How much? 1 in 500? 1 in 1000? I have never said that I'm against ALL abortions, I've also stated ad infinitum there are exceptions to every rule. -:
If You Hate Ladies & Are Scared of Muslims, You'll Love North Carolina
- Thread starter Corduroy
- Start date
How much? 1 in 500? 1 in 1000? I have never said that I'm against ALL abortions, I've also stated ad infinitum there are exceptions to every rule. -:
You are the obvious proof of at least some kind of inbreeding in this country. No normal person can be as utterly blind about their own ignorance and lack of intelligence...it is sure evidence your mother had relations with her brother, or father, or uncle, or probably all 3 at once. ;-)
You are the obvious proof of at least some kind of inbreeding in this country. No normal person can be as utterly blind about their own ignorance and lack of intelligence...it is sure evidence your mother had relations with her brother, or father, or uncle, or probably all 3 at once. ;-)
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... this coming from an idiot that threatens people with bodily harm for a perceived injustice. roflmfao.
And this from an idiot that compares decent people to serial child-killers and perceives an invitation to discuss the issue in person as a physical threat.
I would imagine with your lack of intelligence combined with that big mouth of yours you get a lot of physical threats. Maybe you got beat up lots as a kid but I can only imagine how much you deserved it if you treated your classmates the way you treat other members of CanCon.
That is a definite threat, not an invitation to a discussion. Should I also post your pm to me? It can be read by all with the above context.
I may say things straight up, but I don't run around threatening people with bodily harm because of some perceived harm over the net.
I gather, from your calmer tone, that you are back on your meds....good... try not to forget them again.
Me, too, but the kind of "moral" fascists who want to outlaw abortion aren't going to go for that. Messing with the bodies of prepubescent children, however, is right up their street.
I seek what can work.
Excellent idea. For 'bout 97% of folks, mind-control implants would increase their mental activity. But. . . ummm. . . what "others," Nicky? Do tell me about the great big conspiracy I'm part of. No, seriously. I'm fascinated.
I do? Can you give me a f'rinstance, aside from the the post you're currently stroking out over?
You're absolutely right.......It's a stupid header......Slamming a whole state....posted by a Troll....simply to antagonize religion......and stir sh*t!
And it worked......BRAVO
If you consider an inseminated egg to be a human, then it is perfectly logical that you would consider an abortion practitioner to be a murderer, and abortion itself to be state-sponsored murder. I think Gerry is consistent with his line of thought. Although, if it were me, I could not live in a country that sanctioned murder at that scale and let murderers prosper and walk free.
I'm not a fan of abortion. But, abortion is kind of like drugs. You could make it illegal; it won't go away. My policy is: safe, legal, rare. Under that policy, you reduce the incidence of abortion by easy access to contraceptives, education, counselling. men kind of get shafted in the whole ordeal because the choice belongs to the woman alone despite significant economic (and emotional) implications for the man. I'm not a fan of that either, but if men could walk away abortion rates would (presumably?) go up, so my thought is that the guys have to take one for the team on that account.
I'm not a fan of abortion. But, abortion is kind of like drugs. You could make it illegal; it won't go away. My policy is: safe, legal, rare. Under that policy, you reduce the incidence of abortion by easy access to contraceptives, education, counselling. men kind of get shafted in the whole ordeal because the choice belongs to the woman alone despite significant economic (and emotional) implications for the man. I'm not a fan of that either, but if men could walk away abortion rates would (presumably?) go up, so my thought is that the guys have to take one for the team on that account.
Here's a conservative view on the subject.
Abortion’s gray areas
By Michael Gerson, Published: July 4
Much time is spent during abortion debates on the imputing and impugning of motives. Without it, coverage of the Texas legislative battle over late-term abortion, for example, would consist mainly of blank pages and dead air.
But political outcomes are not always reducible to the intentions of the winner. Results are often influenced by deeper trends that neither side of a debate can do much to change or control.
The national abortion settlement declared by Roe v. Wade — rooting a nearly unrestricted right to abortion in the right to privacy — has been unstable for 40 years. The reason is a tension between the state of the law and a durable public consensus that human life has an increasing claim on our sympathy as it develops. This view does not reflect either pro-life or pro-choice orthodoxy. But it predicts a more sustainable political resolution.
