[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Telconi]

Sure.

Indeed. Clear as day. Limited government is not compatible with the kind of over-the-top government meddling that would be required to enforce an abortion ban. Clear contradiction of two beliefs.

Are you still harping on which beliefs I'm allowed to have?

[The New California Republic]

Indeed. Clear as day. Limited government is not compatible with the kind of over-the-top government meddling that would be required to enforce an abortion ban. Clear contradiction of two beliefs.

Are you still harping on which beliefs I'm allowed to have?

Nope, just pointing out how your position is untenable if you want to have your cake and eat it. Way to miss the point Telconi.

[Telconi]

Are you still harping on which beliefs I'm allowed to have?

Nope, just pointing out how your position is untenable if you want to have your cake and eat it. Way to miss the point Telconi.

It isnt, thanks for the attempt tho, friend.

[Frievolk]

Nope, just pointing out how your position is untenable if you want to have your cake and eat it. Way to miss the point Telconi.

It isnt, thanks for the attempt tho, friend.

>Wants Limited Government
>Also Wants Government to break down on abortion -and do it so hard that the logical result of that policy doesn't come to pass- until its gone.
"It isn't"

[The New California Republic]

Nope, just pointing out how your position is untenable if you want to have your cake and eat it. Way to miss the point Telconi.

It isnt, thanks for the attempt tho, friend.

It pretty much is. The passive-aggressive tone here is wonderful. Truly truly wonderful. If a passive-aggressive attitude and saying "it isn't" is the only counterargument that you have, then it is safe to say that I was right on the money.

It isnt, thanks for the attempt tho, friend.

>Wants Limited Government
>Also Wants Government to break down on abortion -and do it so hard that the logical result of that policy doesn't come to pass- until its gone.
"It isn't"

Exactly.

[Telconi]

It isnt, thanks for the attempt tho, friend.

It pretty much is. The passive-aggressive tone here is wonderful. Truly truly wonderful. If a passive-aggressive attitude and saying "it isn't" is the only counterargument that you have, then it is safe to say that I was right on the money.

>Wants Limited Government
>Also Wants Government to break down on abortion -and do it so hard that the logical result of that policy doesn't come to pass- until its gone.
"It isn't"

Exactly.

Indeed, and people who support speed limits by default oppose all automobile use.

[The New California Republic]

Indeed, and people who support speed limits by default oppose all automobile use.

I...um...huh...what??? OK, so you are resorting to plain ridiculousness and false equivalence now because you have no more ground to stand on. Limited government is incompatible with the kind of massive nationwide police crackdowns that would be required to enforce an abortion ban. Accept it.

[Telconi]

Indeed, and people who support speed limits by default oppose all automobile use.

I...um...huh...what??? OK, so you are resorting to plain ridiculousness and false equivalence now because you have no more ground to stand on. Limited government is incompatible with the kind of massive nationwide police crackdowns that would be required to enforce an abortion ban. Accept it.

Desire for limits doesn't imply a desire for a particular limit. But that's evidently a difficult concept.

[The New California Republic]

I...um...huh...what??? OK, so you are resorting to plain ridiculousness and false equivalence now because you have no more ground to stand on. Limited government is incompatible with the kind of massive nationwide police crackdowns that would be required to enforce an abortion ban. Accept it.

Desire for limits doesn't imply a desire for a particular limit. But that's evidently a difficult concept.

Mmm, yes, feed me that tasty passive-aggressiveness and sarcasm, it satiates me.

And what, pray tell, would be the limits that would be enforced that wouldn't necessitate said massive police crackdown?

[Godular]

With all the partisanship and polarization on this issue, I have recently found it helpful to not look at it as a bipolar issue, but an issue with many gradual changes, like those of the poll. Also, thanks for updating the final poll choice!

I'm religious and believe there should be no abortion, but in the American political climate that is fairly impossible. Still, it would be subsequently good to restrict abortion as much as possible, and to that extent, as even this poll shows, there is a large base of support. The position of the American government is roughly the second option, and that us vastly out of step with the majority of Americans, and even the majority of NSG.

As people opposed to abortion, I think first we should emphasize just how radical American abortion law is. It is barbaric, inhumane, and more similar to laws in North Korea than laws in Europe. While one portion of society loudly proclaims the supposed right to abortion on demand, the majority of Americans do not agree with this. Using the trimester framework, Americans regularly say with clear majorities that Abortion should be limited to the first trimester. If one based it on circumstances, America would probably land where NSG is at medical reasons.

My point is, there is massive support for restricting abortion, but a radical minority prevents this. We should focus on demonstrating just how radical and unrepresentative American abortion law is to find the popular consensus that limits abortion more than we do now.

The poll only asks where respondents would personally draw the line and should not be taken as a position on where it should be drawn for others. Previous polls spoke to THAT position and it demonstrated a rather profoundly pro-choice leaning. Also, I did not change it. A second opinion request got through, but I can still re-edit it to be provocative to a lesser degree if I’m so inclined (which I am not).

Taking the results of this poll as a vindication of your position would be like taking the results of a poll asking if respondents are gay or not as proof that all non-heteros should be deported to Haiti. YOU might not be gay, but that speaks nothing of how others should be treated.

Same for this poll.

[Estanglia]

Immediately resorting to violence again can be used to demonize pro choice people and shows to the other side you've got no arguments. There are other ways to show abortion is a right other than shooting the cops that come to arrest you for breaking the law.

Women shouldn't go to jail for practicing their right though.

I'm not sure if you understand this, but pro lifers don't believe it's a right. So, in these states where it's a crime, they see this action as equivalent to committing murder and shooting the cop who arrests you because 'it's my right!'. That won't help your cause.

