Originally Posted by Commander0Zero Well that didn't move me. Many Dems and Republicans are Christians and believe abortion is abhorrent. Some believe it is a personal choice between the women and her creator and not the government and some believe the government should be involved. Having a debate over the things he rattled off is not wrong it makes for good comedy to exaggerate but poor public discourse.

There's no debate to have. Nobody really feels strongly about it except no-exceptions right to lifers and there's no point to "debating" with them what the policy should be. Their shit is so weak that for them to feel as strongly as they do and with all the energy they put into it, they (their bought and paid for politicians) absolutely DETEST having to talk about it because they know how horrible it sounds.

In April Mitt Romney said he supported personhood (ie no exception legislation). Now he's calling for this guy to quit the race. Why? Seriously, anyone? I can't even think of an answer that's not an utter fabrication. It's only because everyone else is saying it. That's how gutless they are. Even the presidential candidate that's doing everything he can think of to kiss the far right's ass won't give this guy cover and they agree on policy.

I just like these kinds of things because deep down in places they don't like to talk about at parties, it reminds libertarians that they're in bed with statist shitbags that will wheel around and shove big government down their throats as soon as they win. True libertarian mental torture is thinking about the governmental process that will take place (committees? how ing rad would that be?) that decides whether it was a rape or not when abortion is outlawed cept incest/rape.

srsly tho. economy important n stuff.

Originally Posted by detectiveconan16 One Congressman compares the illegality of dogfighting to the legality of being a pedophile and forcing the victim to having an abortion and now this? It is disturbing how the "real America" keeps hiring these guys to represent them. But I'm more saddened at how quickly people forget that earlier this year, the GOP tried to cut funding for women's health and held conferences of nothing but men about a female's right to birth control. GOP "War on Women" it sure is ing false.

In explaining himself, King argues that animals have more rights than fetuses, and suggests that liberals have so devalued life, that a man can rape a young girl, kidnap her, force her to undergo an abortion across state lines, and then “drop her off at the swingset….and that’s not against the law in the United States of America.”

Uh, yes it is.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

Pretty hypocritical that the GOP as Akin to drop out, when they just approved language in the party platform stating support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no mention of exceptions for rape. Yeah, what Akin said was more inflammatory as it was so nonsensical, but opposing abortion even in rapes is the bigger issue behind his comments.

The platform also supports an amendment banning gay marriage. Here's another column on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/op...epresents.html

Those folks are determined to be on the wrong side of history.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Pretty hypocritical that the GOP as Akin to drop out, when they just approved language in the party platform stating support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no mention of exceptions for rape. Yeah, what Akin said was more inflammatory as it was so nonsensical, but opposing abortion even in rapes is the bigger issue behind his comments.

I know this discussion has popped up on the forums before, but I have to disagree, even though I tend to side on the pro-choice side of things.

If someone honestly, truly believes without a doubt the whole "a life is a life is a baby is a fetus is a life" mantra, then they *should* fully believe in outlawing abortions even in the case of rape (the *only* exceptions would be in extreme cases involving the health of the mother).

If a fetus truly is a life, then it should not matter who the parents are or what the circumstances of the creation of that life is - the rape-fetus should be given the same "rights" as every other fetus.

Again, let me stress, I don't agree with the whole fetus=baby thing, but if you honestly do and you make exceptions because the fetus (a.k.a. baby) is a product of rape, then you're a horrible person.

UB to me that argument seems to say that if a woman gets pregnant under any circumstances she gives up her rights at conception and becomes an incubator only.
I'll be the first to admit I find abortion abhorrent but I find no issue with a woman having an abortion under the situation of rape or if real protection was used(birth control pills or condoms). In the former case I don't even feel the need to mention adoption given it was unwarranted but the latter it was consensual sex so even if protection was used I MIGHT suggest it as a consideration. Even then I would see no problem that they decide to have an abortion since they showed intent to not have children.
Past this, if it's unprotected, they can have an abortion but I find them utterly disgusting as I don't think it should be used as birth control.