The media have a slothful tendency to place Americans into rigid categories of pro-life and pro-choice. The reality is more complicated. A 2011 Gallup poll found that 79 percent of people who describe themselves as pro-choice support making abortion illegal in the third trimester. “One of the clearest messages from Gallup trends,” concludes Gallup’s Lydia Saad, “is that Americans oppose late-term abortion.” Saad adds: “A solid majority of Americans (61 percent) believe abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, while 31 percent disagree. However support drops off sharply, to 27 percent, for second-trimester abortions, and further still, to 14 percent, for third-trimester abortions. Gallup has found this pattern each time it has asked this question since 1996, indicating that Americans attach much greater value to the fetus as it approaches viability, starting in the second trimester.”
An opinion this consistent and nearly universal must be based on something. The late political scientist James Q. Wilson gave the most persuasive explanation. In his 1994 essay, “On Abortion,” he argued bluntly that “people treat as human that which appears to be human; people treat as quasi-human that which appears quasi-human.” Sympathy, in his view, grows with resemblance. This explains why the miscarriage of an embryo is (generally) treated differently than the death of a newborn. It is also the reason, according to Wilson, that we recoil from “the thought of killing an infant that does not differ from the newborn in any respect other than that it receives oxygen and food via an umbilical cord instead of through its nose and mouth.”
“Life emerges,” Wilson said, “or more accurately, the claims that developing life exert upon us emerge, gradually but powerfully.” As a fetus becomes more recognizably human, it invokes “attachment that is as natural as any sentiment that ever enters the human breast.” Wilson placed the decisive stage of development, as many Americans seem to place it, at 10 to 12 weeks of gestation.
Wilson was broadly criticized, by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, for attempting to turn sentiments into principles. As a moral matter, I share that criticism. His gradations strike me as ethically arbitrary, and even universal opinions do not add up to moral rules. But Wilson’s theory of natural “moral sentiments” on abortion does seem to describe the way most Americans think about this issue. Which makes it politically predictive.
If Wilson’s description is correct, pro-life advocates are unlikely to secure legal limits on abortion during the first trimester — the period in which most abortions take place. At some point, after late-term abortions are restricted, legislative approaches will become unproductive, and persuasion and the provision of alternatives to abortion will become the main avenues of activism.
But because the Supreme Court imposed a national settlement at odds with natural sentiments, pro-choice advocates are on the defensive. Their political challenge is to prevent the working of politics. Their real opponent is democracy, as state after state considers late-term abortion restrictions.
We have some models of what happens, even in very liberal societies, when public views prevail on abortion. Across most of Western Europe, abortion is legal during the first trimester but heavily restricted later in pregnancy — after the 14th week in France, Germany and Spain. These limits are not a violation of liberal principles but a recognition that the inherent violence of late-term abortion is at odds with liberal principles.
A Wilson-like settlement on abortion in America would be unsatisfying to many. But it would have the virtue of being sustained by consensus, not imposed by fiat.
Abortion’s gray areas
By Michael Gerson, Published: July 4
Much time is spent during abortion debates on the imputing and impugning of motives. Without it, coverage of the Texas legislative battle over late-term abortion, for example, would consist mainly of blank pages and dead air.
But political outcomes are not always reducible to the intentions of the winner. Results are often influenced by deeper trends that neither side of a debate can do much to change or control.
The national abortion settlement declared by Roe v. Wade — rooting a nearly unrestricted right to abortion in the right to privacy — has been unstable for 40 years. The reason is a tension between the state of the law and a durable public consensus that human life has an increasing claim on our sympathy as it develops. This view does not reflect either pro-life or pro-choice orthodoxy. But it predicts a more sustainable political resolution.
The media have a slothful tendency to place Americans into rigid categories of pro-life and pro-choice. The reality is more complicated. A 2011 Gallup poll found that 79 percent of people who describe themselves as pro-choice support making abortion illegal in the third trimester. “One of the clearest messages from Gallup trends,” concludes Gallup’s Lydia Saad, “is that Americans oppose late-term abortion.” Saad adds: “A solid majority of Americans (61 percent) believe abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, while 31 percent disagree. However support drops off sharply, to 27 percent, for second-trimester abortions, and further still, to 14 percent, for third-trimester abortions. Gallup has found this pattern each time it has asked this question since 1996, indicating that Americans attach much greater value to the fetus as it approaches viability, starting in the second trimester.”
