If You are Pro-Choice, can You be a Conservative?

[Midnight Marauder]

Being neither a con or a lib, my take on the abortion issue is maybe a little bit different than most.

I have no MORAL objections to abortion. Since I am also basically an atheist, no religious ones either.

I do however object to abortion as a form of birth control. There are so many other better, cheaper, less risky ways. I object to tax dollars being used for "abortion on demand," but if the patient can pay for it that objection is gone. I object to the "pro choice" crowd that really isn't about "choice" at all, it's about control.

I also object to late term abortions. If it can survive out of the womb, it shouldn't be destroyed for trivial reasons such as convenience.

In confirmed cases of rape or incest, I am for the abortion choice if it's made quickly, as in, NOT late term. And the rapist or incest perp pays, not the taxpayer.

I am for ONE elective abortion for each person, on the taxpayer dime. ONE. With no strings. The second one? Yes, taxpayers pick up that tab as well but it also comes with a free bonus -- tubal ligation. Which CAN be reversed later when the person shows some reproductive responsibility.

Probably not popular positions. But that's perfectly okay with me.

 

[JBeukema]

MM, can you explain each of those cases and your reasoning behind them?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

MM, can you explain each of those cases and your reasoning behind them?

Yeah, be more specific. Without getting into anecdotal hypotheticals, I'm pretty sure I explained each one pretty well.

 

[JBeukema]

MM, can you explain each of those cases and your reasoning behind them?

Yeah, be more specific.

Well, for one, you say you have no moral objections to abortion, but you object to late-term abortions and abortions as birth control. What particular reasoning led you to these positions? Is the child party to or otherwise protected by social contract? How do you address the issue of 'viability', since ou touched on that? Viability is blurry, and constantly being pushed back via modern medicine. How you you (suggest the law) handle that?

If the child's life is to be protected, why not in cases of rape? If the child's life is not protected to begin with, or simply held to your other qualifiers, why bother mentioning it?

Why is it good for the taxpayers to foot the bill once, but not more? how did you determine this?

 

[plt42]

Why has it become necessary to define one's social alignment by checking a box... conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.

I'm pro-choice with the caveat that "your rights end where my nose begins."

 

[JBeukema]

"your rights end where my nose begins."

That's a meaningless phrase

Does my right to kill end at your nose, so that I annot kill you?

or does your right to live end at my nose, so you have no right to live in my world and i need not respect any such 'right'?

What about theft vs survival?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

MM, can you explain each of those cases and your reasoning behind them?

Yeah, be more specific.

Well, for one, you say you have no moral objections to abortion, but you object to late-term abortions and abortions as birth control.

I knew a woman years ago that had 6 abortions. Yes, 6. All for non-medical, trivial reasons. "Can't have a kid in my life." The pattern was, have unprotected stranger sex, get pregnant, get the abortion. And yes, it was with 6 different guys and yes, it was on the taxpayer dime. Risking her LIFE each time, instead of being responsible. There, that's a anecdotal hypothetical.

Is the child party to or otherwise protected by social contract?

I am not a lawyer. But see below how the law handles another such issue.

How do you address the issue of 'viability', since ou touched on that? Viability is blurry, and constantly being pushed back via modern medicine. How you you (suggest the law) handle that?

I think everyone agrees that by the middle of the third trimester, that fetus is viable. When does a fetus become a human being? When it learns to walk and talk? Becomes self-aware? Aware of others? Well, the law says that if you murder a pregnant woman, it's 2 counts of murder no matter the trimester. So it looks like at least in the case of murder, the law has addressed it.

If the child's life is to be protected, why not in cases of rape? If the child's life is not protected to begin with, or simply held to your other qualifiers, why bother mentioning it?

A fetus created in the process of a sexual assault is another unfortunate victim of the perp. The perp in these cases should be put away for life, never allowed to walk the streets again.

Why is it good for the taxpayers to foot the bill once, but not more? how did you determine this?

I recognize the social need for abortion in certain cases, and also realize accidents happen with birth control. Great, fine. Let's make the first one no-fault. After that, yeah we pay that too. But we're going to throw in a bonus, some help for you so we don't see you with this dangerous problem any more. We are going to tie your tubes, because obviously you're a danger to yourself. End of problem.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"your rights end where my nose begins."

That's a meaningless phrase

Does my right to kill end at your nose, so that I annot kill you?

or does your right to live end at my nose, so you have no right to live in my world and i need not respect any such 'right'?

What about theft vs survival?

Do you believe the taxpayer should foot the bill for abortion on demand? What gives them the right to take more of MY money for this? Theft from me is good so long as it promotes an agenda for the "right" of others? Of a specific group?

 

[JBeukema]

knew a woman years ago that had 6 abortions. Yes, 6. All for non-medical, trivial reasons. "Can't have a kid in my life." The pattern was, have unprotected stranger sex, get pregnant, get the abortion. And yes, it was with 6 different guys and yes, it was on the taxpayer dime. Risking her LIFE each time, instead of being responsible. There, that's a anecdotal hypothetical.

