The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

They truly hate Freedom and Liberty.

Okay, now this is the guy I normally expect to hear the trolling from.

 

[BugI02]

********. Perhaps you were not talking about in cases of where the mother's life is in danger, but you did not make that clear. You rebutted to JK's post which was clearly about the mother's life being in danger.

You replied to this.

The highlighted indicates the context for the paragraph is obviously a "dangerous pregnancy". The whole paragraph, including the bit about "practicalities of life".

JK even replied to one of my posts saying he doesn't believe abortion should be a part of family planning. So I think he agrees with you and I that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

But you replied to JK's post about dangerous pregnancies thusly:


In this post you did not indicate any different context than the one being discussed. Maybe you got JK's context wrong. It happens. I do it too. But clearly the paragraph you quoted was about when the mother's life is in danger. And I'll take your word for it that you intended your comments in a different context. But don't bitch at me for not guessing what context you were speaking to when you didn't indicate it.


I think the rareness is irrelevant to the point that the pro-abortion side makes about dangerous pregnancies. I think they do try to make it emotional. But I think the main reason is to try to expose anti-abortion people as extremists. And it works because it's what many of them believe. It's the infamous gotcha question that pro-abortion journalists like to use.

It is a sanity check to claim that the pro-life side is unreasonable. Because anti-abortion side wants a total ban even when the mother's life is in danger. And that is the actual position of many on the anti-abortion side. So to make that point it does not matter that dangerous pregnancies are fairly rare. It matters that the anti-abortion side wants to ban abortion even for dangerous pregnancies. And on that one, they kinda have a point.

You need to read back a bit further, the JK post you cite is disputing a post in which I stated that very few abortions really concern the health of the mother or baby, then the post beginning 'Bull****' is in reply to the JK post trying to prop up the narrative that it is somehow
about the mother's health and safety

I never said that the mother's health is never endangered, I said it (along with rape and incest) happen in numbers that barely qualify as an edge condition but it becomes propaganda to support abortion on demand

When challenged to prove me wrong, crickets. I then supplied the best data available which prove 19 out of 20 abortions are for the mother's convenience and nothing else. The original premise was, if you don't want to have a baby take precautions to prevent the undesired outcome BEFORE you undertake the activity that generates the risk - then it devolved into how the risk of contraceptive failure somehow justifies abortion, and I pointed out that 88% of the pregnancies that result from contraceptive 'failure' are from user error

 

[Creedmoor]

Okay, now this is the guy I normally expect to hear the trolling from.

Why does Freedom and Liberty scare you?

 

[Twangbanger]

Why does Freedom and Liberty scare you?

Because stupid, irresponsible, promiscuous, um...contemptible, c**ts who have sex with other men won't get what's coming to them, silly! Are you new to the tree-house or what?

 

[Creedmoor]

Because stupid, irresponsible, promiscuous, um...contemptible, c**ts who have sex with other men won't get what's coming to them, silly! Are you new to the tree-house or what?

Men seem to be Free with all their medical choices, why cant women be Free with their medical choices themselves without encroaching laws in your eyes?

 

[jamil]

You need to read back a bit further, the JK post you cite is disputing a post in which I stated that very few abortions really concern the health of the mother or baby, then the post beginning 'Bull****' is in reply to the JK post trying to prop up the narrative that it is somehow
about the mother's health and safety

I don't recall JK justifying unlimited abortion by saying that the mother's life is at risk. It is a legitimate point to make to say a total ban should not happen, because in the case where a mother's life is in danger, she has a right to choose to live.

I never said that the mother's health is never endangered, I said it (along with rape and incest) happen in numbers that barely qualify as an edge condition but it becomes propaganda to support abortion on demand

Again, the only place that argument even makes sense is in those individual cases where the mother's life is in danger. Abortion should be available to women whose pregnancies are an actual threat to their lives.

When challenged to prove me wrong, crickets. I then supplied the best data available which prove 19 out of 20 abortions are for the mother's convenience and nothing else. The original premise was, if you don't want to have a baby take precautions to prevent the undesired outcome BEFORE you undertake the activity that generates the risk - then it devolved into how the risk of contraceptive failure somehow justifies abortion, and I pointed out that 88% of the pregnancies that result from contraceptive 'failure' are from user error

I think this presumes that someone wants to terminate their pregnancy because of not wanting to take the risk. I think that's an excuse. They just didn't want to be pregnant.

JK referred to it as "health care" or something to that affect. I asked him for clarification, because abortion is not about woman's health. It's about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy, which could have been avoided with a bit of responsibility. The only time abortion is healthcare is when the mother's life becomes in danger during pregnancy. He said he did not agree with using abortion as birth control. I dunno. Maybe he's just arguing.

 

[jamil]

Men seem to be Free with all their medical choices, why cant women be Free with their medical choices themselves without encroaching laws in your eyes?

