Democratic National Convention

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 14 15 16 17 18 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother

Aubergine

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 10:52 am

amother wrote:

This is the problem with the rhetoric.

The majority of this country is slightly right of center. Most Americans are against abortion, in general. But believe it should be permitted, in some cases. With some restrictions. I think different legislation in different states reflects this.

It's only a minority, percentage-wise, that believes no abortion should ever be allowed from the moment of conception, or that it should always be allowed until the baby is fully delivered.

And who is to say that they won't be able to pass the law.

If you are correct how are is a mother going to prove that she is legally able to have an abortion. Then you will have wealthier women bribe doctors to write their abortion is necessary even though it isn't.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 10:58 am

amother wrote:

I agree with this.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:02 am

But then Lilac what are we arguing abt if you are ok with the state laws as they are now?

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:10 am

Sushi lover this is for you, everyone else can skip this horrible post

Let's make the analogy easier. A criminal only kills fetuses. Attacks
pregnant women and cuts them out. We have to let 100 of those evil people go free knowing they will continue to kill innocent fetuses just to protect the one innocent man who was unjustly accused of this.

See how this analogizes to casual abortionists ?

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:13 am

marina wrote:

No, not just rape. I think it applies whenever a woman becomes unexpectedly pregnant through no fault of her own. Some examples:

A woman's husband wants a child and secretly replaces her birth control pills with fakes.

A woman's physicians tell her she is barren and will *never* conceive. Turns out they were wrong.

A woman's physician and pharmacist both forget to let her know that the antibiotic she was told to take decreases the effectiveness of her particular birth control.

The condom manufacturer messes up with one particular batch.

Well in that case we will have to adjust the violinist story. (We are really getting out of hand here with the analogies, don't you think? Analogies, Not Even Once LOL

)

Suppose instead of being an innocent woman waking up with a violinist connected to you (that would be the equivalent of rape), you voluntarily decide to hook up the violinist to yourself. Now you have it on good authority that there is no risk to you or the violinist.... but...
something goes wrong. Your coworker tricked you (husband replacing bc pills), the medical knowledge was faulty (not barren, or antibiotics decreasing effectiveness), or the IV line is faulty (condom faulty).
So now you are attached to the violinist and there is no way to simply "unplug" (Just as there is no way to simply unplug a fetus. They must be killed in utero and then removed). If you want to get rid of him, you must kill him. Are you allowed to kill him now?
He never asked to be attached to you. No one forced it on you. If anything, you plugged yourself in without the violinist's consent. All in all it was just a tragic mistake that should never have happened. Does the violinist deserve to be killed?

My answer? If your life is in danger then yes. You can literally take a gun and kill him.
But what if it will just make you lose your job? Or force you to be attached to him for the next 18 years? (That scenario is tenuous because adoption is an option. No one is 'forced' to care for their child past birth)
Can you kill him?

amother

Lilac

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:16 am

marina wrote:

Ok I will google those pple and hopefully find their stories of casual abortion in the 8th month.

I'm sure that those 26 pple had no intention of their children dying so I'm not sure how the analogy works

Wasn't meant as an analogy. Just saying that even if the overall number is small, that doesn't make it any less tragic.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:18 am

sushilover wrote:

Well in that case we will have to adjust the violinist story. (We are really getting out of hand here with the analogies, don't you think? Analogies, Not Even Once LOL

Are you arguing that by having relations you are automatically risking pregnancy no matter how small the chance? So that's how you are voluntarily attaching the violinist?

Because that logic can easily be applied to rape. You go out with a guy, there's always a risk of rape. Even if you're sober and even if you know him.

So why are you distinguishing rape? Because it was forced on you? So was the sneaky husband etc.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:18 am

amother wrote:

Wasn't meant as an analogy. Just saying that even if the overall number is small, that doesn't make it any less tragic.

Agreed.

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:19 am

marina wrote:

Sushi lover this is for you, everyone else can skip this horrible post

Oy vey. Look what we've come to LOL

marina wrote:

Let's make the analogy easier. A criminal only kills fetuses. Attacks
pregnant women and cuts them out. We have to let 100 of those evil people go free knowing they will continue to kill innocent fetuses just to protect the one innocent man who was unjustly accused of this.

See how this analogizes to casual abortionists ?

