TX Sen Wendy Davis currently in 11th hour of filibuster

[BwareDWare94 723]

I stand firmly with Thanatos on this debate. Now that I'm out of the college atmosphere, I've felt myself slowly come back around on a few things, abortion being one of them. "I don't want it" is not a legitimate reason to justify an abortion. I believe in accountability, and the only fault that lies with most unwanted pregnancies lies with the couple.

 

"We didn't want to have a kid."

"Did you do everything possible to prevent that from happening?"

"Well, she's on birth control."

"That's not 100% effective."

"Well...uh..."

 

and that ends the argument.

 

If you don't want children until you decide to, wrap it up. It's that simple. You don't repeatedly stick your finger into a metal fan blade, do you?

Edited June 26, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[BwareDWare94 723]

That's entirely subjective and based on your definition of a human. A fetus grows into a child at some point during the pregnancy, but I don't believe the fetus is itself a child.

 

One way or the other, it's part of the process, and because of that, pro-life supporters can and always will argue that it is a human life.

 

The parents of the child are responsible for the conception. They could have been more careful. I don't think it can even be debated that people aren't very careful when it comes to sex.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

The "abortion is murder" argument doesn't quite connect with me. As George Carlin said, "If a fetus is a life, why doesn't the census count them?" Granted that comes from a comedian, but its substance has merit. On the other hand, take a look at the ripple effect a U.S. without abortions would create: all the children born into underprivileged homes, the increase in families going on food stamps, the total increase in federal spending necessitated by such socioeconomic factors.

 

Do I think it's totally okay that abortions go on in this world? No, of course not. I would rather they never happen, but such a concept is a euphoric dream. No matter how immoral I or anyone believes it to be, I do not believe the government has any right to legislate morality.

 

And perhaps even more importantly, I detest the fact that such social issues are considered political priorities in a country with so many economic problems.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The government already runs our lives for us, it's pretty natural that they want to make the decisions and dictate our moral code along the way. You just deal with it.

 

Am I saying that's right? Nope. But you can't let the government walk all over you and cater to your needs all the time and then just casually shrug them off when it suits you. It's all or nothing. Don't motorboat the tits that feed you.

[Maverick 791]

I actually agree with BWare. Shocking. O_O And using that quote from Carlin is stupid Stevo regardless of you warning us it's from a comedian..

 

Thanatos and BWare are spot on (Thanatos as usual). People don't give a shit. Kids especially. I know plenty of people that have sex freely without any concerns for future repercussions. They'll just have an abortion and all their problems are solved. God forbid we show any responsibility when we're participating in something important such as sex.

 

I blame society and media (yet again) for minimizing the importance/responsibility that comes with sexual intercourse. MTV is the only example I need to develop my argument on this matter. No explanations needed.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

People don't give a shit. Kids especially. I know plenty of people that have sex freely without any concerns for future repercussions. They'll just have an abortion and all their problems are solved. God forbid we show any responsibility when we're participating in something important such as sex.

 

I blame society and media (yet again) for minimizing the importance/responsibility that comes with sexual intercourse. MTV is the only example I need to develop my argument on this matter. No explanations needed.

 

You're absolutely right; people engage in unprotected sex without full regard for the responsibilities and potential consequences. But is it the government's job to try and regulate that? Is it the government's job to try and censor the media from conveying such things?

Edited June 26, 2013 by SteVo

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I actually agree with BWare. Shocking. O_O And using that quote from Carlin is stupid Stevo regardless of you warning us it's from a comedian..

 

Thanatos and BWare are spot on (Thanatos as usual). People don't give a shit. Kids especially. I know plenty of people that have sex freely without any concerns for future repercussions. They'll just have an abortion and all their problems are solved. God forbid we show any responsibility when we're participating in something important such as sex.

 

I blame society and media (yet again) for minimizing the importance/responsibility that comes with sexual intercourse. MTV is the only example I need to develop my argument on this matter. No explanations needed.

 

Are you saying that you aren't on the Teen Mom and 16 & Pregnant bandwagon? lol

[blotsfan 2,112]

As I've said before, if an abortion is murder, then it shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances. Therefore, people who say its only ok if it's rape are full of shit.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I'm about to get on my soapbox. Feel free to read or skip over, but I feel like this needs to be said.

