Abortion

[deoxys]

Abortion debating goes here, was taking up a good portion of the recent page in Controversial Candidates for President, thought it deserved it's own topic for being such a heated/sensitive issue.

[Doppleganger]

I really have no opinion on it.

Just a collection of views I can't really combine together into a policy action.

Social Responsibility

I think women should be duly punished for not taking responsibility to prevent pregnancy, i.e. contraceptives. People with diseases like diabetes who don't change their eating habits are justifiably punished with death, and I have little sympathy in most cases. There's too many people who do everything right with a disease and tragically die anyway to care much for the people (like Steve Jobs) who had the power to do something, but didn't.

Men are actually not punished much for getting a woman pregnant. Fathering tons of children is a biological prerogative so even if there are financial penalties, the man doesn't actually lose out in pregnancy, while the woman does since she's shouldered with much greater responsibility. All the more incentive to be not be careless when one's horse in the race is far more valuable.

I don't agree with Muyo's view that abortions will happen anyway, so we might as well legalize it to protect a mother's health. Abortions don't happen in third world countries, people have tons of kids and get rid of the ones they can't take care of. Because of the social embarrassment of pregnancy in developed countries, women are willing to risk their lives to terminate the pregnancy. Another way of putting it is they're risking their lives for vanity, and that is a greater problem that needs to be dealt with over the woman's health.

Life

The Roman Catholic Church is against abortion, but there's always been a dichotomy in my mind because of how we treat original sin. Original sin = potential for bad, one isn't born bad. That means people who die before they can succumb to weakness are heaven elegible, in contrast to the Protestants who believe people are sinful from birth and have to spend their lives cleansing themselves of it (heaven is earned, it isn't a birthright). Given the implications...butchering babies is a good thing because the babies go straight to heaven, instead of growing up and becoming sinful vagrants/plagues on society.

I'm also part scientific heathen. Chances are if there is a soul, it's not going to combine with the body at the same time for each person. Ethically, then, it's best to take the "better safe than sorry" approach and not allow abortions because we're killing one person for the convenience of another.

Privacy

My attorney side thinks that allowing abortion under privacy is ridiculous technicality and trivializes life - under no circumstance does privacy trump a right to life. That is the most un-alienable right possible. New legislation needs to be introduced to focus on abortion proper, because using privacy to justify it is vile.

Population

More babies bad, economically speaking. Population control good. But there's no evidence that abortion or any contraceptives are legit population control. Other factors like social status and education could have bigger impact than condoms and pills.

[Ethereal]

While some instances of abortion seem really selfish (see: my friend's sister getting her third because she doesn't enjoy using condoms (i'm not even kidding)), I feel like it's best to leave it in the hands of the woman to decide.

I've heard people say that there should be set rules/requirements for having an abortion, and although rape/incest/significant birth defects would probably be easy to decide on, the more subjective cases such as whether or not the woman would be able to afford to have the child could get dice-y, especially if whoever ends up deciding has a bias that could potentially leave a woman with a child she's not capable of raising.

However, I think that the time available for abortions should probably be limited to a couple of weeks after most major birth defects like down syndrome can be detected, which is around the 12th week of pregnancy.

not sure how silly/strange this sounds, but eh whatever.

[Jerichi]

I don't agree with Muyo's view that abortions will happen anyway, so we might as well legalize it to protect a mother's health. Abortions don't happen in third world countries, people have tons of kids and get rid of the ones they can't take care of. Because of the social embarrassment of pregnancy in developed countries, women are willing to risk their lives to terminate the pregnancy. Another way of putting it is they're risking their lives for vanity, and that is a greater problem that needs to be dealt with over the woman's health.

This is a really bad justification for disagreeing since we are not a 3rd world country and we (unfortunately) have a culture where abortions have been legal for a very, very long time. Women are still going to get abortions even if they're illegal, and though it may be fewer, it isn't going to stop it from happening.

I think women should be duly punished for not taking responsibility to prevent pregnancy, i.e. contraceptives. People with diseases like diabetes who don't change their eating habits are justifiably punished with death, and I have little sympathy in most cases. There's too many people who do everything right with a disease and tragically die anyway to care much for the people (like Steve Jobs) who had the power to do something, but didn't.

Men are actually not punished much for getting a woman pregnant. Fathering tons of children is a biological prerogative so even if there are financial penalties, the man doesn't actually lose out in pregnancy, while the woman does since she's shouldered with much greater responsibility. All the more incentive to be not be careless when one's horse in the race is far more valuable.

Also this sounds pretty wildly sexist. Why should birth control be solely the woman's responsibility?

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

This is a really bad justification for disagreeing since we are not a 3rd world country and we (unfortunately) have a culture where abortions have been legal for a very, very long time. Women are still going to get abortions even if they're illegal, and though it may be fewer, it isn't going to stop it from happening.

