Question for Pro-choicers

[Cypress]

Once again "trying" is not "successful at"... Trying means that they were unsuccessful, the product is still available, therefore people still have a responsibility for their actions. Pretending like they are no longer responsible for procuring the product that is legally available just because another person "tried" to make it "illegal" is preposterous.

I'll take that as a "thanks" from you to liberal groups, womens' health groups, and scientists who fought Bush, his appointees, and the religious right for almost six years, to get Plan B accepted, and elevated to an OTC product.

Without these groups it may not have happened.

 

[Immanuel]

Sorry Immie. Not disrespect intended.

Its just that if you really want to limit abortions, you have to have adequate acces to a wide range of contraception, universal healthcare, and realistic sex education.

Not to take these steps, is in fact promoting more unwanted pregnancies. And abortions.

A bunch of overweight white men in a legistlature passing bills, and trying to overturn Rove v. Wade, isn't going to stop one abortion.

The steps I outline above, will.

Quote where I have ever said anything about limiting contraception or realistic sex education. Universal healthcare is a separate matter, one that I am beginning to fear we are going to be forced into regardless if it is the right way to go or not because the medical and insurance industries are forcing us into it.

Immie

 

[OrnotBitwise]

That is right so you punish the baby. Way to go Ornot!!!! Punish the innocent. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to you doesn't it?

As I said before, err on the side of life. I can see that compassion is something you have not got a clue about.

No one said a word about revenge or retribution. You are the only one that wants revenge. You want revenge on that poor child because it had the gall to be conceived.

Immie

Preventing a baby from forming is not punishing anyone. There is no "innocent" involved. You have (what I deem) a mystical belief that the potential infant represented by a developing fetus is already a person from the moment of conception. Frankly, that's rubbish -- to borrow Damo's favorite phrase.

You're entitled to your belief, of course. Erect little teeny weenie headstones for blastula, for all I care. What you're not entitled to do is to force everyone else to conform to a code of conduct based on the assumption that your belief is fact.

Erring on the side of caution is normally a good precept, I'll grant you. In this case, however, the notion you're promoting is so enormously counter-intuitive and the effect on millions of women so drastic that I have to balk.

 

[LadyT]

Once again "trying" is not "successful at"... Trying means that they were unsuccessful, the product is still available, therefore people still have a responsibility for their actions. Pretending like they are no longer responsible for procuring the product that is legally available just because another person "tried" to make it "illegal" is preposterous.

I wasn't saying that at all. My point was that the christo-fascists were trying to limit women taking responsibility for their actions by trying to restrict access to the pill.

 

[Immanuel]

Preventing a baby from forming is not punishing anyone. There is no "innocent" involved. You have (what I deem) a mystical belief that the potential infant represented by a developing fetus is already a person from the moment of conception. Frankly, that's rubbish -- to borrow Damo's favorite phrase.

You're entitled to your belief, of course. Erect little teeny weenie headstones for blastula, for all I care. What you're not entitled to do is to force everyone else to conform to a code of conduct based on the assumption that your belief is fact.

Erring on the side of caution is normally a good precept, I'll grant you. In this case, however, the notion you're promoting is so enormously counter-intuitive and the effect on millions of women so drastic that I have to balk.

Ah yes, the my perspective is the only right perspective argument.

Arrogance! The height of arrogance.

Immie

 

[Damocles]

I'll take that as a "thanks" from you to liberal groups, womens' health groups, and scientists who fought Bush, his appointees, and the religious right for almost six years, to get Plan B accepted, and elevated to an OTC product.

Without these groups it may not have happened.

However, if it is there, saying that girls getting pregnant is the fault of people that "stopped" this is a strawman.

It's like saying, it is my sister's fault I didn't finish my homework, she ALMOST took away my math book!

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Ah yes, the my perspective is the only right perspective argument.

Arrogance! The height of arrogance.

Immie

If I am arrogant than you are equally so. We're each asserting that our own perspective is the correct one.

Unfortunately, there's little room for compromise on this issue. Lest we forget, Roe v. Wade itself is a compromise.

 

[Immanuel]

If I am arrogant than you are equally so. We're each asserting that our own perspective is the correct one.

Unfortunately, there's little room for compromise on this issue. Lest we forget, Roe v. Wade itself is a compromise.

Wrong! I'm willing to give a little. In this very thread I said that you guys weren't the devil himself. That is a major gift coming from me.

Roe V. Wade a compromise. Like hell it was.

Immie

 

[LadyT]

However, if it is there, saying that girls getting pregnant is the fault of people that "stopped" this is a strawman.

It's like saying, it is my sister's fault I didn't finish my homework, she ALMOST took away my math book!

I never said they succeeded damo! I said, "trying to outlaw"

 

[Damocles]

I never said they succeeded damo! I said, "trying to outlaw"

Yes, but used it as a reason why they were not responsible for their own action...

One cannot have it both ways, the product is legal and accessible, they can get it regardless of what that "Evil Rightwinger" wanted to happen. They can, and should be, held responsible for their own action without some odd attempt at making me a "big meanie" for stating such an obvious thing.

One cannot say, "It's all R's fault because they want so and so..." when so and so hasn't come to pass.

 

[Cypress]

Yes, but used it as a reason why they were not responsible for their own action...

One cannot have it both ways, the product is legal and accessible, they can get it regardless of what that "Evil Rightwinger" wanted to happen. They can, and should be, held responsible for their own action without some odd attempt at making me a "big meanie" for stating such an obvious thing.