 

As I've already said, the abortion debate has become stupid. Or rather, it's always been stupid and hasn't changed in that regard. It's evident in this very thread. We are sitting here debating whether or not we consider a fetus a life, or when a fetus becomes a person, or if cells are indeed people or simply cells that are developing into people. It's absurd. It's as if we are sitting in the room with a pregnant woman who is considering abortion, and arguing with each other about her, without addressing her directly. By doing this we are implicitly making the choice for her. We have removed all meaning from the debate, and we have not even discussed the burden she is suffering. No mention of her physical or psychological burden.

 

Let's start with the "but the fetus is a life!" crowd. If this is the approach you take then you're already treating the argument as a conclusion. But this argument also whiffs on something very important: What if the fetus is indeed a life and therefore trumps the woman's right to choose? You have framed the argument in terms of life versus liberty, and we as a country choose liberty almost always. There is rarely a commitment to life over liberty in any other issue that's not abortion. If we truly valued life over liberty then we would ban things like alcohol, driving, and smoking because these kill far more people than abortion ever has or ever will. We possess a very strong commitment to liberty and our own conveniences over life. The death penalty is a great example of our choice of liberty over life.

 

Want some more examples? Let's talk hypotheticals. Suppose Congress tries to pass a law that mandates that everyone in the country give blood once per year. Do you think that would pass? Hell no. If it did, do you think we'd be okay with it? Aagain, HELL NO. Liberty wins over life.

 

How about mandatory organ donations from live people? That's even worse. Liberty wins. Or to make this point better, how about mandatory organ donations post-mortem? People would STILL say no. But why? You're dead. What use do you have for them? None, and those organs could save lives. But people are far more interested in keeping their dead, rotting corpses intact than in saving lives.

 

What if there was a monthly drawing and if you "win," the state forces you to give blood continuously to someone for...I dunno, let's say 9 months? That's a gross violation of your rights, isn't it? Do you see where I'm going with this? You wouldn't force someone to donate blood or organs against their will, yet this is what you do to woman when you tell them they can't get an abortion. Asking women to be a blood and organ donor for 9 months against their will is a significant violation of individual liberty. And this violation is only discussed in this manner in regards to mothers & their fetuses.

 

The "pro-choice" crowd makes a similar mistake when they tell us a fetus is "just cells." In what discussion do we ever refer to fetuses merely as "cells" outside of an abortion debate? It takes a serious moral issue then discounts half of the calculus to justify the decision.

 

And I don't blame people for the way they debate this issue. The problem was created in the Roe decision when Justice Blackmun failed to ground the right to abortion in anything. He merely gave women the right and then compromised that right immediately. It's an atrocious case and an even worse opinion. If you read it carefully, you'll notice Blackmun actually gave the right to choose to men and the state, and based them on technology and science. Moreover, Roe was overruled in Casey v Planned Parenthood yet how many politicians talk about that case? Not one of them that I've seen. And in Casey the SCOTUS finally did a better job of grounding the right to abortion.

 

Anyway, my point is this: The discussion should not be about whether the choice exists. It absolutely does. Banning abortion is like banning guns, drugs, or alcohol. It's not going to stop it, or reduce it, but merely results in back alleyway abortions where women are at greater risk of death. It's absurd. Rather, the discussion ought to be about who makes the choice. Why does the state have an interest in regulating an act of sexual privacy that in no way affects anyone else? The woman faces the physical burden, the psychological burden, and every consequence inbetween. The choice ought always to be hers and it is really not anyone else's business. And this "couples need to be held responsible for their actions" argument is ridiculous. Would you hold someone responsible for inciting a riot through exercise of free speech?

 

And I'm done.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gov-perry-calls-special-session-to-address-abortion

 

Governor Perry has called another special session to begin July 1st. It will include the abortion bill again. Fucking hell.