The only difference between a 1st world country and 3rd world country in this regard are options and culture. Poor people in the United States who get pregnant don't get abortions often, resembling the state in 3rd world countries. Most of them have options available through school clinics or the Department of Health, but opt not to use them or aren't aware of them.

My problem is with high profile middle class teens/young adults who could have used protection, but didn't want to do it for esteem/perceived pleasure purposes. Hence, it is a social responsibility problem, and by golly people who want to abort for that reason shouldn't be able to.

Originally Posted by Jerichi

Also this sounds pretty wildly sexist. Why should birth control be solely the woman's responsibility?

A man wearing a condom is a woman's responsibility, because sex doesn't happen until she lets it happen. I already pointed out that men effectively lose nothing in pregnancy, while women lose everything. Given that, it's not a stretch to say they women should be far more concerned with the consequences of sex than men should. And that's responsibility.

[kaisap112]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I think women should be duly punished for not taking responsibility to prevent pregnancy, i.e. contraceptives. People with diseases like diabetes who don't change their eating habits are justifiably punished with death, and I have little sympathy in most cases. There's too many people who do everything right with a disease and tragically die anyway to care much for the people (like Steve Jobs) who had the power to do something, but didn't.

Okay, let's start with the fact that Type 1 diabetes can hit any child/teenager and Type 2 can hit any adult - obesity increases the chances, but it might not be the core of it as you seem to think. Saying that diabetes is a "justifiable punishment" while glorifying Jobs' cancer (as opposed to saying "he did XYZ and hence deserved it!") seems extremely illogical.

And that first sentence would have made me spit my morning coffee out if I drank any. "Duly punished"? Way to promoto having kids, saying it's a "punishment". Or maybe you were thinking something else and I misunderstood, but that's the first impression I got.

Also, since when have men been relieved from using condoms and contraception has only been the female's job? As Jeri already said, sounds horribly sexist to me.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Men are actually not punished much for getting a woman pregnant. Fathering tons of children is a biological prerogative so even if there are financial penalties, the man doesn't actually lose out in pregnancy, while the woman does since she's shouldered with much greater responsibility. All the more incentive to be not be careless when one's horse in the race is far more valuable.

Again, as true as this might be it's not a freaking excuse to not use contraceptives. The biological father has legal obligations to support the kids he helps bring to the world. The idea that "woman need to shoulder all responsibility about sex because men are somehow unable to ever do it or keep it in their pants" is something one could call Male Priviledge.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Abortions don't happen in third world countries, people have tons of kids and get rid of the ones they can't take care of. Because of the social embarrassment of pregnancy in developed countries, women are willing to risk their lives to terminate the pregnancy. Another way of putting it is they're risking their lives for vanity, and that is a greater problem that needs to be dealt with over the woman's health.

Do they have the knowledge to perform abortions in any way (safe/unsafe)? That might explain how they "don't happen"! And I believe not having enough food to feed even yourself, one person, is enough incentive not to want more and more kids. Would you go popping kids into the world if they're bound to die of starvation and disease within a year? Embarassment is the least of the worries there!

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The Roman Catholic Church is against abortion, but there's always been a dichotomy in my mind because of how we treat original sin. Original sin = potential for bad, one isn't born bad. That means people who die before they can succumb to weakness are heaven elegible, in contrast to the Protestants who believe people are sinful from birth and have to spend their lives cleansing themselves of it (heaven is earned, it isn't a birthright). Given the implications...butchering babies is a good thing because the babies go straight to heaven, instead of growing up and becoming sinful vagrants/plagues on society.

I'm also part scientific heathen. Chances are if there is a soul, it's not going to combine with the body at the same time for each person. Ethically, then, it's best to take the "better safe than sorry" approach and not allow abortions because we're killing one person for the convenience of another.

I don't want to get into my personal opinions about the Catholic church. Let's just say that I don't doubt that the ban of contraceptives and the number of paedophile priests are connected (I could put it in a very blunt way that would offend people, but I won't.). The Pope's comments aren't helping.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

My attorney side thinks that allowing abortion under privacy is ridiculous technicality and trivializes life - under no circumstance does privacy trump a right to life. That is the most un-alienable right possible. New legislation needs to be introduced to focus on abortion proper, because using privacy to justify it is vile.

So let me get this straight. You want women who have had abortions to be put on a public list so they can be ridiculed, harassed and threatned by every fundamentalist/Republican/whatever for it, regardless of circumstances? Have seen what's happened to doctors who perform abortions? You really can't say the women the procedure's been done to are much safer.

If that isn't what you meant by your statement, I have no idea what you did mean. I've never heard anyone say "I want an abortion because of my privacy!" which isn't exactly endangered by a child in the first place.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

More babies bad, economically speaking. Population control good. But there's no evidence that abortion or any contraceptives are legit population control. Other factors like social status and education could have bigger impact than condoms and pills.

