Current Events > Is this table about abortion really accurate?

(+) Yeah! (+)

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Spoilers: No one that wants to ban most abortions wants to put a penny into helping the children if the parents forced to birth them are poor or unfit. They want to punish the mothers far more than protect innocent life.

This is like saying banning gay marriage and sodomy is ok if those states fund moving LGBTQ+ people to safe states and promise not to prosecute.

These two things are not at all the same. Banning Sodomy or gay marriage is bigoted behavior or at best borne out of ignorance.

I don't agree with pro life advocates... but I also don't think all of them are pro life out of hatred of women (although I will agree with you that many -- perhaps even most pro life people think this way).

....That said, regardless of their motivations we will codify abortion rights at a federal level again. As part of that I would like to see federal protections for viable/third trimester fetuses and also real financial resources and support for mothers giving birth in those situations if they otherwise have economic hardships and want to keep their babies instead of giving them up for adoption.

daynlokki posted...

Libertarians should be pro mind your own fucking business here.

I am libertarian light, to be fair. In college I was a Ron Paul Libertarian.

...Nowadays I am a 'I make $400K a year leave my money alone but also I think everyone should be able to do their own thing as long as they aren't harming others' Libertarian

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Buddy, every issue does not have a sensible middle ground. Would you say that about legalizing gay marriage? About sexual assault? And what is the point in trying to find it when one party might ban abortion nationwide without exception by the time you get the chance? Are you implying the Republican uncompromising agenda is a response to someone else's refusal to act with nuance?

...Actually, I am trying to urge everyone to not abandon their nuance because of the caveman Republican approach to abortion rights. They got it wrong. Abortion is a right all women should have. And it was stolen from us. But that also gives us a chance to fix broken state laws and make things better when we codify abortion rights at the federal level. Let's protect viable fetuses (which I just learned we are not doing). And let's also provide resources to women that are socioeconomically disadvantaged.

...Also. for avoidance of doubt gay marriage should be legal in all cases always. And rape is wrong. I have no idea what those things have to do with this and why I have to say it. But I will.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This is my favorite post in the topic lol.

daynlokki posted...

Libertarians should be pro mind your own fucking business here.

My libertarian stance is absolute bodily autonomy.
You are the landlord of your womb.

Broken_Promise posted...

Because I'm uncomfortable with a law that theoretically allows abortions at any point of a fetus's life cycle for any reason. And you should be too.

Law should not be allowed to dictate personal medical health decisions. Doesn't matter what it is. Medicine should be left for the doctors to figure out.

The dude who overturned RvW thinks vaccines are made with the cells of aborted babies. Someone with knowledge that fucking wrong is a prime example of why politicians should stay the fuck out of medicine.

Questionmarktarius's opinion on abortion, that pisses off everyone:
You are ending a human life.
It is your right to do so.

daynlokki posted...

Libertarians should be pro mind your own fucking business here.

Agreed. Anybody who says differently isn't a Libertarian at all, they're just trying to mask their true agenda.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Questionmarktarius's opinion on abortion, that pisses off everyone:
You are ending a human life.
It is your right to do so.

Yup. Human life is one of the most abundant fucking resources on the planet. No idea why people try to act like its something sacred

fire_bolt posted...

Agreed. Anybody who says differently isn't a Libertarian at all, they're just trying to mask their true agenda.

Yup. Human life is one of the most abundant fucking resources on the planet. No idea why people try to act like its something sacred

I'm glad we got this right in the open. We need to have exactly this debate as we are refining abortion legislation.

Broken_Promise posted...

and also real financial resources and support for mothers giving birth in those situations if they otherwise have economic hardships

How about we do that first and give women opportunity.

Instead of first telling them what they can't do with their own bodies.

I feel this is legislating because you feel icky.

fire_bolt posted...

Agreed. Anybody who says differently isn't a Libertarian at all, they're just trying to mask their true agenda.

Never trust anyone who tells you what their political affiliation is because I guarantee within an hour of talking to them, you'll find at least two or three exceptions they're willing to make.

Questionmarktarius posted...

My libertarian stance is absolute bodily autonomy.
You are the landlord of your womb.

Exactly!

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kansas is somehow the bastion of abortion.
How did that happen?

Not quite. Its up for a vote on August 2nd and at least where I live there are a lot of signs calling for a ban.

Broken_Promise posted...

