Why are American people so hung up on women having abortions ?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

I find pro-life people who are also pro-death penalty a nuisance. I feel that way about everyone who doesn't bother to read widely before spouting their "opinion." (See also: the innocence project).

I find those who conflate the death penalty with abortion to be a nuisance. There is no comparison. The death penalty is reserved for those who commit violent atrocity, not for beings who have not even had a chance to do anything.

a reply to: JBurns

but if you aren't ready for children you shouldn't be procreating. Period)

Great strategy..how's it working out?
Kinda like "just say no"

I'm not pro abortion.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm just having fun with idiotic definitions, that's all.

Cum can survive a few weeks in water and it has all the potential to grow into a human being, yes. Kinda surprising, I know. Who woulda thunkt, right?

Join me in the bathtub, Miss Mis. It's nice and cozy.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Which is precisely why, when it counts, I support pro-choice arguments despite my own personal feelings RE: the termination of a life.

My love of freedom and individual choice/responsibility vastly outweighs my own opinions on the matter. And whether he appoints a liberal, moderate or conservative SCOTUS Justice to replace Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court is not merely a rubber stamp.

Nixon's appointees, for example, did not side with him against the DOJ when he was ordered to turn over the tapes RE: his "plumbers" (the crew investigating the massive leaks of classified material)

Implying that a conservative majority SCOTUS (which we essentially have right at this moment) automatically means Roe v. Wade will be overturned is a fallacy. SCOTUS doesn't typically overturn its previous rulings unless some type of legal or procedural violation is found.

Abortion is typically only brought up by conservatives when the left starts talking about infringing on our unalienable right to free speech or to own firearms (including military hardware). It is a quid pro quo assault on liberty, and is not right. Which is why I support pro-choice despite my own views on the matters.

Complacency is not good for liberty and freedom is never given freely, it has to be fought for, over and over again.

Amen to that Thank you for writing that, sincerely. That isn't something any American/lover of freedom should ever forget, but it sure doesn't hurt to be reminded

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm just having fun with idiotic definitions, that's all.

Cum can survive a few weeks in water and it has all the potential to grow into a human being, yes. Kinda surprising, I know. Who woulda thunkt, right?

Join me in the bathtub, Miss Mis. It's nice and cozy.

I’ll pass, thanks.

No, a sperm has no such potential without an egg.

a reply to: vonclod

I'm not pro-abortion either. But SCOTUS has already ruled that it is a protected right. Beyond that, national "one size fits all" laws never work. Look at every single type of "prohibition" to see how its working out. Less government, not more

We have more pressing issues than trying to overturn the rights of others.

I don't like abortion. I don't like ANY life to be terminated really for any reason. But how the hell can I ask someone to leave my Constitutional rights alone when I won't do the same?

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be a mistake. It would be an attack on the left and America's women for the sake of attacking them. We gain nothing from doing such. Those wishing to have abortions will continue to do so, whether via travel/drugs or worse. Prohibition never works, on anything

I would implore others reading to consider what I wrote. We don't have to legislate our morality/opinions onto others.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well. I have yet to see your egg and my semen grow some legs in that bathtub though.
A real Party-Killer right there, let's just all hope for the best.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: musicismagic


Because:

1. It makes us sad to look at our beautiful children/grandchildren and imagine that they had never been born.

2. If God didn't want that life to enter the Earth realm, he wouldn't have put him/her here.

3. When I look in the mirror, I see a person who wouldn't be here, if abortion was legal at that time.

I'm pro-life and really loved #1 and 3. In fact I've considered the exact same possibilities. But on a philosophical level I questioned #2. Doesn't God permit free will and the consequences of it (good and bad). Obviously God would have the power to allow or deny conception, but my instinct (and I'm no authority on it) tells me it's more a matter of God permitting the consequences of our free will in the form of a pregnancy, rather than a matter of God wanting or not wanting the life on Earth. In turn, the consequence of conception provides further free will choices, such as to have an abortion, etc. I believe it is at this stage that God's will is engaged, i.e. God's will that you don't destroy human life.

