Abortion

[Pelly <3's U]

Wolfy's post goes for you too Ming Ming. If you're not even going to bother to reply to anything other than with sarcastic quips then don't post. 

[Emmett L. Brown]

I stand by my original stance on abortion: Clusters of cells that could potentially grow into a human baby get ejected by the host's own immune system on a fairly regular basis (up to 50% of all fertilisations, some claim, but I doubt it's that high), so deliberately letting that happen is fairly trivial. The emotional weight is tremendous, of course, but from a moral perspective it should be about as bad as a load of sperm failing to hit the mark, because until that fetus starts to develop a brain it's as much a person as your colon.

 

Of course, once the fetus has started developing a working human brain you're past the legal point for an abortion (outside Texas, anyway), and at that point I agree that it would be very bad.

 

Religion should mean dick in this matter.

[Nepenthe]

Most abortions do not occur before the 20 week mark anyway. If they do, it is because there is a life-threatening issue at hand. The main problem with the bill in question however is that it redefines how abortion clinics are supposed to operate, which in turn means most of Texas' abortion clinics will close now. This is a problem because what people fail to understand is that these kind of clinics do not only offer abortion services and are usually cheaper than traditional care, meaning many women rely on them on a regular basis. Considering how big Texas is to travel across, as well as one of the rules saying that some appointments need 24 hour clearance- Republicans have basically told women if you can't travel for hours and hole yourself up in a hotel everytime you have an appointment at one of these clinics then fuck you. This was mainly about denying care to women under a silly pro-life banner. Thanks a lot, GOP.

[Scar]

Not sure I've had my say here yet but....

 

It is not the business of any unrelated individual, or group of individuals (especially the Government and religious groups), to dictate whether or not a woman or indeed a couple, can abort. That decision lies with the couple, and most importantly the woman who is pregnant. No law should be able to take that decision away from the couple or the woman who is pregnant.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If it ever comes to a point we get embryo transfer or artificial wombs for humans, I expect this issue to reach a whole new shitstorm. Either way abortions to be almost entirely pointless by then.

[Tani Coyote]

If it ever comes to a point we get embryo transfer or artificial wombs for humans, I expect this issue to reach a whole new shitstorm. Either way abortions to be almost entirely pointless by then.

This is why I like the Roe v. Wade decision. It doesn't specifically give a full ban or full go ahead on abortion, but instead specifies viability... the ultimate thorn in the issue is the life of the unborn child, so if you can take it out of the womb from day one with no issues, I see no reason abortion should remain legal in those circumstances.

Unfortunately science isn't quite there yet (also thanks to the GOP, go figure) so instead one's left trying to weigh two evils against each other.

[Emmett L. Brown]

This is why I like the Roe v. Wade decision. It doesn't specifically give a full ban or full go ahead on abortion, but instead specifies viability... the ultimate thorn in the issue is the life of the unborn child, so if you can take it out of the womb from day one with no issues, I see no reason abortion should remain legal in those circumstances.

Unfortunately science isn't quite there yet (also thanks to the GOP, go figure) so instead one's left trying to weigh two evils against each other.

You are aware that the current most probable cause of human extinction is resource exhaustion through overpopulation? If every initiated pregnancy demands a new mouth to feed, regardless of the intent or ability to care of the parents, then there's going to be even more of us.

 

Seven billion humans is a lot. By current projections there's going to be about ten billion by the next century. Unless we seriously slow down, or the math is completely wrong, the human species either needs to stop fucking so much or have less babies.

 

We're not gonna cut down on the fucking, are we?

[Tani Coyote]

You are aware that the current most probable cause of human extinction is resource exhaustion through overpopulation? If every initiated pregnancy demands a new mouth to feed, regardless of the intent or ability to care of the parents, then there's going to be even more of us.

 

Seven billion humans is a lot. By current projections there's going to be about ten billion by the next century. Unless we seriously slow down, or the math is completely wrong, the human species either needs to stop fucking so much or have less babies.

 

We're not gonna cut down on the fucking, are we?

