Abortion - Trump Thread Split

[zmic]

If you staunchly support abortion being legal, I'm not really sure how you'd get the pro-life people on board. It REALLY doesn't help that many of the very religious are against contraceptives as well. Yes they result in less unwanted pregnancies and less abortions, but that's not the relevant point to many of them. It's more the mindset of "if you get pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, tough, have a baby". Not really sure what type of compromise there will be among people like that.

IMO the only hope for the Democrats is to recognize that they might be on the wrong side of history regarding abortion.

That does not mean they have to oppose abortion. But they have concede to that the right to abortion should be decided at state-level by democratic vote rather than be imposed by Roe vs. Wade. And yes, that means that Roe vs. Wade must go.

[Trebla]

IMO the only hope for the Democrats is to recognize that they might be on the wrong side of history regarding abortion.

That does not mean they have to oppose abortion. But they have concede to that the right to abortion should be decided at state-level by democratic vote rather than be imposed by Roe vs. Wade. And yes, that means that Roe vs. Wade must go.

In general (and I could be wrong) pro-choice people are AGAINST abortion... in an ideal world, nobody would get an abortion (certainly there are extremists who disagree)... but before that can be eliminated, unwanted pregnancies have to be completely eliminated. As unwanted pregnancies decrease, the need for abortion decreases. You can't fight abortion and contraception at the some time. Reducing one leads to the other... hell, estimates are that abortions are going to increase by a minimum of 40% in places that are no longer getting funded because they talked about contraception.

But no, liberals are not on the "wrong side" about abortion any more than conservatives are. The end goal for both is that nobody should have them. Liberals desire for nobody to need them... conservatives desire to punish you for having pre-marital sex. (Sorry, couldn't help it). Conservatives desire for nobody to want them.

[Liri]

If you staunchly support abortion being legal, I'm not really sure how you'd get the pro-life people on board. It REALLY doesn't help that many of the very religious are against contraceptives as well. Yes they result in less unwanted pregnancies and less abortions, but that's not the relevant point to many of them. It's more the mindset of "if you get pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, tough, have a baby". Not really sure what type of compromise there will be among people like that.

IMO the only hope for the Democrats is to recognize that they might be on the wrong side of history regarding abortion.

That does not mean they have to oppose abortion. But they have concede to that the right to abortion should be decided at state-level by democratic vote rather than be imposed by Roe vs. Wade. And yes, that means that Roe vs. Wade must go.

This isn't some question that'll be answered in 40 years. The numbers are in, and the pro-choice crowd has it. Sending things like same-sex marriage, LGBT rights in general, voting rights, and rights of access to contraception and abortion services to the states, for a few examples, is punishing groups that rely on those that happen to be in the minority in a given state.

[Izawwlgood]

Argument to moderation. Perhaps the right for black people to vote should be decided on the state level as well. Gay people to marry. Blahblahblah. This is an old argument.

[Mutex]

States should be able to take rights away from their citizens, because freedom.

[KnightExemplar]

IMO the only hope for the Democrats is to recognize that they might be on the wrong side of history regarding abortion.

That does not mean they have to oppose abortion. But they have concede to that the right to abortion should be decided at state-level by democratic vote rather than be imposed by Roe vs. Wade. And yes, that means that Roe vs. Wade must go.

In general (and I could be wrong) pro-choice people are AGAINST abortion... in an ideal world, nobody would get an abortion (certainly there are extremists who disagree)... but before that can be eliminated, unwanted pregnancies have to be completely eliminated. As unwanted pregnancies decrease, the need for abortion decreases. You can't fight abortion and contraception at the some time. Reducing one leads to the other... hell, estimates are that abortions are going to increase by a minimum of 40% in places that are no longer getting funded because they talked about contraception.

Unwanted children in general is also a problem in many communities. But the line is drawn at birth for some people, between "human" and "tissue". Pro-life supporters simply draw the line earlier. Once a baby is born, it is literally a crime to abandon the baby. Pro-life supporters consider the "piece of tissue" to be a baby still, and wish to extend the crime to the period while the individual is still within the womb.