Originally Posted by Sarang01 UB to me that argument seems to say that if a woman gets pregnant under any circumstances she gives up her rights at conception and becomes an incubator only. I'll be the first to admit I find abortion abhorrent but I find no issue with a woman having an abortion under the situation of rape or if real protection was used(birth control pills or condoms). In the former case I don't even feel the need to mention adoption given it was unwarranted but the latter it was consensual sex so even if protection was used I MIGHT suggest it as a consideration. Even then I would see no problem that they decide to have an abortion since they showed intent to not have children. Past this, if it's unprotected, they can have an abortion but I find them utterly disgusting as I don't think it should be used as birth control.

I I tend to agree with UB on this as far as why people are taking a strong stand on this. In cases of rape and incest the process of life has stared no matter the circumstances. I personally have no issue with abortion in these cases. But the opinion that Birth Control or a condom somehow removes intent to conceive and then it's okay to have an abortion to me is baffling. Don't have sex. None of those methods ever claim to be 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy but you know what is abstinence (well unless you were a virgin named Mary, so one failure). People have 100's of choices before they lay down and have sex the only thing that has no choice is the fetus/life starting process. Look I'm pro-choice but if women would make better choices they wouldn't be in a situation to have to decide to terminate a pregnancy.

The vast majority of sex people have is for pleasure, not reproduction. It's one of the few pleasures in life. I 100% never want to have kids, but still have lots of sex and always will as long as physically able. Birth control unfortunately isn't 100% effective, so abortions are always going to be needed for the rare cases where if fails even when used properly.

One thing they should change is making it easier to get vasectomies at younger ages. Lots of doctors refuse to do them on younger males. Something like that should never be up to a doctor.

So anyway, I fully get the distinction Sarang was making. No one likes abortions, but they're necessary in some cases IMO as no one who didn't want to have a child should be forced to carry it to term. At the same time, there's no excuse for people who don't want children to not use birth control and take every precaution they can to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence is an unrealistic option. Unless someone is ed up physically and just has no sex drive, it's just not reasonable to expect someone who never wants kids to refrain from sex entirely just because of the possibilities of birth control etc. not working. Though again such people should get vasectomies, tubes tied etc. and doctors should do them on any adult who requests them.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 The vast majority of sex people have is for pleasure, not reproduction. It's one of the few pleasures in life. I 100% never want to have kids, but still have lots of sex and always will as long as physically able. Birth control unfortunately isn't 100% effective, so abortions are always going to be needed for the rare cases where if fails even when used properly. One thing they should change is making it easier to get vasectomies at younger ages. Lots of doctors refuse to do them on younger males. Something like that should never be up to a doctor.

And what you stated is fine. But all your rights and freedoms come with personal responsibility. We do alot of things for pleasure and enjoyment that can lead to serious consequences. Having a child is among the most serious. Like I said you choose sex as an activity for recreation doesn't mean now all of a sudden you don't share in the risks and responsibility of your actions (unwanted pregnancy, STD's). And while pro-choice I believe abortion used as birth control is reprehensible. And I repeat this you have 100 choices to make before you have sex. As long as you have sex you will risk unwanted pregnancy and you will also risk getting a women pregnant that might change her view on weather to have the child or not. Something you have no control over. Like i tell my son what you want might be different than what you get.

For sure. And I don't care what others think as it's a personal issue with what one's moral feelings on the matter are--I just take exception at people who try to force their views on others and ban the options available to pregnant women.

I take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and personally have no moral qualms with abortion as a back up if those precautions fail. And yes, a woman changing her mind when pregnant is possible--especially if it's someone that's not sure if they want kids or not. My current g/f loathes children even more than I do probably (if that's possible) so it's highly unlikely to happen in this case. And it's unlikely I'd ever date anyone who wasn't sure they didn't want kids even if things don't work out long term with this relationship.

But if that it did with her or someone else, well I guess you'd just have to add child support to my other bills. It's the woman's choice and I wouldn't pressure abortion in any way, shape or form. But I also would feel no obligation to be an involved father since anyone I'm dating and sleeping with (I don't have casual sex, one night stands etc.) is well aware that I'm adamantly opposed to ever having kids up front.

