GOP Looks to Change Abortion Laws

[klunderbunker]

Apparently after repealing healthcare, the GOP's next idea is that victims of rape, date drug rape or incest should not be allowed to receive money to have an abortion in any case. Nice guys right? What was that about jobs jobs jobs again?

 

[The Bearded One]

I am against abortion in normal circumstances, but with rape victims it gets super dicey. I don't want the woman to have to go through with the pregnancy when she was unwilling in the first place, but still, abortion just seems so wrong to me. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Don't doubt it. Roe v. Wade is one of the most shittily reasoned opinions of all time. I don't think abortion laws should be overturned, but they sure as shit need a better foundation.

 

[Slyfox696]

abortion just seems so wrong to me.

I understand that but you have to understand it shouldn't matter how you feel about it. You shouldn't force your beliefs onto other people, and expect them to do exactly the way you want.

That's the problem I have here. Proponents of this bill are forcing their lifestyle choices upon everyone else (which seems like a violation of freedoms, but whatever), even if the victim didn't ask to be pregnant.


That seems far more wrong to me.

 

[JGlass]

In all honesty, I think this is just a distraction ploy by the GOP. They've got nothing right now, and meanwhile Obama is on a hot streak. They'll slow down Democratic legislation by introducing a half-assed attempt to rewrite abortion laws–a hardy task–to prevent the Dems from getting shit done while the GOP masterminds can formulate a plan to make rich people richer and whatever it is they like to do.

Ain't it great to know the politicians are always working for us?

 

[The Bearded One]

I understand that but you have to understand it shouldn't matter how you feel about it. You shouldn't force your beliefs onto other people, and expect them to do exactly the way you want.

That's the problem I have here. Proponents of this bill are forcing their lifestyle choices upon everyone else (which seems like a violation of freedoms, but whatever), even if the victim didn't ask to be pregnant.


That seems far more wrong to me.

I understand some people can separate their personal and political beliefs, but I have a hard time doing that. I'm having a hard time justifying abortion, but in some cases I think it is the only option.

 

[J-Dogg]

It should be the choice of the woman to have an abortion, no one elses.

 

[Uncle Chester]

It should be the choice of the woman to have an abortion, no one elses.

I'm for abortion up until a point where that baby is developed enough for it to be refered to as a 'human'. But aborting a 8 and a half month baby in a mothers womb seems wrong.

 

[J-Dogg]

I'm for abortion up until a point where that baby is developed enough for it to be refered to as a 'human'. But aborting a 8 and a half month baby in a mothers womb seems wrong.

That is wrong on many levels when the baby is at that point.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm not looking to turn this into another abortion debate thread, but I see zero reason whatsoever why women such as these should be cut off from potentially the only help they can get. In other words, what the GOP is saying is this:

"Well ma'am we're sorry a plumber slipped a pill into your water when you were in your own home doing nothing wrong whatsoever and you work 40 hours a week to pay your rent and bills and feed yourself, but we've decided that you have to have this baby despite the fact that it could cause you harm and cripple you financially to the point where you and the baby would be in peril because the man that raped you is gone, but our moral compass says we can't help you because it's just not right even though we're trying to make it seem like we're currently trying to make up for the debt that our party caused with two unfinanced wars, we can't give you 2000 dollars to have your baby aborted when you're three months pregnant. Go get another job and pay for it yourself."

 

[Sparky]

It should be the choice of the woman to have an abortion, no one elses.

Bull shit. the dad should get a say, if the woman wants to get rid of it but the father don't, there is no way she should be able to abort.

 

[J-Dogg]

Bull shit. the dad should get a say, if the woman wants to get rid of it but the father don't, there is no way she should be able to abort.

Well ok, lets make it simpler, both of them get a say and are the ones to make the choice not government or religious groups.

 

[Uncle Chester]

I'm not looking to turn this into another abortion debate thread, but I see zero reason whatsoever why women such as these should be cut off from potentially the only help they can get. In other words, what the GOP is saying is this:

"Well ma'am we're sorry a plumber slipped a pill into your water when you were in your own home doing nothing wrong whatsoever and you work 40 hours a week to pay your rent and bills and feed yourself, but we've decided that you have to have this baby despite the fact that it could cause you harm and cripple you financially to the point where you and the baby would be in peril because the man that raped you is gone, but our moral compass says we can't help you because it's just not right even though we're trying to make it seem like we're currently trying to make up for the debt that our party caused with two unfinanced wars, we can't give you 2000 dollars to have your baby aborted when you're three months pregnant. Go get another job and pay for it yourself."

