The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[HoosierLife]

I think it really is.

From an outsider, I don’t understand the Christian push to criminalize abortion. If Christians don’t agree with abortion they should make an example of themselves by not having abortions…but Christians make up the majority of abortion service consumers in the US year after year.

If Christians could just stop themselves from getting abortions the annual number performed would drop by over half instantly.

The rest of us see this, and it makes us doubt the sincerity of the Christian position…if you really loathe abortion so much, why do you have so many abortions?

Conservatives claim to value individual liberty, personal responsibility, and hands-off government, but the Republican stance on abortion runs counter to all of those values.

Practically speaking, you cannot expect others to adhere to a code of conduct you refuse to obey yourself.

Abortion makes Christians look like hypocrites, and keeping the issue centered works against them, in my humble opinion.

Ok, let’s say there was 51% of the population that was ok with murdering runaway kids.

They’re unwanted. And for whatever reason, the left has redefined runaway kids to no longer being considered humans.

Would you have a moral problem with that?

Would it be ok to vote for people that supported that?

“You have the freedom to not kill your runaways. My runaway, my choice.”

That’s what rational God fearing human beings hear when you guys argue like this.

 

[LeftyGunner]

It's all ******** until photos and video of this "medical procedure" can be publically shown on TV, YouTube, newspapers, wherever.

Until then, "pro life" people aren't even in the fight, like it or not. It is so typical of the MSM putting a ton of slag on the scales against one gram of gold to make things appear like a nice, clean, neutral conversation that the "closed minded" and "religious zealot" proles object to from their ignorance.

If, to the "pro choice" people, it's only a feuts and not a baby, then let's see it, man. I can watch a heart surgery or conjoined twins being separated on YT. If it's a surgery like any other, then laissez les bons temps rouler!

Any discussion or consideration of an issue without all the facts being out in the open is nothing more than a scam, at best.

Also spach Miguel...

A video of the most common type of abortion would show a woman who is not visibly pregnant taking a pill and starting her period after a few hours.

I think that type of video is more likely to reassure women who might be anxious about seeking an abortion than it would deter people from seeking out the procedure.

I don‘t really think graphic videos of D&C procedures have the effect you think they do…those videos have been widely distributed publicly since the 1970’s and they turn people off the forced birth movement as much or more than they have turn people away from abortion.

 

[Ingomike]

A video of the most common type of abortion would show a woman who is not visibly pregnant taking a pill and starting her period after a few hours.

A video of the common surgical types of abortion would turn most peoples stomachs. Yes, the pill type is a little over half but not much more than that.

In ANY other instance where a controversial procedure was performed on 67% minorities there would be howls of racism…

 

[AndreusMaximus]

A video of the most common type of abortion would show a woman who is not visibly pregnant taking a pill and starting her period after a few hours.

Have you ever spoken with a woman who has actually gone through a chemical abortion? Sounds like you haven't. The two drugs taken for a chemical abortion do much more than just induce a regular period. The first one blocks progesterone, with the aim of causing the baby in the uterus to die. Then, the second drug induces contractions, designed to expel the child from the mother's body. Days of painful cramping, more comparable to labor pains than to a normal period, accompanied by extremely heavy bleeding with the expulsion of large blood clots, is the norm for this type of abortion, and that's not getting into the worse side effects that can occur. Of course the abortion industry likes to gloss over this claiming that women will just experience a "heavy period." Most women who have this type of abortion don't like to go around talking about it, and so they just assume that they had it worse than everybody else, and the media doesn't exactly like to shine the spotlight and those women who come forward with their actual experience.

I think that type of video is more likely to reassure women who might be anxious about seeking an abortion than it would deter people from seeking out the procedure.

I don‘t really think graphic videos of D&C procedures have the effect you think they do…those videos have been widely distributed publicly since the 1970’s and they turn people off the forced birth movement as much or more than they have turn people away from abortion.

You'd be the first person I'd ever heard of who identifies as "pro-choice" and has actually ever been willing to watch a video of a D&C abortion. I don't know where on earth you're coming up with the wild idea that those videos push people to the pro-abortion side. Tell me honestly, have you ever watched any such video yourself?

