|
Post by hugobolso on May 12, 2019 23:09:17 GMT
I'm against abortion. So totally agree 4 a country where the limit is between 20 to 24 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 12, 2019 23:16:17 GMT
A viable heartbeat doesn't matter for the decision of whether to take someone off life support and I fail to see why it should matter here.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 12, 2019 23:36:53 GMT
I'm pro-choice but I think it's hard to argue pro-choice on moral terms the way arguing pro-life can and does - eventually you have to impose adult rights over unborn rights and that's not entirely morally justifiable - like I said it's morally "just" to oppose abortion - I get it, I disagree - but I do get the impulse that drives it and this law. I mentioned this in another thread yesterday - I posted a 40 year old anti-abortion leaning Rock song "You Can't Be Too Strong" by Graham Parker in the "Lyrics" thread in Music - that song is 40 years old and says nothing offensive - nothing (it is however a great song and a powerfully emotional and honest one too) - you couldn't release it today. Our pop music 40 years ago was ahead of our current political discourse.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 13, 2019 3:09:58 GMT
I'm not as doctrinaire on abortion as some people. I don't have a problem with some regulations on late term abortions. Just because you in general have the right to do something doesn't mean it can't be regulated.
But this stuff is ridiculous. Having a heartbeat doesn't define anything. Comparing a six week old fetus that could fit between your index finger and thumb like a marble to a person walking around or even a newborn baby is not a legitimate position.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 13, 2019 3:20:27 GMT
I'm pro-choice but I think it's hard to argue pro-choice on moral terms the way arguing pro-life can and does - eventually you have to impose adult rights over unborn rights and that's not entirely morally justifiable - like I said it's morally "just" to oppose abortion - I get it, I disagree - but I do get the impulse that drives it and this law. I mentioned this in another thread yesterday - I posted a 40 year old anti-abortion leaning Rock song "You Can't Be Too Strong" by Graham Parker in the "Lyrics" thread in Music - that song is 40 years old and says nothing offensive - nothing (it is however a great song and a powerfully emotional and honest one too) - you couldn't release it today. Our pop music 40 years ago was ahead of our current political discourse. Do you not think that the abortion agenda or feminist agenda or whatever it is has skewed your principles. Listen to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 13, 2019 3:22:57 GMT
I'm not as doctrinaire on abortion as some people. I don't have a problem with some regulations on late term abortions. Just because you in general have the right to do something doesn't mean it can't be regulated. But this stuff is ridiculous. Having a heartbeat doesn't define anything. Comparing a six week old fetus that could fit between your index finger and thumb like a marble to a person walking around or even a newborn baby is not a legitimate position. 'Some' regulation on late term abortions. What's the difference between an unborn 8 month old baby and a baby prematurely born?
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,071
|
Post by cherry68 on May 13, 2019 5:21:06 GMT
I'm not as doctrinaire on abortion as some people. I don't have a problem with some regulations on late term abortions. Just because you in general have the right to do something doesn't mean it can't be regulated. But this stuff is ridiculous. Having a heartbeat doesn't define anything. Comparing a six week old fetus that could fit between your index finger and thumb like a marble to a person walking around or even a newborn baby is not a legitimate position. 'Some' regulation on late term abortions. What's the difference between an unborn 8 month old baby and a baby prematurely born? There are many 23 weeks old prematurely born babies who survive and become totally normal adults. How can you kill someone who can have an autonomous life outside the uterus?
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on May 14, 2019 1:47:20 GMT
Even if we pretend that bills like this aren't merely attention-grabbing ploys designed to rile up single-issue voters and get challenged in the Judiciary until this matter finds its way to the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade gets overturned, it's still bullshit. Standards need to be applied consistently; let's see if anyone proposes that alimony is owed from the moment there's a detectable heartbeat as well.
Also, it's perfectly reasonable to defend a pro-choice stance on moral grounds. Reducing suffering as much as possible absolutely is a moral notion, and that's exactly what facilitating access to safe abortions in sanitary conditions is about. Terminating a pregnancy is, in many cases, a less damaging and pain-inducing option than forcing it to be carried to term with no regard or care for what happens to mother and child after birth, especially if it's performed in the first months before the nervous system is fully developed. Abortion is too complex a topic to be decided on blanket yes/no stances; granting women the right to choose how to act within their specific circumstances is the only way to ensure that suffering is avoided as much as possible.
More importantly, making abortion illegal demonstrably doesn't stop it from happening; it only prevents low-income women from having access to ways to do it safely. This should be a matter of public health, not morals (or much less religion, good grief); again, reducing damage should be the guideline here. Shielding oneself behind abstract, emotionally manipulative rationales that ignore reality because it's prettier isn't moral; forcing rape victims to give birth to their abusers' offspring isn't moral; forcing women to go through high-risk pregnancies that endanger their lives because "a heartbeat = a life" isn't moral. It's the exact opposite of that.