That doesn't answer the question. Why do you oppose abortion as birth control, if you have no objection to abortion in the first place? Thinking it's stupid would be one thing; you said you object to it.

I am not a lawyer. But see below how the law handles another such issue.

I am asking your perspective and position, not the current law

When does a fetus become a human being?

It is human from the time the new genome of formed from the two germ cells...

Well, the law says that if you murder a pregnant woman, it's 2 counts of murder no matter the trimester.

Is this not contradictory with laws allowing for abortion- effectively deciding who may murder and who may not?

So it looks like at least in the case of murder, the law has addressed it

Now the relationship between persons determines whether homicide is or is not murder? Do you agree with this situation?

A fetus created in the process of a sexual assault is another unfortunate victim of the perp.

How so? the child could not be victimized in such a manner before being born.

The perp in these cases should be put away for life, never allowed to walk the streets again

again, you failed to answer the question I asked

I recognize the social need for abortion in certain cases,

Then protect those cases, and only those cases, at all times, if the patient is not financially able to pay

and also realize accidents happen with birth control. Great, fine. Let's make the first one no-fault.

Why?

After that, yeah we pay that too.

Why?

 

[JBeukema]

]Do you believe the taxpayer should foot the bill for abortion on demand?

I do not support 'abortion on demand' in the first place

What gives them the right to take more of MY money for this?

See the above

 

[Midnight Marauder]

knew a woman years ago that had 6 abortions. Yes, 6. All for non-medical, trivial reasons. "Can't have a kid in my life." The pattern was, have unprotected stranger sex, get pregnant, get the abortion. And yes, it was with 6 different guys and yes, it was on the taxpayer dime. Risking her LIFE each time, instead of being responsible. There, that's a anecdotal hypothetical.

That doesn't answer the question. Why do you oppose abortion as birth control, if you have no objection to abortion in the first place? Thinking it's stupid would be one thing; you said you object to it.

I am not a lawyer. But see below how the law handles another such issue.

I am asking your perspective and position, not the current law



It is human from the time the new genome of formed from the two germ cells...



Is this not contradictory with laws allowing for abortion- effectively deciding who may murder and who may not?



Now the relationship between persons determines whether homicide is or is not murder? Do you agree with this situation?


How so? the child could not be victimized in such a manner before being born.


again, you failed to answer the question I asked



Then protect those cases, and only those cases, at all times, if the patient is not financially able to pay

and also realize accidents happen with birth control. Great, fine. Let's make the first one no-fault.

Why?

After that, yeah we pay that too.

Why?

I cannot help it if you are going to act like the little five year old who keeps asking "why" without bothering to listen to the answers and cogitate on them. Cogitate means, ruminate or, THINK about them. Go back and read my posts, I am not going to repeat them.

My time is far too valuable to engage in conversation with folks who don't take some of their own time to actually read and understand what's posted, instead of firing off repeated rhetorical questions which of themselves demonstrate the person has NOT given any of his/her time. For if they had, they would realize their repeated questions were answered.

 

[caela]

I recognize the social need for abortion in certain cases, and also realize accidents happen with birth control. Great, fine. Let's make the first one no-fault. After that, yeah we pay that too. But we're going to throw in a bonus, some help for you so we don't see you with this dangerous problem any more. We are going to tie your tubes, because obviously you're a danger to yourself. End of problem.

The problem I have with this solution is that it forces the woman to go through surgery (you can't do a tubal on a woman without it) just to have it done and then another one to have it reversed. I don't think anyone should be able to force me to undergo a potentially dangerous procedure and ALL surgeries have inherent dangers involved. Also, tubal ligations are meant to be permanent not temporary, forms of bc.

Now I do agree that we shouldn't be having to foot the bill for multiple abortions but would probably go with having an IUD inserted into repeat customers NOT surgery.

In the end though neither of these is really an option. You can't stop people from being stupid and you don't have the right to tell someone what HAS to be done with their body whether it's not allowing them to have an abortion or forcing them to take reproductive precautions when having sex. Some people will simply continue to be, repeatedly, stupid no matter how many times they make the same mistake and we will continue to be told that we have some sort of moral responsibility to pay for their mistakes.

 

[JBeukema]

You did not answer the question: What logic or reasoning you used to reach your positions. The questions are not rhetorical; if you cannot present any reasoning and your positions reflect no intelligent thought, then simply admit so and I will not expect any intelligent responses from you in the future.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I recognize the social need for abortion in certain cases, and also realize accidents happen with birth control. Great, fine. Let's make the first one no-fault. After that, yeah we pay that too. But we're going to throw in a bonus, some help for you so we don't see you with this dangerous problem any more. We are going to tie your tubes, because obviously you're a danger to yourself. End of problem.