And your choice of words is becoming more obviously ridiculous with each post. "Forced birth"? Really? That'd be like me describing a law against killing the cashier at Kroger as "forced checkout."

 

[LeftyGunner]

Ok, let’s say there was 51% of the population that was ok with murdering runaway kids.

Okay.

They’re unwanted. And for whatever reason, the left has redefined runaway kids to no longer being considered humans.

You lose me here. The unborn are human, even those that aren’t viable outside the womb yet.

From the view of the left, abortion isn‘t any more immoral than suicide...the life of the unborn belongs entirely to the mother. Any “right” the unborn might have to life is subject entirely to the consent of the mother who consciously chooses to sacrifice her own health…and possibly risk her own life…to share the gift of her life with her child.

Would you have a moral problem with that?

Yes, I would have a problem considering runaways less than human.

I also have a problem with the analogy…I don’t view the unborn as less than human.

Would it be ok to vote for people that supported that?

For me, morally, no. It would not.

“You have the freedom to not kill your runaways. My runaway, my choice.”

The comparison goes fully off the rails by this point, perhaps domestic squatters would be a more analogous scenario?

I believe a homeowner has the right to remove squatters from their property regardless of the difficulties created by the removal for the squatters.

Squatters have a right to live…but they don’t have a right to live in my house without my consent.

I believe a woman has a right to remove an unwanted intruder from her body regardless of the negative consequences to that intruder.

A fetus may have a right to live, but it does not have a right to live inside me without my consent…same same.

That’s what rational God fearing human beings hear when you guys argue like this.

I am a normal God fearing human…maybe your definition is biased.

 

[Ingomike]

the life of the unborn belongs entirely to the mother. Any “right” the unborn might have to life is subject entirely to the consent of the mother who consciously chooses to sacrifice her own health…and possibly risk her own life…to share the gift of life with her child.

the life of a baby belongs entirely to the mother. Any “right” the baby might have to life is subject entirely to the consent of the mother who consciously chooses to sacrifice her own health…and possibly risk her own life…to share the gift of life with her child.

This applies after birth as much as before. A Baby is not viable on its own then either.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

A fetus may have a right to live, but it does not have a right to live inside me without my consent…same same.

So this would only be in the case of rape. Otherwise, yeah, she did give her consent. You can say that "no contraception is 100% effective", but knowing that, and choosing to engage in sex anyway is still giving consent.

 

[LeftyGunner]

the life of a baby belongs entirely to the mother. Any “right” the baby might have to life is subject entirely to the consent of the mother who consciously chooses to sacrifice her own health…and possibly risk her own life…to share the gift of life with her child.

This applies after birth as much as before. A Baby is not viable on its own then either.

No, it doesn’t.

An infant requires the assistance of others to survive.

A fetus requires the physical body…and consent…of one specific, individual person to survive, and person has the right to withdraw their consent at any time.

There is a HUGE difference.

 

[LeftyGunner]

So this would only be in the case of rape. Otherwise, yeah, she did give her consent. You can say that "no contraception is 100% effective", but knowing that, and choosing to engage in sex anyway is still giving consent.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Consent to pregnancy is not consent to delivery.

Pregnancy is an ongoing experience, and it requires ongoing consent. Situations change, as do people’s understanding of and tolerance to risk, especially when their own death is a real possibility.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Consent to pregnancy is not consent to delivery.

Pregnancy is an ongoing experience, and it requires ongoing consent. Situations change, as do people’s understanding of and tolerance to risk, especially when their own death is a real possibility.

Knowingly engaging in sex, when it is known that pregnancy is a possible outcome is "consent to pregnancy" in my opinion.

Consent to pregnancy is where we differ in our opinions. You think it's okay to withdraw that consent. Many others do not agree that it's okay to withdraw that consent.

"When their own death is a real possibility" is something that most anti-abortion folks will concede, but that is extremely rare as a reason to get an abortion. Much more likely is, "I changed my mind." Or "I can't afford to support a child." Or "I don't want to be tied down by a child." All of which should have been considered before choosing to engage in sex. You know, that "tolerance of risk" thing.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Have you ever spoken with a woman who has actually gone through a chemical abortion?

A close friend who left her abusive husband stayed with me and my wife when she went through medical abortion at 8 weeks or so.

It went exactly as I described. The emotional component was far more taxing to her than the physical was.

Sounds like you haven't. The two drugs taken for a chemical abortion do much more than just induce a regular period. The first one blocks progesterone, with the aim of causing the baby in the uterus to die. Then, the second drug induces contractions, designed to expel the child from the mother's body. Days of painful cramping, more comparable to labor pains than to a normal period, accompanied by extremely heavy bleeding with the expulsion of large blood clots, is the norm for this type of abortion, and that's not getting into the worse side effects that can occur. Of course the abortion industry likes to gloss over this claiming that women will just experience a "heavy period." Most women who have this type of abortion don't like to go around talking about it, and so they just assume that they had it worse than everybody else, and the media doesn't exactly like to shine the spotlight and those women who come forward with their actual experience.

With that said, I will concede this point…a medical abortion can be incredibly physically traumatic...they don’t all go as smoothly as the one I referenced in my post.

You'd be the first person I'd ever heard of who identifies as "pro-choice" and has actually ever been willing to watch a video of a D&C abortion. I don't know where on earth you're coming up with the wild idea that those videos push people to the pro-abortion side. Tell me honestly, have you ever watched any such video yourself?

I have. Those videos illustrate the reality of the procedure, but they do not change my view on the morality of abortion.

And your choice of words is becoming more obviously ridiculous with each post. "Forced birth"? Really? That'd be like me describing a law against killing the cashier at Kroger as "forced checkout."

If others insist on framing abortion as murder, they should have no issue accepting that criminalized abortion is forced birth.

 

[Ingomike]

No, it doesn’t.

An infant requires the assistance of others to survive.

A fetus requires the physical body…and consent…of one specific, individual person to survive, and person has the right to withdraw their consent at any time.

There is a HUGE difference.

Not in my world. But I get the rationalization…

 

[miguel]

A video of the most common type of abortion would show a woman who is not visibly pregnant taking a pill and starting her period after a few hours.

I think that type of video is more likely to reassure women who might be anxious about seeking an abortion than it would deter people from seeking out the procedure.

I don‘t really think graphic videos of D&C procedures have the effect you think they do…those videos have been widely distributed publicly since the 1970’s and they turn people off the forced birth movement as much or more than they have turn people away from abortion.

I'm willing to play my hand.

 

[Tombs]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Yes it is.

That's like saying consent to overeating is not consent to becoming obese. These things follow.

If someone wishes to engage in intercourse, they know the result can end in pregnancy and responsibility to a child for 18 years. This is taught in every school in the US.

Actions have consequences. If you can't handle the consequences, do not engage in the actions.

 

[Tombs]

From the view of the left, abortion isn‘t any more immoral than suicide...the life of the unborn belongs entirely to the mother.

It's easy to see how the slavery arguments must have gone in the 1850s.

IMO, you can't, in an intellectually honest way, believe this but also have a problem with slavery.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This is taught in every school in the US.

I'm not so sure anymore...

 

[BigMoose]

I see this as a pick your battles thing. Abortion is a lost cause, and its costing the GOP opportunities to make progress on other issues.

 

[Tombs]

I see this as a pick your battles thing. Abortion is a lost cause, and its costing the GOP opportunities to make progress on other issues.

It's not a lost cause, it should just not be a priority until we have a very different political atmosphere.

 

[LeftyGunner]

It's easy to see how the slavery arguments must have gone in the 1850s.

IMO, you can't, in an intellectually honest way, believe this but also have a problem with slavery.

Of course you can…at least, I can.

Morality boils down to consent.

Slavery is wrong because it violates consent.

Criminalized abortion is wrong because it violates consent.

It is no more possible for a pregnant woman to violate consent against her own unborn than it would be to violate consent against herself.

Choosing to end a pregnancy is not immoral because there is no violation of consent.

 

[Tombs]

Of course you can…at least, I can.

Morality boils down to consent.

Slavery is wrong because it violates consent.

Criminalized abortion is wrong because it violates consent.

It is no more possible for a pregnant woman to violate consent against her own unborn than it would be to violate consent against herself.

Choosing to end a pregnancy is not immoral because there is no violation of consent.

So because we don't consider something a human being, we can ignore whether it consents or not? That sounds a lot like slavery logic to me.