GOP: Female body has natural defense against pregnancy in case of legitimate rape

You obviously have never had to hold someone's hand while they cried through an abortion.

shame on you

 

I would hope we can all agree to this wonderful and pragmatic point. If giddyup replied, I missed it.

If every "pro life" and "pro choice" person volunteered to work on reducing unwanted pregnancy, and then worked for the health and care of the multitudes of unwanted kids in the world, we could actually get somewhere.

Even if the goal of making abortion completely illegal is attained, history shows abortions are still going to happen as long as you have a bunch of unwanted pregnancies.

 

Being pro-choice means allowing for others to make a choice that even you yourself may not have made. My wife is staunchly pro-choice, but it kills her when she hears of people she knows that have had abortions - both for the choice the person had to make and for the choice the person made. Too many people believe pro-choice means pro-abortion. It doesn't. We are both anti-abortion and pro-choice. It would be our choice to never abort a pregnancy, and it's someone else's choice to do the exact opposite.

To say being pro-choice is the easy way out is laughable.

 

Well frankly it is tough when many on the other side resist all sensible efforts to lessen the number of abortions that folks actually want to have. They only want to criminalize them. We know that poverty, lack of schooling and opportunity and especially birth control lessen them, but they seldom want to support these. Many years ago when I worked in welfare we had one of the GOP Governors of Texas cut off funding for contraception for women on welfare. It takes no big brain to know that will lead to more abortions.

In addition there are many who use abortion as a cynical wedge issue to support politicians who actively seek elective wars, guns everywhere, reductions of health care for those who can't buy it at market prices etc. Many of the leaders of the GOP could care less about abortion other than as a wedge issue. It is similar to in the closet gays in the GOP leadership using that issue as a way to whip up support among the 99% for the 1%.

So it is hard to see the best in the other side. As a graduate of a Catholic University I can sympathize on a certain level, but not the way the abortion issue is typically used to create so much suffering and frankly policies that lead to lots of deaths among those folks outside the womb.

Quite frankly I am happy to see abortion for incest and rape victims used by the Dems for all it is worth to split independents off and perhaps even the Religious Right off from the GOP one percenters and cause them to lose this election. This will save the lives of many many thousands and prevent much suffering at home and abroad.

 

I don't think he is saying abortion is an easy decision at all. Abortions are hard, no doubt. I've had multiple friends have them. I've offered them my time and money if they kept the child. Reminding them that adoption is always an option (though a difficult one in itself). I can't support abortion in any way. To me, it is horrible.

Pro-life isn't a difficult stance until you are put in the position where there is an unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps you cheated on your spouse, or your teenager is pregnant. I am very pro-life, though I would leave the Plan B on the market and every known contraception.

I could possibly agree one day on a middle ground of disallowing surgical forms of abortion, but allowing the pill variety. I wouldn't like it, but you can't win every battle.

 

I think most of the GOP does not adhere to the contraception is bad theory. It is another case of the loud and stupid getting more attention than they otherwise should. Supporting free contraception? Doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't, because I can understand the thinking. However, that is short sighted as the cost of abortions or raising children vastly outweigh the cost of preventing them in the first place.

 

No but I had a wife who had had two before I knew her. Did you know that the sadness lasts for years? What do the tears indicate?

 

Being evasive to dodge a question you can't answer huh?


I haven't made a declaration, I have stated the facts. Life is a philosophical definition, not scientific one. One's definition of life is just as valid as another. THe idea of "What if you are wrong" is non-sensical.

It's like saying what if mice are actually super brilliant aliens just pretending to be dumb and secretly watching us. We better not kill those mice - what if we are wrong about them just being inferior??? Can we take that chance?

I don't see a blastula as a living human being. It is not. It is a blastula. It's a bunch of cells. You can make one. You can take the DNA from an embryo and swap it around with another animal even and it will continue onward. Into what no one would ever wish to find out.

It is machinery on a biological level. THe only thing that makes it more is that you "believe" it is more. That's great. I respect that. But that's a religion and not the facts. I'd rather side on using the facts to determine what rights a woman has rather than religion.

