My Stances On Abortion: An Epic Monologue from A to Z

[LoneLaugher]

Nutter: I am against abortion. It is murder.

Host: I see. How do you feel about contraception?

Nutter: I am against people using contraception. It goes against my beliefs.

Host: OK. Are you in favor of providing shelter, nutrition, health care and early childhood education to all children of parents who cannot afford such things?

Nutter: **** no! That skank should have kept her legs closed if she couldn't afford a baby! That runt ain't my responsibility.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the kicker for me.

The very same conservatives who argue that the government shouldn't try to regulate gun ownership, wages, etc... mostly because, you know, "Freedom" and they just don't like government telling them what to do...

Are the same ones who will get on here with a straight face and tell you that government SHOULD be regulating women's private parts.

Now that we've let the silliness of that sink in for a second, let's look at a country that actually TRIED to do that.

During the 1960's and 1970's, crazy Communist dictator Nicolea Ceausescu attempted to ban not only abortion but birth control in Romania. He had some whacky idea about doubling Romania's population in a few decades.

Romania's Communist Legacy - 'Abortion Culture' - NYTimes.com

For more than two decades, contraception and abortions were strictly forbidden by Mr. Ceausescu in an attempt to build his country into a colossus through population growth. His government was overthrown in 1989, and one of its legacies was orphanages filled with unwanted and neglected children.

Another legacy of those horrific years, for Romania's women, is abortion. Some 10,000 women are believed to have died from complications of illegal abortions, and many more were permanently maimed.

Abortions were legalized as soon as Mr. Ceausescu was toppled, and contraception is theoretically available through the state health system.

But overwhelmingly, Romania remains what Western doctors call an ''abortion culture,'' with an abortion rate that remains the highest in Europe. It also has by far the highest rate of pregnancy-related mortality, the strongest indication that Romania continues to lag far behind the rest of Europe and Russia in providing reproductive health services for women.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, Romania had 3.2 abortions for every live birth in 1990. By last year, the rate was 2.2 abortions per live birth. In 1995, the equivalent rate was 2.0 in Russia, 0.67 in the Czech Republic and Hungary and 0.2 in Germany

 

[chikenwing]

Are the same ones who will get on here with a straight face and tell you that government SHOULD be regulating women's private parts.

You refuse to look past your self,what is in fact the bottom line ,the child ,the human child has a right to life,more that anything else.

What people like yourself are doing is denying one's own exsistance. You were that unborn human child once yourself,never were you an almost person.

 

[JoeB131]

Are the same ones who will get on here with a straight face and tell you that government SHOULD be regulating women's private parts.

You refuse to look past your self,what is in fact the bottom line ,the child ,the human child has a right to life,more that anything else.

What people like yourself are doing is denying one's own exsistance. You were that unborn human child once yourself,never were you an almost person.

And if my mom had miscarried during her pregnancy, I'd have never known.

Fetuses aren't people. But even if I accepted your premise that they are, how would you really enforce it?

It would strike me that you'd need to really create a police state to do so. I'm not keen on living in one of those.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here's the kicker for me.

The very same conservatives who argue that the government shouldn't try to regulate gun ownership, wages, etc... mostly because, you know, "Freedom" and they just don't like government telling them what to do...

Are the same ones who will get on here with a straight face and tell you that government SHOULD be regulating women's private parts.

Now that we've let the silliness of that sink in for a second, let's look at a country that actually TRIED to do that.

During the 1960's and 1970's, crazy Communist dictator Nicolea Ceausescu attempted to ban not only abortion but birth control in Romania. He had some whacky idea about doubling Romania's population in a few decades.

Romania's Communist Legacy - 'Abortion Culture' - NYTimes.com

For more than two decades, contraception and abortions were strictly forbidden by Mr. Ceausescu in an attempt to build his country into a colossus through population growth. His government was overthrown in 1989, and one of its legacies was orphanages filled with unwanted and neglected children.

Another legacy of those horrific years, for Romania's women, is abortion. Some 10,000 women are believed to have died from complications of illegal abortions, and many more were permanently maimed.

Abortions were legalized as soon as Mr. Ceausescu was toppled, and contraception is theoretically available through the state health system.

But overwhelmingly, Romania remains what Western doctors call an ''abortion culture,'' with an abortion rate that remains the highest in Europe. It also has by far the highest rate of pregnancy-related mortality, the strongest indication that Romania continues to lag far behind the rest of Europe and Russia in providing reproductive health services for women.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, Romania had 3.2 abortions for every live birth in 1990. By last year, the rate was 2.2 abortions per live birth. In 1995, the equivalent rate was 2.0 in Russia, 0.67 in the Czech Republic and Hungary and 0.2 in Germany

Then they strung him up by the neck and defiled his corpse as I recall.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This argument has been resolved in this country. A fetus is not a human life.