I'm fairly sure that a couple that uses contraceptives is far less likely to have kids that increase the population - whereas it's been proven that abstinence programs result in more pregnancies in teens when compared to sex-ED that teaches contraceptives to be okay and even recommended. How about just handing out those condoms instead of sticking your head in the bush?

Oh, I watched a very interesting film related to this topic somewhat - it's called Pregnancy Pact and deals with teen pregnancies in a school that refuses to give out contraceptives to students and relies on an abstinence program.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The only difference between a 1st world country and 3rd world country in this regard are options and culture. Poor people in the United States who get pregnant don't get abortions often, resembling the state in 3rd world countries. Most of them have options available through school clinics or the Department of Health, but opt not to use them or aren't aware of them.

The reasons I mostly blame for lack of abortions with poor people in the US are A) they are poor, they can't afford the procedure, B) religious reasons and social pressure to keep the baby because giving it up and abortion are wrong and God will hate you for it and C) lack of education (sometimes tied to reason B).).

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

A man wearing a condom is a woman's responsibility, because sex doesn't happen until she lets it happen. I already pointed out that men effectively lose nothing in pregnancy, while women lose everything. Given that, it's not a stretch to say they women should be far more concerned with the consequences of sex than men should. And that's responsibility.

As I pointed out earlier: legal obligations! If you're the biological father the mother can and will come knocking at your door for your share of the costs (and the law backs her up in this). And is this seriously something guys should be taught: "go have lots of unprotected sex, you're not in any way responsible for the consequences!"? Speaking of "lets it happen": what about rape-cases? There's not exactly a whole lot "letting" and giving concent there. Unless you're going for the "God says rape is good" or "they have systems to prevent it" approach...(latter of course is not true on any level, but do I have to say anything more than "Republican"?)

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

A man wearing a condom is a woman's responsibility

. . .

wow.

I just...

WOW.

I don't even know where to begin. Thankfully Kaisap is eloquent and thoughtful.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I really have no opinion on it.

Just a collection of views I can't really combine together into a policy action.

Social Responsibility

I think women should be duly punished for not taking responsibility to prevent pregnancy, i.e. contraceptives. People with diseases like diabetes who don't change their eating habits are justifiably punished with death, and I have little sympathy in most cases. There's too many people who do everything right with a disease and tragically die anyway to care much for the people (like Steve Jobs) who had the power to do something, but didn't.

But exactly how are they punished? That is the problem. You can't physically punish them. You can't levy taxes on them because they can barely afford to raise a family anyhow, unless they are filthy stinkin rich. So, how? How do they get punished? Jail time? Custody removal?

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Men are actually not punished much for getting a woman pregnant. Fathering tons of children is a biological prerogative so even if there are financial penalties, the man doesn't actually lose out in pregnancy, while the woman does since she's shouldered with much greater responsibility. All the more incentive to be not be careless when one's horse in the race is far more valuable.

Well, until the deadbeat dad gets thrown in prison and can never hold a real job because child support will track you down. Truthfully, it is really the man who should shoulder most of the responsibility, as it is his responsibility to make sure there is contraceptives. It is his penis.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I don't agree with Muyo's view that abortions will happen anyway, so we might as well legalize it to protect a mother's health. Abortions don't happen in third world countries, people have tons of kids and get rid of the ones they can't take care of. Because of the social embarrassment of pregnancy in developed countries, women are willing to risk their lives to terminate the pregnancy. Another way of putting it is they're risking their lives for vanity, and that is a greater problem that needs to be dealt with over the woman's health.

Muyo was saying that because there is historical evidence that abortions happened anyway while they were illegal, just like how there was still porn when it was illegal and people still sold and shipped booze when it was illegal and women prostituted while it was(and is) illegal. People do it anyways.

It goes into more than social vanity doppelganger. Often more than not, the daughter is ostracized by her friends, disowned by her family, and has no one left to turn to. My own mom said to me if I ever got a girl pregnant, that she was not going to help me. It is very hard to be a single mother when you have zero support from friends or family. And, it goes even deeper than that. Most high schools, especially ones where zealot Christians are strong, they are often dismissed from school because they do not want teen pregnancy to look okay. It is not just social vanity Doppelganger.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Life

The Roman Catholic Church is against abortion, but there's always been a dichotomy in my mind because of how we treat original sin. Original sin = potential for bad, one isn't born bad. That means people who die before they can succumb to weakness are heaven elegible, in contrast to the Protestants who believe people are sinful from birth and have to spend their lives cleansing themselves of it (heaven is earned, it isn't a birthright). Given the implications...butchering babies is a good thing because the babies go straight to heaven, instead of growing up and becoming sinful vagrants/plagues on society.

And this is why I hate religion. This makes no sense. Also, butchering is kind of a strong word. Try to keep as much pathos out of this as possible.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I'm also part scientific heathen. Chances are if there is a soul, it's not going to combine with the body at the same time for each person. Ethically, then, it's best to take the "better safe than sorry" approach and not allow abortions because we're killing one person for the convenience of another.