Well I'm hopeful by that time we've managed to pull through; every time we've predicted the apocalypse we've always ended up finding a way out due to science.

Population control is probably going to take a form besides enforced abortions. At least, I would hope; to turn the feminist argument around, that would involve a massive invasion of privacy on par with few others as choice is invalidated, albeit in reverse of the current situation.

Honestly it's either some form of contraception or mandatory euthanasia at a certain age. Given the prospect of possible immortality in our lifetimes, we're going to soon be replacing the debate over the right to life with a debate over the right to die.

[Nepenthe]

Not really "turning the feminist argument around" so much as actually using it because indeed, the feminist position advocates bodily autonomy above all else, so forced abortions are a no-no as much as forced pregnancies are.

Regardless though, I think the whole futurist perspective is pretty wide-reaching in its potential scope as to almost become meaningless. We haven't even made a dent in cancer; I don't think immortality's going to become an inevitable reality in our lifetimes, and if it does, you better believe it's not going to be mass produced for every Joe and Jane on the street. The same might be true when we start growing children in awesome sci-fi tubes, especially if we haven't simultaneously addressed the economic and social ills of poor women and our healthcare system. To tell a woman she can't get an abortion because we can grow a baby outside of the womb means shit if she can't afford that process, or can't get to it because compassionate conservatives slashed all the care she could reasonably get like they just did in Texas for millions of women.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I would like to think that within the next century when we have the ability to grow babies outside the mother that the economics ideally wouldn't be same as what we're going through now...I mean, this is 100 years we're talking about. A LOT can change within that point. (for better or worse, but I'd rather be positive)

[Nepenthe]

The problem is that progress is not merely the passing of time. That takes hard work and dedication, and bullshit can manifest in different, more insidious forms or come back to bite us in the ass, because social ills are passed down from generation to generation too. I mean, who knew that after Roe v Wade some 40-ish years ago, we'd have a nutty GOP pulling the stunts they're pulling today? I'm personally not too optimistic we can put a time frame on when have finally solved these problems. That seems dishonest and short-sighted. We'll be done when we get done.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Considering that many in the GOP are getting old since then and if things keep up they'll likely lose influence given those who want to progress, I think we can solve a number of these problems. No one's saying that there won't be any setbacks, but calling someone's elses optimism short-sighted and dishonest for not addressing these potential setbacks is jumping to conclusions and isn't all that much better on your end.

[Nepenthe]

Don't think the GOP aren't raising their children in their image. A surprising number or young people are neo-conservatives, and I'm actually talking about the raging "fuck the gays" type. I am somehow friends with one. Regardless, I didn't attack your optimism so much as I attacked putting a time frame on the solution. People always say things are supposed to be this way by a certain time. Well, the abortion issue's still alive, trickle down economics didn't work and wages are stagnated, minorities are still fairly disposable, and I don't have my goddamned hoverboard yet. I am not saying nothing will ever get solved. I am saying I am skeptical that we will see these kinds of changes in a short time span, or that it can be predictable. The number "100 years" means nothing to me. It could be shorter or longer than that. As I said, we'll get done when we're done.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But, as I was saying, A LOT can change within that time frame, whether good or bad.

 

The abortion issue is still alive, but there has still been constant legislative shift between whether it should be banned or legalized.

 

Minorities may still be seen as expendable, but aside from the KKK racists can't be as blatant about it as they were 50 years ago anywhere other than the internet without getting into potential trouble for it or having it broadcast throughout the nation and make it even harder to be racist when people start fighting back against it and stigmatizing those that are. They have to hide behind legislation as they've been doing that makes it appear as if they're not being racist, rather than coming out in the open with it (and neither one isn't helping deter that).

 

And you don't have your hoverboard yet because we're still trying to figure out how to fit and work the right propulsion to allow you to hover, in addition to all the other engineering problems around it such as giving that propulsion enough power to give you enough thrust and keep you up for long periods of time. (And that's hardly simplifying it )

(I need to look up trickle down economics tho)

 

The time frame isn't a solution than it is something to note.