These two things are not at all the same. Banning Sodomy or gay marriage is bigoted behavior or at best borne out of ignorance.

I don't agree with pro life advocates... but I also don't think all of them are pro life out of hatred of women (although I will agree with you that many -- perhaps even most pro life people think this way).

....That said, regardless of their motivations we will codify abortion rights at a federal level again. As part of that I would like to see federal protections for viable/third trimester fetuses and also real financial resources and support for mothers giving birth in those situations if they otherwise have economic hardships and want to keep their babies instead of giving them up for adoption.

So a few thoughts:
A) What makes you confident abortion rights will be codified again? Given the extreme amount of gerrymandering and judicial control the Republicans/right have on the electoral and policy process?
B) You said absolutes are bad but then agreed that sometimes they are appropriate (gay marriage). So (if I'm following you correctly), your issue is not with people having absolutes, but drawing absolutes about THIS issue?
C) Where did you see that there many of the 6k were done for non medical reasons? The poster that claimed that linked a study about racial stats...
D) You seem to be very focused on this new discovery as you call it... What exactly are you asking people to say on CE?

@Broken_Promise

Ruvan22 posted...

So a few thoughts:
A) What makes you confident abortion rights will be codified again? Given the extreme amount of gerrymandering and judicial control the Republicans/right have on the electoral and policy process?
B) You said absolutes are bad but then agreed that sometimes they are appropriate (gay marriage). So (if I'm following you correctly), your issue is not with people having absolutes, but drawing absolutes about THIS issue?
C) Where did you see that there many of the 6k were done for non medical reasons? The poster that claimed that linked a study about racial stats...
D) You seem to be very focused on this new discovery as you call it... What exactly are you asking people to say on CE?

@Broken_Promise

A.) I don't know how long it will take, but given health majorities want abortion legalized I'm Hugh confidence abortion will be legalized again. But you are correct that I'm not 100% certain.

B.) Correct. Mt exact words were that I said that absolutism in any form is rarely useful.Not that it never is. But things like "it is wrong for an adult to have sex with a prepubescent child" and "it is wrong to deny two people the right to marriage because of their political ideology would be absolutes I am okay with. Women should be able to have an abortion at any stage in a pregnancy is not an absolute I am okay with.

C.) I didn't say that 6K abortions a years are done for non medical reasons. I responded to the poster's comment that 6K abortions a year are performed in the third trimester. My comment was saying that those are 6K lives (not a trivial #), and if 100% of those abortions are being done to save the live of the mother then a law only allowing third trimester abortions to save a mother's life will allow those women the same freedoms they currently enjoy. But if there are third trimester abortions happening for other reasons then those fetuses deserve some sort of protection under the law.

D.) Initially I was just asking if it was really true that under the law women can abort a fetus at any stage of the pregnancy (e.g. even at 8.5 months) for any reason in 6 states+ DC or if I was misinterpreting. I was asking because I couldn't believe laws that draconian exist on our books and was asking someone to confirm I was wrong. However, it appears I was not misinterpreting based on the responses I've gotten so far. The rest of the topic as far as I can tell has just been people calling me a concern troll and making derisive comments on my point of view here while I've defended my position.

@Ruvan22

CyricZ posted...

How about we do that first and give women opportunity.

Instead of first telling them what they can't do with their own bodies.

I feel this is legislating because you feel icky.

Ideally we would do both. Protect fetuses at the point of viability federally (giving women the right to choose in all other instances) and giving women resources to care for children so that (late term) abortions for economic reasons are never a thing. However, now that abortion rights have been unfortunately stripped away we might as well fix the broken abortion laws in states like Vermont at the same time that we codify the right federally.

Broken_Promise posted...

extremely socially liberal (and equally economically conservative)

Id you are economically conservative, you are not socially liberal.

Also good, should be no restrictions

QueenCarly posted...

Id you are economically conservative, you are not socially liberal.

I am pro legalization of Marijuana. I'm pro gay marriage. I'm pro choice up to the point of fetal viability. I'm pro gender pay equity, believe in keeping religion out of schools, am a believer in climate change and in general don't believe in legislating morality. Only you can say if I am part of your political tribe... but while I may not be as socially liberal as you I'm definitely to the left of the Republican party and most conservatives. I identify as socially liberal.

That said, I also don't believe that food stamps, universal healthcare, tax credits / housing for the poor etc are human rights that should be funded by other tax payers. I like Grover Norquist's comment that government should be small enough to drown in the bathtub.

