This graph makes me nauseous (1 Viewer)

[cosjobs]

Wow, my mom died and I need to go to the funeral home and miss the playoffs this afternoon. How inconvenient.

 

[cosjobs]

I'm sorry your son got crippled in a car crash. Must be very inconvenient for you.

 

[AnonymousBob]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Perhaps the word inconvenient is overly dismissive sounding and you would prefer to call it an undue hardship, negative life event, or whatever. But at the end of the day, isn't that essentially what it is? A huge life inconvenience? It's a bit blunt, demeaning/insulting, but that's really what it is, no?

Sure, if you want to be demeaning and insulting to a person having to make their toughest life decision, so you can belittle them and make political talking points, go ahead

I'm not attempting to make a political talking point. That's simply an unavoidable byproduct. Unlike IK, I am not against abortions. I'm sure it's a tough life decision. I'm not looking to tell women whether they should or should not get an abortion. I think the 'inconveniences' are not something to be taken lightly. But really...as crass as it sounds, that's essentially what I see it as. Again, I know the terminology is overly crude and the major life altering consequences of having a kid or not are extremely real things to weigh. I don't care if a woman gets an abortion or not. Despite me chalking it up with what seems such a flippant remark of 'inconvenience', I'm not passing any moral judgement on women either way. I just don't see how you can really classify it as much else, as cold as that sounds.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Wow, my mom died and I need to go to the funeral home and miss the playoffs this afternoon. How inconvenient.

I'm sorry your son got crippled in a car crash. Must be very inconvenient for you.

Well it's obviously much more than simply an inconvenience, which is what I think you were going for. That's also what I was getting at by saying the wording may be a bit crude. But yes, both those things are inconvenient.

 

[cstu]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Every time you put your #### into a woman you should do so with the acknowledgement that the woman has the choice to do anything she wants with her body and you will be liable for 18 years of child support.

 

[cosjobs]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Perhaps the word inconvenient is overly dismissive sounding and you would prefer to call it an undue hardship, negative life event, or whatever. But at the end of the day, isn't that essentially what it is? A huge life inconvenience? It's a bit blunt, demeaning/insulting, but that's really what it is, no?

Sure, if you want to be demeaning and insulting to a person having to make their toughest life decision, so you can belittle them and make political talking points, go ahead

I'm not attempting to make a political talking point. That's simply an unavoidable byproduct. Unlike IK, I am not against abortions. I'm sure it's a tough life decision. I'm not looking to tell women whether they should or should not get an abortion. I think the 'inconveniences' are not something to be taken lightly. But really...as crass as it sounds, that's essentially what I see it as. Again, I know the terminology is overly crude and the major life altering consequences of having a kid or not are extremely real things to weigh. I don't care if a woman gets an abortion or not. Despite me chalking it up with what seems such a flippant remark of 'inconvenience', I'm not passing any moral judgement on women either way. I just don't see how you can really classify it as much else, as cold as that sounds.

So you agree with the statements in post 201 and 202? Is overt bluntless and shameless antipathy our new standard of discourse?

 

[cstu]

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Perhaps the word inconvenient is overly dismissive sounding and you would prefer to call it an undue hardship, negative life event, or whatever. But at the end of the day, isn't that essentially what it is? A huge life inconvenience? It's a bit blunt, demeaning/insulting, but that's really what it is, no?

We only get one so that's kinda, you know, a big deal.

 

[AnonymousBob]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Perhaps the word inconvenient is overly dismissive sounding and you would prefer to call it an undue hardship, negative life event, or whatever. But at the end of the day, isn't that essentially what it is? A huge life inconvenience? It's a bit blunt, demeaning/insulting, but that's really what it is, no?

