Abortion

[bosk1]

Home invasion robberies are going to happen.  That being the case, we are better off as a society if home invasion robberies are performed legally, by highly trained experts who are more efficient at it.

I do get your point. But I will stand by my stance: legal abortions are safer than illegal ones.

Thanks, Ruba.  And I get your point as well.  Mine is simply that, the fact that legal abortions are safer shouldn't be relevant.  Whether or not people will choose to undergo them whether legal or not is irrelevant.  We do not generally make decisions about what is legal or illegal simply by saying, "well, some people are going to do it anyway, so let's just let them I guess."  There's a LOT more to it than that.  And there should be.

So you're comparing abortion to a selfish crime just like robberies and passion driver murders?

No.  Because that would be off topic.  But it is an apt comparison in many aspects, so if you'd like to, go for it.

Not an apt comparison. It relies on your subjective opinion that abortion is tantamount to a home invasion robbery.

Not at all.  I do not hold the opinion that abortion is tantamount to a home invasion robbery.  That is irrelevant.  The point is that there are a lot of things that are illegal for a variety of reasons.  None of which, outside a very small number of issues, are made simply because "well, a lot of people will do it anyway, so let's just make it legal."

Many of us would disagree with that assessment.

And that also is largely irrelevant.  And for what I think are probably obvious reasons.

[MirrorMask]

I think the examples brought in this topic of the different situations - where we've seen examples of where getting an abortion and NOT getting an abortion were in those cases the right choice - point out how a simple law cannot cover all the aspects of society, and how people approach this issue. What I mean is: I'm fervently pro-choice if that was not obvious, but even the most pefect and fair law about abortion won't still solve the problems of the selected (and maybe rare) situations in which people carelessly approach it as an afterthough birth control (but again, as someone said before, go and read some abortion experiences from women who chose it.... not a pretty read for sure).

If people are dumb and irresponsable, they are dumb and irresponsable regardless of a law. A woman selfishly going for an abortion the day she wakes from a drunken weekend should not put at risk the rights of other women who find themselves in the position to make the most difficult choice of their lives. A law sets a rule, but it's people living in a society that, more than following the rule, should realize how to properly behave with other people and the risks they face with unprotected sex. A law can grant the right to a woman to chose abortion for legitimate reason, but can't beat some sense into a woman who hasn't learn that unprotected sex results in pregnancy, or in an asshole guys that asks for said unprotected sex and then disappears from the girl's life the moment they realizes he knocked her up. That's not what laws are for, there has to be a lot of work behind to make sure that a right granted by a law is not abused - and it's not this or that law's fault, but people making stupid choices or behaviours even if they had been taught better (and their fault should not fall on the shoulders of the others).

Also, let me say that - not that I found any example of this in this topic, mind you, I'm speaking from my experience of living in a very bigot country that hosts the Pope, Italy - I found that, at least here in Italy many people who are anti abortion, they are so by default, as a firm and unmovable choice, and do not give a damn about the quality of the life they are supposedly defending. The example made before of the children brain dead in the fetus - there are people who would insist for that pregnacy to be carried on, and then 10 minutes later would post on FB a scathing anti immigration post. I swear that around here there are scores and scores people who actively wish death to immigrants on the ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and no later than today I've seen people happy that a migrant whose VISA was refused killed himself, that at the same time would object fervently and completely to any kind of abortion.

Again, not something I've seen in this thread, just offering my perspective of how people from where I live can be hypocrites about the situation, and focusing only on "life" as an abstract concept not giving a damn about the quality of said life.

[El Barto]

Home invasion robberies are going to happen.  That being the case, we are better off as a society if home invasion robberies are performed legally, by highly trained experts who are more efficient at it.

I do get your point. But I will stand by my stance: legal abortions are safer than illegal ones.

Thanks, Ruba.  And I get your point as well.  Mine is simply that, the fact that legal abortions are safer shouldn't be relevant.  Whether or not people will choose to undergo them whether legal or not is irrelevant.  We do not generally make decisions about what is legal or illegal simply by saying, "well, some people are going to do it anyway, so let's just let them I guess."  There's a LOT more to it than that.  And there should be.

Don't we make such decisions in part by weighing the intended public interest against the negative consequences of that law, though? Whether the ramifications of a law will be greater than the benefit it provides is a meaningful part of the calculus. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I am saying it's not irrelevant. The home invasion tack avoids that as there are no benefits to allowing them and no harms from prohibiting them.