Many don't accept this fact. But it is what it is.

The next best thing for these people to do is to beef up family planning and the availability of contraception.....to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. That will reduce the number of abortions.

Not a difficult concept to grasp, but many of you are doing exactly the opposite.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Know the answer to this one, but can't we ever have a real discussion without personal insults and profanity? While Boop and I disagree, I respect her as a human being with feelings and hope and dreams enough not to call her nasty names as though that in any way strengthens my position. Maybe consider that people you insult and mock on here are real people just like you with real feelings that can be really hurt when you loose your venom onto them.

No issue position justifies harming your opposition.

 

[chikenwing]

This argument has been resolved in this country. A fetus is not a human life.

Many don't accept this fact. But it is what it is.

The next best thing for these people to do is to beef up family planning and the availability of contraception.....to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. That will reduce the number of abortions.

Not a difficult concept to grasp, but many of you are doing exactly the opposite.

So the fetuse is a gold fish?? the not a human is by far the dumbest point ever taken by the pro abortion crowd,what the **** is it,Labrador retriever? cat? , a blue bird.

Denying one own exsistance is not real smart.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Human. Human fetus.

 

[chikenwing]

Human. Human fetus.

Same nothing different,just age and size.

Try again

 

[Noomi]

Sorry, it works both ways, Noomi! She also knows that by having sex with me that she may get pregnant. No offense to you, but why this one sided view? Why does the burden always fall on the man? Why is the man constantly left out of the planning process?

Because the man doesn't get pregnant, TK. Unless you want to give up your body, and force a watermelon out of your anus, you have to stay out of it and let her decide.
Besides, if you were with the right person, she wouldn't be having an abortion anyway! If she has an abortion, then obviously she isn't the person you want to be with.

As a man why do you keep arguing this? Never have figured it out.

I am not a man.

 

[Noomi]

Human. Human fetus.

But not a person.

 

[Noomi]

Sorry, it works both ways, Noomi! She also knows that by having sex with me that she may get pregnant. No offense to you, but why this one sided view? Why does the burden always fall on the man? Why is the man constantly left out of the planning process?

Because the man doesn't get pregnant, TK. Unless you want to give up your body, and force a watermelon out of your anus, you have to stay out of it and let her decide.
Besides, if you were with the right person, she wouldn't be having an abortion anyway! If she has an abortion, then obviously she isn't the person you want to be with.

You are simply missing the point, Noomi. Now you're being snide. You can't ignore the reality of it. If the genes are 50/50, the decisions should be 50/50. Not every couple will agree exactly.

The decision can never be 50/50 because the woman contributes more than the man ever will to the development of that fetus.

 

[BDBoop]

Because the man doesn't get pregnant, TK. Unless you want to give up your body, and force a watermelon out of your anus, you have to stay out of it and let her decide.
Besides, if you were with the right person, she wouldn't be having an abortion anyway! If she has an abortion, then obviously she isn't the person you want to be with.

You are simply missing the point, Noomi. Now you're being snide. You can't ignore the reality of it. If the genes are 50/50, the decisions should be 50/50. Not every couple will agree exactly.

The decision can never be 50/50 because the woman contributes more than the man ever will to the development of that fetus.

And suddenly, genetics makes a daddy. Who knew.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A) none of your business. Absolutely none.

Ya beat me to it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A) none of your business. Absolutely none.

B) It is my business if I contribute half of my chromosomes into the creative process with the intent of being a good father, BD. Women DO NOT have a monopoly on the abortion issue, not by a long shot.

Incorrect:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution[.]

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Indeed, the very notion that the father of the child might compel a woman to give birth against her will with the aid of the state is repugnant to our most fundamental Constitutional principles of individual liberty and the right to privacy.

Moreover, the OP’s perception of the issue is comprehensively incorrect.

With very few exceptions, the vast majority of Americans believe abortion is untenable and that the practice should be ended.

That’s not the conflict.

The conflict stems from how to go about ending abortion, where there are those opposed to abortion who are also opposed to making the practice illegal, as to ‘ban’ abortion is in no way a ‘solution.’ In addition to being un-Constitutional, banning abortion threatens to undermine citizens’ privacy rights by giving greater power and authority to the state.

Women have been having abortions for millennia before Griswold/Roe/Casey, and the practice will continue should privacy rights jurisprudence be overturned. To ‘ban’ abortion would merely drive it underground, to continue unchecked, unregulated, and in a much more dangerous context.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A) none of your business. Absolutely none.