Sure, if you want to be demeaning and insulting to a person having to make their toughest life decision, so you can belittle them and make political talking points, go ahead

I'm not attempting to make a political talking point. That's simply an unavoidable byproduct. Unlike IK, I am not against abortions. I'm sure it's a tough life decision. I'm not looking to tell women whether they should or should not get an abortion. I think the 'inconveniences' are not something to be taken lightly. But really...as crass as it sounds, that's essentially what I see it as. Again, I know the terminology is overly crude and the major life altering consequences of having a kid or not are extremely real things to weigh. I don't care if a woman gets an abortion or not. Despite me chalking it up with what seems such a flippant remark of 'inconvenience', I'm not passing any moral judgement on women either way. I just don't see how you can really classify it as much else, as cold as that sounds.

So you agree with the statements in post 201 and 202? Is overt bluntless and shameless antipathy our new standard of discourse?

I agree with you that a parent dying or child getting in an accident would not be convenient.

 

[AnonymousBob]

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Perhaps the word inconvenient is overly dismissive sounding and you would prefer to call it an undue hardship, negative life event, or whatever. But at the end of the day, isn't that essentially what it is? A huge life inconvenience? It's a bit blunt, demeaning/insulting, but that's really what it is, no?

We only get one so that's kinda, you know, a big deal.

I agree. Which is why I want each woman to be able to make the decision for herself.

 

[cosjobs]

Wow, my mom died and I need to go to the funeral home and miss the playoffs this afternoon. How inconvenient.

I'm sorry your son got crippled in a car crash. Must be very inconvenient for you.

Well it's obviously much more than simply an inconvenience, which is what I think you were going for. That's also what I was getting at by saying the wording may be a bit crude. But yes, both those things are inconvenient.

And yet, they would be completely unacceptable to say

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Do you feel men had a choice in not using a condom or some other contraceptive?

Women have a choice as well and have lots of contraceptive options, maybe more so than guys do.

And since there is an equal burden on both then both should be made to share 50/50 in the costs.

See what folks don't want to discuss is lying under the whole process is the truth. Courts rarely put children in the care of dad. Why? Because nature says that moms are better at doing a lot of "those things" and dads are made to work in construction or the cutthroat world of business. But over the last decades to be PC we have decided to pretend like women make the best choices to be front line police officers, Marines, NFL referees, anywhere we can put a woman and make the rest of the men as uncomfortable except when it comes to rearing children.

I know I am going to get lit up, I'm not trying to be db, just trying to get folks to look at it slightly differently. If having a baby were more of a joy than a burden in this country, perhaps abortion rates would go down.

How many of these abortions are from married couples? I know it happens but my guess is a much lower percentage than a potential single mom.

And men are compete #######S!!! The reason the courts do this is because men will not pay up out of the goodness of their hearts and all that is right in this world. You have to extract it directly from their pay or else you will never see the check.

That doesn't change anything I posted. The legal system is a complete joke and how they arrive at the figures and numbers is mind numbing at times. They penalize go getters. Why should one child get to receive a larger amount from their dad than someone else? And the money is not handed to the kid of curse, it goes right into mom's checking account with almost no strings. Mom can go buy whatever she wants with the money.

But men are #######s and that's why we have this mess.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Wow, my mom died and I need to go to the funeral home and miss the playoffs this afternoon. How inconvenient.

I'm sorry your son got crippled in a car crash. Must be very inconvenient for you.

Well it's obviously much more than simply an inconvenience, which is what I think you were going for. That's also what I was getting at by saying the wording may be a bit crude. But yes, both those things are inconvenient.

And yet, they would be completely unacceptable to say

Yes, per societal norms and general common sense it would be inappropriate to say that to the person grieving. It would be entirely accurate, but it would be rude. But we're getting slightly off base, as this thread is not about any one person's dead parent or crippled child.

 

[AnonymousBob]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Do you feel men had a choice in not using a condom or some other contraceptive?

Women have a choice as well and have lots of contraceptive options, maybe more so than guys do.

And since there is an equal burden on both then both should be made to share 50/50 in the costs.

