The Political View of Abortion

[Dragonlady]

In the 14 century did they call a fetus a useless mass and kill it for any reason?

In the 14th century, a fetus was killed for any reason the woman deemed appropriate. Abortion didn't become illegal until women started agitating for the vote.

 

[Gadawg73]

As long as Republicans are stuck on abortion and gay marriage they will continue to get their asses kicked.

Conservatives need to stick to fiscal issues.
I oppose abortion strongly and counsel everyone and anyone to keep their baby.
But government has no role in the health decisions of a woman and her doctor.
Gay marriage? If there a larger NON issue in this country someone please point to it.
Goldwater conservatives are coming back and we will soon control the party again.

Guy, you are deluding yourself.

Once these Christian folks realize "conservative fiscal issues" mean the rich getting richer while they get poorer, the aren't going to be voting for you.

The group of poor people voting for religious issues is larger than the people voting for economic issues. This is just a fact.

Case in point. Mitt Romney didn't talk about the religious stuff because he belonged to another brand of religious crazy.

The only way you get America to swallow the bitter pill of Plutocracy is by wrapping in Theocratic bacon.

Most of the Jesus freaks are stuck on stupid like you.
You can not write a paragraph on any subject without including something about the poor, the rich, the theocracy and the plutocracy.

 

[Gadawg73]

You have missed the point by a mile.


This is a political viewpoint.

That does happen!

I just don't know why we want the government to have an opinion on this matter or who I marry.

Heck, I am almost willing to try a 1 strike and you're out legalized drug culture after talking with all these small government folks.

Join me and get uncle sam out of our bedrooms and wombs and then habe uncle sam keep these invasive states out of the same.

Try as you may to obfuscate....the issue is government 'opinion' as to whom you may kill.

Yes, and you want to give government more or less power?
Do you want government to ban abortion, pick and choose who gets one and who doesn't or do you support the status quo?
A Yes or a NO.

 

[Toronado3800]

Strange subject....

I don't like moving to chase jobs or get away from laws. Especially changes in the law that are sweeping across the country.

Also imagine the financial disaster of having to start a mortgage every decade with all that front loaded interest!

Not to mention I have folks I truat here to watch my kid.

While I am not as attached to my land as some I really prefer not to move.

From post #111...

'It is hardly surprising that you cannot imagine the multiplicity of factors that going into a decision as to where one chooses an abode.

Complaining is merely one possibility among a myriad.'


I believe 'myriad' covers your post.

Myriad..... Huh.

Just curious, what percentage of folks live in the same state in which they were born? What percentage have the same religion?

Not that I am picking on those who move, more power to them. Perhaps I am just more family oriented than most or more travel adverse lol.

 

[clevergirl]

It's not up to the Supreme Court to invent rights for fetuses.

Yes, you prove the point of "mediocre reasoning".

SCOTUS, in Roe, imposed its will over the states with a specious argument and arbitrary reasoning, that is not explicit or even implicit in the Constitution.

While over turning Roe will prove difficult, it is not impossible. And as the links author clarifies, doing so does not make abortions illegal, but rightly puts laws regarding abortion back into the hands of states where it belongs.

And it would change nothing except it allows government to force poor women to have babies they do not want and in most cases do not know how to raise.
Same as it was when it was "illegal"
Which few if any here have a clue as you are too young to know any better.

Government does not "force anyone to raise babies they do not want". Adoptions; birth control; and abstinence are all remedies...in other words personal responsibility.

 

[Chris]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

 

[clevergirl]

Starting a new country and no laws banning abortion considered by those fine God fearing Christian founders. In fact Franklin wrote articles on how to abort. Jefferson attached no moral objections to abortion and one of the signers of Declaration of Independence Dr. Benjamin Rush spoke of late term abortions as one would speak about the common cold these days.
Amazing how naive and gullible folks are. My mistake was not running ads on Rush Limbaugh years ago. People believe that shit and listen by the millions.

Please do provide the quotes of these men...

 

[Chris]

Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy. Recipes for herbal potions including pennyroyal, savin and other plants capable of “bringing on the menses” were common in home medical guides of the period.

REVOLUTIONARY SPIRITS: Faith, Politics, Opinion: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

 

[JoeB131]

[

Most of the Jesus freaks are stuck on stupid like you.
You can not write a paragraph on any subject without including something about the poor, the rich, the theocracy and the plutocracy.

Because, honestly, that's what it's about at the end of the day, dumbass.

Little history lesson. We tried Plutocracy before. It failed miserably in the Great Depression, and we decided to do something more egalitarian. The gap between rich and poor shrank, workers had rights, we stopped sending kids into coal mines, and we developed a middle class. CEO's didn't live in mansions. They were moderately compensated and they paid their fair share in taxes. The top rate was 93%. Life was awesome and we created the greatest society in history. Even Republicans "Got it". Eisenhower was a success because he admitted FDR was basically right.

Then the Plutocrats got smart. They figured out that they couldn't get people to vote against their economic interests, but gosh darn, you wave a bloody fetus or a picture of two dudes kissing in front of them, and they'll totally vote their religious biases.

