Roe v. Wade is dead

[Kal-El814]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Kermit Gosnell - Wikipedia

EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

It actually gets worse than that, but these of course are the absolute most extremes.

 

All this is already illegal. Abortion isn’t murder and trying to “gotcha” someone into admitting that they support infanticide is simply not the other side of the “rape victims should have access to abortion” coin.

 

If I had said “nobody lives if an iron rod explodes through their skull” and someone dropped the link to Phineas Gage’s Wikipedia entry… yeah, I guess, but I still feel comfortable saying it doesn’t happen.

 

[Dodger]

22 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Do you believe abortion should be legal?

As Clinton said, abortions should be safe legal and rare. 

[chakoo]

27 minutes ago, Chollowa said:

The one thing I learned from my personal experience with choosing to terminate a very much wanted pregnancy for medical reasons, it is so much more common than you could imagine. Getting news at your 20 week anatomy scan that the child you very much want to have and have been fighting to have for years, either isn't viable, or is likely to lead a severely difficult life, starts this insane countdown clock in which you have to make a decision before you get to 23 weeks and it becomes much more difficult to get an abortion; even in a "uber liberal" state like California. So you're running around from specialist to specialist, pulling strings and calling in favors to get bumped to the front of the list for specialists and even then you feel like you're making the decision with a gun to your head. 

 

And once you do it, I cannot tell you how many people will send you a private message or pull you aside and tell you something like that happened to them. It's purely anecdotal but for those limited times that it happens, people in difficult positions deserve to not be treated like monsters and should be free to make those completely unwanted, absolutely soul-crushing decisions. 

 

This 1000% as someone who has dealt with this twice. 

 

So everybody else can fuck off with their BS hypothetical discussion points.

[CitizenVectron]

6 minutes ago, Dodger said:

As Clinton said, abortions should be safe legal and rare. 

 

They should be as common as women want.

[Chris-]

6 minutes ago, Dodger said:

As Clinton said, abortions should be safe legal and rare. 

Then the messaging shouldn’t matter. In fact you should welcome it, because it lays bare the logical conclusion of the anti-choice movement, and that is a conclusion that the majority of Americans find repugnant. 

[Chollowa]

6 minutes ago, chakoo said:

 

This 1000% as someone who has dealt with this twice. 

 

So everybody else can fuck off with their BS hypothetical discussion points.

Hey, I'm sorry you had to go through that. I hope you've found a way to get some closure/healing around it. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

That’s not any different than all this what about rape/incest/ectopic pregnancies talk which are like 1% of all abortions. Which is sadly all these “debates” come down to. What about the minuscule number of abortions due to danger to the life of the mother versus how dare you support murdering a baby two seconds away from popping out of the vagina which happens like twice a year or something.

Ectopic pregnancies alone are 2% of all pregnancies each year per AAFP this is dumb as hell when you don’t know what you’re talking about

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

All this is already illegal. Abortion isn’t murder and trying to “gotcha” someone into admitting that they support infanticide is simply not the other side of the “rape victims should have access to abortion” coin.

 

If I had said “nobody lives if an iron rod explodes through their skull” and someone dropped the link to Phineas Gage’s Wikipedia entry… yeah, I guess, but I still feel comfortable saying it doesn’t happen.

 

You are correct that it is illegal currently, it is also true that the left in America would like to remove all and nearly all pre-birth abortion restrictions. Some where around 40% of liberals say absolutely no restrictions. And I would be utterly shocked if you (and almost everybody on this board) don’t fall into the 40%.
 

So why not own that position? Why run away from these questions instead of standing firm on your convictions that women deserve the right to make whatever choice they want with their body?

[mclumber1]

There seems to be more than a few liberals on this board that think if you aren't pro-choice through all trimesters of the pregnancy for any reason, than you aren't pro-choice.  In fact, you are anti-choice.  To them, it's binary, and there is no middle ground.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Not only do I own that position, but I believe that abortion should be the "default" one and that actual birth should require justification!

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

There seems to be more than a few liberals on this board that think if you aren't pro-choice through all trimesters of the pregnancy for any reason, than you aren't pro-choice.  In fact, you are anti-choice.  To them, it's binary, and there is no middle ground.