See what folks don't want to discuss is lying under the whole process is the truth. Courts rarely put children in the care of dad. Why? Because nature says that moms are better at doing a lot of "those things" and dads are made to work in construction or the cutthroat world of business. But over the last decades to be PC we have decided to pretend like women make the best choices to be front line police officers, Marines, NFL referees, anywhere we can put a woman and make the rest of the men as uncomfortable except when it comes to rearing children.

I know I am going to get lit up, I'm not trying to be db, just trying to get folks to look at it slightly differently. If having a baby were more of a joy than a burden in this country, perhaps abortion rates would go down.

How many of these abortions are from married couples? I know it happens but my guess is a much lower percentage than a potential single mom.

And men are compete #######S!!! The reason the courts do this is because men will not pay up out of the goodness of their hearts and all that is right in this world. You have to extract it directly from their pay or else you will never see the check.

That doesn't change anything I posted. The legal system is a complete joke and how they arrive at the figures and numbers is mind numbing at times. They penalize go getters. Why should one child get to receive a larger amount from their dad than someone else? And the money is not handed to the kid of curse, it goes right into mom's checking account with almost no strings. Mom can go buy whatever she wants with the money.

But men are #######s and that's why we have this mess.

Let's side aside how things should perhaps be, and let's focus on how they are. If a woman gets pregnant, she gets to decide if she carries to term. Courts favor women a lot more than men. This is common knowledge.

Knowing this, men should wrap it up if they're having sex. Not spraying walls and pitching a fit on how they wish they could be when the inevitable happens. If they're too dumb to think this through before, that's on them.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Do you feel men had a choice in not using a condom or some other contraceptive?

Women have a choice as well and have lots of contraceptive options, maybe more so than guys do.

And since there is an equal burden on both then both should be made to share 50/50 in the costs.

See what folks don't want to discuss is lying under the whole process is the truth. Courts rarely put children in the care of dad. Why? Because nature says that moms are better at doing a lot of "those things" and dads are made to work in construction or the cutthroat world of business. But over the last decades to be PC we have decided to pretend like women make the best choices to be front line police officers, Marines, NFL referees, anywhere we can put a woman and make the rest of the men as uncomfortable except when it comes to rearing children.

I know I am going to get lit up, I'm not trying to be db, just trying to get folks to look at it slightly differently. If having a baby were more of a joy than a burden in this country, perhaps abortion rates would go down.

How many of these abortions are from married couples? I know it happens but my guess is a much lower percentage than a potential single mom.

And men are compete #######S!!! The reason the courts do this is because men will not pay up out of the goodness of their hearts and all that is right in this world. You have to extract it directly from their pay or else you will never see the check.

That doesn't change anything I posted. The legal system is a complete joke and how they arrive at the figures and numbers is mind numbing at times. They penalize go getters. Why should one child get to receive a larger amount from their dad than someone else? And the money is not handed to the kid of curse, it goes right into mom's checking account with almost no strings. Mom can go buy whatever she wants with the money.

But men are #######s and that's why we have this mess.

Let's side aside how things should perhaps be, and let's focus on how they are. If a woman gets pregnant, she gets to decide if she carries to term. Courts favor women a lot more than men. This is common knowledge.

Knowing this, men should wrap it up if they're having sex. Not spraying walls and pitching a fit on how they wish they could be when the inevitable happens. If they're too dumb to think this through before, that's on them.

AB, think about the age group we are talking. I would assume a lot of these are done by women under 25-30. Odds are their partners are one of these young males with a shot glass hanging on a Mardi Gras string of beads around his neck while wearing a "#### Yeah" t-shirt. I don't feel those folks are thinking clearly on either side.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Every time you put your #### into a woman you should do so with the acknowledgement that the woman has the choice to do anything she wants with her body and you will be liable for 18 years of child support.

Classroom Rule #6

 

[AnonymousBob]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Do you feel men had a choice in not using a condom or some other contraceptive?

Women have a choice as well and have lots of contraceptive options, maybe more so than guys do.

And since there is an equal burden on both then both should be made to share 50/50 in the costs.