But don't we do that anyways? Do we allow murderers to walk the street, just because killing them would be convenient for other people. Of course not. I might be straw manning here, and I'm sorry if I am, but people are "killed" all the time for the convenience of others.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Privacy

My attorney side thinks that allowing abortion under privacy is ridiculous technicality and trivializes life - under no circumstance does privacy trump a right to life. That is the most un-alienable right possible. New legislation needs to be introduced to focus on abortion proper, because using privacy to justify it is vile.

This is not relevant. People want to have an abortion in private, not through a hospital or a medical center but through a clinic. Where there is more patient-doctor confidentiality. Abortion has been a right to choose.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Population

More babies bad, economically speaking. Population control good. But there's no evidence that abortion or any contraceptives are legit population control. Other factors like social status and education could have bigger impact than condoms and pills.

But, what about them together? Kids should be taught about things such as contraceptives and birth control. Abstinence teaching is not effective, because humans are humans and eventually we all want to have sex at one point or another. But, if we do not know about birth control or contraceptives, then teen pregnancies rise. Simple.

*My Views*

I believe that woman should have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. I think that the upper limit should be when the nervous system is either fully formed or is at least forming(not sure on dates here), because that is the point when the fetus is "aware" and alive. Before then though, it should be allowed. It also protects the mother, because otherwise, like Muyo said, it is done in back alleys by either forcing a miscarriage or, "wire hangers." It is more dangerous illegal than it is legal.

My 2c.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by kaisap112

Okay, let's start with the fact that Type 1 diabetes can hit any child/teenager and Type 2 can hit any adult - obesity increases the chances, but it might not be the core of it as you seem to think. Saying that diabetes is a "justifiable punishment" while glorifying Jobs' cancer (as opposed to saying "he did XYZ and hence deserved it!") seems extremely illogical.

You're distorting the scenario.

I'm not talking about chronic conditions that lead to the disease, I set up a scenario where someone ended up with the disease, was informed by a physician of what they had to do to survive, then didn't listen.

It's not unlike parents telling kids to "not cross the street without looking both ways". People invite trouble when they have information, know better, but engage in risky behaviour for almost no reason.

I picked diabetes because my Dad has diabetes, and he changed his whole lifestyle/eating habits to accommodate the disease. Versus, people who come in to the clinic I work at who tell the head nurse that they cheat on their diet a lot, and happily believe the treatment they receive compensates for the disease so they could maintain the life they lead before learning they had it.

Originally Posted by kaisap112

And that first sentence would have made me spit my morning coffee out if I drank any. "Duly punished"? Way to promoto having kids, saying it's a "punishment". Or maybe you were thinking something else and I misunderstood, but that's the first impression I got.

Having children is generally considered a negative in the United States, for upper middle class/upper class people. I'm aware of the population problem in Europe, so maybe you see it differently, but the culture of the US is such that pregnancy isn't seen differently from an STD.

This is a generalization that can't be applied to everyone, but it's the kind if situation that's frequently brought up in abortion cases - socially irresponsible kids who want an abortion because they enjoy their comfortable lifestyle and didn't use protection for some superficial reason.

Originally Posted by kaisap112

Also, since when have men been relieved from using condoms and contraception has only been the female's job? As Jeri already said, sounds horribly sexist to me.

Again, as true as this might be it's not a freaking excuse to not use contraceptives. The biological father has legal obligations to support the kids he helps bring to the world. The idea that "woman need to shoulder all responsibility about sex because men are somehow unable to ever do it or keep it in their pants" is something one could call Male Priviledge.

It's sexist.

I'm not denying that because sexism implies there's an imbalance in male/female roles, and you cannot deny that when it comes to pregnancy, a woman's role is much larger than a man's. The woman's investment is at least 9 months, plus a decade and a half. A man's could be ten seconds.

What I'm trying to point out here, that everyone seems to react badly toward, is men have no incentive to use contraceptives. Some contraceptives have biological consequences, like castration, while vasectomy "hurts the man's sense of virility" and condoms mythically reduce pleasure. They also lose that domination sense from ejaculation.

They have every reason to not care about the woman's situation and maximize pleasure for themselves, because even if they get the woman pregnant, they're not really penalized.

Financial penalties are not real penalties, because for the super rich, they can absorb the cost and avoid playing roles in the child's life. For the poor, there's only so much child support the government can levy out of a guy who makes $5,000 a month.

In the abortion scenario, the man puts himself at zero risk when the woman gets the abortion. The absolute worst case scenario is she keeps the baby and he pays child support, and even then, because a man's biological imperative is to spread his genes as far as possible (which is different from a woman's, which is to find a man who could stay and help her rear a kid) he's met his prerogative.