I think if people are going to be honest about this on both ends, we have to acknowledge that at some point we're talking about more than just the mother. There's another life involved. People on the pro-abortion side like to use language that makes it more comfortable. So I think this is a disingenuous argument. Because you know damn well that men's medical choices don't involve taking another life. If you're going to be pro-abortion, that's your choice. So if you're being real, saying that women should be free to kill their babies before they're born is more honest about what's actually happening.

 

[Creedmoor]

I think if people are going to be honest about this on both ends, we have to acknowledge that at some point we're talking about more than just the mother. There's another life involved. People on the pro-abortion side like to use language that makes it more comfortable. So I think this is a disingenuous argument. Because you know damn well that men's medical choices don't involve taking another life. If you're going to be pro-abortion, that's your choice. So if you're being real, saying that women should be free to kill their babies before they're born is more honest about what's actually happening.

Whats truly disingenuous is men arguing over abortions when for the most part we aren't involved in the decision to keep or abort. Its so easy for us not to never be involved in an abortion. It should be the mothers decision in all 50 States, and the State & Federal Government should mind their own business.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Why does Freedom and Liberty scare you?

You know full well that I love both Freedom and Liberty. You also know full well that wanting to make it illegal to take the life of an innocent child is something both you and I agree on. The debate is not over whether or not we want people to have so much freedom and liberty that they can murder human children, the debate is over what is or is not a human person with a right to life.

The fact is that despite knowing all this, you perpetually run the conversation off track and merely attack the other side as freedom-haters, or try to throw red herrings in the mix by suggesting that someone is disqualified from having an opinion on child murder because of their gender.

This is the silliness I've become accustomed to, and recognized that you have no interest in honest debate on this issue. You do have honest discussions and good things to add regarding other topics on this site, but I have long since learned that when you jump into threads relating to abortion, you're only there to troll.

After about a dozen times of attempting to have a real discussion with you on the subject, I don't really expect that to change anymore, I'm just writing this for the sake of anyone perusing this thread who wonders why I'm not responding to your easily refuted "arguments."

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Whats truly disingenuous is men arguing over abortions when for the most part we aren't involved in the decision to keep or abort. Its so easy for us not to never be involved in an abortion. It should be the mothers decision in all 50 States, and the State & Federal Government should mind their own business.

Again, I don't expect facts to get very far in this debate; I'll probably just get back some snide comments about my assumed "book of morals" or something, but for the sake of anyone reading this who is interested in honest discussion, it's an often-ignored reality that men are involved in the decision to abort quite often. And often, their involvement constitutes pressure on the woman to get an abortion.

Reliable statistics on the percentage of women who are pressured into abortion are hard to find, for obvious reasons, but this article has links to several studies that directly address, or touch tangentially on the subject:

Study: Many Women Who Had Abortions Felt Pressured by Others - Lozier Institute

Abortion pressure and coercion constitute one of the most widespread but hidden epidemics in America, and one of the least covered by the media. Our latest research shows that these insidious influences are tragically far more common than most people realize. Recently, we conducted a survey of...

lozierinstitute.org

Or, anyone remember this guy? He was certainly involved in the "decision":

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/us/indiana-mishawaka-student-killing-sentencing-trnd/index.html

 

[Creedmoor]

You know full well that I love both Freedom and Liberty. You also know full well that wanting to make it illegal to take the life of an innocent child is something both you and I agree on. The debate is not over whether or not we want people to have so much freedom and liberty that they can murder human children, the debate is over what is or is not a human person with a right to life.

The fact is that despite knowing all this, you perpetually run the conversation off track and merely attack the other side as freedom-haters, or try to throw red herrings in the mix by suggesting that someone is disqualified from having an opinion on child murder because of their gender.

This is the silliness I've become accustomed to, and recognized that you have no interest in honest debate on this issue. You do have honest discussions and good things to add regarding other topics on this site, but I have long since learned that when you jump into threads relating to abortion, you're only there to troll.

After about a dozen times of attempting to have a real discussion with you on the subject, I don't really expect that to change anymore, I'm just writing this for the sake of anyone perusing this thread who wonders why I'm not responding to your easily refuted "arguments."

You call me a Troll a few times now and expect me to have a conversation with you... Good Luck

 

[jamil]

Whats truly disingenuous is men arguing over abortions when for the most part we aren't involved in the decision to keep or abort. Its so easy for us not to never be involved in an abortion. It should be the mothers decision in all 50 States, and the State & Federal Government should mind their own business.

That’s a crock of pure ****. Not that the federal government should mind their own business in all matters. But. Ignorant people like to praise women’s ability to create life, as if it did not also require a man.

What is praiseworthy about a woman’s part of it is that the child grows and develops in the womb, and the woman must endure the physiological changes to her body during birth, and some risks, and the pain of childbirth when it’s time. She bears the business end of the process.