See what folks don't want to discuss is lying under the whole process is the truth. Courts rarely put children in the care of dad. Why? Because nature says that moms are better at doing a lot of "those things" and dads are made to work in construction or the cutthroat world of business. But over the last decades to be PC we have decided to pretend like women make the best choices to be front line police officers, Marines, NFL referees, anywhere we can put a woman and make the rest of the men as uncomfortable except when it comes to rearing children.

I know I am going to get lit up, I'm not trying to be db, just trying to get folks to look at it slightly differently. If having a baby were more of a joy than a burden in this country, perhaps abortion rates would go down.

How many of these abortions are from married couples? I know it happens but my guess is a much lower percentage than a potential single mom.

And men are compete #######S!!! The reason the courts do this is because men will not pay up out of the goodness of their hearts and all that is right in this world. You have to extract it directly from their pay or else you will never see the check.

That doesn't change anything I posted. The legal system is a complete joke and how they arrive at the figures and numbers is mind numbing at times. They penalize go getters. Why should one child get to receive a larger amount from their dad than someone else? And the money is not handed to the kid of curse, it goes right into mom's checking account with almost no strings. Mom can go buy whatever she wants with the money.

But men are #######s and that's why we have this mess.

Let's side aside how things should perhaps be, and let's focus on how they are. If a woman gets pregnant, she gets to decide if she carries to term. Courts favor women a lot more than men. This is common knowledge.

Knowing this, men should wrap it up if they're having sex. Not spraying walls and pitching a fit on how they wish they could be when the inevitable happens. If they're too dumb to think this through before, that's on them.

AB, think about the age group we are talking. I would assume a lot of these are done by women under 25-30. Odds are their partners are one of these young males with a shot glass hanging on a Mardi Gras string of beads around his neck while wearing a "#### Yeah" t-shirt. I don't feel those folks are thinking clearly on either side.

Hence the reasoning for A) women should have the right to decide, and B) Why I said if the guys are too dumb to think this through before, that's on them.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

So Jayrod pretty much lit the fuse and ran away, huh?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I believe several of MOP's assumptions are wrong. I'm on my phone so I'm not going to try to link but I think abortions by married women over 35 are not uncommon.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I believe several of MOP's assumptions are wrong. I'm on my phone so I'm not going to try to link but I think abortions by married women over 35 are not uncommon.

I looked it up and even though I'll stand by "not uncommon", he's right that it's a minority. 17% of women getting abortions are married, 25% are over 30.The surprising stat is that over 70% of women that get abortions are already mothers.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

MOP seems really bitter towards his baby mama but perhaps that just helps him rationalize being an absentee father.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

To answer your first question, the answer is obviously yes. If it were up to me, abortion would not be an option for the overwhelming majority of pregnant women. I and other pro-lifers see abortion as an act of aggression against another person, and we (society) routinely take those decisions out of people's hands. Philosophically, it's the same thing as me saying that I'm going to decide for you that you can't beat your kid. I'm very comfortable relying on my superior sense of morality to enact policy along those lines, and I don't see this as different.

To your other point, I do understand that having a kid is a big deal. When my wife and I had our first child, it certainly changed lots of things for us, and we had our kids deliberately. It's easy to imagine that an unplanned pregnancy can be very disruptive. If you don't like the word "inconvenient," feel free to substitute some other term. The idea is the same though. In most cases, we're talking about people who want an abortion because they just don't want a kid right now, not because they're diabetic and having a kid might kill them. That's a difference in kind, not degree, and objecting to the terminology doesn't change that.

 

[MaxThreshold]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

To answer your first question, the answer is obviously yes. If it were up to me, abortion would not be an option for the overwhelming majority of pregnant women. I and other pro-lifers see abortion as an act of aggression against another person, and we (society) routinely take those decisions out of people's hands. Philosophically, it's the same thing as me saying that I'm going to decide for you that you can't beat your kid. I'm very comfortable relying on my superior sense of morality to enact policy along those lines, and I don't see this as different.