None of which is to say that God would not love that life in the same way he loves all human life.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: vonclod

I'm not pro-abortion either. But SCOTUS has already ruled that it is a protected right. Beyond that, national "one size fits all" laws never work. Look at every single type of "prohibition" to see how its working out. Less government, not more

We have more pressing issues than trying to overturn the rights of others.

I don't like abortion. I don't like ANY life to be terminated really for any reason. But how the hell can I ask someone to leave my Constitutional rights alone when I won't do the same?

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be a mistake. It would be an attack on the left and America's women for the sake of attacking them. We gain nothing from doing such. Those wishing to have abortions will continue to do so, whether via travel/drugs or worse. Prohibition never works, on anything

I would implore others reading to consider what I wrote. We don't have to legislate our morality/opinions onto others.

You make valid arguments on the efficacy of prohibition, but I would challenge you to read Roe v Wade. As I understand it from my pro-abortion lawyer friends, even legal minds on the left agree it's not a well reasoned decision (insofar as its justification for the establishment of rights). What the left likes about it is the result.

I remember reading it, and the majority articulates Roe's arguments in an incredibly convincing manner. And then you realize towards the end that these are the arguments the majority is dismissing.

I think where the prohibition analogies argument falls apart is when you look to the focus of other prohibitions, like those for drugs and alcohol. The primary focus in those instances is protections of the purported harm the individual inflicts on themselves. There are of course secondary harms against 3rd parties that avoided as well, such as drunk drivers, or thefts to fuel the addictions (I'm speaking theoretically, because as we know these secondary harms still exist during prohibition due to the criminal element).However, the primary focus of an abortion prohibition is on the unique and unborn individual. Therein lies the difference, in my view.

Its about control and nothing more. The usual religions dogma.

If a right wing court goes against Roe v. Wade it will become a state rights issue and each state will decide

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: musicismagic

Because they're in a state of flux where morals are aligned to their faith, and paradox's abound because the breeding ground for life is subjective....

If single cells count as life then masturbation is mass murder - every sperm is sacred... ETA: Scientifically speaking a fetus/placenta is a parasite, it secretes phosphocholine to block proteins and protect it from being rejected by the host body (different genotype, a breakdown in this process causes pre eclampsia and miscarriage. Nematode worms use the process to stay alive in the host.

Agreed it's moral and subjective, what I don't understand is why people can't keep that choice between themselves and their significant other and feel they're entitled to remove the freedom/choice from others.

Hah, you just reminded me of the s#fits people had while I was knocked up and explaining the parasitic symbiosis foundation of pregnancy. Technically, most pregnancies that go well I think would be considered Commensalism symbiosis (one gains, the other neither benefits/gains nor suffers/loses anything) But the mere fact that a bunch of really dumb, ignorant people couldn't give 2 craps less about the process and all they heard was "parasite" out of it, and flipped their lids because "babies aren't parasites!!"...well, no wonder people can't so much as talk about reproductive choices. They can't even talk about what reproduction IS to the body without losing their minds.

Parasites are of a different species than their host, so even for analogy purposes, the parasite talk is pseudoscience.

Nah it's modern midwifery (used to work for Soo Downe who now advises WHO and was involved in the discovery in a UCLan, Reading and Cambridge Uni collaboration. A parasite isn't required to be a different species.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: musicismagic

Because they're in a state of flux where morals are aligned to their faith, and paradox's abound because the breeding ground for life is subjective....

If single cells count as life then masturbation is mass murder - every sperm is sacred... ETA: Scientifically speaking a fetus/placenta is a parasite, it secretes phosphocholine to block proteins and protect it from being rejected by the host body (different genotype, a breakdown in this process causes pre eclampsia and miscarriage. Nematode worms use the process to stay alive in the host.

Agreed it's moral and subjective, what I don't understand is why people can't keep that choice between themselves and their significant other and feel they're entitled to remove the freedom/choice from others.