Edited July 16, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Autosaver]

 

Sadly, a large number of Americans seem to equate the idea of "freedom of religion" with "putting Christianity in an legal pedestal" and "forcing 'Christian values' on others." It's virtually impossible to get anywhere in American politics if you are anything other than a practicing Christian. Non-Christians are widely mistrusted, and Atheists are even prohibited from taking up public office in certain parts of the country.

What America is and what it should be are two entirely different, probably incompatible things.

 

What's sad is that when you get people complaining about Christians (such as a lawsuit to remove required prayer in SCHOOL) all the Christians take offense to that as trying to persecute religion. Sigh.

Edit: WHOOPS THAT TYPO!!! One word changed the entire argument.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Autosaver

[Emmett L. Brown]

What's sad is that when you get people complaining about Christians (such as a lawsuit to remove required prayer in church) all the Christians take offense to that as trying to persecute religion. Sigh.

Uh, what? I'm not religious, but isn't prayer generally something everybody is expected to do as part of your average church session? It's not like you'll get criminally prosecuted for refusing to pray, but I'd say the church would be within their rights to ask somebody to leave if they refuse to take part in the rituals and whatever.

 

Anyway, I'm convinced a very large percentage of the Christian population is in-name-only, as in that they stick with the rules and ceremonies beacuse they'd be shunned by their family and community if they didn't, but they don't actually believe. Good old lip-service.

 

American politicians may be required to declare themselves religious, but I'd be very interested to see how many of them would worship in private. "Thank god" is becoming as meaningless a phrase as "gesundheit" it seems.

 

I'm incredibly biased, though, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Uh, what? I'm not religious, but isn't prayer generally something everybody is expected to do as part of your average church session? It's not like you'll get criminally prosecuted for refusing to pray, but I'd say the church would be within their rights to ask somebody to leave if they refuse to take part in the rituals and whatever.

Something makes me think he meant to say "School" instead of "Church", because that's often where other Christians are usually upset and where they're trying to force their ways on others.

[Autosaver]

Is it too late to abort Rick Perry?

[-Robin-]

Is it too late to abort Rick Perry?

Yeah. But, they can put in a law that removes the death penalty, basically making all terms of "abortion" illegal.

 

LIMITATION ON ADDITIONAL ABORTION RESTRICTIONS. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enacted on or after June 1, 2013, that restricts access to abortion or the availability of abortion does not take effect until 60 days after publication in the Texas Register of a finding of fact made by the attorney general that the state has abolished the use of the death penalty as a punishment available on final conviction of a criminal offense.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/832/billtext/html/HB00045I.htm

I wonder how Rick "We're going to support protecting life" Perry feels about that after Texas executed its 500th person a few weeks ago, and the 261st under Perry's governorship.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Joshua

[Tani Coyote]

Gonna be a Devil's Advocate here. The "pro-life" term is a poor choice of words, but supporting the death penalty is perfectly compatible with opposing abortion: one life is guilty, the other is not.

Personally I consider both the death penalty and abortion bans to be poor policy, but I just needed to add my two cents on this supposed disconnect.

[Dr. Mechano]

I'm completely opposed to the death penalty, and somewhat iffy on (but not outright opposed to) abortion.

 

I think, for me it really weighs heavily on when the procedure is carried out; The earlier it is, the less developed the fetus is, and the less of a formed "person" it is. I understand that emergencies necessitate late-term abortions at times, and in those circumstances you need to just do what you have to do to protect the safety of the pregnant woman; But if the abortion is being performed solely because the mother doesn't want to have a baby, I do think there should be a time limit on when that is and isn't allowed.

 

Granted, almost nobody chooses to abort for non-emergency reasons past 24 weeks anyway, but I do feel like some hard, definitive numbers are needed to prevent non-emergency abortion when the fetus is more developed. Outright banning abortion or severely limiting the facilities that provide them though? I'm totally against that, and I believe that Perry's antics have been absolutely shameful.

 

So in that sense, I am pro-choice, but I feel that this kind of choice really needs to be made as early as possible. 

Edited July 20, 2013 by Doc Eggman