[gmillerdrake]

I think the examples brought in this topic of the different situations - where we've seen examples of where getting an abortion and NOT getting an abortion were in those cases the right choice - point out how a simple law cannot cover all the aspects of society, and how people approach this issue. What I mean is: I'm fervently pro-choice if that was not obvious, but even the most pefect and fair law about abortion won't still solve the problems of the selected (and maybe rare) situations in which people carelessly approach it as an afterthough birth control (but again, as someone said before, go and read some abortion experiences from women who chose it.... not a pretty read for sure).

If people are dumb and irresponsable, they are dumb and irresponsable regardless of a law. A woman selfishly going for an abortion the day she wakes from a drunken weekend should not put at risk the rights of other women who find themselves in the position to make the most difficult choice of their lives. A law sets a rule, but it's people living in a society that, more than following the rule, should realize how to properly behave with other people and the risks they face with unprotected sex. A law can grant the right to a woman to chose abortion for legitimate reason, but can't beat some sense into a woman who hasn't learn that unprotected sex results in pregnancy, or in an asshole guys that asks for said unprotected sex and then disappears from the girl's life the moment they realizes he knocked her up. That's not what laws are for, there has to be a lot of work behind to make sure that a right granted by a law is not abused - and it's not this or that law's fault, but people making stupid choices or behaviours even if they had been taught better (and their fault should not fall on the shoulders of the others).

Also, let me say that - not that I found any example of this in this topic, mind you, I'm speaking from my experience of living in a very bigot country that hosts the Pope, Italy - I found that, at least here in Italy many people who are anti abortion, they are so by default, as a firm and unmovable choice, and do not give a damn about the quality of the life they are supposedly defending. The example made before of the children brain dead in the fetus - there are people who would insist for that pregnacy to be carried on, and then 10 minutes later would post on FB a scathing anti immigration post. I swear that around here there are scores and scores people who actively wish death to immigrants on the ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and no later than today I've seen people happy that a migrant whose VISA was refused killed himself, that at the same time would object fervently and completely to any kind of abortion.

Again, not something I've seen in this thread, just offering my perspective of how people from where I live can be hypocrites about the situation, and focusing only on "life" as an abstract concept not giving a damn about the quality of said life.

great post

[cramx3]

Abortion is a necessary evil. I don't particularly like it. If Victoria got pregnant, I'd do everything I could to convince her to not have one. I also really hate the defense "it's a woman's body, it's her decision". Well, not really. The thing she's aborting has a different and completely unique genome. It is a person, regardless of stage. If you're going to abort your child, at least call a spade a spade. Don't sugar coat it as "a woman's body" like she's deciding whether or not to get a breast reduction or botox injections. At least admit you're making the conscious decision to terminate the life of another human being early.

Also, the 24 week thing means nothing to me. A good friend of mine and his wife had been trying to conceive for almost 5 years. Two years ago they used in vitro fertilization (his sperm) and she ended up getting pregnant with twins. At 20 weeks in, she thought she was having a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital. Turns out she was in labor. The first one came out dead, and the second one died minutes after coming out. My friend held both of them in his hands. They had faces and hands with fingers. They were given names. They received death certificates. They were cremated. Those were people a full month before that 24 week cutoff.

While that story is sad and I'm imagining seeing/holding them to make them feel more people like, but I just don't think I agree with the bolded.  It's a fetus, not a person.  To me, it's not that different than an egg, it's not yet a chicken but it is a living being.  I really don't believe having an abortion is equivalent to killing a person.  I'm going to say that as you get closer to birth that line not only gets super thin but eventually is gone before birth and I'll say the fetus has become a person,  I'm not exactly sure where that is, maybe 24 weeks, maybe its not but I'd say up to that point would be where I start thinking it's a person and not just a fetus anymore.

[Implode]

Sad that the only female perspective here is immediately dismissed/ignored.

[bosk1]

Not really.  If it was a perspective that actually contributed something useful to the discussion, it likely would not have been.  "It's all men's fault and men don't really care about saving lives" isn't really productive (or accurate).

[Harmony]

Sad that the only female perspective here is immediately dismissed/ignored.

It went about as I suspected, really.  It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Women have always been looked upon in this way.  It is our bodies, our lives, our health, our families, our education, our occupation, our psyches that have born (pardon the pun) the brunt of the burden in this regard.  I held no illusions things would be any different here.  You should've seen the reactions to the woman who had the audacity to write the posts to begin with.

[bosk1]

It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Yeah, right.  There has been absolutely none of that here.

[Harmony]

It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Yeah, right.  There has been absolutely none of that here.

If you say so.