Given this, I feel it's evident that contraceptives protect the woman, not the man. Even if the man doesn't care about the woman's situation, the woman has to be concerned for her own safety.

This is why abortion exists. It's an out to what is otherwise an un-balanced biological assignment of roles in parenting, but unlike contraceptives, it's far more violent and destructive.

I have two examples supporting both these views, but I'd rather not share them if I have to. I hope my position is clear enough as is.

Originally Posted by kaisap112

Do they have the knowledge to perform abortions in any way (safe/unsafe)? That might explain how they "don't happen"! And I believe not having enough food to feed even yourself, one person, is enough incentive not to want more and more kids. Would you go popping kids into the world if they're bound to die of starvation and disease within a year? Embarassment is the least of the worries there!

Abortions aren't safe, just like some contraceptives (the morning after pill) are not safe. That's an illusion, there is always some health risk associated with anything that isn't un-protected sex or abstinence. Safety is only maximized when a skilled practitioner is involved, and that only occurs with surgical procedures.

Most of my family lives in an NIC, so I can tell you that in countries where manpower is valued (like agrarian nations), they're going to have a lot of kids, especially if mortality is high. The value of a child is calculated differently from the first world, which focuses on fewer "high investment" kids rather than several "low investment" ones. Resources get distributed among family members, and in the third world, NICs and low income families in the first world, it's to one's advantage to have more children.

Originally Posted by kaisap112

So let me get this straight. You want women who have had abortions to be put on a public list so they can be ridiculed, harassed and threatned by every fundamentalist/Republican/whatever for it, regardless of circumstances? Have seen what's happened to doctors who perform abortions? You really can't say the women the procedure's been done to are much safer.

Each of the positions I outlined were differing views supporting/rejecting use of abortion. I feel that's plain to see given how I organized it. Given that, I don't see where the heck you pulled this accusation from.

From a strictly judicial standpoint, abortion is only legal through a legal loophole. When one steps back and looks at the implication of this, it's ridiculous. I don't see it as any different from justifying slavery by claiming slaves are property.

Originally Posted by kaisap112

I'm fairly sure that a couple that uses contraceptives is far less likely to have kids that increase the population

You can't prove this, though. There could be other confounding factors that influence population reduction, or are correlated with wealth, which tends to reduce family size when there's less distinction between the upper, upper middle, and middle social classes.

Case in point, the family assignment values I pointed out earlier. Lower income countries, and lower income families tend to have more children because it's beneficial to them to do so, while richer countries/families tend to have fewer. In the first world, hypothetically, they all have access to contraceptives through the Department of Health or local clinics (since everyone goes to a hospital), but there's still a family size problem. It could be culture, it could be economics.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Muyotwo

. . .

wow.

I just...

WOW.

I don't even know where to begin. Thankfully Kaisap is eloquent and thoughtful.

I believe that what he's saying is that any person in life, regardless of gender or the nature of the problem they are facing, is responsible for their own protection. I'm pretty sure Doppel would take the exact same position for men who don't want to father and oral contraceptives, i.e. it's the man's responsibility to make sure his female sex partner is taking anti-pregnancy measures. You could still come at this rhetoric by arguing against the concept of guilt by others' inactions, but I don't think you'll find much of a leg to stand on if you're going to try and paint Doppel as a wretchedly chauvinistic numbskull. There are years and years' worth of posts establishing the contrary in his defense, leaving me to conclude that when he said what he said here, he said it only in addressing women's side of unwanted pregnancy.

I could of course be wrong and will admit so if Doppel establishes such. But I believe he's simply saying that since in our society the burden of unwanted pregnancy is more heavily felt by the woman (and this isn't sexist to say -- this is provably true, however unfair it might be!) it then falls to the woman to protect herself against unwanted pregnancies: and that means requiring her male sex partners to use condoms. I don't think he's saying that men who choose to have sex without wearing condoms get off scott free either but that he's saying that a woman who finds herself pregnant after having recreational sex @ no male condom is no more eligible to abort than is her male sex partner eligible to require an abortion. Society condemns the man in that situation and says "Too bad if you don't want it. You sired it, she wants it, so it's happening." I think Doppel's view is that the woman is (or should be) in no different a position: if the father wants to keep the child, then she has no right to abort.

Disclaimer: Doppel's views on abortion are not my views. I'll allow him ultimately to speak for himself. As for myself, not interested in debating this epic topic on UPN unless the discussion is required to be academically rigorous. I will say for myself that I have absolutely zero problem with the girl Ethereal described, the one who has already had three abortions owing to her preference of sex without a condom. So that shoud tell you something about how liberal(ly extreme) I am on this particular topic.

[Rangeet]

Pretty much Talon's views.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper

Pretty much Talon's views.