Hah, you just reminded me of the s#fits people had while I was knocked up and explaining the parasitic symbiosis foundation of pregnancy. Technically, most pregnancies that go well I think would be considered Commensalism symbiosis (one gains, the other neither benefits/gains nor suffers/loses anything) But the mere fact that a bunch of really dumb, ignorant people couldn't give 2 craps less about the process and all they heard was "parasite" out of it, and flipped their lids because "babies aren't parasites!!"...well, no wonder people can't so much as talk about reproductive choices. They can't even talk about what reproduction IS to the body without losing their minds.

Parasites are of a different species than their host, so even for analogy purposes, the parasite talk is pseudoscience.

Nah it's modern midwifery (used to work for Soo Downe who now advises WHO and was involved in the discovery in a UCLan, Reading and Cambridge Uni collaboration. A parasite isn't required to be a different species.

What species is parasitic to its own?

a reply to: JBurns


I hope you're right. And deep down inside, it's really the only way to think. The pendulum swings.

Killing a human being...
Human supremacy again. We are soooooooooooooooooooo special.

It is simple, the woman carries the child and puts her life at risk, no man needs to have a say in that, considering he could just make another one in a couple of minutes with another woman.
I believe in nature and I don't think humans are as special as they think they are.
Humans churn babies out 4.3 a second [!]
Some die, some live, some die, some are murdered, others become professors, others yet become rapists or wife beaters, some become drug addicts, others become self important religious folk. You just don't know.

Nature functions very well without humans, it doesn't care.

If we reproduce in general, we keep existing. The worry about individual cases, especially foetuses that have absolutely no idea that they even exist yet [hence they don't] is human hysteria.
Yes the individual has feelings but there are stories behind every decision. I find it disgusting that some here make general statements about women who have had an abortion, calling them names, as if these women aren't worthy living. You hypocrites.

In nature, the woman decides and if she decides an abortion, then there is a reason behind it and if she does it for the lolz, then the kid is better off not born anyway as it would lead a very bad life indeed.
And those that are so into god that they give birth at all costs have often enough brought the kid into a life of pain and misery.
I know one thing, that an adult is worth more than a few cells or even cells that are vaguely human shaped.
I would say that a lot of women who opt for abortion would do it themselves if it was illegal, they have done so throughout history and have often died a horrific death because of it. To do so should make you feel sympathy, but oh no, the god brigade wants to punish a woman in distress. So much for compassion.

You lot would probably be so nasty and say that they deserve it. I say shame on you for trying to tell another human what to do. If a few regret it later or change their mind, then a lesson was learned. It is certainly not the end of the world as some here believe.

I am pro choice and the choice is made by the mother, like it is in all other animals in nature.

a reply to: jwlaffer


Roe V Wade didn't establish a new right. Roe V Wade protected and affirmed privacy and autonomy. It also protected the states' rights to protect potential life under their jurisdiction, after the point of viability.

The real problem with overturning Roe V Wade is that the Constitution doesn't grant persons not yet born any constitutional rights. It would require a constitutional amendment to change that.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

What species is parasitic to its own?

That is a fascinating question. I wonder if that type of behavior has been seen in primates?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not sure (nematodes are a good bet as they can grow from microscopic to a foot long) but the biological definition is a form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host) - which are met by a foetus.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. You are so wrong. The woman Does conceive and carry the child to life and then, most often, has to raise and suppport on her own. Men don't do any of it, at least most don't-so, yeah, it's her choice. Not your body.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not sure (nematodes are a good bet as they can grow from microscopic to a foot long) but the biological definition is a form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host) - which are met by a foetus.

It’s not at the expense of a different organism, but to its benefit.

Either way, to say a foetus is a parasite is to spit on reproduction and biology. It’s more of a dehumanizing tactic to dismiss the fact that you’re ending human life.

a reply to: Hecate666

No. If we had nature, the woman would not decide. We do not voluntarily abort. Some species can do that; humans are not one of them.

Medical intervention isn't exactly nature.

I'm sorry, but if we're going to live in a world where so many of the things we do as a species are considered unnatural, then medical abortion procedures are likewise unnatural since the same abilities that enable those other unnatural activities also enable us to abort.