The problem with abortion is that it seems that all of the rhetoric ignores the most obvious questions:

 

1)  Is the unborn child alive?

2)  What rights does it have under the constitution?

I agree that these are reasonable questions that we should think long and hard about.

 

But then I remember that nearly every non-Catholic Christian church supported Roe v Wade after the ruling and my head wants to explode. The Pro-Life movement is largely a manufactured political device, created to rile up what was once an uninterested base. In many ways, the creation of the Pro-Life movement by Evangelicals has directly led to the polarization and ultimate "WTF" status of the current GOP. So effective in all the wrong ways.

 

I actually sympathize with the concept of pro-lifers. I do not sympathize with the current movement because of the reason I listed above (and a few others I won't get into here).

 

Damn it all, so many people who vote pro-life &^%$ing remember the mid 1970s and were probably attending the same church they attend today. How do they not remember that their own church was once tolerated Roe v Wade and how do they not ask questions about it, starting with "WHY?"

 

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

 

*head explodes*

I'm no lover of politicians but this strikes me as a little unfair.

 

I believe that most go in for noble reasons and a desire to serve, and many serve relatively anonymously and keep some aspect of that service. But they are mugged by the reality of the system they serve and the need to raise money and make compromises to keep their jobs.

 

I generally think our country gets exactly the types of leaders that it deserves.

 

 

I guess I don't get why it is ok to shoot someone that might be threatening your life, but not ok to abort a child (person or not) that your doctor says might (or is likely) to kill you.........I know that's an extreme example but there are US Senators who want to outlaw even that. If we can't even agree that a mother has the right to defend her life, we aren't likely to agree on anything about this topic.....and I'm going to side with the person that we know with certainty is alive in this case.

I guess I don't get why it is ok to shoot someone that might be threatening your life, but not ok to abort a child (person or not) that your doctor says might (or is likely) to kill you.........I know that's an extreme example but there are US Senators who want to outlaw even that. If we can't even agree that a mother has the right to defend her life, we aren't likely to agree on anything about this topic.....and I'm going to side with the person that we know with certainty is alive in this case.

There are always these ... hypocrisies, for lack of a better word ... on both sides of this argument. How can one be anti-death penalty and support abortion, for instance. But the 'pro life' movement is not, IMO. They are 'pro birth.' i think once you know all the whys and wherefores of an individual's beliefs on particular issues some of these discrepancies are better understood. And sometimes not.

Ya, largely, this topic isn't going to get us very far in having an interesting discussion, sorry about it......

 

How can one be anti-death penalty and support abortion, for instance.

This one is easy!

 

Pragmatism.

 

It is less expensive to put someone in a cell for the rest of their natural life than it is to put them through the lengthy appeals process required to ensure guilt and later, execution.

 

So why kill them in the first place? I honestly couldn't care less if someone is executed by the state but when the cheaper option is to lock them up and throw away the key, that's a better option in my eyes. These people are a blight on society and while I take no delight in knowing someone is going to be killed by the state, what I feel is most important is that we allow those blights to consume as few state resources as possible. If that means keeping them alive, so be it.

This one is easy!

 

Pragmatism.

 

It is less expensive to put someone in a cell for the rest of their natural life than it is to put them through the lengthy appeals process required to ensure guilt and later, execution.

 

So why kill them in the first place? I honestly couldn't care less if someone is executed by the state but when the cheaper option is to lock them up and throw away the key, that's a better option in my eyes. These people are a blight on society and while I take no delight in knowing someone is going to be killed by the state, what I feel is most important is that we allow those blights to consume as few state resources as possible. If that means keeping them alive, so be it.

This actually supports what I was trying to say. Sort of. On the surface it seems hypocritical, but once you understand a person's reasoning you have an understanding for it. Maybe that one was a bad example to use.

 

This actually supports what I was trying to say. Sort of. On the surface it seems hypocritical, but once you understand a person's reasoning you have an understanding for it. Maybe that one was a bad example to use.

To be perfectly honest about it, my views about abortion aren't terribly different. Most of it is borne from pragmatism.

 

If someone can't afford or doesn't want a child, I'm sure as hell not going to stop them from aborting said child and force them to consume state resources to raise, house, and feed the little beastie.