[eric42434224]

Her post provided a different perspective and experience on the subject.  It may not jive with your sensibilities, but that doesn’t make it an unproductive addition to the conversation.  I don’t think comparing abortion to home invasions was appropriate, but at least respect for your viewpoint was shown.  As a moderator, you should be the leader in showing that respect to others and their viewpoints, yes?

Edit: especially in such an emotionally charged subject as this.  There is no right and wrong here, so we need to take extra care in being empathetic and accepting to others views.  JMHO

[gmillerdrake]

Her post provided a different perspective and experience on the subject.  It may not jive with your sensibilities, but that doesn’t make it an unproductive addition to the conversation.  I don’t think comparing abortion to home invasions was appropriate, but at least respect for your viewpoint was shown.  As a moderator, you should be the leader in showing that respect to others and their viewpoints, yes?

Edit: especially in such an emotionally charged subject as this.  There is no right and wrong here, so we need to take extra care in being empathetic and accepting to others views.  JMHO

I’m sorry but that article or essay that Harmony posted was pretty bad. It started off hostile towards men and kept flowing all the way through. Blaming men for 100% of pregnancies and abortions because we control when/where we ejaculate sounds like a position a freshman in high school would argue.

I would love to listen to Harmony’s point of view.....story....anything on the subject because I agree that it’s a sensitive one with MANY facets. But that article deserved to be dismissed quickly because it was for all intents and purposes.....irrelevant and poorly done.

[KevShmev]

Once the article went down the "it's 100% the fault of men" rabbit hole, I stopped reading and went to the next post.  Sure, the blame is not always equal, but saying unwanted pregnancies are always 100% the man's fault comes off as man-bashing feminism at its worst (regardless of what long-winded rationale they used).

As for abortion, I agree with the comment that it is necessary evil.  My long-held stance has been that it should be legal, but regulated more closely than it is, which I get would be extremely difficult to do.  This idea of late term abortions where neither the baby nor mom's life is at stake is horse hockey.

[cramx3]

Once the article went down the "it's 100% the fault of men" rabbit hole, I stopped reading and went to the next post.  Sure, the blame is not always equal, but saying unwanted pregnancies are always 100% the man's fault comes off as man-bashing feminism at its worst (regardless of what long-winded rationale they used).

Yea pretty much.  The article makes lots of great points but none of them prove her initial point about "100%" because nothing in this debate is 100% anything and by trying to make that point, the author really misses the bigger picture of just saying men are a big part of the problem.  No doubt we are, but it's not a man only issue and putting a foot down to start the article with such a harsh one sided statement really makes the rest of the article uninteresting even with making great points. 

[Harmony]

Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they?  I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk.  But whatever.  As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.  Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it?  Because women are always to blame.  Even in the extreme cases of rape and incest.  What was she wearing, how was she acting, what did SHE DO to cause it?

But yeah, that article read like it was written by a freshman in high school who couldn't possibly have any understanding of what she was writing about.  We should dismiss her POV entirely because it's irrelevant and so poorly done.

Pardon me for not wishing to post any more about my own personal opinions on the subject.  LoL.

[cramx3]

Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they?  I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk.  But whatever.  As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

Of course Women aren't 100% to blame, I'd probably put it more like 70-30 men are at fault, because I do believe men can be and often are huge assholes to women.  Unwanted pregnancies no exception to me, but women play a role too many times.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it? 

Yes actually.  I made sure to say she made good points because she certainly did.  She's not wrong in much of her point of view, but yes, when she in the beginning puts all blame on men, it is hard to actually take her point seriously.  I'd say the same thing if someone wrote women were 100% to blame.  It's just a ridiculous statement.

[gmillerdrake]

Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they?  I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk.  But whatever.  As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.  Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it?  Because women are always to blame.  Even in the extreme cases of rape and incest.  What was she wearing, how was she acting, what did SHE DO to cause it?

But yeah, that article read like it was written by a freshman in high school who couldn't possibly have any understanding of what she was writing about.  We should dismiss her POV entirely because it's irrelevant and so poorly done.

Pardon me for not wishing to post any more about my own personal opinions on the subject.  LoL.

Knee jerk? 5th sentence in that rant it was declared that men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. Because of ‘irresponsible ejaculations’.

An ‘unwanted’ pregnancy happens when two people are acting irresponsibly. The moment you have unprotected sex.....even if it’s a wife and her husband that don’t want another kids.....you run the risk of having a pregnancy.

That article was ridiculous. I can handle criticism when it’s warranted. But to try and pawn off all unwanted pregnancies onto men because we ejaculated irresponsibility immediately negates any ‘seriousness’ of that article.

