The Political View of Abortion

[PoliticalChic]

Modern liberalism; taking a utilitarian approach to human value since 1973.

Women have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of time.

So what? Men have been enslaving men since the dawn of time. Should we bring it back?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]Cricket Sound - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragonlady]

So what? Men have been enslaving men since the dawn of time. Should we bring it back?

Well then you've just given the best argument ever in favour of a women's right to control her own body. You want to make poor women slaves to biology. Rich women will find a way to get an abortion. When I was a kid, the rich kids who "got caught" went to Japan or Sweden. The poor kids went to homes for unwed mothers.

There is nothing more personal in life than deciding how many children you want and when you want them. It gives children the best possible chance for a good life. You want to remove the rights of women to decide how many children to have and when to have them. And yet you conservatives rant at the poor having any children at all because they can't afford them.

Reproductive choice has given the poor the opportunity to work without fear of pregnancy. Poor women working low wage jobs have no maternity leave, and no guarantee that their job will be waiting for them when they return to work. It has given women the ability to increase their economic potential and their education.

But you would turn back the clock and make women mere slaves to biology.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Modern liberalism; taking a utilitarian approach to human value since 1973.

Women have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of time.

So what? Men have been enslaving men since the dawn of time. Should we bring it back?

Abortion was legal in the American colonies in the 18th century. Not just since 1973.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Well then you've just given the best argument ever in favour of a women's right to control her own body. You want to make poor women slaves to biology. Rich women will find a way to get an abortion. When I was a kid, the rich kids who "got caught" went to Japan or Sweden. The poor kids went to homes for unwed mothers.

Wait. So pregnancy happens spontaneously? For people who go on about "choice", you sure do discount the choice to engage in an action which results in pregnancy. Banning abortion doesn't make women "slaves to biology"; it holds them responsible for their choices.

There is nothing more personal in life than deciding how many children you want and when you want them.

I can think of some. For example, a decision not involving someone else, for one.

It gives children the best possible chance for a good life.

Nonsense. Since you seem to be using a pseudo rolling scale, how is "no life" better than "less than a good life". One is less than ten, but one is infinitely better than zero.

You want to remove the rights of women to decide how many children to have and when to have them.

False, unless you assume that a woman has no ability to decide how many children she wants to have and when to have them absent abortion. Of course, we all know that's false, and there are ample studies to prove this. Contrary to the usual liberal pontification, women use abortion as a form of birth control to achieve roughly the same fertility level they would absent abortion.

And yet you conservatives rant at the poor having any children at all because they can't afford them.

Well, duh. If you can't afford to raise a child, you can't afford to have sex.

Reproductive choice has given the poor the opportunity to work without fear of pregnancy.

Because pregnancy spontaneously happens to women, am I right?

Poor women working low wage jobs have no maternity leave, and no guarantee that their job will be waiting for them when they return to work. It has given women the ability to increase their economic potential and their education.

???

This isn't an argument unless, again, you're going to assume that women have no control over their fertility absent abortion. Which, again, is absurd.

But you would turn back the clock and make women mere slaves to biology.

Repeating a nonsensical argument a hundred times doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

Women have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of time.

So what? Men have been enslaving men since the dawn of time. Should we bring it back?

Abortion was legal in the American colonies in the 18th century. Not just since 1973.

100% false. There was no law making abortion legal in the U.S. prior to the mid-1960's. Colorado (iirc) was the first to legalize it in limited cases.

 

[Borillar]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

Why should it be a state decision and not an individual decision?

 

[Agit8r]

Abortion was legal in the American colonies in the 18th century. Not just since 1973.

100% false. There was no law making abortion legal in the U.S. prior to the mid-1960's. Colorado (iirc) was the first to legalize it in limited cases.

Oh, wow... what the law doesn't touch is by definition not illegal

 

[Borillar]

Abortion was legal in the American colonies in the 18th century. Not just since 1973.

100% false. There was no law making abortion legal in the U.S. prior to the mid-1960's. Colorado (iirc) was the first to legalize it in limited cases.

Oh, wow... what the law doesn't touch is by definition not illegal

To conservatives, anything not compulsory is forbidden.

 

[Dragonlady]

Wait. So pregnancy happens spontaneously? For people who go on about "choice", you sure do discount the choice to engage in an action which results in pregnancy. Banning abortion doesn't make women "slaves to biology"; it holds them responsible for their choices.

Aborting a fetus you cannot afford to bring into the world IS taking responsibility for your choices. Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want or can't afford isn't "holding women responsible for their choices", it's punishing them for having sex.

Forcing women to bear children agains their will. So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess you think only men are entitled to that.

 

[ima]

The world is already overpopulated, so abortion is irrelevant. Arguments about the morality of the act from people who own guns and whose government attacks nations and kills people willy-nilly, is LAUGHABLE!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait. So pregnancy happens spontaneously? For people who go on about "choice", you sure do discount the choice to engage in an action which results in pregnancy. Banning abortion doesn't make women "slaves to biology"; it holds them responsible for their choices.

Aborting a fetus you cannot afford to bring into the world IS taking responsibility for your choices. Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want or can't afford isn't "holding women responsible for their choices", it's punishing them for having sex.

Forcing women to bear children agains their will. So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess you think only men are entitled to that.

"Aborting a fetus you cannot afford to bring into the world IS taking responsibility..."

What nonsense.


The responsibility ended with intercourse.

Killing the result of said act is hardly 'responsible.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

100% false. There was no law making abortion legal in the U.S. prior to the mid-1960's. Colorado (iirc) was the first to legalize it in limited cases.