QueenCarly posted...

Also good, should be no restrictions

???

Broken_Promise posted...

giving women resources to care for children so that (late term) abortions for economic reasons are never a thing

love that this guy is still pretending that "late term abortions for economic reasons" are a real thing
tc, youre real bad at this

Broken_Promise posted...

I am pro legalization of Marijuana. I'm pro gay marriage. I'm pro choice up to the point of fetal viability. I'm pro gender pay equity, believe in keeping religion out of schools, am a believer in climate change and in general don't believe in legislating morality. Only you can say if I am part of your political tribe... but while I may not be as socially liberal as you I'm definitely to the left of the Republican party and most conservatives. I identify as socially liberal.

That said, I also don't believe that food stamps, universal healthcare, tax credits / housing for the poor etc are human rights that should be funded by other tax payers. I like Grover Norquist's comment that government should be small enough to drown in the bathtub.

damn the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one lol

Probably a terf too

Why is this blatant trolling still up

DespondentDeity posted...

Probably a terf too

That is a bit much. I believe transwomen are women and support their rights to be treated as women. I don't even know why you would say something like this.

DeathDeathSong posted...

love that this guy is still pretending that "late term abortions for economic reasons" are a real thing
tc, youre real bad at this

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/5/9/AASBEuAADaFL.jpg
https://theconversation.com/less-than-1-of-abortions-take-place-in-the-third-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580

@DeathDeathSong

@DeathDeathSong sharing as info. Having educated myself on the topic I wanted to ensure you were similarly informed.

DeathDeathSong posted...

love that this guy is still pretending that "late term abortions for economic reasons" are a real thing
tc, youre real bad at this

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/6/0/AASBEuAADaFM.jpg

...I'm not surprised at the hostility from posters here, but I will confess to be taken aback by it. What I'm saying is *not* crazy or even unreasonable.

Broken_Promise posted...

I am pro legalization of Marijuana. I'm pro gay marriage. I'm pro choice up to the point of fetal viability. I'm pro gender pay equity, believe in keeping religion out of schools, am a believer in climate change and in general don't believe in legislating morality. Only you can say if I am part of your political tribe... but while I may not be as socially liberal as you I'm definitely to the left of the Republican party and most conservatives. I identify as socially liberal.

That said, I also don't believe that food stamps, universal healthcare, tax credits / housing for the poor etc are human rights that should be funded by other tax payers. I like Grover Norquist's comment that government should be small enough to drown in the bathtub.

you can't be socially liberal if you don't support the very things that enable uplifting those that are worst off in society

economic conservatism is why there are massive wealth inequality issues, government needs to play an ACTIVE ROLE in lifting people up otherwise the most marginalized will continue to be pushed down

QueenCarly posted...

you can't be socially liberal if you don't support the very things that enable uplifting those that are worst off in society

economic conservatism is why there are massive wealth inequality issues, government needs to play an ACTIVE ROLE in lifting people up otherwise the most marginalized will continue to be pushed down

I am pro freedom as long as that freedom doesn't harm others. Most social policies that are pro freedom are also liberal.

Broken_Promise posted...

I am pro freedom as long as that freedom doesn't harm others. Most social policies that are pro freedom are also liberal.

freedom doesn't mean shit for people that do not have the economic ability to improve their lives

you're just wanting to not look like a bad person, but won't lift a finger or pay marginally more in taxes to actually do some fucking good for the people that need the help

QueenCarly posted...

freedom doesn't mean shit for people that do not have the economic ability to improve their lives

you're just wanting to not look like a bad person, but won't lift a finger or pay marginally more in taxes to actually do some fucking good for the people that need the help

You're right, I would not pay marginally more in taxes to help people that need the help. But not because I'm selfish -- but because I don't believe the government efficiently allocates the capital we do give them to the people and causes that need them most. If the government can learn to effectively use the money they are taking already I'd be happy to give more.

...Your other point is more interesting. I agree that freedom is a benefit disproportionately enjoyed by the economically privileged. And I also think we would both agree that economic investment in socioeconomically disadvantaged people contributes to their advancement. But where I imagine we disagree is what that says about what the role of government ought to be. Ultimately society needs to work for everyone -- the rich and the middle class and the poor... and taking and taking from the rich without giving them something in return doesn't work anymore than a system that only benefits the rich. If the government is going to increase my marginal tax rate 4%/whatever I should benefit from that in some way. And of course I'm okay with others benefitting as well. Economic liberals never understand that. They are too busy complaining about how unfair everything is and not taking agency of their own lives and understanding everything is a delicate balance of give and take.