Laws against abortion are illegitmate. Thus police have no authority to arrest women for non existent crimes.

Three problems here:
1) again, the pro lifers see abortion as murder, so to them it is legitimate to criminalise what is, in their perspective, murder.
2) Crimes involve breaking the law. The women getting abortions are breaking the law, and thus have committed a crime. It's not non-existent.
3) The police are there to enforce the law, and they have every authority to arrest law breakers, which these women are.

Yet as red states would be under the delusion that abortion is a crime thanks to an illegitmate overturning of Roe V Wade and an illegitmate act of legislation, women need to protect themselves from the illegitmate law.

1) see the above points for why it's not illegitimate to pro lifers.
2) Protecting themselves would involve violence against an officer, would it not? That would not help your cause, because you can now be doubly demonised and used to smear the pro choice side.

---

Im sorry but i cannot and will not condone violence or lawbreaking. Want to protect abortion rights? vote for people who will.

But women would end up illegitimatly persecuted for practicing their rights in red states.

again, pro lifers don't see abortion as a right, they see it as murder. To them, It's like saying that murderers are illegitimately persecuted for practising their rights.

---

If you believe in protecting all life, born and unborn, without exceptions, including being anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia, then you wouldn’t promote abortion for said reason. Consistency in one’s beliefs. Plus society needs to do more to help women who have been raped, and not in ways that involve promoting the death of the unborn baby.

We could do that, but we are a capitalistic bootstrap society where your life only matters to the government if you are still in the womb.

Another sweeping generalisation.

[Zex]

personhood

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Firstly, the idea that there would be no reduction strikes me as absolutely preposterous. If laws were enacted to prevent abortions being carried out, fewer abortions would be carried out. Secondly, accompanying programs would be a necessity to implement the necessary laws. There would need to be a concerted effort to offset and alleviate the reasons people undergo abortions. Lastly there would need to be public education campaigns, telling people that abortion is not just "removing obstruction" or any such nonsense. These would serve to shift the attitude away from it being an acceptable medical procedure.

Telconi, the "removing obstruction" reference is in a real advert that openly promoted abortion services when it was illegal. In 1842.

Surely, the fact that it was very much illegal, and yet it was advertised suggests that -- despite laws -- women will have abortions.

In Brazil, where it is effectively banned, women obtain misoprostol (legitimately prescribed to treat stomach ulcers) to self-abort. There are about 1 million illegal abortions in Brazil alone. Every single year.

Restrictions on the drug won't work, because it's cheap to make, the WHO lists it as an essential drug (it also treats miscarriages), and -- as I said -- in the UK doctors used to actively conspire to declare every abortion (except where undeniable) a miscarriage.

You're talking about something doctors don't have the appetite to report, police don't have the heart to pursue and judges don't want to prosecute. You want to criminalise something unpoliceable.

Exactly how do you plan to prevent something that's 100% unreducable and unpreventable?

Because all the restriction, and changing attitudes and... all of that talk will do nothing when a desperate woman is actually in that situation.

Honestly, when you look at the individual states' laws on abortion, it becomes rather immaterial to curtail or add more restrictions. Those are already there. In most US states, abortions are performed, without consequences to the woman, until a certain point.

For example, abortion laws in the state of Missouri.
Or in the state of Iowa.

I agree with many here that yes, abortion should be always available, at any point during the pregnancy. Yet, adding more restrictions? In the US, those are already there. No need to add more.

[The New California Republic]

personhood

Fetuses aren't people, correct.

[Telconi]

personhood

Fetuses aren't people, correct.

generally "I agree" would be a better way to support an opinion.

[The New California Republic]

Fetuses aren't people, correct.

generally "I agree" would be a better way to support an opinion.

Generally not commenting on my agreement is a better way to not comment on my agreement.

[Telconi]

generally "I agree" would be a better way to support an opinion.

Generally not commenting on my agreement is a better way to not comment on my agreement.

Certainly.

[The New California Republic]

Generally not commenting on my agreement is a better way to not comment on my agreement.

Certainly.

[Godular]

personhood

What about it? Even if we consider that position, a fetus has no right to use a woman’s body without their consent.

[Dark Socialism]

personhood

People aren't entitled to existence

[Telconi]

personhood

What about it? Even if we consider that position, a fetus has no right to use a woman’s body without their consent.

Unless we grant them such a right.

[Neutraligon]

What about it? Even if we consider that position, a fetus has no right to use a woman’s body without their consent.

Unless we grant them such a right.

At which point you place your own bodily autonomy in danger.

[Godular]

What about it? Even if we consider that position, a fetus has no right to use a woman’s body without their consent.

Unless we grant them such a right.

Then they are not persons. They are some kind of legal ubermensch that wield the powers of life and death without ever breathing with their own lungs.

To even field that idea with any semblance of sincerity is to demonstrate a disastrously myopic perspective.

[San Lumen]

What about it? Even if we consider that position, a fetus has no right to use a woman’s body without their consent.

Unless we grant them such a right.

So why don;'t we count a fetus as person?

Who are you to force a woman whose been through the trauma of rape or incest to carry a child they do not want or might not have the means to care for?

It a fetus is a person should a woman whose had a miscarriage be investigated for murder?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It pretty much is. The passive-aggressive tone here is wonderful. Truly truly wonderful. If a passive-aggressive attitude and saying "it isn't" is the only counterargument that you have, then it is safe to say that I was right on the money. ;)


Exactly.

Indeed, and people who support speed limits by default oppose all automobile use.

:rofl:

The Descent of the Fetus Fetishist.