Just to be clear, the first two paragraphs in my post aren't necessarily my views. Rather, they are my assessment of Doppel's views based on what he has said here and based on years of conversations with him. "Agreeing with Talon's views" is fine but it only tells people that you have no problem with women who partake in unprotected recreational sex having repeat abortions. That's about the only thing of my own views I shared here. Well, that and the "lol, don't be naive , we all know the burden is not evenly shared in modern society but is still more heavily felt by women" bit.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by kaisap112

From what I've gathered, the pro-life movement pushes women into it: "surely you MUST FEEL SO GUILTY about this!" and showing pictures of dead fetuses and making the women listen to the fetus' heartbeat (if possible). Our student healthcare recently had a bit of a scandal over a Christian pro-life group being pretty much solely responsible for abortion-related hotlines and support groups - not much support when they're screaming in a chorus what a horrible monster you are for even thinking about an abortion.

This is actually a major problem when it comes to Christianity. For some reason, a lot of people have this idea that people who sin are automatically horrible people who are going straight to hell and should be publicly shamed and ridiculed etc. etc. ad nauseum. It's not like that, trust me. It is not supposed to be like that, it should not be like that, but it's so easy to fall into the holier-than-thou trap it happens all the time. Believe me, I have had to deal with more Bible-thumpers than I care to name.

What I personally believe can be summarized into the following:

1.) I support abortions in extreme cases
2.) I do not support abortions in casual cases.
2a.) If you are not going to die from having this baby, and the baby is not going to die after being born (most likely in extreme pain as well), you can put him or her up for adoption if you are dead set on not raising a child, not ready to have a child, or unable to care for the child. There are many wonderful couples out there who cannot have a child, and they would be perfectly happy to care for one. [/soapbox]
3.) There should be very few abortion clinics, and they should be private. Not out of any personal principle, but because the backlash would be so horrendous that we'd never hear the end of it.
4.) Birth control =/= abortion. While I personally do not like it very much at all, I understand that it is unequivocally necessary in today's society to avoid bad things like overpopulation and homelessness.

Maybe. I've been tired (4 hour sleeps, can't seem to sleep after 6 am) for a long time, just wanted to get my $.02 in before I forget to do so.

[Loki]

http://www.snogglenews.com/shows/sunny/s01e02

Around 1:45 to about 2:45.

[Talon87]

Load video for clip. Watch thru to 8 minutes.

lol @ the one guy putting the moves on that Megan chick. He seems like a strange mix between Dean Cain, Matt LeBlanc's Joey, and Michael Richards' Kramer.

EDIT: Watched a few more minutes. Once again the asshole player takes the cake and leads me to post. That bit at 12 minutes. "This is a list of doctors I'm gonna kill." "But there's already two crossed out!" "I know." ----> heated sex in a parked car. Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George were stuck in a car with Neo-Nazis who had mistaken George for the leader of their cult and George was telling Jerry "Y'know, for a Nazi she's pretty cute. " These people.

EDIT2: "OH MY GOD! I will smash your face into a-- into a JELLY!" hahahaha

[Loki]

[Trepie]

George Carlin, you are missed. ;-;

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Trepie

George Carlin, you are missed. ;-;

Think of how many murderers in Planned Parenthood clinics are aborting George Carlin's next reincarnation!

[Loki]

Good thing he didn't believe in it.

[Lady Kuno]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

Good thing he didn't believe in it.

Hahaha. I wish I got to see him live. D:

[deoxys]

So... about that texas bill thing and Wendy Davis...

Tumblr, reddit, and facebook are all going crazy over it....



From what little I understand (so forgive me if I am wrong, which would probably mean my opinions would change if I am), it would disallow abortions after 20 weeks (so about 5 months) and close down all but 5 abortion clinics in the state. Wendy Davis was filibustering it for 11 hours and the senate decided to vote on it past midnight, which is not allowed.


I don't know, I feel torn on it. On the one hand, I think it's wrong to shut down all but 5 clinics, especially in a state as large as texas. On the other, I feel like 5 months is a pretty decent amount of time to get an abortion. However, I don't agree that it's right for this decision to be left in the hands of a few, who are predominantly male and probably don't know the science or facts behind the issue at hand (and are probably doing it for religious reasons). This is heavily a woman's rights issue and thus they should be represented more accurately, especially when the whole capitol is overflowing with them protesting the issue.

Also, you can't just change the rules and vote when you're not allowed to. Idiots.

So yeah, my personal opinion on the bill - I feel like 5 months should be enough time to make plans for an abortion if you are indeed pregnant...


/controversial-opinions

[SoS]

Agree with her or not, but you have to admit, holy shit Wendy Davis is a woman of absolute steel. 10 hours and 45 minutes without sitting, leaning or even going to the bathroom, speaking nonstop, sharing the stories of those who would be affected by the bill. That is insane.