Yes! the criminal can go free BUT WE DON'T LEGALIZE THE CRIME
If abortion was a crime except in rare instances, a doctor was arrested for casual abortions, but we don't have enough proof to convict-he goes free! But abortion remains immoral and illegal.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:19 am

And no, adoption is not always an option. Not a lot of people standing in line to adopt an ancephalic baby.

Fox

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:24 am

amother wrote:

This, a thousand times over.

The Republican Party has had anti-abortion language in their platform since 1984 as a concession to a small, vocal minority. However, it's a little like telling your toddler that you'll go swimming "on Tuesday" when it's January in New York. It's a way of shutting down the conversation when the real answer will be unsatisfactory for whatever reason.

Millennial-age Republicans are opposed to a society that sanctions the casual use of abortion, but they have little actual interest in seeing Roe v. Wade overturned for all the reasons that have been reiterated here. They seem to regard it as more a symptom than a cause. It would not surprise me in the least to see the platform softened around the edges in coming years.

However, don't underestimate opposition to abortion within African-American and Latino communities. The rhetoric that paints legal abortion as an intended or de facto eugenics program has gained a lot of momentum in recent years and makes for some very strange bedfellows as well as opponents.

Anyone concerned with encroachment on the ability of women to terminate pregnancies according to their consciences should focus on state elections rather than national elections.

amother

Natural

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:26 am

marina wrote:

Yes. I think many people change their minds after a personal experience.

Right. Like NJ governor Christie always says, after the heard his unborn child's heartbeat on a sonogram he went from pro choice to pro life. He no longer able to accept the pro choice view of a fetus as being true.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:26 am

sushilover wrote:

You are correct that we don't legalize the crime. But we do consider our constitutional laws more important than the danger that innocent victims face. That allows for evil things to happen to protect a right we consider more important than the deaths of innocents.

Same with casual abortionists.

It's not important to me that we don't legislate that serial killing is okay if you are a guilty person freed on a technicality. The result is the same and our societal values ( including our religious halachic values) consistently favor that result.

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:27 am

marina wrote:

Are you arguing that by having relations you are automatically risking pregnancy no matter how small the chance? So that's how you are voluntarily attaching the violinist?

It says it on the condom packs "does not completely eliminate the risk of pregnancy"
When you attach yourself to the violinist you are ASSURED that there is 99% chance of no risk. But something terrible happens and now you have a guy attached to you.

marina wrote:

Because that logic can easily be applied to rape. You go out with a guy, there's always a risk of rape. Even if you're sober and even if you know him.

Oh gross. Do not even go there.

marina wrote:

So why are you distinguishing rape? Because it was forced on you? So was the sneaky husband etc.

So answer the question. In your opinion, at what point would you have the right to kill the violinist when you attached yourself to him without his consent?

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:28 am

amother wrote:

Yes. Did you know that Roe in Roe v Wade is now an anti abortion activist?

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:29 am

marina wrote:

And no, adoption is not always an option. Not a lot of people standing in line to adopt an ancephalic baby.

Sorry to be so crass, but that's not the mother's problem. She is not required to find the perfect home for her child if she gives up custody. That's the state's problem.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:31 am

sushilover wrote:

So answer the question. In your opinion, at what point would you have the right to kill the violinist when you attached yourself to him without his consent?

Yes my rape comment is gross, but accurate. There's always a risk of rape just like condoms are not effective 1% of the time.

As for your question, I have no idea. I just know that the issue is incredibly complicated and I don't see a clear cut answer in many cases and I certainly don't want government officials making that call in the form of a blanket rule.

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:36 am

marina wrote:

There is a huge difference to me. Suppose all our serial killers have gotten off on technicalities in the last 40 years. Wouldn't that be a world of a difference from saying "Well we can't criminalize serial killings at all because an innocent man may be convicted and we can't make blanket rules"?

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:38 am

marina wrote:

Yes my rape comment is gross, but accurate. There's always a risk of rape just like condoms are not effective 1% of the time.

What? What?! That's just...<incoherent sputtering

Last edited by sushilover on Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:39 am; edited 2 times in total

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:38 am

Personally, maybe I would not kill the violinist maybe ever. maybe I'd be strong enough to keep him alive at great cost to myself and maybe I wouldn't. Like if his life cause me great mental health anguish and I could only sit curled up in a corner and sob all day 24/7, maybe I wouldn't keep him alive.

But how can I make that judgment call for someone else?

Page 15 of 18

Previous 1 2 3 14 15 16 17 18 Next