 

There are also feelings about womens' rights and all that jazz mixed in there but a considerable portion of my pro-choice views revolve around money.

 

Hell, if I had my way, the state would walk through poor neighborhoods of America and hand out birth control like candy. Want to have sex but don't want children? Can't afford birth control yourself? Here you go! Better to give 1,000 women free birth control than raise one child to adulthood on the state's dime.

 

I know it sounds cold but you have to admit the reasoning is sound...

My main issue with the death penalty is the fact that there have been several cases that have been overturned due to new DNA evidence or new evidence but it's too late as the state has already put said person to death, also it ends of wasting a lot of money and time in the courts, appeals etc and I'm also not sure it's a very good idea to be putting the mentally disabled to death either.

 

However, my stance on that does chance in extreme cases: i.e. I think Timothy McVeigh deserved the death penalty as does this Charleston shooter.

 

I am 100% pro abortion, the last thing this country needs is unwanted children which ends up being a burden on society as a whole more often then not, especially from families that likely can't afford another kid. Personally, I wouldn't have one at this stage in my life since I could support a child (at least financially, poor bastard wouldn't have a chance when it came to his sports teams though) but if I honestly look back to when I was 16-20 years old, I am not sure I would make the same choice as I would now.

 

 

 

Hell, if I had my way, the state would walk through poor neighborhoods of America and hand out birth control like candy. Want to have sex but don't want children? Can't afford birth control yourself? Here you go! Better to give 1,000 women free birth control than raise one child to adulthood on the state's dime.

 

I know it sounds cold but you have to admit the reasoning is sound...

That touches on another point of some insurances not paying for birth control, which is just ludicrous! Hey, insurance company, you know what costs more than $80 a month for the pill? A freaking baby and all of the medical stuff that goes into it! (I understand this is a very simplistic look at things but seriously, birth control should be covered 100% for all women, if my taxes/insurance premium goes up a couple bucks a year I am all for it)

Edited June 30, 201511 yr by SpiritofVodkaDave

That touches on another point of some insurances not paying for birth control, which is just ludicrous! Hey, insurance company, you know what costs more than $80 a month for the pill? A freaking baby and all of the medical stuff that goes into it! (I understand this is a very simplistic look at things but seriously, birth control should be covered 100% for all women, if my taxes/insurance premium goes up a couple bucks a year I am all for it)

Yep. When the current system doesn't make sense when looked at objectively, you are forced to question the underlying motive of the system.

 

 

I know it sounds cold but you have to admit the reasoning is sound...

 

If this sort of pragmatism is sound reasoning, why not just go around killing people who suction off the state?  It's not that far of a stretch and I don't ask that to be a jerk, but it gets at what bugs me the most about these conversations:

 

We allow abortion out of convenience.  It's easier to say about something we can't see or can more easily deny or hide behind women's rights about.  But the logic behind it is only vaguely different, if that.

 

Pragmatism leaves an awfully unsavory taste in the mouth when talking about human life.  But the truth of all of these issues is that they do boil down to that.  What upsets me is how we pick and choose which lives we choose to be pragmatic about.  And we aren't honest about why.

Edited June 30, 201511 yr by TheLeviathan

 

If this sort of pragmatism is sound reasoning, why not just go around killing people who suction off the state?  It's not that far of a stretch and I don't ask that to be a jerk, but it gets at what bugs me the most about these conversations:

 

We allow abortion out of convenience.  It's easier to say about something we can't see or can more easily deny or hide behind women's rights about.  But the logic behind it is only vaguely different, if that.

 

Pragmatism leaves an awfully unsavory taste in the mouth when talking about human life.  But the truth of all of these issues is that they do boil down to that.  What upsets me is how we pick and choose which lives we choose to be pragmatic about.  And we aren't honest about why.

Then make contraception EXTREMELY available and affordable. Most who oppose abortion also oppose measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And, further, most who would oppose both prevention and abortion, also oppose supporting the child through life.

 

Then make contraception EXTREMELY available and affordable. Most who oppose abortion also oppose measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And, further, most who would oppose both prevention and abortion, also oppose supporting the child through life.

 

Oh I totally agree.  I said earlier that abortion should be our greatest moral dilemma but it has been reduced to a bunch of freaking nonsense.  