The problem I have with this solution is that it forces the woman to go through surgery (you can't do a tubal on a woman without it) just to have it done and then another one to have it reversed. I don't think anyone should be able to force me to undergo a potentially dangerous procedure and ALL surgeries have inherent dangers involved. Also, tubal ligations are meant to be permanent not temporary, forms of bc.

Now I do agree that we shouldn't be having to foot the bill for multiple abortions but would probably go with having an IUD inserted into repeat customers NOT surgery.

This is all very reasonable and I agree, but here's the rub -- having an abortion IS risky! Having multiple ones, riskier still. Our lawbooks are full of situations where the state takes away rights in order to protect you from yourself. You can be declared non compos mentus and be locked up.

In the end though neither of these is really an option. You can't stop people from being stupid and you don't have the right to tell someone what HAS to be done with their body whether it's not allowing them to have an abortion or forcing them to take reproductive precautions when having sex. Some people will simply continue to be, repeatedly, stupid no matter how many times they make the same mistake and we will continue to be told that we have some sort of moral responsibility to pay for their mistakes.

They are harming themselves. The law does, can and will prevent that. It's simply time to see this for what it is, the public dime subsidizing risky behavior. No.

 

[plt42]

"your rights end where my nose begins."

That's a meaningless phrase

Does my right to kill end at your nose, so that I annot kill you?

It's simply a paraphrase on Oliver Wendall Holmes quote: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I believe you know what I meant. If not... oh well.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You did not answer the question: What logic or reasoning you used to reach your positions. The questions are not rhetorical; if you cannot present any reasoning and your positions reflect no intelligent thought, then simply admit so and I will not expect any intelligent responses from you in the future.

"It is what I say it is" is your standard answer. It is not. Look at the posts, the timestamps. You have taken ZERO time to read my posts and think about them. Cogitate. Ruminate. I have no time for you. You are dismissed.

 

[midcan5]

What has always surprised me about abortion arguments is the religious did not enter the fray until recently in history. Churches only got into politics when tax exemption loss became a possibility. Before that abortion was a minor thing given the childhood death rate prior to modern medicine.

When we grew up, no person under the age of seven was a genuine (person) soul in the sense that responsibility didn't start till then. Religious writing contains nothing about abortion because they are grounded in a history prior to science and the idea of conception. Remember the stork. My mom would say it was gawd's will as she gave birth year after year after year. LOL She actually lived her religion.

If one can argue that potential is life then a number of things create ethical questions. Two to three of all conceptions end normally naturally. Who are these cells? Each month a woman of a certain age and marital status contains potential life? Who are these cells? Of the millions of sperm, each one is unique and different. Who are these missing people? And if potential is key, is suicide ok?

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."

HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50677-life-chance-eternity.html

Abortion isn't a religious issue - Los Angeles Times


"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

 

[JBeukema]

knew a woman years ago that had 6 abortions. Yes, 6. All for non-medical, trivial reasons. "Can't have a kid in my life." The pattern was, have unprotected stranger sex, get pregnant, get the abortion. And yes, it was with 6 different guys and yes, it was on the taxpayer dime. Risking her LIFE each time, instead of being responsible. There, that's a anecdotal hypothetical.

That doesn't answer the question. Why do you oppose abortion as birth control, if you have no objection to abortion in the first place?

never answered

Is this not contradictory with laws allowing for abortion- effectively deciding who may murder and who may not?

Do you find this contradictory? Do you approve of it?

Never answered

Now the relationship between persons determines whether homicide is or is not murder? Do you agree with this situation?

Do you agree/approve?

Answer the question

A fetus created in the process of a sexual assault is another unfortunate victim of the perp.

How so? the child could not be victimized in such a manner before being born.

never answered

and also realize accidents happen with birth control. Great, fine. Let's make the first one no-fault.

Why?

After that, yeah we pay that too.

Why?

[/QUOTE]

Why should we pay for their elective abortions,. and the second time?


you answered nothing

 

[JBeukema]

You did not answer the question: What logic or reasoning you used to reach your positions. The questions are not rhetorical; if you cannot present any reasoning and your positions reflect no intelligent thought, then simply admit so and I will not expect any intelligent responses from you in the future.

"It is what I say it is" is your standard answer. It is not. Look at the posts, the timestamps. You have taken ZERO time to read my posts and think about them. Cogitate. Ruminate. I have no time for you. You are dismissed.

in other words, you cannot answer the question or explain your reasoning- because no though or reasoning was involved

No intelligence will be expected of you in the future, little moron; go outside and play

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

So, the choice is rape by the state, or theft by the state to support risky behavior?

Look at the smoke Nazis. This is their central argument. Smokers shouldn't be treated for illness caused by their choice of risky behavior on the public dime. So, we gonna CHARGE them in the form of punitive taxation for making risky choices. If you agree with that, you should agree with it in ALL circumstances where a person is taking risks with their life and their health, then having treatment on the public dime. That's what all the "sin taxes" are about.

Correct?

So, why doesn't it apply to the risky choice of having unprotected sex?