So here's a question for any Christians who consider themselves anti-abortion; why do you do so? Because all life is sacred? In that case, when does life begin? If you go by the Bible, Genesis says it's when you draw breath. Furthermore, if abortion is murder, why then in the Bible is forcing a woman to miscarry not punished the same? Admittedly, this is a literalist view. I present this article for your consideration.

[Jerichi]

The 5 months provision is frankly okay, IMO; I'm not really a fan of late-term abortions for non-medical purposes and 5 months is pretty far into trimester 2 anyways. But lumping it together with a provision that makes abortions practically inaccessible? That's just a dishonest way of getting what you want and I'm against it on principle, regardless of my beliefs on the issue.

If you're going to make abortion legal by any means, you need to make it readily available. In this case, the morality is irrelevant. It becomes an issue of public health. Not allowing women to easily access the proper care and procedures offered by organizations such as Planned Parenthood encourages illegal or unsafe abortions, which can cause significant health issues.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

Agree with her or not, but you have to admit, holy shit Wendy Davis is a woman of absolute steel. 10 hours and 45 minutes without sitting, leaning or even going to the bathroom, speaking nonstop, sharing the stories of those who would be affected by the bill. That is insane.

I'm not arguing that, that's definitely true and she deserves a ton of respect doing that, and for fighting what she and so many, many people believe in. She's what I wish more politicians were like.

Often times politicians will collaborate on filibusters to give the main person doing it a break. Rand Paul filibustered John Brennan just a few months ago for 13 hours straight, but yes, because he had the help of some other politicians he was able to take bathroom breaks. What she did was amazing given she didn't eat or drink or go the bathroom, but it's not unheard of for filibusters to not have access to those things while filibustering.

So here's a question for any Christians who consider themselves anti-abortion; why do you do so? Because all life is sacred? In that case, when does life begin? If you go by the Bible, Genesis says it's when you draw breath. Furthermore, if abortion is murder, why then in the Bible is forcing a woman to miscarry not punished the same? Admittedly, this is a literalist view. I present this article for your consideration.

I'm against abortion after a certain period. Thing is, I'm not exactly sure when that period is for me because it's probably the biggest political toss up issue for me that I sway on often and also feel the most neutral towards due to many different feelings on the matter. It's a woman's body, yes, and it's wrong for a patriarchy to be telling her what she can and can't do with it, I agree - but no one knows exactly when life begins. Is it when the heart beats? Is it when it stops looking like a bundle of cells and starts looking like a human? Is it when it begins to have brain activity? Sucking its thumb? The first breath at birth? No one actually knows. But my position at the moment is more or less a more cautious one, and so I don't really know the exact date, but I feel like anything past a second trimester is really pushing it. There comes a point when you look at it and say "is this a baby in the making, or is it an actual human baby?" So - the question eventually would become "is it telling a woman what she can/can't do with her body, or is it giving rights to a human that can't speak for itself?"

It's a really difficult debate for me to have because like I said, I agree with both sides and feel incredibly torn on the issue. No one can know for a fact when life has actually begun. That's why I sort of feel like if you're going to have an abortion, the sooner, the better, because the longer you wait then the more likely it is that it isn't going to just be "some bundle of cells" anymore.


And you know, I've seen so much shit on tumblr come out of this. "They want to give a fetus more rights than women have right now", oh for heavens sake, the world isn't a giant misogynist hellhole out to get you and tell you how to live your life. Stop exaggerating. There are a lot of problems with women's rights in society that need to be addressed and women should be considered equal to man (and if you disagree you're a backwards thinking twat), but stop this nonsense, it's cringey to read and hard to defend. "I bet you if that fetus turned out to be a woman or person of color they wouldn't care about it then" Wow, seriously? I'm not defending the idiotic Texas senators or the GOP, but that is a seriously messed up thing to say about anyone. I know, I know, it's tumblr, I shouldn't care, but people actually say these things and say them with so much hatred that I can't fathom it.


I'm not going to read that because I consider myself Christian but it's a personal thing for me that I don't really talk about and I don't consider the entire bible to be entirely literal. These are just my personal views on it. And they are incredibly fragile and could turn in any which direction at a moments notice. Abortion is literally the hardest political view for me to talk about or debate because of this. I'm pretty open minded about it, but it's also a topic that is hard for me and anyone really, because no one knows the answer, it's all assumptions and opinions from both sides.

Originally Posted by Jeri

The 5 months provision is frankly okay, IMO; I'm not really a fan of late-term abortions for non-medical purposes and 5 months is pretty far into trimester 2 anyways. But lumping it together with a provision that makes abortions practically inaccessible? That's just a dishonest way of getting what you want and I'm against it on principle, regardless of my beliefs on the issue.


If you're going to make abortion legal by any means, you need to make it readily available. In this case, the morality is irrelevant. It becomes an issue of public health. Not allowing women to easily access the proper care and procedures offered by organizations such as Planned Parenthood encourages illegal or unsafe abortions, which can cause significant health issues.