Yeah it pisses me of as well. It seems more immoral to force a rape victim to nurture a baby she didn't wilfully risk to have than to abort that said baby. I just don't understand how some people can be that heartless and uncompassionate. Another reason why politicians who use religion as a compass to policy making scare the living shit out of me.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm for abortion up until a point where that baby is developed enough for it to be refered to as a 'human'. But aborting a 8 and a half month baby in a mothers womb seems wrong.

As it does to me, but I firmly believe in birth being the moment in which a fetus becomes "human". Actually, I believe it should be the moment in which the fetus is able to sustain life on its own without the support of the mother's womb, but that seems like such a difficult standard to enforce.

 

[JGlass]

Bull shit. the dad should get a say, if the woman wants to get rid of it but the father don't, there is no way she should be able to abort.

The man doesn't have to push a human with the head that's bigger than a softball out of a hole that can barely fit a golf ball.

As it does to me, but I firmly believe in birth being the moment in which a fetus becomes "human". Actually, I believe it should be the moment in which the fetus is able to sustain life on its own without the support of the mother's womb, but that seems like such a difficult standard to enforce.

I'm with you, Sly. I saw this great graphic the other day that, while really dumbing down the debate, also sums up my feelings.

This still doesn't address late term abortions, and quite frankly, I can't 100% pinpoint my feelings on that, but I still believe that the choice lies with the woman. It's not like she's going to abort a baby after 8 months of pregnancy just because she thinks she "can't do it." Humans are emotional creatures, and it would have to take a stone cold bitch to not feel the slightest bit of remorse for terminating the pregnancy after nearly going the distance. That said, if a woman doesn't want to push a baby out her vagina, she shouldn't be forced to. It's a fetus, not a person. It has no rights, nor should it.

 

[klunderbunker]

I have a major issue with women that say it's their body when it has its own heartbeat. It's inside you but clearly not you.

Does this mean that if a woman is having sex, the penis in her is part of her and she can just cut it off? That would land her in jail but it's the same core logic.

 

[Shocky]

The whole issue of Men's rights pisses me off. If you don't want the baby, you get stuck paying child support. If you want the child, you have no rights if the woman chooses to have an abortion. Such a bullshit double standard.

 

[JGlass]

I have a major issue with women that say it's their body when it has its own heartbeat. It's inside you but clearly not you.

Does this mean that if a woman is having sex, the penis in her is part of her and she can just cut it off? That would land her in jail but it's the same core logic.

Here's an interesting question, how do you feel about patients on life support? They have a heartbeat, and just like a fetus it's supported by a system that is not their own, yet it is not their option to terminate their life or not, it lies with the patient's parents/spouse/children/etc. Basically, do you think "pulling the plug" is ever acceptable?

 

[klunderbunker]

If a man is there for the woman, as in they're together or even if he's just staying around, he should have a say in what happens. That's every bit as much his child as her's.

 

[klunderbunker]

Here's an interesting question, how do you feel about patients on life support? They have a heartbeat, and just like a fetus it's supported by a system that is not their own, yet it is not their option to terminate their life or not, it lies with the patient's parents/spouse/children/etc. Basically, do you think "pulling the plug" is ever acceptable?

I took a class in college all about healthcare ethics and after debating it with a medical doctor with 25 years of experience and I think 10 years experience with end of life counseling, I have no idea. I think there are situations where that's a possibility, but it comes down to what the family wants. Also there's a chance he had a living will or something like that.

Just to be clear: I think there are situations where abortions can and perhaps even should be done (sake of saving the mother's life for instance). However, I think it should always be the last option. With pulling the plug, it's a bit different as the person could have given their wishes before. It's an incredibly complex subject and could be different in every situation. However, yes there are instances where it could be acceptable, but again only as a last resort.

 

[JGlass]

Last resort is such an odd term to use though, you know? I assume you mean after considering keeping it, adoption, and giving it to the father, and if none of those work than aborting it, but it's still such a sticky situation. Why should a woman be forced to be pregnant for 9 months of their life if they have no interest in keeping the baby? Life is short, too short to be carrying around a fetus that you have no intention of keeping for the better part of the year. How was your 2010? "I spent it puking, going on crazy eating rampages, gaining 30 pounds, and having mood swings, and then I gave the baby up for adoption." That doesn't sound fair.

This raises the whole issue of "accepting the consequences for your actions," which I think is the biggest bullshit pro-lifers throw at you. If you can fix a mistake quickly after it was made, why shouldn't you go for it, especially if the mistake will cause you 9 months of pain, mood swings, weight gain, and all sorts of other unwanted side-effects. "Sorry, you had (probably but not necessarily) unprotected sex, now you have to have a baby." That hardly seems fair at all considering we have the technology to abort a baby safely.