For the record, I'm against late-term abortions unless it's really specific cases like life-threatening medical risk or instances where government officials deliberately withhold medical assistance from women who wish to abort until enough time transpires and the procedure becomes illegal. But even if you want to argue that life begins at conception or at the first heartbeat or what have you, that doesn't sustain itself either. Taking lives is near-universally regarded as morally justifiable under certain specific circumstances; so if "killing is always wrong, ergo abortion is wrong" is your stance, then logically you must be against self-defense as well. And the death penalty. And I'm sure no one here is.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,071
|
Post by cherry68 on May 14, 2019 4:47:08 GMT
Zeb31If you want to reduce suffering, the best option is giving free access to contraception, not to abortion. The heartbeat law doesn't apply when the life or health of the woman is in danger btw. I'm pretty sure many people here are against death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 14, 2019 9:07:25 GMT
I think people go down a real slippery slope by saying "by reducing suffering that is a moral notion" - I could safely say that some people I think are idiots deserve to end their suffering because their taste in films is so poor living must be unbearable to them so here's this moral ax to the head...........the moral choice is Death vs. Life - the rights of the living vs. rights of the not yet born child.....Again, I'm pro-choice and I don't buy that defense on moral grounds - maybe as a piece of it sure - but that to me is debate rationalization not law - law should be the guiding principle really - privacy rights are far more reasonable - not vague terms like "reducing suffering" because at the root of that is a losing, condescending bordering on smug argument imo.
........and I wouldn't be so quick to remove religion either ("good grief"?) - keep it in ...... because it should all be in and of course is in because people going through it often (though not necessarily) don't remove it.......
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on May 15, 2019 14:41:39 GMT
Two movie clips
An argue in favor abortion
An argue against pro choice
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on May 15, 2019 18:31:14 GMT
i'm against reproduction in any capacity and so most sensible abortion laws are ok by me, this one ain't it tho
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on May 15, 2019 18:53:40 GMT
I'm not pro-choice and not pro-life either. Just in North America I'm the king of Prolife right now. I can't understand the pro-choice really. Is like argue against brain washed people.-
The Science usually gives the reason to the prolife, but the prochoice called them biologism? Seriously????
I'm against abortion, however in exceptional times is necessary, is necesassary when the mother life is in danger. A prolife woman, who knows that she and her children would die, and decide to continue their pregnancy, is dumb, as the woman that think that kill the baby is good for the baby.-
To sum up, I'm not a prolife, definitive not a prochoice, but what prochoice called a "biologism sinner guy"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2019 19:40:20 GMT
I strongly dislike the term "pro-life." Republicans' stances on healthcare, the environment, gun control, and education are very anti-life. "Pro-birth" is the more appropriate term.
And, if you claim to care about life, what about the life of the woman who is indeed a living, breathing human right in front of you?
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,071
|
Post by cherry68 on May 15, 2019 22:01:57 GMT
And, if you claim to care about life, what about the life of the woman who is indeed a living, breathing human right in front of you? Nobody is sentencing her to death. All the laws allow abortion if the woman's life is in danger.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on May 15, 2019 23:09:54 GMT
I strongly dislike the term "pro-life." Republicans' stances on healthcare, the environment, gun control, and education are very anti-life. "Pro-birth" is the more appropriate term. And, if you claim to care about life, what about the life of the woman who is indeed a living, breathing human right in front of you? IM not Republican and I'm against death Penalty. I dont 't think any one should be eliminated sin justa causa y sin justo juicio. That's why I'm against prochoice abortion. At the end, is the doctor choice, never the mother. The doctors are the responsable of the consequence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2019 23:10:52 GMT
And, if you claim to care about life, what about the life of the woman who is indeed a living, breathing human right in front of you? Nobody is sentencing her to death. All the laws allow abortion if the woman's life is in danger. If a woman is not psychologically or financially ready to care for a child, then her life isn't going to change for the better.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on May 15, 2019 23:14:53 GMT
Nobody is sentencing her to death. All the laws allow abortion if the woman's life is in danger. If a woman is not psychologically or financially ready to care for a child, then her life isn't going to change for the better. Ir a woman is not "psychologically" ready to rise a child, she isnt ready to have sex either. I think that argue put a woman in a perpetual relative-incapacity that Susan B. ANTHONY should be ashame. Is the most mysoginist argument. Its like all women are dumb. They abort because there are nut. Not there are equally smart, sane and responsable as Men.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2019 0:19:57 GMT