 

And we are not sufficiently restricting these Choice rights because we trivialize the other "life" that is at stake. Only if we take away the right to life of the unborn child can we legislate their destruction. If you don't assert the "right" of that child, there is no restricting of that right because it doesn't exist. See?

Yes, it is a unique situation, so unique in fact that blood donation comparisons fall way short. Any woman entering into a sexual union knows this possible outcome so I have no problem with subsuming the woman's right to privacy because I consider the right to life to be paramount.... and apart from this particular discussion does anyone ever assert anything different?

I'm not as firm as Napolitano is on this but sometimes I wish I were. His main point is unassailable: the child in question is guilty of nothing. In what other ways doe we punish the child for the crimes of the parent?

No it's not easy but going through the pregnancy is easier than being killed.

Well sure it could and that tragic mis-carriage is almost certainly a human being. We have no way of knowing for certain but if the process is not abridged a human child is always the result: no toasters, no ice skates have ever exited the vaginal canal in labor and deliver.

We cannot control nature that readily. I'm sure some scientist somewhere is working on that as there are quite a few wannabe parents who can't conceive and are wasting their "prime" parenting years waiting for a child to adopt.

It goes beyond not accepting my idea about when Life begins. They seek to describe, variously, when that conception is NOT a Life and when it IS a Life. The hidden agenda is to promote a definition that allows them to promote abortion with the clearest conscience possible. They say that I can't be certain that Life begins at concepton.... but they can be certain about their own arbitrary assertion!?!? Frankly, mine makes more sense-- erring on the side of caution.

 

So, are we saying that bearing and birthing the child is easier?

 

No one can really and truly answer that question-- even when they post a petty color picture that they think answers the question unequivocally.

The Nazis had lots of ideas about inferior races. Nazism is a philosophy that they tried to prove with science. If one definition of Life is as valid as another, why are you not concerned with human life being destroyed?

Yeah.... okay.

PLaying God again, I see.

How would you proves it's not more than biological machinery?

 

No, he said being pro-choice is easy. It's not.

 

You may be. I'm certainly not. I'm just saying that pro-choice isn't easy like you claimed.

 

So really it is just a desire to punish folks who can't afford birth control. Insist abstinence or pregnancy?

It also seems like you are also arguing economic cost benefit rather than morality, cost be damned.

 

Sorry, my post would have been better directed at Mark, who compared the abortion decision to being pro-choice.

I can't say what decision is easier. Too evenly divided topic, that is based on whether or not you think the unborn child has a right to live.

I would say how can you hear a heartbeat, and not think of it as being alive.

Others might say how can you look at that clump of cells and call it human.

 

Cost is the driving factor to no giving away birth control (supposedly at least). It isn't seeking to punish those who can't afford birth control, but rather to not spend money for something that isn't needed. Sex is either for pleasure or producing children. Condoms are free at health departments, and there are organizations committed to giving them out.

I don't see a morality question in providing birth control to those who can't afford it. Sex is hardly the same as food, shelter, water, health care, etc. You can believe it is a moral issue, but I would recommend fighting it on cost should you want to persuade conservatives.

 

The irony is:

Typically conservative Christians and Republicans have fought sex education in public schools.
Typically they have fought government subsidized programs for the poor.
Typically they have fought abortion on the basis of "Pro Life".

and typically they have supported the death penalty and wars fought under false pretenses.

Which means they don't mind killing people once they are no longer embryos and after they are birthed do not mind them living in poverty with poor access to health care.

 

Edit: Snarky masturbatory post that isn't going to change anyone's mind deleted.

 

That question is already answered. To me and many others. It is by definition a bunch of cells. That is a fact. Life is an arbitrary definition.

The Nazis comparison you make is just bizarre - you just compared your beliefs to being a Nazi. My point is you are the one following a philosophy, I am not. I am not trying to prove anything. The facts are already there.

HOw do I prove it's not more than biological machinery? That's like saying god exists because I can't prove it does not. That's a logical fallacy. There is no evidence - NONE - that says it is anything but machinery.

The proof is already there, you just have to choose whether or not you'd like to see it.

 

You are by definition a bunch of cells.

You are also just a bunch of atoms. These are facts.