Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115474)

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.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115474)

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.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2115595)

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.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2115597)

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.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115474)

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.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2115559)

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.

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2115662)

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 ?

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2115680)

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

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2115595)

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.

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2115669)

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

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2115669)

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

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115709)

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.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115709)

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.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115701)

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."

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2115742)

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

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2115699)

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.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115701)

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."

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2115747)

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.

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2115742)

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

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2115662)

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 ?

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115785)

Life is what the pregnant woman experiences, being already born. I don't care what you, or anyone else considers "life" to be. The government has no business in this discussion. Your determination of what constitutes life is between you and your deity, if you have one. "The definition of life" is a stupid, stupid argument to base a law on someone's right to determine what they will host within their own body.


A fungal infection is alive, cancers are living entities, and so is a cockroach. And you'd better believe I'll happily murder all of them if they annoy me, whether you consider them "alive and therefore sacred" or not.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2115807)

RIDICULOUS statement! The definition of life should be taken entirely away from religion and given to science. Government should follow science. The LAST thing we want is someone making a decision about what is life when they have something to gain by deciding it is not; history shows humans are TERRIBLE at making that decision.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115781)

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2115781)

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).