>> ^hpqp:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.


Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

Millions of real children with real feelings are killed by wars and sanctions the same "pro-lifers" can't seem get enough of not to mention an attitude to the environment which will see most life on Earth extinct in a few hundred years. I have to admit abortion is a tricky moral issue but that's just the point, it's a moral issue not a legislative one. So where you say abortions are immoral and I say carpet bombings are immoral. I guess we all have different ideas on morality and thank Christ for that otherwise I might think like you. >> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.


i err soo far on the side of caution, i convince pro-life women have sex with me by saying that if they don't, they are aborting the child i have conceived of having with them

its a human life they are ending if they don't

better to err on the side of caution

the real hypocrisy of the pro-life forces out there, is once the kids born, that kid is someone else's problem... yeah, we'll fight to make sure you are born, but if they parent's can't afford to raise you in the first place... or are unfit... well that's their fault... and we should in NO way be responsible for that (y'know, even though our movement forced them to have you in the first place)

better for you, the uncared for, under educated, malnurished child to suffer and us to feel righteous
than
not create this suffering (on both your parents and your behalf) and us to not feel so accomplished

support you!?! give you a hand up? that sounds like a hand out! stay outta my wallet you socialist!

prolife is supported by Christianity!!! abortion is attacking God! because desert dwelling sheep herders knew more about life, dna, the reproductive process than we do today!
of course, we'll ignore all the socialist themes in the Bible while saying this
we'll ignore things like charity for the poor and sick
we'll ignore things like throwing the money lenders out of the church
etc etc

compassion just doesn't feel genuine if $ makes it go away

I also disagree with @VoodooV's gun analogy, but for a different reason: some people would really, really like to be in a situation where they'd get to "use" their gun, whereas I challenge anyone to find me a single woman who would want to have an abortion. Abortions are a necessary "evil": not "evil" in the conservative-religious sense, but in the sense that no-one wants to have one, but sometimes it is the only ethical choice to make.

In a perfect world, everyone would be able to turn on and off the reproductive aspect of sex at will, and maybe medicine will allow us that one day. But until then abortion is a necessity, and not only for cases of rape, incest or ripped condoms. I won't address the troll, but @ReverendTed, do you truly think a woman who - because of emotional manipulation/coercion (e.g. "I don't feel anything with a condom"), or for lack of education, intelligence, or presence of spirit (e.g. drunk) - has unprotected sex, should be "punished" (so to speak) with a life-long responsibility of a human life, despite being perhaps emotionally, financially and/or psychologically incapable of raising it properly? A fate which would moreover punish an innocent child for its whole life (something the non-solution of adoption only makes worse btw)?

When a biker who was not wearing a helmet falls and opens his forehead, do you tell him "tough luck, should've worn a helmet, no doctors for you"? Or, closer to the subject at hand, shouldn't STDs be left untreated? You chose to have sex, you didn't take all the precautions, now live with the itchy consequences! Seriously, having to get an abortion because you were not careful is ample punishment enough. Not because you're "murdering" a human being or other such manipulative BS (although many are pressured into feeling that guilt) but because it is an invasive and disagreeable medical procedure (not to mention the psychological aspects, e.g. the possibility of regret).

This has been said ad nauseam before: if you want there to be less abortions, there needs to be more education (including sex ed, but not only) and easy access to contraception. Speaking of contraception, I look forward to the day they invent a version of the pill for men (soon?); why should women bear all the birth control responsibility?

_{As for the question of when a ball of cells becomes a human being, I've addressed the subject elsewhere on the Sift (whose search function is effin' up on me right now; I'll post link when I find it).}

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

>> ^RFlagg:

I am confused by the people blaming the woman for getting pregnant and saying she chose to have sex... so did the guy, who also chose to have sex without adequate measures to prevent the pregnancy. Why is the guy always absolved of guilt when a woman gets pregnant? "Oh she got pregnant just to trap him." Really? He chose to have sex too, he chose to have sex without wearing protection and pulling out and insuring she was up to date on her birth control. Is abortion the best outcome? No, but it has to remain a valid choice, especially in cases of incest and rape... and any ass who would deny it when the mother's life is in danger should just be denied any sort of medical care (even Tylenol) for the rest of their lives. The best way to counter abortion is to do the things Republicans hate, increase education (and I'm not just talking sex education here, though that should be included, but education as a whole) and increase access to affordable health care, including contraception for both parties.
A few points to clarify my position.