No, I'm with you pretty much 100% on this. It's saying "we're not trying to outlaw abortions, we're just punishing you for wanting to get them by making it infinitely harder to do so." It's a slap in the face from quite frankly a few male dominated elected officials who probably have no medical knowledge at all and are probably only voting for party pandering and faith based reasons. For issues like this, get a board together of people knowledgeable on the issues. And while we're at it, why the fuck do these same kinds of people get to decide on issues like climate change and exploring space? Why don't we have special boards of scientists and doctors who get to make those decisions? That is one of my main beefs with the government as it is. They get "committees", but those don't mean shit. You get people on those committees who don't know anything about the subject. /politics-in-general

/controversial-opinions

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by deoxys

So... about that texas bill thing and Wendy Davis...

Tumblr, reddit, and facebook are all going crazy over it....



From what little I understand (so forgive me if I am wrong, which would probably mean my opinions would change if I am), it would disallow abortions after 20 weeks (so about 5 months) and close down all but 5 abortion clinics in the state. Wendy Davis was filibustering it for 11 hours and the senate decided to vote on it past midnight, which is not allowed.


I don't know, I feel torn on it. On the one hand, I think it's wrong to shut down all but 5 clinics, especially in a state as large as texas. On the other, I feel like 5 months is a pretty decent amount of time to get an abortion. However, I don't agree that it's right for this decision to be left in the hands of a few, who are predominantly male and probably don't know the science or facts behind the issue at hand (and are probably doing it for religious reasons). This is heavily a woman's rights issue and thus they should be represented more accurately, especially when the whole capitol is overflowing with them protesting the issue.

Also, you can't just change the rules and vote when you're not allowed to. Idiots.

So yeah, my personal opinion on the bill - I feel like 5 months should be enough time to make plans for an abortion if you are indeed pregnant...


/controversial-opinions

I watched the livestream for the last two hours and there were several reasons why the outrage and response on tumblr/reddit/etc. was so great, so I'll explain what went down a bit.

Wendy Davis (who I take great pride in saying is my representative in the senate) had her filibuster ended due to a "three strikes" warning rule. However, the rule actually states that in order to end the filibuster each strike is supposed to be on the issue of germane-ness (having your discussion deviate from the topic). Davis' second warning was about receiving assistance (someone helped adjust her back brace without her asking for it), not straying from the topic. Davis' third strike was also highly suspect, as she was given a warning for discussing how the ultrasound bill that had been passed by Texas last year would make this bill even more damaging to women's rights. Despite only having two warnings for germane-ness, the republicans moved to table Davis' filibuster.

This clusterfuck of a hustle led to an impassioned speech by Kirk Watson appealing the tabling of the filibuster. Although Watson was stalling for time he remained on point throughout his discussion, which made Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst's recognizing of a motion to call roll while Watson still had the floor against the rules of the senate. Several parliamentary inquiries followed where the democrats pointed out that the Republicans were breaking rules, which were summarily dismissed by Dewhurst. Democrats then requested the secretary read back the previous line of question, which they have the right to and Dewhurst granted, but Dewhurst continued on before the lines could be read. This led to more parliamentary inquiries and with precious few minutes left before midnight it looked like the dems would be able to string things out long enough to prevent the vote- Watson was pointing out numerous rulings that had been made by the Lt. governors in the past which established precedent for their complaints, but they were again ignored. Finally Leticia Van de Putte called for a motion to dismiss which was clearly audible on both the senate floor and the livestream, but Dewhurst ignored and proceeded with another vote to move the bill into the final stage before being voted on. Only then did Dewhurst recognize Leticia, who pointed out that she had the right to the floor before that vote, and she wanted to take things a step back and put in a motion to end the session before the bill had moved forward. Dewhurst refused, saying that she could make the motion now- but the effect was that the bill would be voted on first. Leticia asked “At what point must a female senator raise her voice to be recognized by her male colleagues?” which was the line that set off the crowd in the gallery. For the next fifteen minutes the crowd cheered, chanted and was so loud that Dewhurst couldn't call for a vote, by the time the crowd died down it was past midnight and the session should have been over- Dewhurst called for the vote anyway at 12:03 and the internet exploded. The Republicans edited the official website, which had shown that the vote had taken place at 12:03 to read as taking place at 11:59- which would have likely gone unnoticed had 200,000 people not been watching the event live. Hours later, Davis tweeted out that Dewhurst had finally declared that the bill was dead.

Only then did Davis sit down- making her actual standing period longer than 13 hours.

tl;dr: Davis' filibuster should not have ended, Watson's appeal of the filibuster should not have ended, Dewhurst repeatedly broke the rules, Leticia was awesome, pandemonium prevented a vote until after midnight, the republicans voted anyway, internet explodes, republicans try to change the timestamp of the vote and are called on it, Dewhurst admits defeat, Wendy Davis sits down.