Just when you think the Republicans can't lose....Abortion bill

[Ronin13]

Two words: Kermit Gosnell.

[Bitter Clinger]

Sure, it can be explained. Would you be open to ANY answer different than you want to hear?

Yes I would. I actually want to know the logic behind it.

[SvenJorgensen]

^^ "Pro choice"?

Thanks for the catch. I fucked that up and I meant to type pro-life.

Not trying to vilify anyone here. The attack on religious wackos wasn't mean to be personal, but rather a general statement. I just strongly disagree that moral and religious issues should be determined by the government, and too often this topic is wrongly argued in that fashion.

Most people on this forum do not want the government telling them what they may or may not do about their guns no matter how many people think they are dangerous and immoral. I feel the same way about the abortion issue.

And you're right about some conservatives.

[Irving]

Like most of these kind of hot button issues, there is generally a disconnect between what each side feels, and how the other side perceives the feelings of the opposition. For example, for someone who calls the self "pro-choice," the situation in their head is closer to a woman saying, "I just found out I'm 3 weeks pregnant. I know I don't want a baby so I better get this taken care of right away while it is still a bundle of cells."

While on the other hand, someone who considers abortion to be outright murder will be more likely to cite cases like Kermit Gosnell that would extract live fetuses and kill them in his hands.

Each side doesn't have to make much of a leap from the example they favor and their belief. Unfortnately, abortion encompasses both of those scenarios.

[SvenJorgensen]

I think we as a culture can have an honest debate about the issue (probably not here though because this is a gun forum) but we need to be honest about what both sides want and don't want and what actually motivates them.

I do not believe that a fetus is sentient being and therefore I do not believe it is entitled to any legal rights as a person. Because of this, I dismiss that by terminating a pregnancy through an abortion, administered professionally, one is committing an act of homicide.
I also believe that in certain situations, for the greater good of the community, and for the greater good of the mother or individuals involved, it should be an option to terminate a pregnancy through abortion. Consider violent rape cases especially those on teenage girls. Consider children who will be born to drug addict mothers and dependent on drugs themselves. Consider those situations of extreme poverty where the financial burden of raising that child would fall onto the taxpayers through the funding of overwhelmed social institutions

On this matter, I follow a pretty utilitarian school of thought. What action provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your opinion may be that it is selfish to terminate a pregnancy based upon these utilitarian ethics, but this idea is nothing new. We already protect the greater good of the society through capital punishment. One the the primary purposes for capital punishment is incapacitation. Our society regularly kills (incapacitates) people, not actually as punishment or retribution, but to protect the greater good of the society and to make it more productive as a whole. I am not arguing that a fetus deserves to be killed (if you would call it that), but in certain situations for abortion to be an option it may allow for a better and more productive society.

Really though, I don't care that much about the issue.

[Irving]

The level of the violence of the rape, or if rape occured at all is not a related issue to the decision to carry out an abortion. In my opinion anyway. I realize that in the case of rape, one will not be able to separate the emotions, but from a pure debate prespective, they are unrelated issues. You don't treat cancer different ways depending on how you got it. I'm of course not comparing a fetus to cancer either, it is just the best comparision I could think of.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I do not believe that MichaelMoore is sentient being and therefore I do not believe it is entitled to any legal rights as a person. Because of this, I dismiss that by terminating MichaelMoore, administered professionally, one is committing an act of homicide.

At what point do you judge sentience has occurred and how did you make that assessment? Do you need positive proof (i.e., subject has to say or write something intelligent) or will negative proof (subject hasn't said or written any of the monumentally stupid things MichaelMoore has) of sentience work?

On this matter, I follow a pretty utilitarian school of thought. What action provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your opinion may be that it is selfish to terminate MichaelMoore based upon these utilitarian ethics, but this idea is nothing new. We already protect the greater good of the society through capital punishment. One the the primary purposes for capital punishment is incapacitation. Our society regularly kills (incapacitates) people, not actually as punishment or retribution, but to protect the greater good of the society and to make it more productive as a whole. I am not arguing that MichaelMoore deserves to be killed (if you would call it that), but in certain situations for abortion to be an option it may allow for a better and more productive society.

Again, the slippery slope prevails here. At what point do you draw the line for "greater good of the society"? At least with capital punishment, the legal lines are drawn pretty clearly. Any random fetus -- including those of a drug addict -- is likely to consume fewer resources and be more productive than MichaelMoore so ...

Obviously, you can substitute whatever and whoever you want for the red text -- a lot of liberals would probably substitute in George Bush or Dick Cheney without batting an eye but be horrified to find Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, or any other left-wing extremist in text like the above.


NOTA BENE: Obviously the text above is provided as an intellectual exercise on the folly of blanket sentence construction and no actual harm is intended or implied toward Michael Moore or any other living being.

[Zundfolge]

I do not believe that a fetus is sentient being and therefore I do not believe it is entitled to any legal rights as a person. Because of this, I dismiss that by terminating a pregnancy through an abortion, administered professionally, one is committing an act of homicide.
I also believe that in certain situations, for the greater good of the community, and for the greater good of the mother or individuals involved, it should be an option to terminate a pregnancy through abortion. Consider violent rape cases especially those on teenage girls. Consider children who will be born to drug addict mothers and dependent on drugs themselves. Consider those situations of extreme poverty where the financial burden of raising that child would fall onto the taxpayers through the funding of overwhelmed social institutions

On this matter, I follow a pretty utilitarian school of thought. What action provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your opinion may be that it is selfish to terminate a pregnancy based upon these utilitarian ethics, but this idea is nothing new. We already protect the greater good of the society through capital punishment. One the the primary purposes for capital punishment is incapacitation. Our society regularly kills (incapacitates) people, not actually as punishment or retribution, but to protect the greater good of the society and to make it more productive as a whole. I am not arguing that a fetus deserves to be killed (if you would call it that), but in certain situations for abortion to be an option it may allow for a better and more productive society.

Really though, I don't care that much about the issue.

See, if you started there then we could have had an honest debate. But you didn't, you lashed out at people with religious beliefs and tied their religious beliefs (and your disdain for them and their beliefs) as your reason for supporting abortion. THIS is why this debate never goes anywhere and always ends in anger, division and locked forum threads.

[asmo]

While I typically don't like to debate with pithy sayings... This really does sum it up:

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

^^^. Yup.