The pro-life people sure are good at moral gymnastics.
They often oppose fact-based sex-ed — more unwanted pregnancies.
They are often the same people that oppose a social safety net — creating more people who feel they cannot afford a child.
They are often the first to dispute a woman’s report of sexual assault — creating an environment where rape is condoned — more unwanted pregnancies.
Subsidise day care? Nope.
Affordable healthcare for the mother? You guessed it.
How can you do everything imaginable to make a mother miserable and then say you are “pro-life”?
Why are these people not advocating for a society where people feel safe and well-supported enough to raise a child? So that nobody would choose to have a pregnancy aborted? Nope, they just oppose abortion and everything that would prevent said abortion.
I firmly believe their position has nothing to do with “opposing murder of foetuses” and everything with “them dirty sluts should keep their legs closed”.
I’m Pro-Choice, but how about the idea that you should plan to have children. And part of that planning is determining when you can afford to take care of it. A kid is the responsibility of the parents. Seems amazing to have to make that point.
i’m Pro-Choice, but arguing against “a clump of cells” is lazy. How about beyond that? Do you defend late term abortion? Do you defend abortion until the last minute before birth? Last day? Week? Month? Trimester? Where do you draw the line (if you do draw one)? And why there?
As far as volunteering a standard, hearing the baby’s heartbeat is a fine one, as it’s less arbitrary then something solely based on time. I think that might be too early for some, but fine by me.
And now, back to those election-loving, America-loving voter ID defenders.
Most abortions take place before there is any significant differentiation, so it really is just a clump of cells. Bricker was not talking about late term abortion, he was talking about all abortions, so I refer to the majority of the very ones that he is complaining about. If he would like to not be lazy and say that he is not crying about the fate of an undifferentiated cell mass, but rather about late term abortions specifically, then I can be more specific in my discussion. But if it is anyone, it is Bricker who is lazy here, and I am only responding to the statements that he has made. He is the one who is making the comparison between an undifferentiated clump of cells and a fully grown human, and whining over the fate of the former and callously dismissing the suffering of the latter.
Sure, there are later term abortions, and I’d prefer that those not necessarily take place, but I’m not going to support any government policies or actions that enforced that preference.
Personally, I defend abortion until the baby is born, as I feel though the mother is the only one in a position to make that decision, and even if I disagree with it, it’s not my place to enforce. At most, I would say that if a fetus is viable, then it should be delivered rather than aborted, and given up for adoption.
No, I do not see an unborn fetus as having the same rights as a born child, nor of deserving of them.
Thanks for the explanation. But if your position is “until the baby is born”, that, IMO, is a grotesque standard, and one that tempts me to join the Pro-Life side. “Until the baby is born” means i second before the baby is born. And how about if it’s half way out of the north canal? Does it change for babies that are born in breach as opposed to head first? And how about if the baby is born but not breathing? You get the point. I do wish that the Pro-Life side and the Pro-Choice side wold come to an agreement that society could apply. I think the Pro-Choice people need to be willing to draw a line in the sand at least at the third trimester. And I wish the Pro-Life side would stop would agree with is and let go of prohibitions even in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. I find those positions equally grotesque.
Let me state unequivocally that I believe fetuses should not be able to vote, with or without ID.
That’s a great point. You know what would really facilitate that approach? Access to affordable family planning and women’s health clinics, access to affordable birth control pills (including having them covered by health insurance like the medicine they are), affordable healthcare or health insurance overall and comprehensive sex education. All of which the GOP currently oppose as a matter of course.
So - how about that Georgia? Voters being blocked left, right and center, voting machines locked up or sent without power cords, the man responsible for overseeing all of this also being a major candidate - my god, voter confidence must be through the fucking roof by now.
My mom (a good Catholic woman) always said that if abortion were legal, it should be legal to age 12.
But, more seriously, I would be opposed to the abortion of a viable (and of course that’s a moving target - say not needing weeks of NICU to survive) fetus/baby.
But by my understanding, that type of abortion is a unicorn. Practically all late-term abortions are for non-viable fetuses and/or critical health of the mother (since carrying a dead fetus is dangerous, but many abortion laws may not permit the removal of that fetus (or doctors are afraid that they will be arrested in any case)).
Your own position is irrelevant. You said “Democrats adhere to” so my response regarding what Republicans “adhere” to is on point. I figure both comments are of equal relevance, even the level if relevance happens to be zero, which is the likeliest result.
Nice attempt at deflection, though. Your huffiness and sanctimony came through loud and clear, even if they are off-topic.
Well, as I said in the post that you replied to, I would not be against requiring a delivery and adoption if the fetus is viable, so that answers most of your pointed questions, even before you pointedly asked them.
There is also the fact that late term abortion is very rare, and is almost exclusively done for the health of the mother. Does that change the calculous for you at all? I would certainly rather not have people aborting perfectly health 9 month along pregnancies, but I’d far rather not have to have a doctor and a woman who have already agonized over this decision then have to go to court in order to do the procedure.
What do you think should be the procedure if someone finds out a week before their due date that having the baby will most likely kill them or at least leave them disabled? Should they have to justify it legally before they may proceed with the medical procedure? Should they have to go in front of a medical board? If it is later discovered that there was a way to save the fetus, is anyone legally liable?
I am sure that there are some people who get abortions of convince in later trimesters, but they are incredibly rare, so creating laws and policies to prevent the incredibly rare is going to put many women’s lives and health at risk. Not a trade-off that I would condone.
Many states do ban third trimester abortions, so your wish for the pro-choice side is mostly granted, but it never will be for the anti-abortionists.
**Bricker **hijacked it. He’s spent literally years in this thread trying to avoid admitting the awful truth of his being wrong, and it’s just another tactic. “No, YOU’RE the immoral ones!” is beyond sad, but it’s all he’s got left.
Remember, the fact that we did not express sufficient outrage at some shady political maneuvering in Massachusetts one time means that all of our outrage at GOP vote-suppression tactics is feigned and/or partisan. (Despite the fact that (a) most of us are not from MA and had never heard of it, and (b) it’s only comparable in the sense that it involves both shadiness and politics – it has nothing to do with vote suppression.)
Brickhead’s hypocritic blather is always good for laughs. To listen to his rants, he finds every Democratic voter personally responsible for killing babies, trying to ban guns, the rising debt, urban violence, the recessions of 1992 and 2008, and war in the Middle East. Yet when he’s informed that his fellow Republiopaths support executing convicts (many of whom turn out to be innocent) his answer is “So what?” :smack:
Only if you accept his characterization of it that way, and you really shouldn’t. Each step of the process made it more democratic, and that is typically a good thing. It did work against the interests of the party that is threatened by democracy and wishes to limit participation in it by those who aren’t smart enough to vote correctly, but only a Bricker could think that’s “shady”.
Why should anyone care where you or I might draw a line? If a woman wants an abortion at 8.5 months, and can find a doctor willing to abort a healthy fetus that far along, what business is it of yours or mine? Personally I think such a woman needs to give her head a shake, but the thing about being pro-choice is that it includes bad choices and dumb choices and choices we’d personally make differently. I see no reason to make abortion a crime just because you don’t like it. The freedom to have children or not as women see fit is more important than your sad feelings.