avoided natural fetal loss, 3000 avoided deaths in women, because perhaps 1000-5000 women could still abort their intended pregnancies without a health/life reason?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? Did I say I would be unhappy about a million avoided abortions? I said I would not be happy with abortions (other than under threat to mother’s life). Period. The “because” part you made up.