A Question. . . Who has changed their mind on the subject of abortion?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Alive is alive and dead is dead. Ill leave it at that.

a reply to: MisterSpock

At the same time as when Sanger was being thrown in jail for the immorality she was spreading around and teaching in her clinics which were basically knowledge and tips as to how to prevent pregnancy others were coming up with near plans to secretly sterilize blacks, native Americans, the poor and feeble, mentally I'll and any other group the thought might be a burden in society.
Of the two choices I think Sanger's was the best. Let the women themselves decide how many kids they have and when they have them. There can be no targeting towards any group when you let the women decide for themselves because it's neither forced into or denied to any group.
Same goes for abortion. Each women of free to choose for themselves. I suggest you looks elsewhere for the reasons why some groups are finding parenting less appealing that others. May I suggest you start with the gap in earning potential.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I didn't tell you to go kill yourself so much as ask:

If your support for abortion is based on the idea that you firmly believe there are too many people on earth, then you must think we already have too many people, not so much that there is a tipping point coming. At that point, such people often think others would be better off dead than alive which seems to be the basis for your support. Only in this case, you think the unborn would be better off dead.

There are whole facets of the green movement willing to sacrifice large segments of the population already here ... except they rarely include themselves in that sacrifice.

It's Malthusianism. You're in that category. Except you're not even in the "let's avoid doing what it takes to create extra children" ... Nope, you're in the "let's kill the extra children after we make them" set which makes it sort of disgusting.

I get it. Out of sight, out of mind. We don't see the unborn yet, so it's easy to dismiss them as humans like ourselves making it the easiest sort of genocide to perpetrate because if you have little imagination, it's easy to completely dismiss them as human.

I also get that it's easy to simply blame religion for everything and then dismiss what you hear or read. Again, simple mindsets. Someday, maybe you'll head down to a NICU and really look at a very premature infant and understand that kid is what we're talking about here and not just a clump of cells or anything else that's not human.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am against abortion for myself (in most cases), but my view on others has changed in the last decade.

I used to be completely against it in all forms.

As I've gotten older I've seen the result of some people that probably should have been aborted. I know that sounds terrible. I think of people in prison that basically never had a chance to begin with. They have been abused and neglected from birth.
I think of children that have been raped, incest, people that are completely mentally unfit to be parents. What kind of society tells an 11 year old that she must have her rapist baby. I think that is quite possibly the most cruel and unusual of all.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Except it *is* one of nature's laws that everything has the right to its own life. Supposedly that is one of our Founding principles as a nation. Did we not fight a war over it once already?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I have completely changed my views.

I used to think that abortion was a horrible thing, but that there were simply some cases where it was still preferable to the alternatives. I wanted it to be kept legal. I wanted it to be rare. I wanted it to be as compassionate as possible.

No more.

I have been badgered, insulted, demeaned, and dismissed long enough. I didn't draw any battle lines, but here they are. Today, I will not advocate for any abortion. Period. That's what happens when you keep slapping your allies in the face.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So basically your support for abortion on demand is born out of Mathusian feelings?

If you feel that there are too many people, shouldn't you be volunteering to remove yourself first?

Here we go again with that. I have had this exact "debate" with others on this forum. You can look back in my posting history if you want to see my response to that. I'm not interested in rehashing it right now.

Suffice to say that I find it curious that I continue to get told to kill myself by "pro-lifers".

At this point, I am forced to conclude that the vast majority of "pro-lifers" are actually religious people whose entire "pro-life" stance is based upon mindless adherence to their religion (Which they are required to in order to stay in the cult). You cannot make a rational argument in favor of overpopulation and irresponsible breeding. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you'd just say "abortion is against my religion" and not try to waste my time trying to talk sense into someone who believes nonsense.

In addition to that, voluntary euthanasia is (effectively) against the law. Anyone who wants to die has to resort to trying to make it happen by sneaking around in the shadows and hoping no one "saves" them in time to make them a well-preserved vegetable.

If someone tries to "remove themself" and they survive, they will effectively be arrested and incarcerated and forced to promise not to try it again. At which point, they will probably be harassed for the rest of their life for that and constantly reminded of it.

So, if you really think pro-abortion people should off themselves, maybe you should be in favor of legalizing voluntary euthanasia for everyone? If your argument really is that a humanoid slug cannot make it's own choice whether or not to be born, what is your argument against voluntary euthanasia for adults who can make their own decisions?

I think the point being made which you still
haven’t gotten, is if you think abortion is a good way to depopulate the planet then why value your own life above those who get aborted? I notice that John Holdren is also still alive though he advocated mass medication of the people with sterilants through the water supply without their consent or knowledge.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Over the course of my life i have changed my opinion. Not because of arguments made by others insomuch as arguments I have within my own head.