If we were to hypothetically go back in time, and convince Steve Job's parents (or Hitler's parents) to get an abortion instead of giving birth to the kid... and we all know that those individuals would no longer exist. Even if a new child were conceived by the same parents, the individual "Steve Jobs" would have been lost to time.

The genetic information that makes up an individual is chosen at conception. And while genetics is not 100% of the individual, it is a strong aspect of our individuality. It is virtually impossible to recreate the DNA-sequence that defines the one-cell zygote once it is conceived. And even in the cases where the genetic information were recreated perfectly (ex: identical twins), the experiences between zygotes within the womb create different individuals by the time of birth. There's no denying it, should the zygote, even at conception, be aborted... the individual is dead and the genetic information will never be recreated.

Whether you call the "individual" a piece of tissue or a baby, I think we all can agree to the basic physics at play here. All of us were single-cell zygotes floating inside our mother's womb at one point. Drawing the line before that is impossible: because our genetic information was split between the egg... from the mother... and the sperm... from the father. I'm sure people will go towards the "its a parasite" route or other such deflections... but trust me, I've heard it all before... and I've never been convinced through that line of argument.

In any case, I've chosen explicitly to respond to you Trebla, because it seems like your argument is carefully crafted. You seem to have discussed abortion before and seem to have an understanding of both sides of this issue. I too speak from a lot of experience in this debate. I have no hope that I can convince you of... really anything. Abortion debates go no where the vast majority of the time. Still, I commend you for making a well-reasoned post on this difficult to discuss issue.

[Mutex]

But the line is drawn at birth for some people, between "human" and "tissue". Pro-life supporters simply draw the line earlier. Once a baby is born, it is literally a crime to abandon the baby. Pro-life supporters consider the "piece of tissue" to be a baby still, and wish to extend the crime to the period while the individual is still within the womb.

The vast majority of pro-choice people draw the line well before birth. The line is drawn at 24 weeks mostly because that's our best guess for when a baby becomes sentient. We've had this discussion before and I know you don't agree with it, but I wasn't sure what you meant by "some people" here and it isn't clear you understand the pro-choice position.

[eran_rathan]

IMO the only hope for the Democrats conservatives is to recognize that they might be on the wrong side of history regarding abortion.

fixed that for you.

That does not mean they have to oppose abortion. But they have concede to that the right to abortion should be decided at state-level by democratic vote rather than be imposed by Roe vs. Wade. And yes, that means that Roe vs. Wade must go.

An interesting thing I read recently regarding abortion in general.

Basically, it boiled down to bodily autonomy. You, as an individual, have a right to decide what happens to your body, yes? You cannot be forced to give blood, or an organ, or whatever, regardless of whether it could save someone's life or not. This concept even covers you after you are dead.

However, a fetus, being a separate person (as defined by having different genetic code than the mother), according to anti-choice activists, but has a right to the organs and blood of the mother, regardless of her wishes. So by that logic, forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term, you are giving a fetus more rights than a woman, and giving women less rights than a corpse.

The abortion fight has less to do with 'saving the babehs!' than it does punishing people for 'sinful' behaviour and far more to do with keeping power and control over women.

[KnightExemplar]

But the line is drawn at birth for some people, between "human" and "tissue". Pro-life supporters simply draw the line earlier. Once a baby is born, it is literally a crime to abandon the baby. Pro-life supporters consider the "piece of tissue" to be a baby still, and wish to extend the crime to the period while the individual is still within the womb.

The vast majority of pro-choice people draw the line well before birth. The line is drawn at 24 weeks mostly because that's our best guess for when a baby becomes sentient. We've had this discussion before and I know you don't agree with it, but I wasn't sure what you meant by "some people" here and it isn't clear you understand the pro-choice position.

I can agree to your statement.