Which is fine, I don’t know why so few are willing to articulate that which they quite obviously believe. I think @CitizenVectronis one of the few who will, which I certainly respect. 
 

And we know @Commissar SFLUFANis not simply pro-choice but actively pro-abortion (whoops, I just saw his post when I updated in the middle of typing this)

[Kal-El814]

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You are correct that it is illegal currently, it is also true that the left in America would like to remove all and nearly all pre-birth abortion restrictions. Some where around 40% of liberals say absolutely no restrictions. And I would be utterly shocked if you (and almost everybody on this board) don’t fall into the 40%.
 

So why not own that position? Why run away from these questions instead of standing firm on your convictions that women deserve the right to make whatever choice they want with their body?

 

I do feel comfortable saying no restrictions. I still say that the question I linked to in that tweet, in the context of the question being asked, isn’t an actual exploration of “abortion rights,” it’s a bad faith attempt to portray someone as a being comfortable with infanticide. I’m in favor of abortions without restriction. I’m not in favor of killing babies. If I was asked that question in that context I’d give the question the same amount of respect as it deserves and that Dr. Robinson gave it, which is none.

 

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

There seems to be more than a few liberals on this board that think if you aren't pro-choice through all trimesters of the pregnancy for any reason, than you aren't pro-choice.  In fact, you are anti-choice.  To them, it's binary, and there is no middle ground.

 

Based on what I have read, though it has been a while and I acknowledge that the data could have changed, late term abortions are more often than not matters of medical necessity rather than “choice.” While I believe people should have the right to “choose” to have a late term abortion if they wish for no reason other than that, I don’t expect most people to agree with it. 

 

Regardless of how I feel about the morality / ethics of a late term abortion of “choice” or “convenience” I believe the procedures must remain legal in the interest of allowing pregnant people to make decisions about their care that can be conducted safely and legally.

 

[stepee]

Why not just give them the sound bites they want to cut out of context and then weaponize against you which is the whole point of the question being asked in the first place?!!!?!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

No one wants to abort in the latter half of pregnancy it’s only because it’s medically necessary people who think otherwise are insane people. And if you want to talk about fucking edge cases per kff

Quote

While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased.

 

[SaysWho?]

I think the most stunning thing about this discussion is many of us were posting with each other on IGN two decades ago, and we were having these arguments and some of us hadn’t even been laid. Now many of you have kids and had to actually make that choice, in my card. It bums me out but it’s valuable to know and crazy to think the prospective y’all are coming from now.

[Zaku3]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I think the most stunning thing about this discussion is many of us were posting with each other on IGN two decades ago, and we were having these arguments and some of us hadn’t even been laid. Now many of you have kids and had to actually make that choice, in my card. It bums me out but it’s valuable to know and crazy to think the prospective y’all are coming from now.

 

And that throwback was brought to you by DJ @SaysWho?

[SaysWho?]

Late term abortion arguments usually evolve into the ridiculous because somehow, even people who have kids don’t understand why a woman would choose that. I think of this quote by Buttigieg when I think late term:

 

Quote

"That's right, representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

 

I think the bottom line is, rather than those of us who aren’t part of these peoples’s lives and will never be part of their lives trying to figure out what the line is and what hypothetical is appropriate, we should leave it to the person who is pregnant.

[LazyPiranha]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

You are correct that it is illegal currently, it is also true that the left in America would like to remove all and nearly all pre-birth abortion restrictions. Some where around 40% of liberals say absolutely no restrictions. And I would be utterly shocked if you (and almost everybody on this board) don’t fall into the 40%.
 

So why not own that position? Why run away from these questions instead of standing firm on your convictions that women deserve the right to make whatever choice they want with their body?