So you got Ray-gun. Hell, I voted for him. You got the "Reagan Democrats"- folks like my parents who benefitted from the New Deal and Unions, but didn't like where the hippies were taking the country or that awful music they were playing.

And Reagan and the Bushes didn't do jack shit to outlaw abortion. That was never the plan. They just kept finding things to get the Religious kooks upset. "War on Christmas!" Except they aren't getting the milage out of that they used to.

If you really, really think that if you just get rid of the religious stuff and you are going to get more votes with "I likes to fire people", you are going to be in for a rude awakening in 2016.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

The first fallacy of your argument is that those who wrote the Constitution were modern conservatives. They weren't. They opposed the conservative King of England and taxation without representation. So that's your first fail.

I bolded the last section, because extended your arugment logically, therefore the government cannot restrict abortion in any way because they are not mandated by the Constitution to deal with this issue. The government has no right to impede, restrict, or hinder a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body.

Last but not least, nothing in the Constitution recognizes that life begins at conception. In fact, the unborn are not even mentioned, so any idea that the Constitution protects life from the moment of conception is simply you projecting your own ideas into it.

1. "The first fallacy of your argument is that those who wrote the Constitution were modern conservatives."

The first problem in your post is a failure to understand that the classical liberal is the earlier term....today they would be known as conservatives.
Conservative philosophy is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
This defines the Founders.


2. "...therefore the government cannot restrict abortion in any way because they are not mandated by the Constitution to deal with this issue. The government has no right to impede, restrict, or hinder a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body."

You are very close to being correct in the above.
It was an erroneous decision by the Supreme Court to decide based on an imaginary right.
But...had you said that the states can decide the issue of abortion, I would agree.


3. " ...nothing in the Constitution recognizes that life begins at conception."
But the Constitution has no purview as to when life begins.

Unfortunate that you don't realize that.

So, it seems that between the two of us, the failures are yours.

Don't you agree?

Privacy is not an imaginary right. Having an abortion is a private personal/medical matter unless you can find civil rights for the fetus in the Constitution;

those fetal rights are what are imaginary, constitutionally.

 

[editec]

Other people's wombs are NONE of our business, folks.

 

[Dragonlady]

If God is so opposed to abortion that it's a mortal sin, and all, why do women miscarry? God created women to have miscarriages which would seem odd if every potential life is sacred. There are no prohibitions or mention of abortion in the Bible, although we know that women have had abortions for nearly as long as they've been having babies.

So if abortion is wrong, why do nearly 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Strange subject....

I don't like moving to chase jobs or get away from laws. Especially changes in the law that are sweeping across the country.

Also imagine the financial disaster of having to start a mortgage every decade with all that front loaded interest!

Not to mention I have folks I truat here to watch my kid.

While I am not as attached to my land as some I really prefer not to move.

From post #111...

'It is hardly surprising that you cannot imagine the multiplicity of factors that going into a decision as to where one chooses an abode.

Complaining is merely one possibility among a myriad.'


I believe 'myriad' covers your post.

Myriad..... Huh.

Just curious, what percentage of folks live in the same state in which they were born? What percentage have the same religion?

Not that I am picking on those who move, more power to them. Perhaps I am just more family oriented than most or more travel adverse lol.

Yup...myriad.

I'm hoping that those decisions continue to remain in the hands of the individual, and not the government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

And here I thought you had topped the charts on stupid posts...and you go on to reach new heights!

I suppose everyone needs a hobby.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The first fallacy of your argument is that those who wrote the Constitution were modern conservatives. They weren't. They opposed the conservative King of England and taxation without representation. So that's your first fail.

I bolded the last section, because extended your arugment logically, therefore the government cannot restrict abortion in any way because they are not mandated by the Constitution to deal with this issue. The government has no right to impede, restrict, or hinder a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body.

Last but not least, nothing in the Constitution recognizes that life begins at conception. In fact, the unborn are not even mentioned, so any idea that the Constitution protects life from the moment of conception is simply you projecting your own ideas into it.

1. "The first fallacy of your argument is that those who wrote the Constitution were modern conservatives."

The first problem in your post is a failure to understand that the classical liberal is the earlier term....today they would be known as conservatives.
Conservative philosophy is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
This defines the Founders.


2. "...therefore the government cannot restrict abortion in any way because they are not mandated by the Constitution to deal with this issue. The government has no right to impede, restrict, or hinder a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body."

You are very close to being correct in the above.
It was an erroneous decision by the Supreme Court to decide based on an imaginary right.
But...had you said that the states can decide the issue of abortion, I would agree.


3. " ...nothing in the Constitution recognizes that life begins at conception."
But the Constitution has no purview as to when life begins.

Unfortunate that you don't realize that.

So, it seems that between the two of us, the failures are yours.

Don't you agree?

Privacy is not an imaginary right. Having an abortion is a private personal/medical matter unless you can find civil rights for the fetus in the Constitution;

those fetal rights are what are imaginary, constitutionally.

Either it is in the text of the Constitution or in the form of an amendment.

