• House passes >20-week abortion ban 228-196
    100 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;41087112]You know, i think the whole abortion, gay rights, etc issues we are having today are just fucking distractions from the bigger problems in our government (Corruption,corporations, bullshit) No one can focus on the big stuff if the stupidly simple stuff is in the way[/QUOTE] they actually are a distraction from a political view, but from a [I]human[/I] view they are not, and should never be trivialized there is no doubt that social issues are used by politicians as distractions, but heck might as well fix them to get 'em out of the way huh?
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;41087112]You know, i think the whole abortion, gay rights, etc issues we are having today are just fucking distractions from the bigger problems in our government (Corruption,corporations, bullshit) No one can focus on the big stuff if the stupidly simple stuff is in the way[/QUOTE] Even if that is the case, which I'm not saying it is, then people should try even harder to resolve these social issues before trying to deal with accusations of corruption, corporate, and political, instead of pushing them to the side.
Wasnt it already illegal to have an abortion for non medical reasons after 3rd term? Or is it just most places wont do it since its much more difficult/dangerous and or established ethics? I think I need to brush up on this a bit.
[QUOTE=person11;41090614]1. The House passes horrible law that makes no sense that would only make people worse off, but can't actually make it law because of the Senate and the President? No fucking way! Let's write an article for each of the umpteen times the House has tried to strike down the Healthcare Bill or fuck over women, the poor, and racial minorities, and failed. 2. People who say that Social issues are distraction for "more important" or "real" issues are at best people who have never been victims of something stemming from Social issues, or, at worst, absolute idiots with no sympathy for the people who are constantly discriminated against in our society. 3. If someone states that Social issues are distractions to "real" issues because they think the solutions to Social issues are blindingly obvious, and that there is no solution because of a conspiracy to continue with some other corruption or "deeper" issue, that person is ignorant to the still massive amount of bigotry that still divides this nation, and the work that still needs to be done for real equality between races, genders/sexes, and classes. 4. Social issues are actually Economic/"Real" issues. Try telling a woman who can't afford birth control that Women's issues should be secondary to anything else, even to the corruption that we see in decisions like Citizens United.[/QUOTE] these aren't "social issues", though, they are "political issues". again, while i definitely support legislation that helps achieve equality through law, the real problems [i]are[/i] social issues. there is a reason why people don't believe women should have sovereignty over their bodies, there is a reason why people think gays shouldn't be allowed the same legal rights as the rest of us. we need to fight those reasons, the legislation will follow suit.
This is true and a good idea as long as one does not turn into a manarchist, which is when anarchists silence women when women's rights are brought up and tell them "here help us overthrow the government first then you'll be equal". While a good amount of feminists I know are also anarchist, they also realize that some feminist goals can be achieved even in a society as corrupt as this one.
[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;41087120]I think you should be able to have an abortion even after the child was born. Some people are unfit to be parents and the whole "just give it up for adoption" argument is bullshit because unless your child is a good looking and/or intelligent child, they will be sitting in a group home until the age of 18 and they'll be kicked out and forced into a world where no one gave a fuck about them.[/QUOTE] LOL go to the group home and asked if they rather be aborted or not. Stop trying to control others right to live.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;41087102]Isn't >20 weeks a good cut off point? Or am I blinded.[/QUOTE] I've always been of the opinion that "If it can survive out of the womb it's too late to abort. If it cannot go nuts.". I don't know the timeline babies go through very well, but I believe 20 weeks is past that point if only just.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41102631]I've always been of the opinion that "If it can survive out of the womb it's too late to abort. If it cannot go nuts.". I don't know the timeline babies go through very well, but I believe 20 weeks is past that point if only just.[/QUOTE] I used to say this too but even a 2 month old baby can't survive without external help so I dumped it as my main argument and just look at it from the point of view of "the mother should be able to do whatever she wants with her body" now. And until birth the baby is still part of it. I hate comparing babies to tumours because it makes me look like a sperglord but the tumour analogy is kind of apt - those are made out of human cells as well but nobody expects me to nurture a tumour and hold it sacred
[QUOTE=TestECull;41102631]I've always been of the opinion that "If it can survive out of the womb it's too late to abort. If it cannot go nuts.". I don't know the timeline babies go through very well, but I believe 20 weeks is past that point if only just.[/QUOTE] A baby cant survive on its own without a fair bit of medical help even a few weeks before birth. So this standard would be very variable on medical availability etc. [editline]19th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;41102706]I used to say this too but even a 2 month old baby can't survive without external help so I dumped it as my main argument and just look at it from the point of view of "the mother should be able to do whatever she wants with her body" now. And until birth the baby is still part of it. I hate comparing babies to tumours because it makes me look like a sperglord but the tumour analogy is kind of apt - those are made out of human cells as well but nobody expects me to nurture a tumour and hold it sacred[/QUOTE] I can see where the tumor analogy comes from and is going but there is the difference that tumors cause damage and can kill you. It isn't quite a functional analogy unless they start trying to ban abortions for medical reasons, which I doubt they will.
[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;41087220]Guess I'm okay with murdering newborns then. At the parental figure's discretion.[/QUOTE] holy [editline]19th June 2013[/editline] shit
[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;41087376]I'm advocating mercy. I don't want a kid sitting in a goddamn group home for 18 years of their lives. This has nothing to do with Christians or anything like that. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of these people who advocate adoption but do not actually support it in any shape or form. Also yes, I have no problem admitting to quoting a comedian because there is truth to that statement and that's why people in the audience were laughing. That's what makes it funny.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to do anything beneficial to society in anyway, I'm pretty sure most group home kids rather not be aborted. You have no right to decide if somebody should live or not once born, if there was a right your ass would've been aborted. False sense of superiority.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;41102743] I can see where the tumor analogy comes from and is going but there is the difference that tumors cause damage and can kill you. It isn't quite a functional analogy unless they start trying to ban abortions for medical reasons, which I doubt they will.[/QUOTE] Childbirth generally won't kill you, you're right, but it's still very painful. People go to the hospital to fix or remove things that will cause far less pain than childbirth every day.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41102864]Childbirth generally won't kill you, you're right, but it's still very painful. People go to the hospital to fix or remove things that will cause far less pain than childbirth every day.[/QUOTE] True they are certainly very painful under natural circumstances, I dont know the stats but drug use to minimize pain is becoming more and more common. From what I have heard from women who did use drugs they feel next to no pain during the birth. Although, I suppose the same could be said of most other pains as well, tumors included. edit: Anyway, analogies aside I certainly think a woman should have the right to choose I do think the cut off should be before birth, since the methods for abortion become more and more risky the longer the pregnancy is intact. If a better method could be made though there would be much less problems of course, but that is one of those extremely touchy subjects (similar to stem cells research) that make it difficult to study.
[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;41087220]Guess I'm okay with murdering newborns then. At the parental figure's discretion.[/QUOTE] Are you even human?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41088704]while some attention should be paid to things like gay marriage and abortion rights, there should be a broader goal in mind. if we fight homophobia, gay marriage is no longer an issue. if we fight patriarchy, abortion is no longer an issue. if we fight inequality, we might see an end to most of these sorts of issues[/QUOTE] why does being against abortion have to be a misogyny issue? why can't it be a "not wanting to kill babies" issue?
oh im sorry how can you like women while telling them what they should do with their own body i dont see that
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;41104001]why does being against abortion have to be a misogyny issue? why can't it be a "not wanting to kill babies" issue?[/QUOTE] because everything needs to be a female issue and the fight against the patriarchy cannot be stopped. i means seriously laws about late term abortion have been around for hundreds of years and the idea of when the fetus gains its own life has also been there. "The word "quick" originally meant "alive". Historically, quickening has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of "individual life" by the fetus. British legal scholar William Blackstone explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century, relative to feticide and abortion: Life… begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.[5] Nevertheless, quickening was only one of several standards that were used historically to determine when the right to life attaches to a fetus. According to the "ancient law" mentioned by Blackstone, another standard was formation of the fetus, which occurs weeks before quickening. Henry de Bracton explained the ancient law, about five hundred years before Blackstone: If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide.[6]"
[QUOTE=thisispain;41104111]oh im sorry how can you like women while telling them what they should do with their own body i dont see that[/QUOTE] i mean hey women being able to do what they want with their bodies is all great and all, but these are the lives of fucking babies hanging in the balance here
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;41104199]i mean hey women being able to do what they want with their bodies is all great and all, but these are the lives of fucking babies hanging in the balance here[/QUOTE] fetus>woman??
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41104216]fetus>woman??[/QUOTE] at this stage the fetus could essentially live outside of the womb on its own. so one persons life > than another? i mean seriously guys they've had 38% of a year, 140 days, 3360 hours, 201600 minutes, hell 12096000 seconds to decide to abort in time. this should be a non-issue given that medical reasons are exempt from the ban along with rape and incest.
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;41104199]i mean hey women being able to do what they want with their bodies is all great and all, but these are the lives of fucking babies hanging in the balance here[/QUOTE] k but i dont think the government should be telling women what to do with their bodies [editline]19th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=omggrass;41104251]at this stage the fetus could essentially live outside of the womb on its own. so one persons life > than another?[/QUOTE] thats completely wrong omg viability varies depending on the development of the fetus but NO fetus is viable at the 20 week term
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41104216]fetus>woman??[/QUOTE] it's not as if sparing one means killing the other.
[QUOTE=omggrass;41104251] i mean seriously guys they've had 38% of a year, 140 days, 3360 hours, 201600 minutes, hell 12096000 seconds to decide to abort in time. this should be a non-issue given that medical reasons are exempt from the ban along with rape and incest.[/QUOTE] if its a non-issue then why is the government stepping in
[QUOTE=thisispain;41104309]if its a non-issue then why is the government stepping in[/QUOTE] i meant the idea that women aren't smart enough to choose to abort in the 138 days before the ban shouldn't be an issue but it apparently is. normally the earlies sign of pregnancy can be figured out 3-4 weeks after conception. that leaves another 15 WEEKS to decide. that's a long fucking time.
ok???? how does that answer my question why is the government involved in telling women they should be more punctual in their decisions dont see that in the US consitution is that an enumerated power?
[QUOTE=thisispain;41104386]ok???? how does that answer my question why is the government involved in telling women they should be more punctual in their decisions dont see that in the US consitution is that an enumerated power?[/QUOTE] For any situation which this would prevent the abortion the child would be mostly healthy so far as can be told, if their is any problem with the mother that the birth would be life threatening or result of incest or rape, it can still be aborted.
[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;41087120][B]I think you should be able to have an abortion even after the child was born.[/B] Some people are unfit to be parents and the whole "just give it up for adoption" argument is bullshit because unless your child is a good looking and/or intelligent child, they will be sitting in a group home until the age of 18 and they'll be kicked out and forced into a world where no one gave a fuck about them.[/QUOTE] :l
[QUOTE=deadoon;41104422]For any situation which this would prevent the abortion the child would be mostly healthy so far as can be told, if their is any problem with the mother that the birth would be life threatening or result of incest or rape, it can still be aborted.[/QUOTE] wha whats the difference between an early term abortion and a late-term abortion? viability? viability is variable and its certainly not around the 20th week
[QUOTE=thisispain;41104446]wha whats the difference between an early term abortion and a late-term abortion? viability? viability is variable and its certainly not around the 20th week[/QUOTE] Early term the fetus has not developed enough to have pain reactions, late term(as described as no later than the 20th week in the bill) they have developed enough to have a sense of pain and recoiling reactions to it. [URL]http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1797/text[/URL] Read the actual bill for once, it is a fairly simple and straight forward bill.
[QUOTE=deadoon;41104525]Early term the fetus has not developed enough to have pain reactions, late term(as described as no later than the 20th week in the bill) they have developed enough to have a sense of pain and recoiling reactions to it. [URL]http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1797/text[/URL] Read the actual bill for once, it is a fairly simple and straight forward bill.[/QUOTE] fetal pain is not a scientific fact
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.