An opinion this consistent and nearly universal must be based on something. The late political scientist James Q. Wilson gave the most persuasive explanation. In his 1994 essay, “On Abortion,” he argued bluntly that “people treat as human that which appears to be human; people treat as quasi-human that which appears quasi-human.” Sympathy, in his view, grows with resemblance. This explains why the miscarriage of an embryo is (generally) treated differently than the death of a newborn. It is also the reason, according to Wilson, that we recoil from “the thought of killing an infant that does not differ from the newborn in any respect other than that it receives oxygen and food via an umbilical cord instead of through its nose and mouth.”
“Life emerges,” Wilson said, “or more accurately, the claims that developing life exert upon us emerge, gradually but powerfully.” As a fetus becomes more recognizably human, it invokes “attachment that is as natural as any sentiment that ever enters the human breast.” Wilson placed the decisive stage of development, as many Americans seem to place it, at 10 to 12 weeks of gestation.
Wilson was broadly criticized, by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, for attempting to turn sentiments into principles. As a moral matter, I share that criticism. His gradations strike me as ethically arbitrary, and even universal opinions do not add up to moral rules. But Wilson’s theory of natural “moral sentiments” on abortion does seem to describe the way most Americans think about this issue. Which makes it politically predictive.
If Wilson’s description is correct, pro-life advocates are unlikely to secure legal limits on abortion during the first trimester — the period in which most abortions take place. At some point, after late-term abortions are restricted, legislative approaches will become unproductive, and persuasion and the provision of alternatives to abortion will become the main avenues of activism.
But because the Supreme Court imposed a national settlement at odds with natural sentiments, pro-choice advocates are on the defensive. Their political challenge is to prevent the working of politics. Their real opponent is democracy, as state after state considers late-term abortion restrictions.
We have some models of what happens, even in very liberal societies, when public views prevail on abortion. Across most of Western Europe, abortion is legal during the first trimester but heavily restricted later in pregnancy — after the 14th week in France, Germany and Spain. These limits are not a violation of liberal principles but a recognition that the inherent violence of late-term abortion is at odds with liberal principles.
A Wilson-like settlement on abortion in America would be unsatisfying to many. But it would have the virtue of being sustained by consensus, not imposed by fiat.
Oooh! I like that terminology. You mind if I use that later?
Somehow, sadly, I see this as true.
Read the thread and , well, many other threads on this forum. It is quite easy to pick out those who support Govts having much more control over our individual lives....as long as govt forces us to adhere to those peoples morals & values that is.
I'm not stroking out TB. I do however have serious concerns when someone suggests, even in jest, the possible mandatory, invasive, govt controlled implant you posted. There are those out there (and in here) who would jump at the chance to start an implant program and add a few things to said implant without our knowledge. It becomes a very steep, very slippery slope in a short period of time. I personally would choose death over participation in such a govt run program
Wouldn't it be easier to go with mandatory long term contraceptives for all women and when they wish to have children can get a permit to stop until impregnated and then back on immediately afterward?
Why is it necessary for a discussion on abortion to degenerate into character assassinations and insults? Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion regardless of how flawed it is. There is no opinion that is criminal, until that opinion is acted upon. If people wish to think their own convenience supersedes the importance of the fetus, they have every right to that way of thinking regardless of how repugnant it is!
A discussion of this topic will always fall into the state you describe. Mostly because of the hard-line anti-abortion crowd (mentioning no names....Gerry) seem to resort to inflammatory language and name calling as their normal MO. This happens because they know they are trying to invade other peoples lives and exert control over other people's bodies and deep-down, they know this is wrong. The position of protecting a fetus because they believe it is an actual human is quite laudable but the extremes they would impose upon others, such as a total ban even in medical necessity or rape or incest, are ludicrous and in violation of an individual's rights. All the pro-choice group want is for each person to make their own choice which is why I fall into that category even though I am personally against terminations.
Pleeeease tell me you are kidding Pete.
It gives women 100% freedom and choice of being a mother or not. That's what they want, right?
Where you fail in your logic is when you use the words mandatory & freedom together in your argument. Something mandatory is diametrically opposed to freedom.
It reminds me of the stupid woman interviewed about the Patriot Act who said "I will gladly give up my liberties for freedom"...Duh!