If a woman is not psychologically or financially ready to care for a child, then her life isn't going to change for the better. Ir a woman is not "psychologically" ready to rise a child, she isnt ready to have sex either. Wow. I really shouldn't even bother to respond, but I can't imagine even the most hardcore pro-lifers in the reddest of states saying this.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,071
|
Post by cherry68 on May 16, 2019 4:26:36 GMT
Nobody is sentencing her to death. All the laws allow abortion if the woman's life is in danger. If a woman is not psychologically or financially ready to care for a child, then her life isn't going to change for the better. You can easily see the difference between "life not changing for the better" for the mother, and "being killed" for the baby. Besides, I'm pretty sure American law allows a woman to give birth to a baby and leave him/her for adoption.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2019 10:59:16 GMT
If a woman is not psychologically or financially ready to care for a child, then her life isn't going to change for the better. You can easily see the difference between "life not changing for the better" for the mother, and "being killed" for the baby. Besides, I'm pretty sure American law allows a woman to give birth to a baby and leave him/her for adoption. The potential of X is not X, cherry. Ending a pregnancy when the fetus isn't viable outside of the womb is not murdering a baby. I do think we should leave it there. We fundamentally disagree on this issue, as I am more interested in a living, breathing woman's right to privacy and autonomy than the rights of a fetus.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on May 16, 2019 13:01:55 GMT
Ir a woman is not "psychologically" ready to rise a child, she isnt ready to have sex either. Wow. I really shouldn't even bother to respond, but I can't imagine even the most hardcore pro-lifers in the reddest of states saying this. A Man ir a woman who has sex with someone who is consider under consent ny law could be charged by rape. No matters the concent. A woman who has consensual sex, but at the time is drug, drunked, or has an insane lapsus could demand a Man of rape. No matter if he knows that In some countries in Europe a consensual sex where the woman hasn't said an explícit yes is consider a sexual offense. I think 99.9 % of the adult women (and could vote) that make an abortion 4 psychologically reason is an excuse. Unless they were raped.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,071
|
Post by cherry68 on May 16, 2019 14:11:24 GMT
You can easily see the difference between "life not changing for the better" for the mother, and "being killed" for the baby. Besides, I'm pretty sure American law allows a woman to give birth to a baby and leave him/her for adoption. The potential of X is not X, cherry. Ending a pregnancy when the fetus isn't viable outside of the womb is not murdering a baby. I do think we should leave it there. We fundamentally disagree on this issue, as I am more interested in a living, breathing woman's right to privacy and autonomy than the rights of a fetus. In 2019, if you don't want to get pregnant, you know what to do. Every woman has the right to contraception. She has full autonomy in that. But her rights can't go against the life of someone else.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 16, 2019 15:01:08 GMT
You can easily see the difference between "life not changing for the better" for the mother, and "being killed" for the baby. Besides, I'm pretty sure American law allows a woman to give birth to a baby and leave him/her for adoption. The potential of X is not X, cherry. Ending a pregnancy when the fetus isn't viable outside of the womb is not murdering a baby. I do think we should leave it there. We fundamentally disagree on this issue, as I am more interested in a living, breathing woman's right to privacy and autonomy than the rights of a fetus. A child just born isn't viable unless it has people caring for it so that bullshit argument isn't valid in the least. Also a woman has autonomy, she could not have sex in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on May 16, 2019 16:02:27 GMT
The potential of X is not X, cherry. Ending a pregnancy when the fetus isn't viable outside of the womb is not murdering a baby. I do think we should leave it there. We fundamentally disagree on this issue, as I am more interested in a living, breathing woman's right to privacy and autonomy than the rights of a fetus. A child just born isn't viable unless it has people caring for it so that bullshit argument isn't valid in the least. Also a woman has autonomy, she could not have sex in the first place. And that's is the whole point for the heartbeat law. It's a law for responsable women. A women (and a man) is responsable for having sex, a woman is responsable of contraception (and a man), and is responsable of taking a pregnancy test. If the contraception for no matters why, don't work, a responsable woman who don't want to be a mother, takes pregnancy test inmediately.- And then she will choice between continue the preganancy, or abort before the heartbeat sound.- My sister in law was pregnant, but inside her, was only an empty egg. She tried to save the child, but there wasn 't a child. Fortunately a year later, in 2018 my godson was born. A heartbeat is crucial to confirm pregnancy. Inside a woman, could be a unbornchild, a dead unbornchild, an egg or a tumor.- I Agree totally Agree with the Iowa heartbeat law, and what Gov. Kim Reynolds said, at least for USA.-
|
|