Beyond 5 weeks or so it should be illegal. Before that time it should be available to most women who want one.
ETA: I guess I should be available to all women before 5 weeks but they shouldn’t get government assistance to carry it out.
What’s magical about 35 days?
Seriously? I’ve explained my position in three different ways. I’m not that interested in abortion to continue this. I don’t know if you’re just messing with me or you just dont understand. Either way I don’t have the required patience.
Doesn’t really matter, I was just curious, and you certainly hadn’t come close to making sense of 35 days previously. (You think it’s okay to have an abortion within a few days of missing your period and making up your mind, but if you’re just starting to get concerned about your period being a week late, you’re a murderer. Whatever. ) I’m starting to suspect that people who find my little poll impossible to follow, too intricate, etc are just rightwing whackjobs afraid to proclaim their positions clearly and publicly.
The fuck are you talking about, bud?
I said that life ends with the cessation of brain activity.
Therefore life begins with the onset of brain activity.
Brain activity usually begins between 5 and 6 weeks.
If you kill a fetus with a functioning brain you are committing homicide.
Therefore, every woman who wants an abortion should be able to get one before the fetus has brain activity.
After the fetus has brain activity, abortion should be illegal.
After brain activity begins, and if the health of the mother is at stake, abortion should be allowed as a justifiable homicide.
So you’re saying at the end of day 35, an abortion should be legal and available to everyone, but after midnight, a few minutes into day 36, an abortion is murder and should be punished accordingly?
I guess that makes sense.
The law, on every subject, is full of semi-arbitrary lines like that. It’s pretty much unavoidable. One could just as well point out the absurdity of abortion being legal a few minutes before birth, but illegal a few minutes after.
You’re saying his position on abortion makes sense to you?
Any law on abortion must have some cutoff line. Are you saying his cutoff line makes less sense than yours?
Yes, I am. I know when a person is born–it’s clear and obvious and indisputable. When brain waves begin is murky, unclear and very much subject to dispute. If you want total clarity, then just make all abortion illegal.
His standard is pretty nutty: he seems to want a woman to go into a panic when she’s a few days late, getting pregnancy tests (which aren’t 100% foolproof), and deciding to abort within a few days of being late on her period–all because of some brainwaves which may or may not be present. Every time I’ve had a girlfriend who was late on her period, I don’t think she took a pregnancy test until she was at least 60 days late. In all cases, it was just a skipped period, and not worth worrying about until then.
So you think abortion should be legal up until the child is born? That would make you seem nutty by many as well, you’re aware of that right?
I’m fine with owning up to my nuttiness. I’m a 1, I make no bones about it, there are very few people to the left of me on this issue. You’re still claiming to be a moderate with your nutty position?
Here are my ratings:
Debt ceiling 3
Immigration 2
Taxes 2
Gov’t spending 4
US as Christian country 1
Abortion 1
Obamacare 1
Birtherism 1
Racial equality/ civil rights 1
English as official language of US 2
I only attempted to apply my position to your faulty scale.
My position allows for the morning after pill, a way out for rape victims, and a way to ensure the health of the mother. I would consider this unorthodox, but to label it nutty would water down the term for when its applied to more extreme positions. What would you consider a moderate on this position, status quo? If so yeah I’m to the right of the status quo.
Not my scale, YOUR scale. I supplied one only because I was told that there is no plausible 1-5 spectrum on some of these issues, so I supplied mine. If you want to supply yours, so much the better. Status quo seems moderate to me. Thanks for volunteering that you’re more restrictive than the status quo.
Which is why he said a clear number (based on the typical point at which brain waves begin), rather than using the brain waves themselves as his standard. Yes, obviously WillFarnaby and I (I have a generally similar position to his) are to your right on this issue, but that’s hardly surprising, given that by your own standard you’re on the extreme left. Is it your assertion that, despite the fact that you’re on the far left, anyone who is at all to your right must necessarily be a nut?
I end up with a 5 or a 6. 1s down the line, but on birtherism and US/Christian I’m into negative numbers.
As I write in the OP, people far beyond a total of 30, and certainly with a total of 40 or more, are simply too extreme for me to have a useful discussion with. I’m trying to figure out who those people are. I’m a 10 on my scale, as I’ve said, and probably incomprehensible to people to who are over 40. I’d be very interested in knowing whether I’m wasting my time and yours in trying to discuss political issues with you. From my perspective, a 40+ person is a nut, and I don’t mind if that’s how they choose to characterize me. Probably saves time all around.
Knowing full well that the President was born in Hawaii, but still wanting to see him run through a maze of red tape to prove it for the lulz ?
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
The fuck are you talking about, bud?
[/QUOTE]
He’s not you bud, pal.
(I’ve always wanted to use that line)
I would score low on OP’s “nuttery index” but didn’t know what to score on Obamacare. It seems to me that both left and right dislike Obamacare, though for opposite reasons. So those who like it score 3?
I’d recommend OP remove Abortion from the nuttery index. Believing that fetuses are alive (and abortion murder) is, whether you agree with the position or not, simply not the same sort of deliberate ignorance as birtherism or climate-change denialism. Pretending otherwise just alienates some otherwise-rational conservatives.
Most people support that 190-day abortions are illegal, though 180-day abortions aren’t. Isn’t it just a quantitative assessment, rather than “nuttery,” to want a different threshold?
(Please note that I’m pro-Choice. I might support the idea that individual states be allowed to ban abortions, though of course would vote against such a ban in my own state.)