Oh, wow... what the law doesn't touch is by definition not illegal

To conservatives, anything not compulsory is forbidden.

Intercourse is compulsory?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well then you've just given the best argument ever in favour of a women's right to control her own body. You want to make poor women slaves to biology. Rich women will find a way to get an abortion. When I was a kid, the rich kids who "got caught" went to Japan or Sweden. The poor kids went to homes for unwed mothers.

Wait. So pregnancy happens spontaneously? For people who go on about "choice", you sure do discount the choice to engage in an action which results in pregnancy. Banning abortion doesn't make women "slaves to biology"; it holds them responsible for their choices.

There is nothing more personal in life than deciding how many children you want and when you want them.

I can think of some. For example, a decision not involving someone else, for one.



Nonsense. Since you seem to be using a pseudo rolling scale, how is "no life" better than "less than a good life". One is less than ten, but one is infinitely better than zero.



False, unless you assume that a woman has no ability to decide how many children she wants to have and when to have them absent abortion. Of course, we all know that's false, and there are ample studies to prove this. Contrary to the usual liberal pontification, women use abortion as a form of birth control to achieve roughly the same fertility level they would absent abortion.



Well, duh. If you can't afford to raise a child, you can't afford to have sex.



Because pregnancy spontaneously happens to women, am I right?



???

This isn't an argument unless, again, you're going to assume that women have no control over their fertility absent abortion. Which, again, is absurd.



Repeating a nonsensical argument a hundred times doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

So what? Men have been enslaving men since the dawn of time. Should we bring it back?

Abortion was legal in the American colonies in the 18th century. Not just since 1973.

100% false. There was no law making abortion legal in the U.S. prior to the mid-1960's. Colorado (iirc) was the first to legalize it in limited cases.

You're an idiot. You don't make laws to make something legal. You make a law to make it illegal.

Abortion before the time of quickening was generally not against the law in the colonies at the time of framing of the Constitution. Now stop annoying me with your stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

Why should it be a state decision and not an individual decision?

It's interesting how in so many cases, when conservatives are arguing for states' rights, they arguing for the right of the individual states to deny someone the right to do something,

when, ironically, those same conservatives are constantly harping about 'liberty'.

 

[ima]

Oh, wow... what the law doesn't touch is by definition not illegal

To conservatives, anything not compulsory is forbidden.

Intercourse is compulsory?

For people with a pulse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Constitution, somehow, already protects the unborn as persons equal in status to you or me, as the author of this thread repeatedly claims (albeit without providing any evidence for her claim)

why are so many on the Right fighting to pass a constitutional amendment to give them that status?

Are all those people wrong?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Constitution, somehow, already protects the unborn as persons equal in status to you or me, as the author of this thread repeatedly claims (albeit without providing any evidence for her claim)

why are so many on the Right fighting to pass a constitutional amendment to give them that status?

Are all those people wrong?

"If the Constitution, somehow, already protects the unborn as persons equal in status to you or me,..."

Wrong....not you. Human beings are the subject if the discussion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To conservatives, anything not compulsory is forbidden.

Intercourse is compulsory?

For people with a pulse.

Now, this is of interest to me.
Even someone like you....those who are missing a few layers of insulation in his attic....open a door worth investigating.


The colleges and universities, the conservatories of Liberalism, teach the young that they are no different from any animal...and it is perfectly correct to behave as such.

Therefore, for folks like you and reptilelady, it is beyond imagination that one would forego sexual relations under the view that pregnancy would occur.
After all, one can simply kill the baby.
Isn't that your view?

Isn't that the logical implication of "For people with a pulse."?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Constitution, somehow, already protects the unborn as persons equal in status to you or me, as the author of this thread repeatedly claims (albeit without providing any evidence for her claim)

why are so many on the Right fighting to pass a constitutional amendment to give them that status?

Are all those people wrong?

"If the Constitution, somehow, already protects the unborn as persons equal in status to you or me,..."

Wrong....not you. Human beings are the subject if the discussion.

Ok, then show us in the Constitution where the language is that protects the rights of the unborn in the same manner and to the same degree that it protects you.

 

[koshergrl]

Wait. So pregnancy happens spontaneously? For people who go on about "choice", you sure do discount the choice to engage in an action which results in pregnancy. Banning abortion doesn't make women "slaves to biology"; it holds them responsible for their choices.

Aborting a fetus you cannot afford to bring into the world IS taking responsibility for your choices. Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want or can't afford isn't "holding women responsible for their choices", it's punishing them for having sex.

Forcing women to bear children agains their will. So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess you think only men are entitled to that.

No, killing the individual you have created is not an acceptable *choice*. When you make a bad decision, you don't have the right to kill off the people who are affected by it.

When people eat too much, they get fat. You loons are talking about using law and government to control our eating...but you balk at the idea of people controlling their sexual impulses. I find that highly suspect.

 

[ima]

Intercourse is compulsory?

For people with a pulse.

Now, this is of interest to me.
Even someone like you....those who are missing a few layers of insulation in his attic....open a door worth investigating.


The colleges and universities, the conservatories of Liberalism, teach the young that they are no different from any animal...and it is perfectly correct to behave as such.

Therefore, for folks like you and reptilelady, it is beyond imagination that one would forego sexual relations under the view that pregnancy would occur.
After all, one can simply kill the baby.
Isn't that your view?

Isn't that the logical implication of "For people with a pulse."?

You ever heard of birth control? Plus, killing a baby is called murder, although I'm pretty sure that even you knew that.

So are you trying to say that you've only had sex to procreate? Poor you. You must be really ugly.