[OSUViking 505]

I frankly don't give a damn how irresponsible people are with sex. It's not the government's job to make people responsible, and it's not the government's job to dictate morality or what people do with their body. I realize the "fetus = human" thing is really controversial, but personally it's not something that I buy into. I don't know if I articulated this effectively, but I myself will never encourage my partner to have an abortion. That being said, I recognize that it's not my decision for everyone. No one's decision is going to be the correct decision for someone else 100% of the time. The government's opinion on this should not affect someone's decision. I am morally opposed to abortion, personally, but that does not mean I want the government to dictate who should be able to do what they want with their lives.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

No one's decision is going to be the correct decision for someone else 100% of the time.

 

I feel like this isn't talked about enough, and that probably has something to do with abortion being declared a "right." It should merely be a choice, not a right, because each individual case is different. If it's a right then it becomes incorrectly treated the exact same way every time.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'm about to get on my soapbox. Feel free to read or skip over, but I feel like this needs to be said.

 

It's as if we are sitting in the room with a pregnant woman who is considering abortion, and arguing with each other about her, without addressing her directly. By doing this we are implicitly making the choice for her.

 

What you're overlooking is the father. With the exception of special circumstances (papa bear bails on her, is abusive, etc.), whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should not by the woman's singular decision.

 

Women want equal rights, but then we need to 50/50 split the responsibilities for the child while it's in the womb, as well.

Edited June 26, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[Guest Phailadelphia]

What you're overlooking is the father. With the exception of special circumstances (papa bear bails on her, is abusive, etc.), whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should not by the woman's singular decision.

 

Women want equal rights, but then we need to 50/50 split the responsibilities for the child while it's in the womb, as well.

 

The father doesn't have to carry the baby to term and deal with the medical consequences therein. And I really doubt there are a wealth of couples who disagree on the topic of abortion. I know it was something I discussed with my girlfriend early in our relationship just incase something were to happen accidentally. This really isn't an issue IMO, even if they disagree about whether or not to keep the baby.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[BwareDWare94 723]

The father doesn't have to carry the baby to term and deal with the medical consequences therein. And I really doubt there are a wealth of couples who disagree on the topic of abortion. I know it was something I discussed with my girlfriend early in our relationship just incase something were to happen accidentally. This really isn't an issue IMO, even if they disagree about whether or not to keep the baby.

 

So what? There are things that men handle the majority of in other aspects of life. It shouldn't be a woman's choice. It should be a couple's choice.

[OSUViking 505]

So what? There are things that men handle the majority of in other aspects of life. It shouldn't be a woman's choice. It should be a couple's choice.

 

Still brings us to the same conclusion ----> It is a choice.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Still brings us to the same conclusion ----> It is a choice.

 

Yes, but barring special circumstances, it shouldn't be a woman's singular choice. Two people are responsible for a conception.

[OSUViking 505]

Yes, but barring special circumstances, it shouldn't be a woman's singular choice. Two people are responsible for a conception.

 

... I'm not really disagreeing with you. It's a choice, thus it should be personal and not decided by the person who represents your district.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

I'm about to get on my soapbox. Feel free to read or skip over, but I feel like this needs to be said.

 

As I've already said, the abortion debate has become stupid. Or rather, it's always been stupid and hasn't changed in that regard. It's evident in this very thread. We are sitting here debating whether or not we consider a fetus a life, or when a fetus becomes a person, or if cells are indeed people or simply cells that are developing into people. It's absurd. It's as if we are sitting in the room with a pregnant woman who is considering abortion, and arguing with each other about her, without addressing her directly. By doing this we are implicitly making the choice for her. We have removed all meaning from the debate, and we have not even discussed the burden she is suffering. No mention of her physical or psychological burden.

 

 

Let's start with the "but the fetus is a life!" crowd. If this is the approach you take then you're already treating the argument as a conclusion. But this argument also whiffs on something very important: What if the fetus is indeed a life and therefore trumps the woman's right to choose? You have framed the argument in terms of life versus liberty, and we as a country choose liberty almost always. There is rarely a commitment to life over liberty in any other issue that's not abortion. If we truly valued life over liberty then we would ban things like alcohol, driving, and smoking because these kill far more people than abortion ever has or ever will. We possess a very strong commitment to liberty and our own conveniences over life. The death penalty is a great example of our choice of liberty over life.