To your other point, I do understand that having a kid is a big deal. When my wife and I had our first child, it certainly changed lots of things for us, and we had our kids deliberately. It's easy to imagine that an unplanned pregnancy can be very disruptive. If you don't like the word "inconvenient," feel free to substitute some other term. The idea is the same though. In most cases, we're talking about people who want an abortion because they just don't want a kid right now, not because they're diabetic and having a kid might kill them. That's a difference in kind, not degree, and objecting to the terminology doesn't change that.

Ivan - you're so good at this.

 

[Christo]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Every time you put your #### into a woman you should do so with the acknowledgement that the woman has the choice to do anything she wants with her body and you will be liable for 18 years of child support.

This should be Day 1 of Sex Ed.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Pro choice does not mean pro abortion. It means knowing that just because you hold certain beliefs, people with different viewpoints don't have to adhere to your beliefs no matter how right you think you are. Not allowing someone else an abortion because you think it's wrong is as ridiculous as making another person have one because you think it's right.

 

[Ratbert]

I find it ironic that a lot of pro-life people are Christians who believe that aborted babies go to heaven but on the flip side I'm sure there's a lot of pro-choice people who would believe that all there is to life is our time here. It would almost seem like it should be the opposite.

If you believe that all aborted babies go to heaven and experience eternal life in commune with an all-loving God, but that some percentage of humans who become adults and live a full life go to hell and spend eternity getting tortured by the very manifestation of evil himself, abortion seems to be the only moral decision you could make.

Holy Crap! Eggman makes sense for once.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Pro choice does not mean pro abortion. It means knowing that just because you hold certain beliefs, people with different viewpoints don't have to adhere to your beliefs no matter how right you think you are. Not allowing someone else an abortion because you think it's wrong is as ridiculous as making another person have one because you think it's right.

Not if they believe it is murder.

That's not what I believe BTW, but if someone does believe that the embryo is a human being then it isn't ridiculous to try to stop it from being killed. They don't see it as an issue involving just the mother, but also involving another defenseless human being.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Pro choice does not mean pro abortion. It means knowing that just because you hold certain beliefs, people with different viewpoints don't have to adhere to your beliefs no matter how right you think you are. Not allowing someone else an abortion because you think it's wrong is as ridiculous as making another person have one because you think it's right.

Not if they believe it is murder.

That's not what I believe BTW, but if someone does believe that the embryo is a human being then it isn't ridiculous to try to stop it from being killed. They don't see it as an issue involving just the mother, but also involving another defenseless human being.

Believe is the key word there, not murder.

 

[pecorino]

Yes, unless it jeopardizes her own life. I'm aware of the limb I'm out on, but in my view the child should not pay with his or her life due to the heinous act of another. It's not a position I'd fight with much gusto but I hold it. I wonder whether I'd have the courage myself to carry a baby to term if I was a woman who had been raped. I have no way of knowing, of course, and I'd probably feel like I should have the choice to abort since I had been violated against my will. Obviously it's horrible all the way around, and there is no answer without significant collateral damage. But I'd like to think killing would be the last option.

i respect this opinion a lot [ ] never understood why the manner of conception should matter if you think abortion is murder.

Let's pretend it was your daughter who was raped and impregnated...her choices in your world are:

- Carry the child she didn't want to term - going a tremendous amount of physical and emotional change while the entire time being reminded of the night she was raped. Then she has to give birth (a life-threatening event) and decide whether to keep the child of her rape or give it up for adoption after suffering through 9 months of pregnancy and child birth.

- Commit a crime by getting an illegal and dangerous abortion.

Yes, and I would support her with choice #1 inasmuch as possible, whether that meant helping to raise the child, helping with an adoption, financial support, etc. As I mentioned before, though, if a doctor says that the mother's health is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy then I am fine with terminating it. And in response to your later post, number me among the #####ed up people.

 

[Riversco]

You can't stop abortions. Many women will seek them even if its illegal. it will just be more unsafe for the mother.

