Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Monday, July 6th, 2020 @ 9:01 AM
    Posts
    11,626
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    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.
    Well, not society's choice as to what fetus gets born "normal".

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:15 AM
    Posts
    22,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    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.
    I remember the dust up over deaf kids and the Down kids. There are entire communities devoted to these conditions (as there are very gay communities). While that's great, nobody in their right mind would prefer a deaf, gay, or developmentally disabled child.

    Some few do and actively attempt to create one but no normal parent wants their kid to experience more stress and trauma than is standard for middle school.

    While caring for a disabled child (or adult) can profoundly change your worldview (ask me how I know), nobody in their right mind would prefer it.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Monday, June 15th, 2020 @ 11:40 AM
    Posts
    4,493
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by phillygirl View Post
    In the early stages of what?

    Pregnancy. Like at least the first trimester. The embryo can't feel, can't see, can't touch, can't hear, and basically has no awareness or consciousness at that time. I've got to thinking about it (along with the fact that women are finding DIY ways of aborting after restrictions were put into place). I think the embryo shouldn't come before the woman. Yes. Push abstinence, correct birth control use, birth control accessibility. Yes, save babies who are born alive. Yes, restrict is later to perhaps the life and health of the mother. I don't think this should be illegal in the first (maybe most of the second) trimester anymore. I've seen the damage the restrictions are doing and it's not good. Making it almost completely illegal will be really bad. Most abortions are first trimester anyway.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    15,747
    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?
    Then, you may remove that zygote and grow it anywhere you like, but only the zygote, no part of the woman. "Tarry a little, there is something else.
    This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
    The words expressly are "a pound of flesh."
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

Posting Permissions

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