 

Want some more examples? Let's talk hypotheticals. Suppose Congress tries to pass a law that mandates that everyone in the country give blood once per year. Do you think that would pass? Hell no. If it did, do you think we'd be okay with it? Aagain, HELL NO. Liberty wins over life.

 

How about mandatory organ donations from live people? That's even worse. Liberty wins. Or to make this point better, how about mandatory organ donations post-mortem? People would STILL say no. But why? You're dead. What use do you have for them? None, and those organs could save lives. But people are far more interested in keeping their dead, rotting corpses intact than in saving lives.

 

What if there was a monthly drawing and if you "win," the state forces you to give blood continuously to someone for...I dunno, let's say 9 months? That's a gross violation of your rights, isn't it? Do you see where I'm going with this? You wouldn't force someone to donate blood or organs against their will, yet this is what you do to woman when you tell them they can't get an abortion. Asking women to be a blood and organ donor for 9 months against their will is a significant violation of individual liberty. And this violation is only discussed in this manner in regards to mothers & their fetuses.

 

The "pro-choice" crowd makes a similar mistake when they tell us a fetus is "just cells." In what discussion do we ever refer to fetuses merely as "cells" outside of an abortion debate? It takes a serious moral issue then discounts half of the calculus to justify the decision.

 

And I don't blame people for the way they debate this issue. The problem was created in the Roe decision when Justice Blackmun failed to ground the right to abortion in anything. He merely gave women the right and then compromised that right immediately. It's an atrocious case and an even worse opinion. If you read it carefully, you'll notice Blackmun actually gave the right to choose to men and the state, and based them on technology and science. Moreover, Roe was overruled in Casey v Planned Parenthood yet how many politicians talk about that case? Not one of them that I've seen. And in Casey the SCOTUS finally did a better job of grounding the right to abortion.

 

Anyway, my point is this: The discussion should not be about whether the choice exists. It absolutely does. Banning abortion is like banning guns, drugs, or alcohol. It's not going to stop it, or reduce it, but merely results in back alleyway abortions where women are at greater risk of death. It's absurd. Rather, the discussion ought to be about who makes the choice. Why does the state have an interest in regulating an act of sexual privacy that in no way affects anyone else? The woman faces the physical burden, the psychological burden, and every consequence inbetween. The choice ought always to be hers and it is really not anyone else's business. And this "couples need to be held responsible for their actions" argument is ridiculous. Would you hold someone responsible for inciting a riot through exercise of free speech?

 

 

And I'm done.

 

Your entire argument is off-base. The reason that abortion is an argument on whether the fetus is a life or not lies in the fact that, if it's a life, it has the right to live and being aborted infringes on that right.

 

Every example you gave relates to people being forced against their will to do something with their body that they may not want to do. If we're really making that analogy, then we need to ask the child whether or not he wants to be aborted, not the mother. The only way around this is to consider the fetus non-living, "just cells", what have you.

 

When a woman has a child she has the right to raise it as she sees fit, but does not have carte blanche to neglect, abuse, or murder it. The child has rights and cannot be disposed of on a whim. That is why the abortion discussion has and always will be about whether or not the fetus is a child. The moment the fetus becomes life, it has the right to that life unimpeded.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Your entire argument is off-base. The reason that abortion is an argument on whether the fetus is a life or not lies in the fact that, if it's a life, it has the right to live and being aborted infringes on that right.

 

Every example you gave relates to people being forced against their will to do something with their body that they may not want to do. If we're really making that analogy, then we need to ask the child whether or not he wants to be aborted, not the mother. The only way around this is to consider the fetus non-living, "just cells", what have you.

 

 

 

You're making it about the fetus again. It's not about the fetus. It's about the woman and her own sexual privacy.

[Thanatos 2,847]

That's entirely subjective and based on your definition of a human. A fetus grows into a child at some point during the pregnancy, but I don't believe the fetus is itself a child.

 

Should we not then err on the side of caution? We know it has a heartbeat at 18 days in. We know that is therefore alive at this point in time. If its not a human being, then what is it?