...Back to the topic at hand. I believe in a woman's right to choose. And if something I said suggested otherwise I'm sorry. But third trimester abortions for most reasons that don't involve protecting the life of the mother are wrong. And they are unforunately happening today -- even though no one in this topic seems to be concerned about that. But I am. That doesn't make me a bad person. I understand you're all angry and maybe a bit jaded and that has made you hostile to any point of view that isn't belligerently progressive. Heck, it works for the Republicans so why not do the same thing? Everything or nothing right?

...But let me tell you something I have learned over time. It is not about being right. It is about doing right. If you focus on that -- both protecting viable lives and the rights of women to choose I suspect you will find a much broader coalition (and much easier path to codifying abortion rights in the legislature) than you think.

Broken_Promise posted...

but because I don't believe the government efficiently allocates the capital

This is a muskrat talking point

Tyranthraxus posted...

This is a muskrat talking point

Don't know who that is. Don't care. It's true. We spend more on military spending than the next five countries beneath us combined. We spend more on pharmaceutical drugs than any other country in the world. We incarcerate more people than any other developed country in the world at higher per person costs. We just had a trillion+ dollar pandemic spending bills in which both parties agree a large portion of the monies allocated were wasted or given to people fraudulently.

...We deficit spend on useless things over and over and over again and I am supposed to raise my hand and ask for a tax increase? Why? Because I am a high earner? So I should just give it to the government to waste? No sir, thank you. I will pass. Put meaningful legislation forward with bi partisan support that improves the lives of the poor *and* gives me some sort of ROI and I will fully support it.

Broken_Promise posted...

Don't know who that is. Don't care. It's true. We spend more on military spending than the next five countries beneath us combined. We spend more on pharmaceutical drugs than any other country in the world. We incarcerate more people than any other developed country in the world at higher per person costs. We just had a trillion+ dollar pandemic slending bills in which both parties agree a large portion of the monies allocated were wasted or given to people fraudulently.

...We deficit spend on useless things over and over and over again and I am supposed to raise my hand and ask for a tax increase. Why? Because I am a high earner? So I should just give it to the government to waste? No sir, thank you. I will pass. Put meaningful legislation forward with bi partisan support that improves the lives of the poor *and* gives me some sort of ROI and I will fully support it.

the return on investment is the society you live in

TheGoldenEel posted...

the return on investment is the society you live in

Fine. Let's go with that. Put meaningful legislation forward with bi partisan support that improves the lives of the poor *and* pays for itself in the form of societal benefits that makes things better for everyone.

...It is easier to say 'tax the rich' than it is to actually deliver on the above. Which is why mostly I hear complaints about how unfair things are and how evil the rich are from populists (on both sides of the aisle) but solutions are scarce.

Broken_Promise posted...

Fine. Let's go with that. Put meaningful legislation forward with bi partisan support that improves the lives of the poor *and* pays for itself in the form of societal benefits that makes things better for everyone.

...It is easier to say 'tax the rich' than it is to actually deliver on the above. Which is why mostly I hear complaints about how unfair things are and how evil the rich are from populists (on both sides of the aisle) but solutions are scarce.

The solution is to tax the rich

Anyway, I'm not here to defend being Libertarian light or a David Portnoy/Rockefeller Republican. And I don't think I'm making any progress on the 'abortions in the 3rd trimester are wrong if not done to protect the life of the mother' front. So I will call it a night for now. :-)

TheGoldenEel posted...

The solution is to tax the rich

No it isn't. By itself this is just a punitive/hateful thing to do borne out of schadenfreude.

Broken_Promise posted...

No it isn't. By itself this is just a punitive/hateful thing to do borne out of schadenfreude.

It certainly is not

the rich have hoarded more and more wealth ever since Reagan rigged the tax system to reward rich people by making them even richer

its not that rich people earned the money and its some sense of greed wanting to take it from them. Its that the system is currently designed to funnel money to the richest people and that needs to be fixed
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/4/0/AAW8UqAADaIA.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/4/1/AAW8UqAADaIB.jpg

idk why I keep responding lol because someone admitting theyre libertarian is someone admitting they have a fundamental misunderstanding of cause and effect