 

[proninja]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

A rape exception to illegal abortion is a great way to not reduce abortion and add an incentive for false rape charges. Make things worse without making anything better, just like most conservative suggestions for this issue.

 

[[scooter]]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Every time you put your #### into a woman you should do so with the acknowledgement that the woman has the choice to do anything she wants with her body and you will be liable for 18 years of child support.

If the technology existed to allow a fetus to be transferred to an incubator, would you still argue that the father shouldn't have any rights?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

A rape exception to illegal abortion is a great way to not reduce abortion and add an incentive for false rape charges. Make things worse without making anything better, just like most conservative suggestions for this issue.

Did you miss the part where I said I was against this?

I never knew that pro-choice folks were so strongly against rape exemptions or I never would have tossed it out there. Glad we agree that this is really a non-issue.

 

[Limp Ditka]

MOP seems really bitter towards his baby mama but perhaps that just helps him rationalize being an absentee father.

This is great. It's like it's 2010 all over again

 

[Todd Andrews]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

To answer your first question, the answer is obviously yes. If it were up to me, abortion would not be an option for the overwhelming majority of pregnant women. I and other pro-lifers see abortion as an act of aggression against another person, and we (society) routinely take those decisions out of people's hands. Philosophically, it's the same thing as me saying that I'm going to decide for you that you can't beat your kid. I'm very comfortable relying on my superior sense of morality to enact policy along those lines, and I don't see this as different.

To your other point, I do understand that having a kid is a big deal. When my wife and I had our first child, it certainly changed lots of things for us, and we had our kids deliberately. It's easy to imagine that an unplanned pregnancy can be very disruptive. If you don't like the word "inconvenient," feel free to substitute some other term. The idea is the same though. In most cases, we're talking about people who want an abortion because they just don't want a kid right now, not because they're diabetic and having a kid might kill them. That's a difference in kind, not degree, and objecting to the terminology doesn't change that.

Yes, but everyone knows that you are an intrusive big government loving anti-libertarian who wants the state to govern the reproductive systems of citizens, just like in China.

Here in America, we think a little bit differently than you and the Chinese government. We value freedom and liberty.

 

[proninja]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

A rape exception to illegal abortion is a great way to not reduce abortion and add an incentive for false rape charges. Make things worse without making anything better, just like most conservative suggestions for this issue.

Did you miss the part where I said I was against this?I never knew that pro-choice folks were so strongly against rape exemptions or I never would have tossed it out there. Glad we agree that this is really a non-issue.

I'm not arguing against you, I'm trying to have a conversation. Seems like you're lumping me into whatever you think pro choice people believe, so I'll disengage with you as to not offend.

 

[KarmaPolice]

People need to mind their business. Abortion is a personal choice.

The fact that its politicized so much makes me sick to my stomach. Here in Texas the republicans have shut down over half of the abortion clinics, if they succeed with the current bill all but 7 abortion clinics would remain in the entire state. In Mississippi it's even worse.

Yet these same bozos who are so against it don't want to give a cent of assistance to the children that are born.

####### pathetic.

Pretty much. I think it is sad that so much time and energy go into these "hot button" topics that really have no effect on other people's lives in any significant way. Abortion? Weed? Gay Marriage? I really hope we are ready to move on from these things.

Agree on the 2nd point too - seems like most people who are so against abortion and come out in droves to protest or vote against it don't want to do anything to help the education or welfare of the kids after they are born.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This is great. It's like it's 2010 all over again

We're putting the band back together, GnR isn't the only reunion this year!

 

[renesauz]

I've said this before, but I'll try it again:

Stuff like this turns off people who are undecided, or who are pro-choice but are generally anti-abortion and don't have a problem with certain restrictions on them based on stage of pregnancy, etc. I'm in the latter category. I think there are a LOT of people in this category too. We're willing to listen to ideas. But if you start referring to a penny-sized, lung-less fetus with only the beginnings of a brain and nervous system with the same words we use to describe our breathing, crying, adoring infants, you lose us immediately.