One cannot say, "It's all R's fault because they want so and so..." when so and so hasn't come to pass.

First, it demonstrates the christian rightwing is actively delaying steps that can reduce unwanted pregnancies. They are not to be trusted with public policy that will REDUCE abortions.

Second, its not going to end here. Even though liberals had to fight for six years to get Plan B, that's not where it stops. Christo-fascists are and will fight to keep it out of pharmacies. Remember the big fight at WalMart, where christo-fascists were succeeding in forcing Walmart pharmacies not to carry Plan B? The fight goes on, dude.

 

[Immanuel]

"One cannot say, "It's all R's fault because they want so and so..." when so and so hasn't come to pass."

Yes they can. It is all my fault. I personally caused every unwanted pregnancy in the history of human kind simply because I believe in the right to life.

Immie

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Wrong! I'm willing to give a little. In this very thread I said that you guys weren't the devil himself. That is a major gift coming from me.

Roe V. Wade a compromise. Like hell it was.

Immie

Immie, it is. Quite apart from the history, which you can get anywhere, look at it objectively.

First, let me state the two positions. These are the two pure -- or most extreme, if you prefer -- positions. Obviously, most people fall somewhere between the two. They define the two sides, however.

1) Elective abortion is wrong in all cases: it is the willful taking of the life of an innocent child. This argument is based on the idead that "personhood" begins at conception -- or the argument that it might and therefore we should assume that it does. This is the position of those who advocate criminalizing or severly restricting abortion.

2) Only the mother can decide whether abortion would be right or wrong in her prticular case. This argument hinges on the idea that no one can know, in any particular case, when a fetus becomes a baby -- a person. Therefore, the argument goes, it must be left up to the mother's own conscience. This is the position of those who advocate keeping abortion legal and a matter of personal moral choice.

The compromise that the Supreme Court settled on really satisfies neither side completely. They decided to allow states to regulate abortion, though not in the first trimester of pregnancy. Abortion in the first trimester (only) is legally a woman's right.

This is not either of the two positions. It is a compromise staked out between them. The fact that few states have imposed strong regulations on even third trimester abortions is NOT due to Roe v. Wade. That, I think, is due to the fact that adherents of postion (2) outnumber adherents of position (1) in almost every state.

 

[Immanuel]

The compromise that the Supreme Court settled on really satisfies neither side completely. They decided to allow states to regulate abortion, though not in the first trimester of pregnancy. Abortion in the first trimester (only) is legally a woman's right.

This is not either of the two positions. It is a compromise staked out between them. The fact that few states have imposed strong regulations on even third trimester abortions is NOT due to Roe v. Wade. That, I think, is due to the fact that adherents of postion (2) outnumber adherents of position (1) in almost every state.

Sorry but that is pure hogwash. Since Roe v. Wade became law every single regulation that has been presented in reference to abortion after the first trimester has been shot down as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Every single one! By this fact, one can see that this is not a compromise but an f'ing gift to the pro-abortion (as distinguished from the pro-choice) movement.

Immie

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Sorry but that is pure hogwash. Since Roe v. Wade became law every single regulation that has been presented in reference to abortion after the first trimester has been shot down as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Every single one! By this fact, one can see that this is not a compromise but an f'ing gift to the pro-abortion (as distinguished from the pro-choice) movement.

Immie

They get shot down because people insist on wording them in such a way that they must be shot down. They do this specifically in order to be able to claim that it isn't a compromise. They want confrontation. They don't want compromise.

Try some regulations that wouldn't have made Draco himself flinch. That might do the trick.

 

[Immanuel]

They get shot down because people insist on wording them in such a way that they must be shot down. They do this specifically in order to be able to claim that it isn't a compromise. They want confrontation. They don't want compromise.

Try some regulations that wouldn't have made Draco himself flinch. That might do the trick.

Sorry, it is the other way around, you guys want loopholes that an aircraft carrier could float through in order pass the bill. Hell, the wording you guys insist on for health of the mother puts hangnails and hemorhoids as a medical reason for abortion.

Compromise my ass.

Immie

 

[Brent]

If Pro-lifers would put their money where their mouths are, and if they would show compassion to unwed mothers we could possibly come to a compromise that might lead to a vastly reduced number of abortions.

Immie

Okay. What are you doing about it?

If people began taking responsibility for themselves, wouldn't that solve the problem?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

If people began taking responsibility for themselves, wouldn't that solve the problem?

If people would stop assuming that other people don't take responsibility for their choices, that would solve the problem too.

People are people. Wishing they were other than they are is usually foolish. Working to change the way people are is called social engineering. While I've no objection to social engineering in principle, I want it to be very explicit and very public.

 

[klaatu]

I can agree to that. I definitely don't agree that fetuses are people though. In said scenario, a "person" is granted the right to host off another person against that person's will in order get sustanence (sp??) and live. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?

My oldest daughter was born premature at 1lb9oz ... she is now 26 years old with 2 children of her own. So as you can see.. It is vey dificult for me to hear someone say that a fetus is not a person ... thats rubbish ..

 

[OrnotBitwise]

My oldest daughter was born premature at 1lb9oz ... she is now 26 years old with 2 children of her own. So as you can see.. It is vey dificult for me to hear someone say that a fetus is not a person ... thats rubbish ..

How many weeks premature was she?