Otherwise.....imaginary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Other people's wombs are NONE of our business, folks.

Sort of like saying 'if there's a killing in the house next-door....heck, it's "NONE of our business, folks."




Pretty clear that you don't realize that the baby is that womb is not the same person as the individual carrying it.

1.. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

2.In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.


4. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person. The Case Against Abortion: Part of the Mother?s Body?





So....how far are you willing to go to kill another human being? The baby is not actually a part of the mother’s body…merely attaining sustenance from the mother’s body. Even after being born, the same would be true of a suckling infant.

Obama's science adviser Peter Singer says it's fine to kill an infant a month or so after birth...

....also OK with you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If God is so opposed to abortion that it's a mortal sin, and all, why do women miscarry? God created women to have miscarriages which would seem odd if every potential life is sacred. There are no prohibitions or mention of abortion in the Bible, although we know that women have had abortions for nearly as long as they've been having babies.

So if abortion is wrong, why do nearly 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion?

Why don't you speak to Him about it?

While you're at it, ask Him why you're so very dumb.

 

[JoeB131]

If God is so opposed to abortion that it's a mortal sin, and all, why do women miscarry? God created women to have miscarriages which would seem odd if every potential life is sacred. There are no prohibitions or mention of abortion in the Bible, although we know that women have had abortions for nearly as long as they've been having babies.

So if abortion is wrong, why do nearly 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion?

Why don't you speak to Him about it?

While you're at it, ask Him why you're so very dumb.

Translation- "I can't explain why my Imaginary Friend in the Sky doesn't make the universe work the way I think it should- so I'm going to just pretend he has some greater wisdom."

Snookums, there is no God. Abortion is necessary because we've reduced infant mortality to negliable levels. For most of history, if you had six kids, maybe two would reach adulthood. But then we cured all the childhood diseases, and if you have six kids, all six will reach adulthood.

Otherwise the world would be overrun with people we can't feed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If God is so opposed to abortion that it's a mortal sin, and all, why do women miscarry? God created women to have miscarriages which would seem odd if every potential life is sacred. There are no prohibitions or mention of abortion in the Bible, although we know that women have had abortions for nearly as long as they've been having babies.

So if abortion is wrong, why do nearly 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion?

Why don't you speak to Him about it?

While you're at it, ask Him why you're so very dumb.

Translation- "I can't explain why my Imaginary Friend in the Sky doesn't make the universe work the way I think it should- so I'm going to just pretend he has some greater wisdom."

Snookums, there is no God. Abortion is necessary because we've reduced infant mortality to negliable levels. For most of history, if you had six kids, maybe two would reach adulthood. But then we cured all the childhood diseases, and if you have six kids, all six will reach adulthood.

Otherwise the world would be overrun with people we can't feed.

The above could only have been written by someone who knows nothing about demographics.


Enter Erroneous Joe, state Left.


1. Factors associated with population decline include urbanization, education and literacy, modernization.

a. Children had an economic value in a traditional, agricultural society. Pension systems turned children into a cost rather providers for the elderly.

b. Female literacy is a powerful predictor of population decline. Literate and affluent women have one or two children, not six or eight. The determination between one, or two, is often religious faith: the industrial world’s lowest fertility rates are found among the Eastern European nations where atheism was the official ideology for generations. The highest rates are associated with nations such as the United States and Israel, with relatively high religious populations. Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries.
“How Civilizations Die,” by David P. Goldman


2. The secularism that our world offers as the alternative to religion exposes the emptiness, and the lack of fecundity that it proposes.

a. “The weakest link in the secular account of human nature is that it fails to account for people’s powerful desire to seek immortality for themselves and their loved ones,” so says sociologist Eric Kaufman, in “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century,” p. 19.

 

[JoeB131]

[


The above could only have been written by someone who knows nothing about demographics.


Enter Erroneous Joe, state Left.


1. Factors associated with population decline include urbanization, education and literacy, modernization.

a. Children had an economic value in a traditional, agricultural society. Pension systems turned children into a cost rather providers for the elderly.

b. Female literacy is a powerful predictor of population decline. Literate and affluent women have one or two children, not six or eight. The determination between one, or two, is often religious faith: the industrial world’s lowest fertility rates are found among the Eastern European nations where atheism was the official ideology for generations. The highest rates are associated with nations such as the United States and Israel, with relatively high religious populations. Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries.
“How Civilizations Die,” by David P. Goldman


2. The secularism that our world offers as the alternative to religion exposes the emptiness, and the lack of fecundity that it proposes.

a. “The weakest link in the secular account of human nature is that it fails to account for people’s powerful desire to seek immortality for themselves and their loved ones,” so says sociologist Eric Kaufman, in “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century,” p. 19.

Wow, do you really think stringing big words together constitutes an argument.

Okay. Simple math. The world population was 2 Billion at the beginning of the 20th century.

Today, it is 7 billion. It has increased 250% in a little over a century.

The planet can barely support 7 billion people.

Religious idiots telling us that not getting this problem under control need to be dragged out and exposed for the dangerous frauds they are.