You republicans! Again, making stupid ass remarks. Before you are bitching about Obama’s new proposal as if it is the worst thing in the world. Seriously, you’re only limited to 10 round magazines. 10 rounds is plenty!
And now you’re bitching about something that’s not even a freaking human? Good riddance. Seriously, if you get it done in the first trimester, why should it matter? It’s not a human yet; it’s in its development stage. As long as you get it done in the first trimester, it’s fine! It’s her choice. What is so bad about stopping a baby from developing? It’s not like you’re murdering someone because the things is not even a baby yet! The baby doesn’t give a shit, as it doesn’t even know it’s fucking being developed. Abortion should completely be legalized as long as it is done within the first trimester.
Man, where do you stupid republicans get this messed up ideas from? I’d really like to know.
Yes, thank you. That is exactly what I meant by “pro-choice but supports a woman’s right to choose.” The above quote gives the true gist of the issue, including the rank hypocrisy of the anti-choicers.
Can we compromise and call me “pro-life but not anti-choice”?
In my opinion, abortion is morally problematic, and I’ve said several times that I’m not inclined to enforce my morality on women in general. You seem to be arguing with me when we don’t have disagreement.
Yes, I agree with you again. See? We should be putting the same legislative effort into increased availability of contraception, sex education, adoption services, pre- and post-natal healthcare, job training, and subsidized child care instead. THAT’s what will reduce abortions.
^^Sure we are in agreeance, except when you keep misstating the pro-choice position by portraying it as pro-abortion or ‘some people think terminating a pregnancy as not anymore problematic than removing a bad appendix.’ Then, when it is pointed out that it is not as simple as you imply, you agree.
So, okay, then, we agree that anti-choicers are hypocrites because if they really wanted to reduce abortions they would focus their efforts on increased contraceptive access, comprehensive sex education and pre and post natal healthcare - rather than the mountain of legislation they propose to make sure abortion is legally problematic for women. Or moralizing about the reasoning of women who choose abortion, which you seem to do a lot of when discussing the legality of the issue.
The “same legislative effort” implies doing both at once.
Just to be clear: NO effort should be going towards legislating waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, forcing providers to ask women for an explanation of her reasoning for abortion under the guise of preventing sex-selective abortion and tampering with evidence of rape and incest. These laws should be repealed and opposed at every level. And ALL efforts to reduce abortions should be directed to the increased availability of contraception, comprehensive sex education, adoption services (as long as it is not coercive), pre- and post-natal healthcare, job training, and subsidized child care instead.
Like I said, you can call yourself whatever you want - I’m simply saying that if you choose certain labels, people are going to look at you funny and either laugh or ask you for long drawn out explanations, like I did.
I don’t see “pro-life but not anti-choice” helping that problem, no.
But if you have time for a conversation about your position, and it’s an intriguing one, then by all means, start a conversation with that.
I honestly don’t know what you’re on my case about. Some - and not a small number - of pro-choicers see abortion as morally neutral as removing an appendix or a tumor. Are you disputing that? I didn’t say nor do I believe that all pro-choicers are cheerleaders for more abortions.
The anti-choicers who do that are hypocrites, yes. I’m not willing to say that all of them fall into that category.
Yes, I meant that the legislative efforts need to be re-directed. And I should confess that I’m not necessarily in favor of no restrictions on abortion, but I think they should be reasonable and not a burden. So waiting periods or forced ultrasounds are stupid, but certain restrictions on late-term abortions (for example) or some kind of provision for counseling for underage girls (to identify and address abuse or neglect) are not necessarily bad.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of situations in law where, even given identical acts, a difference in motive can mean different assignments of guilt. A cold-blooded murderer is regarded as more guilty, and subject to greater penalties, than a hot-blooded murderer. And while I’m sure there are exceptions, in general, the person performing an abortion is acting in a much more cold-blooded way than the person having the procedure performed. The doctor had to go through extensive training, and went through the whole process of either starting a business or getting hired at an existing one, and if e misses one procedure one day, there will be others on other days that are basically equivalent for em. The patient, by contrast, was probably not planning on being in this situation at all, is likely subject to a significant number of other stresses, and the individual procedure makes a very significant difference to her. Or to put it simply, the patient is often desperate, while the doctor usually isn’t, and the law tends to be more forgiving of desperate people.
You’re assuming that abortion would be considered murder-- That’s a legal definition, not a moral one. I suppose that it’s possible for the legal definition of murder to be changed to encompass abortion. In that case, yes, the patient would be guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. If abortion becomes banned, though, I would expect it to be more likely that it would be done by making it its own separate crime, and there is no legal or logical reason that conspiracy to commit abortion must necessarily also be made a crime. By analogy, there are places where prostitution is legal for the prostitute but not for the john, or vice-versa: Just because one is illegal doesn’t mean the other must necessarily be.
Just to (hopefully, maybe) put an end to the “yes they do!” “no they don’t!” conversation, I am pro-choice and I see first trimester abortions as completely morally neutral, even a moral good in some cases. I see second trimester abortions as fairly neutral, edging toward morally questionable the further along you go, but I still regard legally limiting access at this stage to be worse. Third trimester abortions are absolutely morally questionable, but still sometimes the best choice in a situation. I believe it should be a woman and her doctors choice whether or not abortions are performed; I am against any laws restricting abortion. I think there would be occasional late-stage abortions that would be wrong, but they would be outweighed by needed abortions that would be obtained without all the restrictions.
I absolutely regard a first trimester fetus/zygote to have no intrinsic value, and I consider early abortions to be as meaningless as masturbation. So, there’s at least one of us.
If you were pregnant, and had a miscarriage in the first trimester, would you feel nothing?
Maybe disappointment or frustration at not getting to a goal. But nothing more? Nothing that resembled feeling close to a potential child that is now gone?
Never having miscarried, I can’t say with any certainty. Depending on the situation of the pregnancy, I might feel many things, ranging from profound loss to relief. I mean, if I became pregnant NOW, and then miscarried, I would feel a great deal of relief, because it would save me the trouble and expense of obtaining an abortion.
If I’d miscarried while I was trying to conceive my daughter, I would have been devastated. Hell, I remember crying pretty hard over a negative pregnancy test; not even a miscarriage! Humans have the amazing ability to think and plan, and even love something that doesn’t exist yet. It’s beautiful, really. But being sad about lost potential didn’t make those negative tests babies, and doesn’t make a fetus or zygote a baby. Feelings aren’t facts, and how I’d feel, or how anyone feels after a miscarriage is really irrelevant.
Of course they matter! But they shouldn’t be the basis of laws.
A friend of mine recently tried to buy the house of her dreams, but her loan process took too long and someone made an offer before her. She called me sobbing because she’d lost her dream house, and she already knew exactly where her couch would go, and her new bedroom set would have been just PERFECT in the master bedroom. I wasn’t an asshole. I didn’t say “The house was never yours, stop crying stupid!” It hurts to lose something you wanted, I get that. I’m not an unfeeling monster.
BUT if tomorrow she got together with a group of similarly unhappy homebuyers and wanted to pass a law that, I dunno, made sellers meet with every interested buyer and have a 48 hour waiting period before taking an offer, or some other ridiculous nonsense, I’d be against it. Because feelings, while very important for interpersonal relationships, shouldn’t be the basis of laws in that way.
Oh, I’ve moved beyond that discussion. I’m just talking about how people feel at this point.
Of course not. But your friend might have cheered herself up by saying it to herself. She probably wouldn’t do the same with a miscarriage. Or maybe she would, I don’t know.