 

The "abortion is murder" argument doesn't quite connect with me. As George Carlin said, "If a fetus is a life, why doesn't the census count them?" Granted that comes from a comedian, but its substance has merit. On the other hand, take a look at the ripple effect a U.S. without abortions would create: all the children born into underprivileged homes, the increase in families going on food stamps, the total increase in federal spending necessitated by such socioeconomic factors.

 

Do I think it's totally okay that abortions go on in this world? No, of course not. I would rather they never happen, but such a concept is a euphoric dream. No matter how immoral I or anyone believes it to be, I do not believe the government has any right to legislate morality.

 

And perhaps even more importantly, I detest the fact that such social issues are considered political priorities in a country with so many economic problems.

 

If abortion is murder, then it should be illegal. It's not a matter of legislating morality unless you're going to argue we should repeal the laws against murdering another human being in general, which I'm certain you wouldn't.

 

The law itself acknowledges something very very sketchy- if the mother intends to have the child, it is de facto a human being. A person who kills a pregnant woman was charged with killing two people. Not a human and a fetus, two people. If the fetus truly wasn't a human until some point in the pregnancy, then why charge the person with two murders? It either is, or it isn't. We can't say that it becomes a human as soon as the mother decides she's going to keep it, that's absurd. Her intention has no bearing on whether or not it is a human being, it simply decides whether or not she will allow to be born.

 

You're making it about the fetus again. It's not about the fetus. It's about the woman and her own sexual privacy.

 

It's completely about the child *as well as the mother.* Thus the life of the mother exception. I don't give a damn about someone's sexual privacy in this case. Murder is murder. She lost her right to "sexual privacy" when she didn't have protection, (of course, rape being an exception, and also another reason for that being an exception). If the fetus is a human being, no matter how else you spin it, she doesn't get to decide to kill it merely because she is keeping it alive and its inconvenient to her.

 

Phail your argument about life vs liberty doesn't work. It's actually rather astonishing. Are you seriously saying that even if the fetus is a human being, women should still be allowed to abort their child merely for the sake of liberty? What is the difference between that assertion and saying a woman should be able to kill their child until they are, say, a year old?

 

A young child will also result in loss of liberty. The only real difference I see is that she could give the child up for adoption at this point, which then leads to the foundation of your argument, which is: A woman should be allowed to kill a child that is still within the womb because she will be inconvenienced for nine months if she is forced to carry it to term.

 

In 95% of cases, abortion occurs not because of rape or life of the mother scenarios, but simply out of either convenience or the feeling of not being ready. This is why, blots, I would have no problem with a law that allowed abortion in the case of rape. As I've explained before, but which you continually ignore, the rape exception is because the woman is already made a victim. A young girl should not have to go through the extreme emotional trauma unless she is able to handle it. It's a very sticky grey area and thus one I would prefer the government to stay out of. This is not the case with "abortion-on-demand," which, as stated before, makes up the overwhelming majority of cases.

 

The assertion that we shouldn't stop abortion because it will still take place in back alleys is completely illogical. We aren't banning it because we have the naive belief that it will stop all abortion. If, in order to pass a law, we had to be sure it would stop all infractions it was designed to, then there would be no law against me going outside and shooting someone because clearly despite the government banning murders, they still take place. Thus we shouldn't ban murder, right? Whether or not the act will still occur has *zero* effect on whether or not we should outlaw it occurring. If the fetus is a human life, the state has a responsibility to protect it.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Thanatos19

[BwareDWare94 723]

SteVo, the reason this is viewed as an important issue while we have terrible economical issues is because is because it's viewed as an equality argument. It's not even about the fetuses anymore, for politics. It's become more and more about women, and not the helpless individual they carry.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Sexual privacy. Did she get pregnant sitting on the clothes dryer?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

Yes, but barring special circumstances, it shouldn't be a woman's singular choice. Two people are responsible for a conception.

Bware, in theory you're right but thats just not feasible. Obviously if both parties want an abortion, or both parties want to keep it theres no issue. What if theres a debate though? Either you're forcing a woman to have a traumatic procedure she neither wants nor needs, or she is forced to keep a child she does not want because a man decides whats best for her.

[OSUViking 505]

edit out before shitstorm

Edited June 27, 2013 by Vikingfan465