[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

Great post. Now do guns...

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

At some point that fetus is a life and should have some rights. If a woman wants an abortion let her have it earlier in our pregnancy.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

At some point that fetus is a life and should have some rights. If a woman wants an abortion let her have it earlier in our pregnancy.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Women are going to have abortions, all banning them does is kill women that can't afford to have it done right.

Historically the quickening is when most societies decided the fetus was inhabited by a soul. Being an atheist the "inhabited with a soul" part isn't so interesting to me, but saying it is viable at that point is a "compromise". Being a secular society, it seems many have forgotten that compromise is the only option for peace. Because we will never all agree on anything (or much of anything). The hate and vitriol in our society today with it's my way or the hi way will result in no winners (well, except maybe Putin) and abortion is just one more of those talking points we can no longer talk about.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Women are going to have abortions, all banning them does is kill women that can't afford to have it done right.

Historically the quickening is when most societies decided the fetus was inhabited by a soul. Being an atheist the "inhabited with a soul" part isn't so interesting to me, but saying it is viable at that point is a "compromise". Being a secular society, it seems many have forgotten that compromise is the only option for peace. Because we will never all agree on anything (or much of anything). The hate and vitriol in our society today with it's my way or the hi way will result in no winners (well, except maybe Putin) and abortion is just one more of those talking points we can no longer talk about.

There is a need to talk about it, how else can a consensus be reached , will it be "life" begins at conception and will be protected or its not a human child until its born and subject to being terminated, (nice phrase), we know where the "right to lifers" are on this but the proponents do not seem to want that discussion, can you imagine watching something as barbaric as a late term abortion ?

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

To be clear about your position , abortion with no constraints ?

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

Just what is in the best interest can be debated, bread and circuses for all, and of course its those evil big corporations and money people who are denying us our rightful standard of living, I remember my early pre teen daughter telling me how I was ruining her life with the low allowance and restrictions placed on her. I do not and have not for some time listened to any ministers, at this point I see the threat of a Theocracy as another bogey man

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

There is a need to talk about it, how else can a consensus be reached , will it be "life" begins at conception and will be protected or its not a human child until its born and subject to being terminated, (nice phrase), we know where the "right to lifers" are on this but the proponents do not seem to want that discussion, can you imagine watching something as barbaric as a late term abortion ?

Late term abortions are the exception. About 1% of abortions are late term.

Ectopic abortions on the other hand make up 2% and without abortion are almost guaranteed to result in death of the mother - these too are/will be banned in some states.

By proponents I assume you mean right to abort side. I don't understand your statement, my experience is the opposite. Choice proponents want to give women the choice, but are and have been fine historically with some restrictions on when, why and how. And they often discuss it. On the other hand "pro-life" side has a history of blowing up clinics, killing doctors, and harassing women exercising their legal rights, and standing on corners with large gory examples of what they claim every abortion is about, while showing photos that are photoshopped and at best very late term abortions. When asked to discuss their reaction is no abortions period, and they often consider contraception abortions, so there are discussions of banning contraceptives.

Yes, we need a national discussion.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

Just what is in the best interest can be debated, bread and circuses for all, and of course its those evil big corporations and money people who are denying us our rightful standard of living, I remember my early pre teen daughter telling me how I was ruining her life with the low allowance and restrictions placed on her. I do not and have not for some time listened to any ministers, at this point I see the threat of a Theocracy as another bogey man

Well, first you say you don't listen to ministers and then you say you think the threat is a bogy man - hmm... maybe you should take an evening and listen to a few thousand ministers on Youtube preaching to their congregation about how the government is run by Satan and we need to put God BACK IN CHARGE of the government.

Listen to preachers preaching how God often uses evil men to do his work - bringing the government back to God. (I can't mention which EVIL man they were backing or I will be banned permanently.)

Is it going to happen? I don't know, but I do know there are people working and PRAYING for it. Even on here, they have been numerous posts over the past couple years promoting religious laws and the government supporting a specific religion ("christianity" - in quotes because I question their naming conventions.)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

At some point that fetus is a life and should have some rights. If a woman wants an abortion let her have it earlier in our pregnancy.