B) It is my business if I contribute half of my chromosomes into the creative process with the intent of being a good father, BD. Women DO NOT have a monopoly on the abortion issue, not by a long shot.

Incorrect:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution[.]

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Indeed, the very notion that the father of the child might compel a woman to give birth against her will with the aid of the state is repugnant to our most fundamental Constitutional principles of individual liberty and the right to privacy.

Moreover, the OP’s perception of the issue is comprehensively incorrect.

With very few exceptions, the vast majority of Americans believe abortion is untenable and that the practice should be ended.

That’s not the conflict.

The conflict stems from how to go about ending abortion, where there are those opposed to abortion who are also opposed to making the practice illegal, as to ‘ban’ abortion is in no way a ‘solution.’ In addition to being un-Constitutional, banning abortion threatens to undermine citizens’ privacy rights by giving greater power and authority to the state.

Women have been having abortions for millennia before Griswold/Roe/Casey, and the practice will continue should privacy rights jurisprudence be overturned. To ‘ban’ abortion would merely drive it underground, to continue unchecked, unregulated, and in a much more dangerous context.

Its way long past time we held men EXACTLY as responsible for pregnancy as women. It really does take two to tango ...

And yet, I've read some here saying that only the woman is responsible.

 

[BDBoop]

Women have been having abortions for millennia before Griswold/Roe/Casey, and the practice will continue should privacy rights jurisprudence be overturned. To ‘ban’ abortion would merely drive it underground, to continue unchecked, unregulated, and in a much more dangerous context.

I would love to see just one pro-lifer read this article and get back to me.

Just one.

The Way It Was | Mother Jones

One summer night some years later, when I was not quite 18, I got knocked up. There was nothing exciting or memorable or even interestingly sordid about the sex. I wasn't raped or coerced, nor was I madly in love or drunk or high. The guy was another kid, actually younger than I, just a friend, and it pretty much happened by default. We were horny teenagers with nothing else to do.

Nature, the ultimate unsentimental pragmatist, has its own notions about what constitutes a quality liaison. What nature wants is for sperm and egg to meet, as often as possible, whenever and wherever possible. Whatever it takes to expedite that meeting is fine with nature. If it's two people with a bassinet and a nursery all decorated and waiting and a shelf full of baby books, fine. If it's a 12-year-old girl who's been married off to a 70-year-old Afghan chieftain, fine. And if it's a couple of healthy young oafs like my friend and me, who knew perfectly well where babies come from but just got stupid for about 15 minutes, that's fine, too.

In the movies, newly pregnant women trip, fall down the stairs, and "lose the baby." Ah. If only it were that easy. In real life, once that egg is fertilized and has glided on down the fallopian tube, selected its nesting place, and settled in, it's notoriously secure, behaves like visiting royalty. Nature doesn't give a fig about the hostess's feelings of hospitality or lack of them. If the zygote's not defective, and the woman is in good health, almost nothing will shake it loose. Anyone who's been pregnant and didn't want to be knows this is so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

B) It is my business if I contribute half of my chromosomes into the creative process with the intent of being a good father, BD. Women DO NOT have a monopoly on the abortion issue, not by a long shot.

Incorrect:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution[.]

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Indeed, the very notion that the father of the child might compel a woman to give birth against her will with the aid of the state is repugnant to our most fundamental Constitutional principles of individual liberty and the right to privacy.

Moreover, the OP’s perception of the issue is comprehensively incorrect.

With very few exceptions, the vast majority of Americans believe abortion is untenable and that the practice should be ended.

That’s not the conflict.

The conflict stems from how to go about ending abortion, where there are those opposed to abortion who are also opposed to making the practice illegal, as to ‘ban’ abortion is in no way a ‘solution.’ In addition to being un-Constitutional, banning abortion threatens to undermine citizens’ privacy rights by giving greater power and authority to the state.

Women have been having abortions for millennia before Griswold/Roe/Casey, and the practice will continue should privacy rights jurisprudence be overturned. To ‘ban’ abortion would merely drive it underground, to continue unchecked, unregulated, and in a much more dangerous context.

Its way long past time we held men EXACTLY as responsible for pregnancy as women. It really does take two to tango ...

And yet, I've read some here saying that only the woman is responsible.

The Court wisely and correctly elected to not try to play King Solomon.

Prior to birth, the woman alone determines the fate of the embryo/fetus, not the state and not the father. The woman as a free and private individual is at liberty to decide to have a child or not, as she is the only one qualified to make decisions in her own best interest.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What happened to the author of this epic thread?