Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: The silenced majority in America's crazed abortion debate

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:37 AM
    Posts
    17,755
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    I was shocked to hear that one again this week-end, from a "reasonable" liberal, and old friend and wonderful person. As she put it, without abortion we'd have a flood of poor people, or words close to that. I replied quickly that she was "sounding a bit too much like Margaret Sanger there," and we didn't revisit it.

    Logic will drive you to extremes on this, I believe. Last night on TV I heard yet another person say that a person was created at "the moment of conception." I understand the truth of that—it's not a baby kangaroo forming in there—but it's surely overreach. A woman isn't relieved of quotidian chores at the moment of conception, pampered and protected; nor is she reduced to a carefully monitored incubator. More important, the zygote is not accorded constitutional rights. I don't think it's possible to do so.

    But somewhere along the way that changes, and I'm not at all sure logic will give us the divining rod we want.

    One common complaint of new mothers is the burdens of childcare rob her of the carefree single life and its stimulation. One might compare and contrast the words themselves, childcare and carefree. But the frustration has driven mothers to kill their children, to throw the child off a bridge for lack of a babysitter, for example. In the old days of legendary "shotgun weddings" the father/boy might have had similar misgivings, I speculate. Tough noogie-boogies, the shotgun wielder might say.

    Babies no doubt are such a burden. People who are pregnant and want the little roo call it a baby from the get-go. People who don't want it call it a fetus. In general we've drawn a logical dividing line on the word viable, but that's a moving target. I'll gladly assume that sometime soon we'll be able to nurture a zygote to healthy infancy completely outside the living mother. Then what?
    I have no idea. The entire thing is perplexing to me. As you point out, it's a baby (often with a series of names) if the woman wants a baby and she will mourn that child intensely if she miscarries. It's a 'clump of cells' if she doesn't want a baby.

    Then she may abort one pregnancy but be thrilled with another.

    There is no logic here. Sadly. Neither do I think the law can manufacture any logic here. The best we can do is make the abortion as humane as possible given our limits of human knowledge which pretty much means restricting it to an early developmental stage.

    This in no way addresses the moral concepts nor the role of the father. Some men don't care at all while others care greatly and would be happy to take on the entire responsibility. I don't know what to do about that.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:16 PM
    Posts
    4,116
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    That's probably true. Very few countries allow unlimited elective abortion. In Europe, it typically has to happen before 20 weeks.

    Limiting it to early abortions won't satisfy some but butchering the unborn days before birth doesn't sit right with most people and neither does refusing medical care for an infant who somehow survives the procedure.

    The SC decision was a bad one as almost all legal minds agree (whatever side they take on this issue).

    I wish that more time and money was spent on educating girls and women about the many adoption alternatives available today. Too many believe (paradoxically) that giving a baby up makes them a "bad" mother but that killing a kid somehow doesn't. Adoption now always leaves the door open a bit if a woman does later desire a relationship but it doesn't demand that relationship if she declines.

    It seems like a more humane choice for both.

    In the meantime, restricting it to early abortions seems practical if not moral. If you going to go down that path, it's better to do it before the baby can suffer.

    This is the problem in America. Nobody is satisfied. Honestly, I feel like the far left and the far right are completely ruining this country. Every activist group is unwilling to draw a line. I've been seeing pro-lifers bash Trump because he said he favored the rape and incest exception. The moderates are scared to speak up.

    I don't want women going to jail or suffering healthwise because she couldn't get an abortion in the early stages.

    I don't want a third trimester baby to suffer.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    This is the problem in America. Nobody is satisfied. Honestly, I feel like the far left and the far right are completely ruining this country. Every activist group is unwilling to draw a line. I've been seeing pro-lifers bash Trump because he said he favored the rape and incest exception. The moderates are scared to speak up.

    I don't want women going to jail or suffering healthwise because she couldn't get an abortion in the early stages.

    I don't want a third trimester baby to suffer.
    In the early stages of what?
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:21 AM
    Posts
    10,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    I heard a radio discussion of this today, the take away from which was that the number of babies carried to term and then given up for adoption is becoming negligible.
    Sure. We the taxpayers pay for those mothers who can't afford diapers. Big time. All their lives. baby = money.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:21 AM
    Posts
    10,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by phillygirl View Post
    In the early stages of what?
    Baby incubation. Duh.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:21 AM
    Posts
    10,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post

    This in no way addresses the moral concepts nor the role of the father. Some men don't care at all while others care greatly and would be happy to take on the entire responsibility.
    Why should a man care when We the Taxpayers Gubmint have taken on that role.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:15 PM
    Posts
    8,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Chinese leadership, in a photo at Drudge.