I find it ironic that those that want smaller, less intrusive government want the state to step in and make choices for women.

still going with...safe, legal and rare! And morning after pills at the 7/11 between the coffee and donuts.

originally posted by: olaru12
I find it ironic that those that want smaller, less intrusive government want the state to step in and make choices for women.

still going with...safe, legal and rare! And morning after pills at the 7/11 between the coffee and donuts.

To me it has nothing to do with equal and fair government for the people, it has to do with religious morals vs. human rights (namely women's rights).

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: olaru12
I find it ironic that those that want smaller, less intrusive government want the state to step in and make choices for women.

still going with...safe, legal and rare! And morning after pills at the 7/11 between the coffee and donuts.

To me it has nothing to do with equal and fair government for the people, it has to do with religious morals vs. human rights (namely women's rights).

I see a theocracy as a distinct possibility. The evidence is already there.

originally posted by: olaru12
I find it ironic that those that want smaller, less intrusive government want the state to step in and make choices for women.

still going with...safe, legal and rare! And morning after pills at the 7/11 between the coffee and donuts.

Government brought about civil rights laws.

Would you have fought civil rights laws because government became "intrusive"?

originally posted by: olaru12
I find it ironic that those that want smaller, less intrusive government want the state to step in and make choices for women.

still going with...safe, legal and rare! And morning after pills at the 7/11 between the coffee and donuts.

If the only criticism you have is what you perceive as hypocrisy....you have no argument.

As well as you misusing the word "ironic".

People who want a smaller government are talking about federal, not state governments. Typically. Because in "red" states we don't have as much issue with intrusive state governments as we do the federal government. So i find it completely in line with reality that someone who wants smaller government would want states rights to set the standard instead of a judicial opinion.

a reply to: olaru12

still going with...safe, legal and rare!

And I'm still going with no. We get rid of Roe vs. Wade. Completely.

And morning after pills at the 7/11 between the coffee and donuts.

That I don't have a problem with.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is no "getting rid" of Roe v Wade. It was a judicial opinion that rippled into existing law.

You legislate around it. Judges don't get to make laws, legislators do. If the GOP is that serious (they aren't) then you simply legislate around it. The most simple solution: create law that kicks the whole thing back to the states to deal with.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Roe vs. Wade has established a Constitutional right to abortion. Legislation cannot interfere with a Constitutional right. In essence, what Roe vs. Wade did in that respect is remove the legislature from the decision making process entirely and establish the courts as the sole arbiter of abortion law. So it must be rescinded.

Anyone who supports Roe vs. Wade is supporting a removal of the checks and balances we have grown to accept as a necessary part of our system of government.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly...checks and balances. Legislation needs to be crafted.

The other options, as we've discussed, is chipping away at the logic. "Its my body" until i want to do drugs, sell sex, or seek assisted suicide. In fact, suicide itself is a crime in the US.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The logic is the real problem. As you so well point out, none of it makes any real sense. If one had full sovereign control of their body, drugs would be legal in all cases, no prescriptions needed; suicide would be legal; prostitution would be legal; vaccines could never be required. And complaining about someone smoking would be a violation of their human rights.

The quasi-scientific argument about when it is alive, when it is human, etc. are based on completely faulty, uninformed logic. It has always been alive, and it has always been human. It is an individual once the egg is fertilized. And none of that really matters in the slightest to the argument.

Heck, one poster tried to even argue with me that we should allow abortions in case a child evolves into a new species inside the womb!

In the end it boils down to this: "I want to have sex, but I don't want to be responsible for having sex. I want to have a doctor take care of my irresponsibility, whether it means killing someone else or not." I don't care if they want to have sex or not, but to then try and skirt their responsibility by advocating the killing of babies? Nope, not going along with that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LDragonFire

Except it *is* one of nature's laws that everything has the right to its own life. Supposedly that is one of our Founding principles as a nation. Did we not fight a war over it once already?

You might want to watch some nature shows. If anything is true, it's that in nature (i.e. 'nature's laws') there certainly isn't a 'right to its own life'. Nature is terribly cruel and punishing. Animals eat their young, eat their mates, rip other cute animals to shreds, could care less about 'suffering' etc. Humans (particularly those who have favored progress and looking to the future) have found much more humane ways of dealing with our own personal family matters.

No we didn't fight a war over that, but it would seem that the republicans want one. And they will get one.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: olaru12

still going with...safe, legal and rare!

And I'm still going with no. We get rid of Roe vs. Wade. Completely.

And morning after pills at the 7/11 between the coffee and donuts.

That I don't have a problem with.

TheRedneck

When is the last time an amendment was over turned. I don't think the supreme court will touch it.