 

Contraception should be free as far as I'm concerned.  Sex Ed. should be taught in early middle school.  We need to do more as a society to support children and those that raise them.

 

But we'll never get that far because the narrative around abortion, by both sides, is preposterous.

 

Oh I totally agree.  I said earlier that abortion should be our greatest moral dilemma but it has been reduced to a bunch of freaking nonsense.  

 

Contraception should be free as far as I'm concerned.  Sex Ed. should be taught in early middle school.  We need to do more as a society to support children and those that raise them.

 

But we'll never get that far because the narrative around abortion, by both sides, is preposterous.

Well, I'll disagree a little on the last sentence … I'd say the one side is WAAAAAY preposterous, and the other does what it can to try and not let that rule the day.

 

Well, I'll disagree a little on the last sentence … I'd say the one side is WAAAAAY preposterous, and the other does what it can to try and not let that rule the day.

 

"Pro-choice" is plenty preposterous.  Right down to the name.  In fact, they might be even worse IMO - at least the other side doesn't pretend to know personhood, it relies on faith.  (It's stupid, but at least it's not dressed up stupidity)  Pro-choice relies on a bunch of silly, convoluted arguments that turn a human life into a non-person.

 

For me, we've spent enough of our existence declaring each other non-persons to justify our actions for me to swallow any more of it.

Edited June 30, 201511 yr by TheLeviathan

 

"Pro-choice" is plenty preposterous.  Right down to the name.  In fact, they might be even worse IMO - at least the other side doesn't pretend to know personhood, it relies on faith.  (It's stupid, but at least it's not dressed up stupidity)  Pro-choice relies on a bunch of silly, convoluted arguments that turn a human life into a non-person.

 

For me, we've spent enough of our existence declaring each other non-persons to justify our actions for me to swallow any more of it.

There is no solution to this. And I will just have to disagree with you on that.

 

There is no solution to this. And I will just have to disagree with you on that.

 

I think most people agree with this and that is precisely the problem.

 

I think most people agree with this and that is precisely the problem.

By 'this,' I meant our discussion and where we see the disagreement, not the issue.

Hey, another reason not to like Republicans for me, their insistence that teaching abstinence in schools, and not birth control, is a good idea. Ugh.......

 

Not to mention denying basic science stuff......ugh.

 

Hey, another reason not to like Republicans for me, their insistence that teaching abstinence in schools, and not birth control, is a good idea. Ugh.......

 

Not to mention denying basic science stuff......ugh.

What basic science?

Hey, another reason not to like Republicans for me, their insistence that teaching abstinence in schools, and not birth control, is a good idea. Ugh.......

 

Not to mention denying basic science stuff......ugh.

To be fair, there is a vocal element on the left that denies science just as loudly as the right... They just choose different topics: GMOs, vaccines, and in extreme cases, fluoride.

 

If this sort of pragmatism is sound reasoning, why not just go around killing people who suction off the state?  It's not that far of a stretch and I don't ask that to be a jerk, but it gets at what bugs me the most about these conversations:

 

We allow abortion out of convenience.  It's easier to say about something we can't see or can more easily deny or hide behind women's rights about.  But the logic behind it is only vaguely different, if that.

 

Pragmatism leaves an awfully unsavory taste in the mouth when talking about human life.  But the truth of all of these issues is that they do boil down to that.  What upsets me is how we pick and choose which lives we choose to be pragmatic about.  And we aren't honest about why.

You're leading into strawman territory here, Levi. In no way would I advocate the killing of "societal leeches", for lack of a better term. My abortion pragmatism is largely borne out of me feeling ill-equipped to answer the larger question of "is a fetus a person?" I have no strong moral feeling on the subject one way or the other. It can be argued - at least for the first two trimesters of a pregnancy - that a fetus is more parasite than human being.

 

Simply put, I do not have a strong underlying feeling about when life is "created" and when that life gains legitimacy in the eyes of the law. When lacking a clear path to a right or wrong answer, I fall back to neutrality. In this case, that neutrality is "do whatever you want, I'm not going to tell you otherwise".

Fluoride is a lefty thing? I thought that was a righty thing........huh.

