There are some weird takes on this issue. It's one thing to want to protect state's rights, but some things are pretty fundamental. That's why you can't have slaves in some states and not others.
I've done some thinking about this, and my views have evolved. As much as it sucks to have more derelicts born into society every day and inevitably increase the welfare state, nobody has been able to make a thought-provoking argument to draw the line anywhere. If you can't draw the line, the Catholics are right: at conception. The rest, my body, viability, rape, incest, save the mother, etc, is just mental masturbation. There is no reconciling it. It is morally unacceptable.
There is literally no justification for it. Human life at conception, period. No ifs, ands or butts. Are you allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save yourself? Or because the bystander has inconvenienced you? Did the fetus rape you? Is the fetus responsible for threatening your life? No, no, no and no.
States rights is perhaps the most retarded of arguments. We don't leave it to state legislatures to define what life is and where it begins, and we certainly don't leave it to the voters to decide that it's ok to just randomly kill somebody. "Watch out on your vacation to Glacier Sammy! The voters in Montana have approved the right of citizens to randomly kill people that they view as inconvenient." Please. Stop with this business.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and abortion should be ruled unconstitutional throughout the land.
So, no abortion, ever, in any circumstances. That's the right answer. I can draw no other conclusion.
I think if you're looking for a clear, brightline rule, this is the one. But I can't help but think at a minimum that people that have had circumstances thrust on them deserve some sort of exception.
I know rape is the scenario everyone loves to point to because it's extreme, but I think it's a valid example. And quite honestly, I wouldn't want a rapist procreating anyway. Same can be said for minor abuse, etc.
More broadly, as someone who thinks our population levels are fucked anyway, I'm all for culling the herd a bit. I'm not religious, so I don't worry about any of that side of things,
For me, the issue is:when does an abortion blur into something that could be considered murder. I land on viability. By then, there's no longer an excuse - plenty of time to have "addressed" the problem and the unborn child is just that - a child.
YMMV (but if you disagree, fuck off)
Keeps the population of undesirables down. As originally intended. No surprise the Dems are hell bent on wanting as many abortions as possible.
There are some weird takes on this issue. It's one thing to want to protect state's rights, but some things are pretty fundamental. That's why you can't have slaves in some states and not others.
I've done some thinking about this, and my views have evolved. As much as it sucks to have more derelicts born into society every day and inevitably increase the welfare state, nobody has been able to make a thought-provoking argument to draw the line anywhere. If you can't draw the line, the Catholics are right: at conception. The rest, my body, viability, rape, incest, save the mother, etc, is just mental masturbation. There is no reconciling it. It is morally unacceptable.
There is literally no justification for it. Human life at conception, period. No ifs, ands or butts. Are you allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save yourself? Or because the bystander has inconvenienced you? Did the fetus rape you? Is the fetus responsible for threatening your life? No, no, no and no.
States rights is perhaps the most retarded of arguments. We don't leave it to state legislatures to define what life is and where it begins, and we certainly don't leave it to the voters to decide that it's ok to just randomly kill somebody. "Watch out on your vacation to Glacier Sammy! The voters in Montana have approved the right of citizens to randomly kill people that they view as inconvenient." Please. Stop with this business.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and abortion should be ruled unconstitutional throughout the land.
So, no abortion, ever, in any circumstances. That's the right answer. I can draw no other conclusion.
I think if you're looking for a clear, brightline rule, this is the one. But I can't help but think at a minimum that people that have had circumstances thrust on them deserve some sort of exception.
I know rape is the scenario everyone loves to point to because it's extreme, but I think it's a valid example. And quite honestly, I wouldn't want a rapist procreating anyway. Same can be said for minor abuse, etc.
More broadly, as someone who thinks our population levels are fucked anyway, I'm all for culling the herd a bit. I'm not religious, so I don't worry about any of that side of things,
For me, the issue is:when does an abortion blur into something that could be considered murder. I land on viability. By then, there's no longer an excuse - plenty of time to have "addressed" the problem and the unborn child is just that - a child.
YMMV (but if you disagree, fuck off)
Rape is unfortunate. But the fetus is a person and is faultless in the rape. Ergo, no abortion.
Viability fails too. Viability is a moving line that changes with technology. We’re talking about what is and is not a person. That doesn’t move with technological advancement.
I get tired of the media fueled abortion debate but how is limiting it to the first 20 weeks unreasonable?
20 weeks is way too long. 12 should be the max. Hell France only allows 10 weeks.
Allow 0 weeks. I didn't think about abortion that much until I had kids. Could never imagine killing them. If you can you need help.
I think a decent compromise is to allow it but restrict it to 8-12 weeks.
I can't call killing a child a compromise because we cut some time off. A compromise is have the kid and put it up for adoption.
Sleddy is right on this one. Can’t compromise a murder of an innocent person. That’s non-sense when you really think about it. It’s a person or it’s not. Or draw me a line that is at least thought provoking. So far I’ve seen none.
In a statement, King County Executive Dow Constantine said he was “disgusted, yet unsurprised.”