Originally Posted by Commander0Zero And what you stated is fine. But all your rights and freedoms come with personal responsibility. We do alot of things for pleasure and enjoyment that can lead to serious consequences. Having a child is among the most serious. Like I said you choose sex as an activity for recreation doesn't mean now all of a sudden you don't share in the risks and responsibility of your actions (unwanted pregnancy, STD's). And while pro-choice I believe abortion used as birth control is reprehensible. And I repeat this you have 100 choices to make before you have sex. As long as you have sex you will risk unwanted pregnancy and you will also risk getting a women pregnant that might change her view on weather to have the child or not. Something you have no control over. Like i tell my son what you want might be different than what you get.

The Palin family is the best example why abstinence is full of it.

That is actually where I draw the line. If you end up creating a life, you have an obligation to be involved in it's life and help raise it, there are enough absent fathers in the country. Just sending a monthly check isn't enough.

Originally Posted by camoor The Palin family is the best example why abstinence is full of it.

What? Abstinence isn't full of anything. Its full proof. Reality is most people will have sex before marriage or any kind of commitment for that matter. So all the precautions need to be taken before having sex to avoid unwated pregancy and STD's. My point is all the education in the world about the risky behavior doesn't beat simply not involving yourself in the risky behavior. Your dislike of the Palins doesn't mean they are wrong in putting forth abstinence to avoid just the situations Bristol finds herself in now. As a parent your kids aren't going to follow you lock step they need to make their own choices that they will live with. You can only give the best information you can. My issue is with folks that want to preach abstinence and nothing else. They aren't living in reality.

Originally Posted by Clak That is actually where I draw the line. If you end up creating a life, you have an obligation to be involved in it's life and help raise it, there are enough absent fathers in the country. Just sending a monthly check isn't enough.

I generally agree. And it's highly unlikely that the case he mentioned would happen when you're only dating women who say they 100% don't want kids and understand you're of the same mind. There should be an understanding there that keeping an accidental pregnancy isn't an option.

Best you can do when you don't want kids is to stick to that when deciding who to date (i.e. don't end up with someone who wants kids, or may want kids, just because they're hot and everything else fits), and take precautions by using birth control properly. Though I'll definitely go the extra mile and get a vasectomy, and hopefully in the near future, to ensure I never end up in that situation.

Originally Posted by Commander0Zero And while pro-choice I believe abortion used as birth control is reprehensible.

That's done roughly never by anyone.

Originally Posted by Commander0Zero Your dislike of the Palins doesn't mean they are wrong in putting forth abstinence to avoid just the situations Bristol finds herself in now. As a parent your kids aren't going to follow you lock step they need to make their own choices that they will live with. You can only give the best information you can. My issue is with folks that want to preach abstinence and nothing else. They aren't living in reality.

That was the point. Palin is abstinence only and probably didn't educate her children about birth control much if at all. If she had, then Bristol likely wouldn't have gotten knocked up.

Originally Posted by Clak That is actually where I draw the line. If you end up creating a life, you have an obligation to be involved in it's life and help raise it, there are enough absent fathers in the country. Just sending a monthly check isn't enough.

I agree with this 1000%. The involvement is worth more than the money. Fathers are needed. If you have a kid you are needed. I've been there not wanting to have a kid(s) and it's tough to give up so much. But hopefully if it ever happens to anyone the will be active in the child's life.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 That was the point. Palin is abstinence only and probably didn't educate her children about birth control much if at all. If she had, then Bristol likely wouldn't have gotten knocked up.

I stand corrected then.

And if ever there was a family that needed birth control, it's the Palins.

Originally Posted by Commander0Zero What? Abstinence isn't full of anything. Its full proof. Reality is most people will have sex before marriage or any kind of commitment for that matter. So all the precautions need to be taken before having sex to avoid unwated pregancy and STD's. My point is all the education in the world about the risky behavior doesn't beat simply not involving yourself in the risky behavior. Your dislike of the Palins doesn't mean they are wrong in putting forth abstinence to avoid just the situations Bristol finds herself in now. As a parent your kids aren't going to follow you lock step they need to make their own choices that they will live with. You can only give the best information you can. My issue is with folks that want to preach abstinence and nothing else. They aren't living in reality.

The phrase is not full proof, it's fool proof.

And obviously abstinence is not fool proof, because if it were then Palin's foolish daughter would have kept her legs shut.