 

Basic science, like the world is more than 5000 years old, and the world is getting warmer. What causes that change, imo, debate away. But denying an observable, measurable thing?

 

To be fair, there is a vocal element on the left that denies science just as loudly as the right... They just choose different topics: GMOs, vaccines, and in extreme cases, fluoride.

 

The vaccine thing is fascinating, that seems to be one that people in both parties question.....I don't get it, but whatever.

 

The GMO thing is also interesting, you'd think a conservative person that doesn't like change, and is fearful that change can get out of hand, well, you'd think they'd question that more, since we are quickly losing control over species (not shocking) we've introduced to the world.

 

Fluoride, I don't get that one, but I was sure that was a righty thing......

 

Your general comment that there are people on the fringes in both parties is true.......OTOH, the dems have largely not tried to enact legislation there, other than the GMO thing, I think.

 

Fluoride is a lefty thing? I thought that was a righty thing........huh.

There is overlap but this is my understanding of the situation:

 

On the far far right, flouride is considered some kind of bizarre governmental conspiracy. It's not a denial of science so much as a denial of common sense coupled with extreme paranoia.

 

On the far far left, flouride is considered dangerous because it's a "foreign element". It's largely the same argument used to remove GMOs from our food supply. Never mind that flouride is a naturally-occurring entity and has been rigorously tested by science. Hence, the left's position is more anti-science than the right.

 

Portland, one of the most left-leaning cities in the country, voted against the addition of flouride to their water supply because... Well, it's not even worth discussing the "why" because it's utter nonsense.

 

 I have no strong moral feeling on the subject one way or the other. It can be argued - at least for the first two trimesters of a pregnancy - that a fetus is more parasite than human being.

Um, that is a horrible point. The fetus is obviously human, and obviously not a parasite. Whether someone cares about morality of the issue or not, it is not a parasite because God/science (whatever way you choose to look at it) obviously meant for it to be supplied with nutrients, and is absouletly necessary for the human race to continue, so it can't be a parasite. All logic would be against that argument.

 

You're leading into strawman territory here, Levi. In no way would I advocate the killing of "societal leeches", for lack of a better term. My abortion pragmatism is largely borne out of me feeling ill-equipped to answer the larger question of "is a fetus a person?" I have no strong moral feeling on the subject one way or the other. It can be argued - at least for the first two trimesters of a pregnancy - that a fetus is more parasite than human being.

 

Simply put, I do not have a strong underlying feeling about when life is "created" and when that life gains legitimacy in the eyes of the law. When lacking a clear path to a right or wrong answer, I fall back to neutrality. In this case, that neutrality is "do whatever you want, I'm not going to tell you otherwise".

 

It's absolutely not a strawman.  I'm taking your logic and applying it to a different group of humans and suddenly you feel like I'm calling you evil or uncaring.  But you only feel that way because an abused 6 year old or a druggie 28 year old on welfare are harder to deny as "people".  It's the same sort of pragmatism you are arguing, the only difference is that when you do it you're talking about a fetus.

 

When one pushes hard enough on the "logic" behind the pro-choice movement it invariably falls back to this: "only take my arguments about pragmatism so far as they concern a fetus.  After that I abandon them completely."

 

Because it's convenient for us to not see a fetus as human because it makes our conclusions easier to swallow.  Like you, I don't know the answer about personhood.  I'm not sure there can be an answer, but I know I don't like bad arguments out of convenience.  So should abortion be legal?  Absolutely, we have no other choice but to abuse the rights of women. (So, not an option)  But that doesn't excuse the bad arguments the other way and maybe, just maybe, if we confront them honestly and look for true solutions - maybe someday we can find one. 

 

Edited June 30, 201511 yr by TheLeviathan

 

Um, that is a horrible point.

Not really, parasite might be the wrong word but it doesn't make his point any less valid.

 

It's absolutely not a strawman.  I'm taking your logic and applying it to a different group of humans and suddenly you feel like I'm calling you evil or uncaring.

"Different group of humans" is where our arguments diverge. I see your point but my later statements clarify that I question whether a fetus - particularly early in a pregnancy - qualifies as human in the first place.

 

And I don't have an answer to that question. It's easy to declare a living, breathing man or woman a human because it's an obvious statement. A three-month fetus... of that, I'm not so sure.