I get that you think human life begins at conception, and that's fine. But most people don't think that and they never will. If you demand that everyone else agree with your minority viewpoint and declare those who don't to be supporters of genocide, you're only going to make enemies.

Well said, and I think you and I seem to be in the same boat in terms of belief on this issue.

I think a great many of us are in this position. I abhor the thought of abortion as an after-thought method of birth control, and find that idea disgusting, but still see the aborting of a 6 week embryo as an infinitely superior alternative to forcing an ill-equipped mother to carry her baby to term and then try to raise that unwanted child in poverty.

I'm very strongly in favor of certain limits to abortion, such as first trimester only excepting cases of significant health risk, but equally strongly in favor of keeping these clinics open and inexpensive. As many in here suggest, the answer to reducing these numbers is not in outlawing abortion, but in better education and better access to safe, alternative forms of birth control.

 

[Christo]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Every time you put your #### into a woman you should do so with the acknowledgement that the woman has the choice to do anything she wants with her body and you will be liable for 18 years of child support.

If the technology existed to allow a fetus to be transferred to an incubator, would you still argue that the father shouldn't have any rights?

Huh?

 

[cstu]

Life is precious, but #### you if you get sick and couldn't afford health insurance.

 

[NREC34]

Life is precious, but #### you if you get sick and couldn't afford health insurance.

We hate abortion and believe it to be murder but we will fight you all the way to the Supreme Court if you try to give people easy access to birth control so it will happen a lot less because our magic friend in the sky says that's what we ought to do.

 

[culdeus]

You guys know that the life expectancy rate has more than doubled since 1900. Science, medicine, antibiotics, and vaccines have all contributed to the likelihood that humans will live past the age of 5.

Abortions weren't all that necessary back then because people simply didn't live that long. There is a threshold to sustain human life, and we are increasingly approaching that limit. Abortions should be the least of your worries.

This, honestly wish there were more. Could give two ####s about the ethics. The fate of the world is at stake.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You guys know that the life expectancy rate has more than doubled since 1900. Science, medicine, antibiotics, and vaccines have all contributed to the likelihood that humans will live past the age of 5.

Abortions weren't all that necessary back then because people simply didn't live that long. There is a threshold to sustain human life, and we are increasingly approaching that limit. Abortions should be the least of your worries.

This, honestly wish there were more. Could give two ####s about the ethics. The fate of the world is at stake.

Maurile has posted some studies in other threads that indicate that abortions don't really have much impact on population. Women that are able to terminate one pregnancy are more likely to have a baby at a different time than women who carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.

 

[culdeus]

You guys know that the life expectancy rate has more than doubled since 1900. Science, medicine, antibiotics, and vaccines have all contributed to the likelihood that humans will live past the age of 5.

Abortions weren't all that necessary back then because people simply didn't live that long. There is a threshold to sustain human life, and we are increasingly approaching that limit. Abortions should be the least of your worries.

This, honestly wish there were more. Could give two ####s about the ethics. The fate of the world is at stake.

Maurile has posted some studies in other threads that indicate that abortions don't really have much impact on population. Women that are able to terminate one pregnancy are more likely to have a baby at a different time than women who carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.

It's the second order effects. It's the aborted babies babies that I'd rather avoid. This is often overlooked without seeing what the studies say about such things. This is what china is going thru now.

 

[dparker713]

Where do the prolife people stand regarding invitro and other techniques that inevitably lead to fertilized embryos being discarded?

 

[NREC34]

Where do the prolife people stand regarding invitro and other techniques that inevitably lead to fertilized embryos being discarded?

Some of them I imagine equate it to some veteran that gave his life in combat.

 

[quickhands]

Odd. I was just thinking to myself that what this country needs is another 50ish million unwanted children

Wouldn't they be good for the economy?

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think this graph shows how awesome the US is as doing war. 'Murica.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

Yikes.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

Yikes.

Rape exceptions are apparently barbaric. I was unaware of that until a few days ago.