Pro-choice and pro-life are actually spectrum. I'm personally of the opinion that the individual exists as early as conception. And yes, I do realize the difficulty of discussing things like "Morning After Pill" and other such early-medication with this stance, but its my stance in any case. There are some pro-choice people who take the extreme view and want abortions to be legal up until birth.

Indeed: that's why Clinton had some difficulty in the debates last year. She couldn't alienate the pro-choice crowd that is supporting her and diss that position. Trump capitalized on that hesitation post-debate and it definitely rallied his base. Clinton still won the debate overall according to exit polls, but the "Abortion right until birth" line went around a lot... unfairly IMO but it did happen.

Anyway, there's a lot of positions on abortion. Nonetheless, in the general case, a pro-lifer would argue that "life begins" at an earlier point than a pro-choicer would. So feel free to change my argument above to "the first trimester", "the second trimester", or whatever other point you deem is the "critical cutoff point".

I've taken the most extreme stance in any case: alive at conception. So I'm comfortable with you moving the critical time to whatever suits your argument or philosophy.

The abortion fight has less to do with 'saving the babehs!' than it does punishing people for 'sinful' behaviour and far more to do with keeping power and control over women.

Of course. All opponents of the liberal cause are bigots. We're all just southern, uneducated, racist womanizers who are trying to grasp for power away from poor unfortunate souls.

This is the very argument that I've been complaining about for several pages. There's a reason why the codewords during the last election were "Coastal Elite Liberals".

[PeteP]

While true it is not my favorite argument. If a parasite infected me and the parasite was a person and it happened through no fault on its own and it wasn't some mind control parasite or an always evil parasite, then I would try to remove it without killing it. I don't think you would be obligated to do that but I think you should. So if I considered an embryo a person I would be much more concerned about it even if I still would consider it your right. (Edit: replying to the post two above mine.)

[eran_rathan]

If you (generic you anti-choice person) were actually interested in stopping or reducing the number of abortions, you'd be pushing for contraceptive availability and comprehensive sex ed, both of which have been proven to reduce the actual number of abortions performed.

Instead, generic you wants abstinence-only sex ed, no contraceptives, and gods forbid health providers actually talk about health options instead of being gag-ordered. That to me says that no matter how much you proclaim otherwise, you're not actually that interested in reducing the number of abortions, you're interesting in punishment.


How many unwanted kids have you adopted?

[Angua]

But the line is drawn at birth for some people, between "human" and "tissue". Pro-life supporters simply draw the line earlier. Once a baby is born, it is literally a crime to abandon the baby. Pro-life supporters consider the "piece of tissue" to be a baby still, and wish to extend the crime to the period while the individual is still within the womb.

The vast majority of pro-choice people draw the line well before birth. The line is drawn at 24 weeks mostly because that's our best guess for when a baby becomes sentient. We've had this discussion before and I know you don't agree with it, but I wasn't sure what you meant by "some people" here and it isn't clear you understand the pro-choice position.

Really? I thought it was because that's when the baby becomes viable. How does one define sentience?

[SDK]

The abortion fight has less to do with 'saving the babehs!' than it does punishing people for 'sinful' behaviour and far more to do with keeping power and control over women.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. That might be a side-effect, but that is definitely not the motivation for most people who consider themselves pro-life.

By all means, poke holes in their arguments and show evidence that other stances actually result in less baby-death, but thinking that your average citizen believes they're "keeping power and control over women" by fighting abortion is far more delusional than most pro-life arguments I've ever seen.

[Trebla]

Unwanted children in general is also a problem in many communities. But the line is drawn at birth for some people, between "human" and "tissue". Pro-life supporters simply draw the line earlier. Once a baby is born, it is literally a crime to abandon the baby. Pro-life supporters consider the "piece of tissue" to be a baby still, and wish to extend the crime to the period while the individual is still within the womb.

If we were to hypothetically go back in time, and convince Steve Job's parents (or Hitler's parents) to get an abortion instead of giving birth to the kid... and we all know that those individuals would no longer exist. Even if a new child were conceived by the same parents, the individual "Steve Jobs" would have been lost to time.