- I don't think this is about choosing to have unprotected sex. It's about choosing to have sex. Few methods of birth control are infallible. Condoms break, people forget to take a pill. The choice to engage in sexual intercourse is a choice which carries consequences. Contraceptives decrease the risk of pregnancy, dramatically, but the risk still exists.
- I don't consider this an issue of blame or guilt. It's about responsibility. It's not a woman's "fault" she got pregnant. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of her choice, which, again, it is her right to make.
- The male in this picture is also free to choose whether to have sex. Is it fair that he can up and split, because he is not physically carrying a developing human being? No, it's not fair, but it's the reality of the situation. Even so, the courts acknowledge that he must take responsibility as well. Jerry Springer made a sideshow out of paternity testing.

- Which raises a counterpoint I'd never considered before - should a man be allowed to compel a woman to have an abortion, because he does not feel capable of supporting the child? If the woman carries and delivers the child and he abandons them, the courts will hold him responsible for child support, even if he strongly advocated the pregnancy be terminated.

That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.

"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."

That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.

We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?

A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.

To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.

Samantha Bee demonstrated the republican hypocrisy perfectly. It's ok for THEM to make a choice, but it's not ok for YOU to make a choice.

Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate) Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.

Standard selective logic. We care about those lives, but not THOSE lives. Even when someone chooses to have the kid, Republicans seem to stop giving a shit since they propose cutting support for pregnant mothers and medical exams. Adequate education for those potential lives?..yeah fuck that. More hypocrisy we've come to expect from the right.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

>> ^bobknight33:

The Republicans are correct. Republicans are pro choice.
Women are free to decide not to get laid. Getting laid is their choice. After that they made their bed and if they get pregnant they should not be allowed to murder the child. They need to own up to their mistake, all be it a tough lesson and deal with it. Murder should not be the easy way out for a night of pleasure.

Rape and incest are not from free choice and so is a women's life endangerment due to pregnancy.
These 3 issues have different moral issues.


Chauvinistic prick

I am confused by the people blaming the woman for getting pregnant and saying she chose to have sex... so did the guy, who also chose to have sex without adequate measures to prevent the pregnancy. Why is the guy always absolved of guilt when a woman gets pregnant? "Oh she got pregnant just to trap him." Really? He chose to have sex too, he chose to have sex without wearing protection and pulling out and insuring she was up to date on her birth control. Is abortion the best outcome? No, but it has to remain a valid choice, especially in cases of incest and rape... and any ass who would deny it when the mother's life is in danger should just be denied any sort of medical care (even Tylenol) for the rest of their lives. The best way to counter abortion is to do the things Republicans hate, increase education (and I'm not just talking sex education here, though that should be included, but education as a whole) and increase access to affordable health care, including contraception for both parties.

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.

I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

>> ^bobknight33:

The Republicans are correct. Republicans are pro choice.
Women are free to decide not to get laid. Getting laid is their choice. After that they made their bed and if they get pregnant they should not be allowed to murder the child. They need to own up to their mistake, all be it a tough lesson and deal with it. Murder should not be the easy way out for a night of pleasure.

Rape and incest are not from free choice and so is a women's life endangerment due to pregnancy.
These 3 issues have different moral issues.


Not according to the Republican platform. Apparently they're even more hypocritical than you usually are.

The Republicans are correct. Republicans are pro choice.

Women are free to decide not to get laid. Getting laid is their choice. After that they made their bed and if they get pregnant they should not be allowed to murder the child. They need to own up to their mistake, all be it a tough lesson and deal with it. Murder should not be the easy way out for a night of pleasure.


Rape and incest are not from free choice and so is a women's life endangerment due to pregnancy.
These 3 issues have different moral issues.

I'd go so far as to call the Noachian Flood episode as attempted speciecide.
>> ^hpqp:

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?