“I believe in and am committed to the right of every woman to make the choice be persuaded that is best for herself and her family, and I will never stop fighting to ensure that abortion and family planning care are available, without barriers and unnecessary restrictions, in King County and Washington State,” Constantine said in prepared remarks.
There are some weird takes on this issue. It's one thing to want to protect state's rights, but some things are pretty fundamental. That's why you can't have slaves in some states and not others.
I've done some thinking about this, and my views have evolved. As much as it sucks to have more derelicts born into society every day and inevitably increase the welfare state, nobody has been able to make a thought-provoking argument to draw the line anywhere. If you can't draw the line, the Catholics are right: at conception. The rest, my body, viability, rape, incest, save the mother, etc, is just mental masturbation. There is no reconciling it. It is morally unacceptable.
There is literally no justification for it. Human life at conception, period. No ifs, ands or butts. Are you allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save yourself? Or because the bystander has inconvenienced you? Did the fetus rape you? Is the fetus responsible for threatening your life? No, no, no and no.
States rights is perhaps the most retarded of arguments. We don't leave it to state legislatures to define what life is and where it begins, and we certainly don't leave it to the voters to decide that it's ok to just randomly kill somebody. "Watch out on your vacation to Glacier Sammy! The voters in Montana have approved the right of citizens to randomly kill people that they view as inconvenient." Please. Stop with this business.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and abortion should be ruled unconstitutional throughout the land.
So, no abortion, ever, in any circumstances. That's the right answer. I can draw no other conclusion.
I think if you're looking for a clear, brightline rule, this is the one. But I can't help but think at a minimum that people that have had circumstances thrust on them deserve some sort of exception.
I know rape is the scenario everyone loves to point to because it's extreme, but I think it's a valid example. And quite honestly, I wouldn't want a rapist procreating anyway. Same can be said for minor abuse, etc.
More broadly, as someone who thinks our population levels are fucked anyway, I'm all for culling the herd a bit. I'm not religious, so I don't worry about any of that side of things,
For me, the issue is:when does an abortion blur into something that could be considered murder. I land on viability. By then, there's no longer an excuse - plenty of time to have "addressed" the problem and the unborn child is just that - a child.
YMMV (but if you disagree, fuck off)
There's likely a bigger risk of population collapse than overpopulating the earth.
If a baby is not considered viable until 12 weeks - whatever the line is - why can someone be charged with murder of a baby in the womb?
But all these women are insistent that this is about controlling women instead of just not wanting to abort a heart beat.
It's actually pissing me off. I realize there is a chunk of men who want to control women. There is also a chunk who want the baby to be born and don't want to hold women back.
do they not realize that many of these aborted babies are females? Wouldn’t saving these potential females be considered pro women?
Adding to Creepy's logic-based explanation is the fact that premature babies commonly survive at ever more shorter gestation periods than in 1973, so this problem of when the state's interest overrides the mother's has been bearing down upon the Roe standards and time periods for at least 3 decades now. Lefty-Libs have satisfied themselves for decades by distinguishing between a baby and a fetus. Well, if it can survive outside the womb, then it's a baby folks. A viable, living, human baby. So abortion at that point is, to me, taking a life, and I don't see how any thoughtful person can argue otherwise.
That said, I think it's a woman's right to choose and if they choose to kill their unborn child, that's up to them. But killing is killing, and there's no way around it IMO.
Comments
Viability fails too. Viability is a moving line that changes with technology. We’re talking about what is and is not a person. That doesn’t move with technological advancement.
Can’t have it. The zealots are right on this one.
Trite but true
I would be crushed if I got a gal preggers and she got an abortion. Against everything I believe in
Prohibition was also good. Before it Americans were basically drunk if they were awake
Drugs are bad for you and the country
But back ally abortion would return and that's bad secular policy
Prohibition doesn't work. Not even in Iran
Back alleys will back alley. It’s a person or it’s not. No line? Then it is. Can’t kill it. Period. No circumstances. The Catholics nailed this one.
I doubt it.
After that you can't argue it's not life
I think murder should be legal in some cases as well
Slow drivers in the fast lane for example
In all states btw.
“I believe in and am committed to the right of every woman to
make the choicebe persuaded that is best for herself and her family, and I will never stop fighting to ensure that abortion and family planning care are available, without barriers and unnecessary restrictions, in King County and Washington State,” Constantine said in prepared remarks.If a baby is not considered viable until 12 weeks - whatever the line is - why can someone be charged with murder of a baby in the womb?
But all these women are insistent that this is about controlling women instead of just not wanting to abort a heart beat.
It's actually pissing me off. I realize there is a chunk of men who want to control women. There is also a chunk who want the baby to be born and don't want to hold women back.
do they not realize that many of these aborted babies are females? Wouldn’t saving these potential females be considered pro women?
That said, I think it's a woman's right to choose and if they choose to kill their unborn child, that's up to them. But killing is killing, and there's no way around it IMO.
Obviously conscription of the female population will be required to carry them.