The genetic information that makes up an individual is chosen at conception. And while genetics is not 100% of the individual, it is a strong aspect of our individuality. It is virtually impossible to recreate the DNA-sequence that defines the one-cell zygote once it is conceived. And even in the cases where the genetic information were recreated perfectly (ex: identical twins), the experiences between zygotes within the womb create different individuals by the time of birth. There's no denying it, should the zygote, even at conception, be aborted... the individual is dead and the genetic information will never be recreated.

Whether you call the "individual" a piece of tissue or a baby, I think we all can agree to the basic physics at play here. All of us were single-cell zygotes floating inside our mother's womb at one point. Drawing the line before that is impossible: because our genetic information was split between the egg... from the mother... and the sperm... from the father. I'm sure people will go towards the "its a parasite" route or other such deflections... but trust me, I've heard it all before... and I've never been convinced through that line of argument.

In any case, I've chosen explicitly to respond to you Trebla, because it seems like your argument is carefully crafted. You seem to have discussed abortion before and seem to have an understanding of both sides of this issue. I too speak from a lot of experience in this debate. I have no hope that I can convince you of... really anything. Abortion debates go no where the vast majority of the time. Still, I commend you for making a well-reasoned post on this difficult to discuss issue.

I don't have an argument for this thread, I was just pointing out that both conservatives and liberals are fundamentally on the same side of the abortion debate, they just have different ideas about the best way to minimize the occurrences of abortions. I will spoiler a personal "Steve Jobs" anecdote for your example which can be seen as sufficient a reason enough for me to be pro-choice, though it's certainly not the only reason.

Spoiler:

My parents got pregnant too young... had an abortion... half a decade later, decided to have kids and ended up with myself and later my sister. Sure, maybe Steve Jobs doesn't exist because of that abortion... but because of it, two other people who I'm very concerned for do. Maybe my parents would have had another child if they'd been forced to leave school to raise the first one, but as you pointed out, it would not be genetically or environmentally me or my sister. So no... stopping a potential person from forming is not an argument that carries weight for me because it allows another potential person to form... zero sum.

[LaserGuy]

There are some pro-choice people who take the extreme view and want abortions to be legal up until birth.

Oh, sure, I'll happily take this position. And despite Mutex's comment suggesting otherwise, I suspect that as soon as you start pushing an average pro-choice person, you'll quickly find that they default to this as well. The reason being that third trimester abortions are, for the most part, wanted pregnancies where something has gone catastrophically wrong to the fetus, the mother, or both. If you're prepared to make exceptions for medical emergencies, then you're probably letting in the bulk of late-term abortions anyway, especially if the system is set up so that early access to abortion is easily attainable, and you aren't forcing people with unwanted pregnancies into later abortions by denying them access. On the whole, in the case of third trimester abortions, I see no reason to burden families making an already-heartbreaking decision with needless legal entanglements.

The abortion fight has less to do with 'saving the babehs!' than it does punishing people for 'sinful' behaviour and far more to do with keeping power and control over women.

Of course. All opponents of the liberal cause are bigots. We're all just southern, uneducated, racist womanizers who are trying to grasp for power away from poor unfortunate souls.

This is the very argument that I've been complaining about for several pages. There's a reason why the codewords during the last election were "Coastal Elite Liberals".

I don't want to force you to defend beliefs that you don't hold, but this conclusion is really hard to escape if you look at the totality of beliefs of many people in the pro-life group:

• Opposed to abortion in all, or nearly all circumstances
• Opposed to contraception
• Opposed to extended maternal leave
• Opposed to state-funded childcare
• Opposed to comprehensive sex education
• Invasive and humiliating procedures required prior to an abortion

Now, not all pro-life people believe all of these things, but this set of beliefs is held, in part or in its entirety, but a significant proportion of them. In fact, the most common concession that pro-lifers are willing to give--that abortion should be allowed in the cases of rape and incest--only reinforces that this is more about punishing women for having consensual sex rather than saving lives. If abortion is the murder of an innocent child, then the fact that the child is a product of rape or incest shouldn't have any bearing on the morality of whether it is correct to kill that child. In any event, if you put all these things together, it's really hard to escape the conclusion that this isn't about reducing the number of abortions, but is more about punishing licentiousness. Because reversing most of those positions I listed would reduce the number of abortions overall, and encourage mothers with unwanted pregnancies to keep them.