I can sympathize with many of the points that were made in the article. There’s no denying that a large part of the onus has been placed on women as far as sexual responsibility. But I do think that the ‘old’ way of thinking is being eroded and a ‘new’ era is being ushered in. But that article read as a lecture and a scolding and wasn’t crafted to make a point to men who might listen but to rebuke all men because in that ladies eyes we’re all bad apparently.

Sorry that you won’t speak to your own thoughts/opinions on the matter.....as has been mentioned it’s a touchy subject and the only reference I have on the subject is that I lived with a girl for a year who had an abortion in the relationship prior to me. Correction.....she was forced by that guys parents to have an abortion so that their ‘lives wouldn’t be ruined’. Anyway, your point of view is certainly valuable and my post(s) about that article aren’t intended to immediately rebuke your feelings on the matter. I just don’t think that article was done very well. It was definitely crafted for a particular audience. 

[Harmony]

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   

Who is deciding our health choices for us?  Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

[cramx3]

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   

Huh?  Since when does twitter responses make points that I should consider as meaningful on a political hot topic?  Sorry but there is no irony of me finding twitter to be meaningless.  And if the point was to piss men off and resonate with women, then yea the article totally does hit that point while missing the more important one.

I'd imagine if she took out the 100% part, she would have still been applauded by women and pissed off men, but I think she would have had a better argument because her point would have made more sense in a debate.

[KevShmev]

Who is deciding our health choices for us? Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

If you are trying to imply that men are making health choices for you, abortion is currently legal, so that...

[Harmony]

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   

Huh?  Since when does twitter responses make points that I should consider as meaningful on a political hot topic?  Sorry but there is no irony of me finding twitter to be meaningless. 

Ah...I read that as that it resonated with a majority of women was meaningless, not that it was a post on Twitter.  Sorry, I thought the resident Twitter hater was Stadler.  Haha

[Harmony]

Who is deciding our health choices for us? Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

If you are trying to imply that men are making health choices for you, abortion is currently legal, so that...

Let's take a look at an overview of Abortion Laws.  Do you think these laws are written mostly by men or women?  Do you think these laws make it easier or harder for a woman to obtain a safe abortion?

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws#

[KevShmev]

Are you saying it is impossible for women to have safe abortions in 2019?

The YouTube comment section is the sewer of the internet, but Twitter is not far behind. 

[Harmony]

Are you saying it is impossible for women to have safe abortions in 2019?

The YouTube comment section is the sewer of the internet, but Twitter is not far behind.

Your opinion about Twitter is noted.

Are you saying that some states are not finding ways to restrict abortion rights making it more difficult for women in those states to access abortion?

[KevShmev]

Are you saying that some states are not finding ways to restrict abortion rights making it more difficult for women in those states to access abortion?

Are you saying that one sex should not make laws that affect the opposite sex?  Men should not make laws that affect women, and women should not make laws that affect men?   

[TAC]

...and do you realistically think there could ever be a moment when ... murders become socially acceptable?

They already are.  That's what this thread is about.

[Harmony]

Are you saying that some states are not finding ways to restrict abortion rights making it more difficult for women in those states to access abortion?

Are you saying that one sex should not make laws that affect the opposite sex?  Men should not make laws that affect women, and women should not make laws that affect men?

Are you saying politicians should come between a patient and their doctor when it comes to their healthcare decisions?

[KevShmev]

Are you saying politicians should come between a patient and their doctor when it comes to their healthcare decisions?

Are you saying that politicians should not make laws to prevent the murder of an innocent human being?

[Harmony]

Are you saying politicians should come between a patient and their doctor when it comes to their healthcare decisions?

Are you saying that politicians should not make laws to prevent the murder of an innocent human being?

Are you saying politicians never make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

[KevShmev]

 

Are you saying politicians never make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

Are you saying that female politicians make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

[Harmony]

 

Are you saying politicians never make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

Are you saying that female politicians make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

Are you saying that male politicians do not?

[eric42434224]

...and do you realistically think there could ever be a moment when ... murders become socially acceptable?

They already are.  That's what this thread is about.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
Clearly not what this thread is about.

[KevShmev]

Are you saying that male politicians do not?

Are you saying that male politicians do not make laws that benefit women?

[Harmony]

Are you saying that male politicians do not?

Are you saying that male politicians do not make laws that benefit women?

Are you saying male politicians should make laws regulating the bodies of intelligent, competent women?

[Implode]

Even if I didn't agree with some of what Harmony posted, I do think that her post has very insightful points if nothing else but he and many others' perspective along. I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.