    You can forgive the lack of diversity in their ranks, for two reasons. First, they're leftists, and they do no wrong.

    Second, their country is short about 30 million females, due to sex-selective abortion (and infanticide), driven largely by their one child policy.

    Bernie Sanders supports sex-selective abortion, mostly because the all-abortion Democrats will not say no to anything.

    Unfortunately, everywhere it's used, sex-selective abortion works to the uniform disadvantage of girls.

    Rolling Stone, reminding the All Abortion crowd there is no saying No:
    ..Sex-selective abortion is a straw man argument and proponents of it in the United States are purely looking to restrict abortion through any means possible. It’s just another way to malign and police women’s motives when seeking an abortion.

    According to the Guttmacher Institute, “Laws that prohibit abortions for specific reasons, such as sex selection, make it more difficult to obtain abortion overall, especially for women of color and immigrant women, compounding the issues these groups already face when attempting to access sexual and reproductive health care… Laws that force doctors to interrogate a patient’s reasons for having an abortion perpetuate stereotypes and imply that women, and especially women of color, cannot be trusted to make their own medical decisions.”

    Democratic candidates who claim to support a woman’s right to choose need to be educated enough on the issue to answer questions, even ridiculous ones like Todd’s, without knee-jerk defaulting to denying women access to medical care based on specious claims. Sanders can’t say that women have a constitutional right to make decisions concerning their own bodies, and then take it away in his very next breath. Women deserve better male allies than that.
    When someone like Rolling Stone's Peter Wade writes that people "who claim to support a woman’s right to choose need to be educated enough on the issue to answer questions," he means, "get your story straight." But he's a guy, probably. I mean, with a micro-aggresive name like Peter and all.

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  8. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  9. #18
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:15 PM
    Posts
    8,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe male homosexuality is genetic. I agree with Mayor Pete that if I had a problem with it, I'd in fact be having a problem with God.

    But if we discover how to detect a fetus that will be gay, which discovery may come late in the development of the fetus, it will put some people between a rock and a hard place, but if you support unfettered selective abortion, genetically gay men will be largely wiped out.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:37 AM
    Posts
    17,755
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    I believe male homosexuality is genetic. I agree with Mayor Pete that if I had a problem with it, I'd in fact be having a problem with God.

    But if we discover how to detect a fetus that will be gay, which discovery may come late in the development of the fetus, it will put some people between a rock and a hard place, but if you support unfettered selective abortion, genetically gay men will be largely wiped out.
    People are lucky that there appears to be no "gay" gene that can be detected with a non-invasive test. If there were such a thing, gay boys and men would vanish in one generation. Girls and women have much more situational sex lives and some switch hit pretty easily when they are young so it might not impact them as much but 90% of those boys would be toast.

    How not? We are constantly told of the many hardships gay men experience ranging from health impacts to psychological issues. The bullying, the suicides, etc. If a woman is open to abortion, say for a kid with Down Syndrome, why not for a gay boy? It's essentially the same argument.

    If people can kill girls for simply being girls, killing potentially gay boys is a pretty easy step.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  11. Likes 80zephyr, Newman liked this post
  12. #20
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:15 PM
    Posts
    8,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    People are lucky that there appears to be no "gay" gene that can be detected with a non-invasive test. If there were such a thing, gay boys and men would vanish in one generation. Girls and women have much more situational sex lives and some switch hit pretty easily when they are young so it might not impact them as much but 90% of those boys would be toast.

    How not? We are constantly told of the many hardships gay men experience ranging from health impacts to psychological issues. The bullying, the suicides, etc. If a woman is open to abortion, say for a kid with Down Syndrome, why not for a gay boy? It's essentially the same argument.

    If people can kill girls for simply being girls, killing potentially gay boys is a pretty easy step.
    I wonder how the politics will shake out. I don't expect gay men to volunteer for extinction.

    The first response from the all-abortion front would likely be to call for "education," like "common sense gun control" or "comprehensive immigration reform." Teach tolerance and such. Maybe "Act Up" will re-emerge to smash you in the face if you aren't tolerant enough.

    Good luck with that.

    I vaguely remember a little dust-up a few years ago when it briefly looked like a pre-birth cure for Downs Syndrome was likely to be developed. There was a protest at the prospect of eliminating Downs kids. Similarly there was a protest some years ago of the cute videos of babies hearing for the first time, through new advances in technology. No one wants to lose numbers.

    Losing numbers means losing influence. I once hoped, briefly, that if girls were more scarce in India and China, maybe they'd become more precious and protected. Ha! I couldn't be wronger if I was a socialist bartender. Along with the reduction of numbers of girls there came a rise in kidnapping, forced marriages and sexual slavery.

    Maybe they should try "slut walks." Let's see how that works out.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •