US Politics Thread

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.

What exactly was wrong with your law before it was overturned?

 

[west didsblue]

I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.

No such thing as a single celled fetus.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

What exactly was wrong with your law before it was overturned?

Nothing for me, at all. I'm not at all sure why you think I support the overturn of RvW.

The points I wished to express above are twofold:
1) that absolute overturn of a woman's right to abortion is wrong, and;
2) it's not at all clear where the demarcation between legal abortion and the taking of human life occurs. My first take on this is when a fetus is first able to feel pain - but upon consideration, I'm not convinced that this is the proper demarcation. I defer to scientific experts to weigh in on this part of the issue (not fucking fake Fox "News").

 

[kaz7]

I dont believe in abortion for me , i saw one in my gynae rotation as a student back in the late seventies , old school method , i was scarred by it and spent my child bearing years dodging getting pregnant by every means possible , it can be done but a sex life should be fun and spontanious , shouldnt it ?

However , i believe in a womans right to choose , i would support a mate having one even though i wouldnt , it is too complicated to discuss on a football forum with men i find so that is me done , america should be ashamed of themselves

Babies are viable at 22 weeks so the whole thing needs a rethink , ihave never agreed with the up to twenty four weeks abortions we have here , unless in rape, incest or risk to womens life obvs

I nursed a women who miscarried at twenty weeks , saddest thing i have ever seen

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Nothing for me, at all. I'm not at all sure why you think I support the overturn of RvW.

The points I wished to express above are twofold:
1) that absolute overturn of a woman's right to abortion is wrong, and;
2) it's not at all clear where the demarcation between legal abortion and the taking of human life occurs. My first take on this is when a fetus is first able to feel pain - but upon consideration, I'm not convinced that this is the proper demarcation. I defer to scientific experts to weigh in on this part of the issue (not fucking fake Fox "News").

This is the natural place that most people will find themselves in.

Women should have the choice up until the point at which scientists define as the point that human life begins.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I see the West Clown can't understand the morality issue involved.

By doing so, insults a (hetro) female poster on here who thinks it's possibly a morality issue as well as my daughter in the LGBTQ community.

Clearly you're a dick who can't bear to think outside of his safe space.

You had a vasectomy during the period of your last relationship didn't you?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You had a vasectomy during the period of your last relationship didn't you?

 

[hgblue]

I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.

The question is who decides? An unelected court plucking a right to abortion out of thin air or the people's representatives who are accountable to their voters and can be removed if the majority disagree? The supreme court didn't ban abortion, it returned the decision to where it should always have been, within the democratic process. The American federal system allows for people with different views on this emotive subject to set different laws according to the political persuasion of the state they live in and this seems like the fairest way to resolve this to me.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

By sharing this I am hoping to unburden myself... really sorry about that.