[TCjwwhcY]

I enjoy the correlation of people who are all about FREEEEEDDDDDOM and the people who wish to revoke a woman's right to choose.

Sometimes, thinking is hard for some people.

[Sdzqerty]

I've seen two broad justifications for an "abortion is permissible in the case of rape/incest" clause:

1. The person supporting the clause wants to punish promiscuous women with an abortion ban, and since victims of rape aren't at fault for being pregnant then it's okay for them to have abortions. The welfare of the unborn child is irrelevant. For example, on the topic of a rape/incest exception clause, Slowwhand says

2. The person supporting the clause is not 100% certain that their opposition to abortion is correct. Just to make some numbers up, let's say that you're only 95% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct - in that case you're willing to allow an exception to a ban if the mother's life is at risk. If you're 80% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct then you're willing to allow an exception for rape. If you're 60% certain then you don't oppose a ban, though you do oppose state insurance coverage for abortion. Etc.

Spot on, although I would also add Mad Monk's explanation.

[remstaling]

You know, if you want to engage in masturbatory activities, the internet also features a great abundance and variety of pornography...

[tipokot]

Asher:

If a woman chooses to abort a child does she not force her belief on to that child? Is that not quite wrong as well?
AND
All because a solution produces additional issues does not make it the wrong solution. By your same reasoning we shouldn't have gun control because of the rise of sword violence! (which, by the way, I support).

I favor less government, but I am also pro-"do no harm". The incepted child has a right to thrive, and this pre-empts the "responsible adults" freedom of choice. In fact, in many instances, it was the freedom of choice that led to the need for the abortion. So, in that regard, we can argue that it is "freedom of choice" that is problem, when in fact we know it is the actual choice made, and not the freedoms that allow it, that we should be arguing.

[anolbom]

I don't see what it has to do with religion, other than many religions say it is wrong to commit murder.

JM
(Note that I am in favor of a conservative (in the scientific sense) scientific definition of human, which would probably just ban abortions after the first trimester.)

[rNr5Di3S]

Excluding Catholics.

I don't think it has anything (Directly) to do with my or HC's opposition to abortion.

JM

[CIAFreeAgent]

I think the real question is when is it considered "alive", at birth? What is life?
And then you ask when is it considered failure to thrive, child abuse, and murder?
Personally, I think a reasonible arguement can be made (not by me mind you) that life begins at conception, and that life is defined as XYZ... whatever that is. And thus, abortion would be murder. This would have nothing to do with my belief, but about court agreed upon definition of life.
IMO, that definition would have to corrolate with whether taking someone of life support without their permission is illegal or not.

[Fertionbratte]

science has a definition of life, should we use that?

[zuhraliyana]

How are animals and plants human life?

Is 'it' human? Science has an answer to that, is 'it' a living organism? Science has an answer to that.

Is 'it' showing all the characteristics of a human... medical science has an answer to that too.

All of these scientific answers point to late stage abortion being murder.

It is an entirely unreasonable exception which is no different than if we arbitrarily define those with black skin as not being human or any other arbitrary group.

JM

[neniajany]

I can't see how Asher can be against circumcision of babies but be in favor of abortion...

JM

[KRbGA0Bg]

I can't see how Asher can be against circumcision of babies but be in favor of abortion...

JM

Babies are children, fetuses are not. It's easy.

[VFOVkZBj]

How are animals and plants human life?

They are life. Which was the question...

Is 'it' human? Science has an answer to that, is 'it' a living organism? Science has an answer to that.

Is 'it' showing all the characteristics of a human... medical science has an answer to that too.

All of these scientific answers point to late stage abortion being murder. I don't recall using the phrase "late stage abortion" at all. In fact I've personally only mentioned first trimester, haven't I?

[Xutrsavf]

More seriously, gun control exists because of an issue of public safety.

What a woman does to her own body is her concern, not yours.

The difference is the freedom of an individual to affect themselves and the freedom of an individual to murder others. Your argument is that it's the same because a woman isn't just affecting herself, she's murdering her baby. I don't agree. There is no consensus.

You are most welcome to your opinion, you may indoctrinate your children likewise, and you may force your daughter (until she's of age) to respect your wishes. Enjoy your freedom to do that.

[Thomaswhitee]

Why do I care what your government has currently done?

Canada's hasn't. You do realize that the US isn't the only country in the world?

Yes, I do. Wiki says Canada has no restrictions on abortion whatever, and this is the result of some sort of legal vacuum on the issue after old laws got struck down. In other words, a situation not too terribly different from our own, so your objection appears moot. As I was saying: there is no totally neutral position on the issue. Either your government allows abortion to some extent--in which case it is at least partially privileging one POV--or it bans it almost entirely, favoring the other. Leaving it up to the individual is not being impartial, but a clear victory for the pro-choice. It's a tribute to your troll-fu that I'm even typing something this obvious.

[PilotVertolet]

Yes, I am. Wiki says Canada has no restrictions on abortion whatever, and this is the result of some sort of legal vacuum on the issue after old laws got struck down. In other words, a situation not too terribly different from our own, so your objection appears moot. As I was saying: there is no totally neutral position on the issue. Either your government allows abortion to some extent--in which case it is at least partially privileging one POV--or it bans it almost entirely, favoring the other. Leaving it up to the individual is not being impartial, but a clear victory for the pro-choice. It's a tribute to your troll-fu that I'm even typing something this obvious.

Let's be clear.

There are three positions:

Pro-Abortion: YOU SHOULD ABORT YOUR BABIES!
Pro-Choice: A woman may choose
Pro-Life: YOU WILL LOVE YOUR RAPEBABY OR THE STATE WILL RAISE IT. NEVER ANY ABORTIONS!

There are times in my life, mostly when speaking with the American Religious Right, that I'm firmly in the first category.

Leaving the choice up to the individual, and the lack of a law regulating, isn't a "Victory" for pro choice. It'd a victory for freedom and a defeat for people who believe the government has the right to regulate what you do with your body.

[PemiaGefe]

The logic of this makes my head hurt. I didn't proclaim Canada's laws and models to be perfect, nor did I indicate my support for them. I've not once mentioned late stage abortion, and I've specifically mentioned first trimester abortions.

It's not my comment that's stupid.

Your life comment was stupid. You ignored the obvious inference.

If you truly were in favor of only 1st trimester abortions you would be attacking abortion instead of defending it because 3rd trimester abortions are legal in Canada.

I mean, you attack circumcision and that isn't even killing babies!

JM

[Rupeviv]

It is scientific fact Asher.

Abortion is an important 'freedom' for your cultural allies, so no, you are not a disinterested third party.

And yes, mother's who agonize over the choice are going to be some of the best at lying to themselves. Those who don't agonize are more likely to not lie to themselves and say 'it was killing a baby, so?'.

JM