[KnightExemplar]

In any case, good discussion. I'd rather not push our luck, and so far our abortion discussion has been actually quite good. The longer this discussion goes however, the higher the chance that it will go awry.

So with that, I'm going to say I'm going to focus on Trump things from here on out. Neil Gorsuch doesn't seem to be too interested in the abortion issue... one way or the other. So I'm not sure if abortion is too relevant to current events right now.

[Koa]

The point a lot of people keep missing is that he would actually have to commit a crime to be impeached. You can't just impeach the President (much less move on to removing him) because you don't like him, or his policies, or the overall job that he is doing. It doesn't work that way.

I'm aware of this and yet I will still mention impeachment because I think there are probably investigations going on which the public doesn't know about, if even from NATO. It's holding out hope that there is a stop button before seeing a full term or even a larger and smarter coup than North Carolina. When government checks are neutered and an administration is hand picked to work with someone who is morally bankrupt, it's the last hope there is right now.

[eran_rathan]

The abortion fight has less to do with 'saving the babehs!' than it does punishing people for 'sinful' behaviour and far more to do with keeping power and control over women.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. That might be a side-effect, but that is definitely not the motivation for most people who consider themselves pro-life.

By all means, poke holes in their arguments and show evidence that other stances actually result in less baby-death, but thinking that your average citizen believes they're "keeping power and control over women" by fighting abortion is far more delusional than most pro-life arguments I've ever seen.

I don't think that most rank-and-file folks who are anti-abortion feel that way, no. And I don't think they would intentionally support the 'power and control' part of it (many would, however, support the 'punishment' part).

[SDK]

I don't think that most rank-and-file folks who are anti-abortion feel that way, no. And I don't think they would intentionally support the 'power and control' part of it (many would, however, support the 'punishment' part).

Not having much sympathy for someone who doesn't want to live with the consequences of their actions doesn't count as punishment. If we lived in a world where abortions were just flat out not possible, you wouldn't be punishing someone if they complained about their pregnancy and you just shrugged. That is how the vast majority of pro-life supporters see it - there is no choice, it's not a punishment, it's just something the woman/girl has to live with. They aren't looking to ruin her life, they're looking to save the baby.

When you're talking about this as a punishment you're asking a pro-lifer to show some empathy for the hard time this girl is facing, but you seem incapable of showing empathy towards their viewpoint. Putting up a vile strawman to point at and shame is not helping anyone.

[morriswalters]

Argument to moderation. Perhaps the right for black people to vote should be decided on the state level as well. Gay people to marry. Blahblahblah. This is an old argument.

Civil Rights is not equal to Abortion. And contrary to Liri the country has been evenly divided since the outset. In a practical sense you could upend the Republican train by enshrining the right to bear arms explicitly and abortion restrictions of some type in the Constitution. The NRA would go out of business a lot of the background noise would fade. Of course that isn't going to happen.

Basically, it boiled down to bodily autonomy. You, as an individual, have a right to decide what happens to your body, yes? You cannot be forced to give blood, or an organ, or whatever, regardless of whether it could save someone's life or not. This concept even covers you after you are dead.

Sorry, but no. I'm not even going to list the ways that right can be superseded.

Oh, sure, I'll happily take this position

Then you shouldn't be surprised that pro life people go extreme the other way.

[LaserGuy]

Oh, sure, I'll happily take this position

Then you shouldn't be surprised that pro life people go extreme the other way.

I'm not. I used to be pro-life. Hell, I argued for pro-life positions on these very boards, maybe, I dunno, seven or eight years ago. I understand exactly where they are coming from and why they believe what they do.

[SecondTalon]

Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others