But, the idea that it’s exclusively the choice of the woman is just a facile statement claimed by ideologues. It ignores both sides if reality. The man has a stake in it too. Granted, it’s not his body that must undergo the discomfort of pregnancy, but that doesn’t make it exclusively her decision. They both made the decision to ****. They both have a stake in the consequences.

Then again if it’s just a hookup, and neither of them really care about each other, except they just wanted to ****, alright. If she wants to exclude him from decisions about the consequences, she has absolved him from any moral responsibility for support.

 

[indiucky]

In NYC the artist of the statue of Lilith put a Ruth Bader Ginsberg doily on the statue in front of the courthouse....

Liberty....

Because Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Lilith love women having the right to choose...

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You call me a Troll a few times now and expect me to have a conversation with you... Good Luck

No, I did not expect you have a conversation with me. I have enough experience in this regard to know better.

 

[Twangbanger]

Back to the political landscape: gas prices are coming down, stock market is almost back to its high-water mark...things are perking back in Biden's direction.

So the long, slow, inevitable turn toward another election trainwreck begins...

 

[BugI02]

You call me a Troll a few times now and expect me to have a conversation with you... Good Luck

Doesn't the unwillingness to have a conversation in good faith just prove that he is correct?

 

[Creedmoor]

Doesn't the unwillingness to have a conversation in good faith just prove that he is correct?

No, this is not the first time hes called me a Troll. I'm just not interested in have this conversation with a few others in this thread and him.
If someone is truly interested in having a conversation, they doesn't open with
"You're a Troll"

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No, this is not the first time hes called me a Troll. I'm just not interested in have this conversation with a few others in this thread and him.
If someone is truly interested in having a conversation, they doesn't open with
"You're a Troll"

If someone is truly interested in having a conversation, they don't open with:

They truly hate Freedom and Liberty.

With "they" apparently meaning anyone who disagrees with you on abortion.

Look, I do not make accusations of trolling lightly. I also do my best to engage in meaningful discussions, even with folks who have vastly different beliefs than myself. Anyone who cares to do so can look through my post history and see that I have engaged in lengthy discussions with people with whom I disagree on abortion, all the way from folks like jamil, with whom my disagreements are what most folks would consider very slight, to folks like LeftyGunner, who is pretty much on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from me, but was still willing to treat me very civilly and engage in productive conversation, all despite enduring quite a bit of flack from the INGO mainstream in the process. I even managed to get some sort of conversation going with some now-banned members, like our old friend Epicenity.

I've tried many, many times to have similar conversations with you, Creedmoor, and have always run around in circles. No matter which angle I take or which line of argument I pursue, I always just get back some variation of a short list of insults, including calling me a freedom-hater, a millennial snowflake, and someone who needs a book of morals because I can't think for myself.

Despite this, if you ever give me any hope or reason to believe that you actually want to have a meaningful conversation, I'm still open to doing so. But until such time, I am not going to stop calling out obvious trolling when I see it.

 

[jamil]

No, this is not the first time hes called me a Troll. I'm just not interested in have this conversation with a few others in this thread and him.
If someone is truly interested in having a conversation, they doesn't open with
"You're a Troll"

Not a troll. But in my experience you tend to disagree quite disagreeably. Which is fine. Everyone has their temperaments. But where free speech exists you get what you give.

 

[jamil]

If someone is truly interested in having a conversation, they don't open with:

With "they" apparently meaning anyone who disagrees with you on abortion.

Look, I do not make accusations of trolling lightly. I also do my best to engage in meaningful discussions, even with folks who have vastly different beliefs than myself. Anyone who cares to do so can look through my post history and see that I have engaged in lengthy discussions with people with whom I disagree on abortion, all the way from folks like jamil, with whom my disagreements are what most folks would consider very slight, to folks like LeftyGunner, who is pretty much on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from me, but was still willing to treat me very civilly and engage in productive conversation, all despite enduring quite a bit of flack from the INGO mainstream in the process. I even managed to get some sort of conversation going with some now-banned members, like our old friend Epicenity.

I've tried many, many times to have similar conversations with you, Creedmoor, and have always run around in circles. No matter which angle I take or which line of argument I pursue, I always just get back some variation of a short list of insults, including calling me a freedom-hater, a millennial snowflake, and someone who needs a book of morals because I can't think for myself.

Despite this, if you ever give me any hope or reason to believe that you actually want to have a meaningful conversation, I'm still open to doing so. But until such time, I am not going to stop calling out obvious trolling when I see it.

He's just doing what several people do. They take what you're saying and reinterpret it to what they think you're saying. Or they're just flat out disingenuous and knew better, but wanted to strawman you anyway.

That's not trolling per se. I think you guys couldn't be much further apart on Abortion. And I think he just tends to have contempt for people that are that far from his perspective. It is what it is. Speak your mind and knock down whatever straw men makes of your position for him.