No woman WANTS an abortion, ffs. How about "at some point, sperm will create life. If a man doesn't want a woman to be pregnant let him get castrated before he starts having sex."

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

To be clear about your position , abortion with no constraints ?

Until recently, despite the SCOTUS claim of historical justifications, Abortions prior to quickening were strictly a matter between the women and her doctor. At the time in our history when the founders failed to mention Abortions, it was believed that the stopping of the ministration was an illness and women were advised to take herbal concoctions to help restore their period.

So, historically, yes, any woman wanting an abortion for any reason prior to quickening was almost universally acceptable.

And, I know the rest of the world doesn't matter - ahem, but, in th past 50 years, 30 countries have reduced restrictions on abortions, the US is the ONLY country in that time frame to increase restrictions.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

To be clear about your position , abortion with no constraints ?

To be clear about YOUR position: you think the government has the right to mandate forced pregnancy on ANY woman, EVER, because the woman is merely a vessel to host a fetus and has no right to make the decision for herself? Woman is not a "person" but the unborn is, and therefore the unborn's right is valid while the woman's right is not?

Again - abortion is a medical procedure. It isn't a nose job (which is done with no constraints, the law doesn't get to tell anyone whether or not they're ALLOWED to have one).

There should be no law for or against it. It is not a legal matter. It is a medical matter, and should be a matter between a patient and their physician. It shouldn't be legal OR illegal.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

To be clear about YOUR position: you think the government has the right to mandate forced pregnancy on ANY woman, EVER, because the woman is merely a vessel to host a fetus and has no right to make the decision for herself? Woman is not a "person" but the unborn is, and therefore the unborn's right is valid while the woman's right is not?

Again - abortion is a medical procedure. It isn't a nose job (which is done with no constraints, the law doesn't get to tell anyone whether or not they're ALLOWED to have one).

There should be no law for or against it. It is not a legal matter. It is a medical matter, and should be a matter between a patient and their physician. It shouldn't be legal OR illegal.

For most of our history (and most of the worlds history) abortion was either a non-issues and left up to the woman, or at most was "frowned" on after quickening. Some societies did ban abortions after quickening.

Since we live in a multi-cultural secular society, I believe that basing laws on religious beliefs is wrong, since there are MANY religions represented in the US, and the "christians" seem to want their beliefs to override everyone else's. I recall no too long ago a major brouhaha over some city somewhere incorporating sharia laws - so, good for goose, but n to for gander.

So, to summarize, I agree with you, it is a medical procedure that should be between the woman and her doctor. BUT, I think it is reasonable to find some common ground to compromise on.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

To be clear about YOUR position: you think the government has the right to mandate forced pregnancy on ANY woman, EVER, because the woman is merely a vessel to host a fetus and has no right to make the decision for herself? Woman is not a "person" but the unborn is, and therefore the unborn's right is valid while the woman's right is not?

Again - abortion is a medical procedure. It isn't a nose job (which is done with no constraints, the law doesn't get to tell anyone whether or not they're ALLOWED to have one).

There should be no law for or against it. It is not a legal matter. It is a medical matter, and should be a matter between a patient and their physician. It shouldn't be legal OR illegal.

No that is not my position, where did you get that?, (actually I do, but) I have stated my position , not in this thread, I have no problem with first term abortions or where a mother life is endangered , other than that I think at some point the woman should be obligated to carry to term

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No woman WANTS an abortion, ffs. How about "at some point, sperm will create life. If a man doesn't want a woman to be pregnant let him get castrated before he starts having sex."

I guess that would be the only way to stop men from sneaking sperm on unsuspecting eggs

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

I guess that would be the only way to stop men from sneaking sperm on unsuspecting eggs

There are many ways men and women cheat. Stealthing is when a man removes the condom during sex without the woman's permission. Not taking the pill and telling her partner she did is a way women can get pregnant without the man knowing.

I have for a long time advocated the government investing heavily into reversible sterilization for both sexes which would be applied at birth (don't go crazy, we already mutilate men without their permission and do sexual assignment surgery when there is ambiguity in genitalia without the child's permission!).

Then when they become "of age" (18? 21?) they can take a parenting course and if they pass they can opt to have the procedure reversed when they want to have children. That would probably remove about 3/4's of the abortions.