I own that position.  Why not?  Any position you hold will have consequences foreseen and unforeseen that the viewer will find repugnant.  I believe alcohol should be legal, that belief will cause uncountable deaths and human misery.  I believe the personal ownership of firearms should be severely limited.  Someone, somewhere will die because they can’t defend themselves. The existence of fringe abortion scenarios I’m personally uncomfortable with does nothing to negate that fact.  The only reason people don’t want to cop to that fact is it’s a ludicrous gotcha for chuds.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

27 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Late term abortion arguments usually evolve into the ridiculous because somehow, even people who have kids don’t understand why a woman would choose that. I think of this quote by Buttigieg when I think late term:

 

 

I think the bottom line is, rather than those of us who aren’t part of these peoples’s lives and will never be part of their lives trying to figure out what the line is and what hypothetical is appropriate, we should leave it to the person who is pregnant.

And this view (later in the pregnancy it’s ok to have an abortion when the health of the mother is at risk) is extremely popular, something like 75% approval per Gallup. But public opinion polling is everywhere and depends on the phrasing. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

If American society actually gave a damn about the overall well-being of its children, then maybe -- just maybe -- some of these arguments for stricter limitations on abortion would have some greater degree of moral merit.

But American society sure as hell doesn't give a damn, so these arguments sure as hell don't.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

If American society actually gave a damn about the overall well-being of its children, then maybe -- just maybe -- some of these arguments for stricter limitations on abortion would have some greater degree of moral merit.

But American society sure as hell doesn't give a damn, so these arguments sure as hell don't.

This is utter nonsense

[Ominous]

Why should abortions have limits?

[stepee]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is utter nonsense

 

Yep, I adamantly disagree with the “maybe there would be some merit” part.

[stepee]

3 minutes ago, Ominous said:

Why should abortions have limits?

 

because std’s alone aren’t enough to keep folks from raw dogging

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

38 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

If American society actually gave a damn about the overall well-being of its children, then maybe -- just maybe -- some of these arguments for stricter limitations on abortion would have some greater degree of moral merit.

But American society sure as hell doesn't give a damn, so these arguments sure as hell don't.

Don’t forget the abysmal maternal mortality as well!

[Air_Delivery]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is utter nonsense

Republicans have done everything possible to try to get rid of social services for children. They don't give a damn about poor children which are often the result of people not being able to get an abortion. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I’m comfortable saying there should be no restrictions on abortion. 
 

I also don’t give a man’s opinion on abortion much regard. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

This is utter nonsense

 

The economic and social challenges that confront large sections of American society in ensuring that children live healthy, happy, well-adjusted lives are the "utter nonsense", not my statement.

 

If anything, my statement ensures a lesser degree of suffering and is therefore inherently more moral.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The economic and social challenges that confront large sections of American society in ensuring that children live healthy, happy, well-adjusted lives are the "utter nonsense", not my statement.

 

If anything, my statement ensures a lesser degree of suffering and is therefore inherently more moral.

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, Ominous said:

Why should abortions have limits?

 

Because the constitution doesn't protect it.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Ominous said:

Why should abortions have limits?

 

Because Republicans are afraid we'll post-term abort them.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The economic and social challenges that confront large sections of American society in ensuring that children live healthy, happy, well-adjusted lives are the "utter nonsense", not my statement.

 

If anything, my statement ensures a lesser degree of suffering and is therefore inherently more moral.

The nonsense is that the improvement in the material well being of children would change any of your calculus on the morality of choice or anti-choice sentiment. It’s hogwash off the highest order, and you know it  

 

You also don’t believe in morality!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The nonsense is that the improvement in the material well being of children would change any of your calculus on the morality of choice or anti-choice sentiment. It’s hogwash off the highest order, and you know it  

 

You also don’t believe in morality!

 

You're correct in that it doesn't change my moral calculus in the least, but I'm not offering it to justify my position.

 

I'm offering it as an argument for others to use to justify their moral position.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

You're correct in that it doesn't change my moral calculus in the least, but I'm not offering it to justify my position.

 

I'm offering it as an argument for others to use to justify their moral position.

The only reason to “justify” your moral position is to cajole other people to your side. This isn’t possible. It literally wouldn’t matter if we lived in a perfect society in which every need is met for all people. 

[skillzdadirecta]

I just find it extremely hypocritical that the party of civil liberty, individual freedoms and keeping goverment out of people's lives is dead set on telling women what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies. Yet another one of their many hypocricies. I wonder why