Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Other arguments I do not understand
Here's the argument from someone who said it better than I can:
Here's where what you believe meets what actually is. The Constitution recognizes three basic rights: life, liberty, and property. In order to avail yourself of any of these rights, you must be a person. "Person" is not used in it coloquial sense, but in a legal sense. So the issue of whether a fetus is a "life" is irrelevant. The real issue is whether it is a person. If it is a person, then it has a right to life. If it is not a person, it has no constitutional rights at all. The woman is a person. There is no issue with that. It is not a matter of debate. So she has certain liberty interests that are constitutionally protected. One of those is privacy: the right to be left alone. The issues of abortion, pregnancy, and family are private matters which the woman is entitled to control and safeguard against government interference. So what you have right now is a situation where a non-person would have greater rights than a person. At a moral level, this may not bother you. You may be thinking, great, all we have to do is assign fetuses "personhood" status and then they have a right to life and we're good.
Only we're not good. There are major major problems with defining a fetus as a person, specifically because it would entitle a fetus to Constitutional rights. Some of those problems include the government suddenly having the ability to control everything about a pregnant woman's life from her diet to her workout schedule specifically because the fetus now has liberty and life rights. The slippery slope there is too great. Every study that came out saying that mothers who watched TV while pregnant had a higher incidence of miscarriage would potentially result in government intervention in the TV-watching habits of pregnant women - you know, because they have to protect the person that is the fetus.
This is why, regardless of whether you find abortion morally or religiously offensive, you cannot legislate on it. This is where we get back to epphd's initial statement: you don't like abortion, don't have one. Because the minute the government steps in and starts legislating on the thing, the personhood status of women who are already here, already independent human entities, has to be eroded. You cannot have both women and fetuses be considered persons. It is a legal impossibility.
So if the "right to life" movement wants to end abortion, they're going to have to focus on alternative ways, which, incidentally, makes more sense given that prohibitions on abortion are notoriously ineffective in reducing the incidence of terminated pregnancy.
That's it, that's the abortion issue in a nutshell. All this other crap about people accepting responsibility for their actions, taking advantage of the abortion "faucet", respecting life, or whatever your emotional argument is, that's all completely irrelevant. It gets you nowhere. Unless your purpose is to blame women for pregnancy in an effort to imply they are not really entitled to personhood status.
while I think the argument might come across this way, for me the argument is that SOME of the laws being proposed do very little to reduce gun violence because the root of the problem is not being addressed. Realistically our laws against robbery and murder already address the type of people who would most likely be influenced by gun law changes. The crime does not occur merely in owning certain things but when you use them in conjunction with commiting a crime like murder, rape, robbery, etc. By passing laws that I think we will find largely ineffective to keep something like Aurora or Columbine or Sandy Hook from happening because those crimes occurred largely in the absence of the things being legislated against, we are potentially wasting time we could be using to hit the problems in a more effective way and burdening already overburdened enforcement agencies.
You're right,we shouldn't have to legislate it. I thought it was widely accepted that murder was wrong. But we legislate that as well. And as far as if we give a baby personhood status that it would trump a womans personhood is bs, what a cowardly defense. You and I both know that the government wouldn't arrest someone because of watching tv, etc. How come when a pregnant mother is murdered the murderer gets double homicide? I thought that wasn't a person. Again, whatever helps you sleep at night. Obama is pushing gun legislation that won't do anything because it "might" save one life. What about pushing something that would save millions of lives(yearly)? Oh wait, they don't matter. This isn't a legal matter though, you shouldn't have to tell someone not to murder their child because that child is "inconvenient". Because let's face it over 90% of abortions are because the child would be inconvient, not one of the rare cases with rape/life threatening illness. Women use it as a way to not accept responsibility for a choice they already made. "Oh I had sex and now I have an unwanted pregnancy", if you didn't want a child you shouldn't have had sex! But you can't ever push anything like that because in America we are so entitled today and it doesn't matter what you do you don't ever have to take responsibility for your actions. Anyone with a well formed conscience knows that murder/abortion is wrong.
"A Nation that kills its own children has no future." - Pope John Paul II, 1996
Legislation can be introduced.
It can't be enforced. It can't really "save lives" like you think it will. Women will always have abortions. It's a reality that will never go away.
Making a woman accountable for sex by forcing her to go through an unwanted pregnancy and birth to take care of an unwanted child may give you satisfaction, but it does no favors to that child.
Many great people had less than stellar childhoods.
This is all about accountability. No one forced her to have sex (I already stated I wasn't talking about rape). She already made a choice, she's not being "forced", You make it sound like someone is holding a gun to her head. But why would anyone "choose" to take responsibility for the choice they already made that created your child when you can "choose" to just kill your child instead?
Regarding the liberty argument, what about a man's right to liberty? I mean a man could be tricked into having unprotected sex or be one of the unfortunate ones for whom the best laid plans of contraception fall awry. Even if he chooses to terminate his parental rights he is still responsible at least financially for the child should the mother choose to keep it. If he refuses he will be jailed and lose his "liberty". His earnings and assets may be garnished and he may be forced to provide/disclose his financials regularly to the mother of the child and the courts via child support hearings which don't seem very private to me.
He made no different decisions to have sex than a woman did. Why should he be forced to support a child he doesn't want?
This has always been such an interesting question to me. It's one of the reasons that I believe it can be more difficult to be a man than it is to be a woman when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. She will make the decision that will decide his future, and I can't imagine how difficult it is to be in that position.
Okay then, how about this question...why should a portion of the population be forced to pay for healthcare for people who chose to have sex, got an STD and now need routine medical care and treatment and cannot pay for it themselves?
A man or woman should pay for a child they created. Plain and simple. If you're going to have sex, and sex results in children, you should be prepared to have children. Take responsibility for your actions. Yes. It's hard and yes it's inconvenient, but these are life's lessons. Actions have consequences. Actions result in people needing to take responsibility.
Another PP hit it on the head. We have a nation of entitlement. If I mess up, someone will be there to bail me out; someone else will pay my way; someone else will cover my mistakes.
I like forgiveness, second chances, and fresh starts. But, people need to get those WITH taking responsibility. Over on MM you see this a lot. Ladies get a fresh start out of debt, but the biggest question they face from other posters is "Now what are you going to do to be sure you don't get into this situation again?" You got out, now learn from your mistakes and don't go down this path again.
It's pretty plain and simple. Universal morality says that murdering is immoral. What PPs don't like is being told that the killing they want (re: abortions) is immoral because it ruffles their feathers and makes them feel poorly. Well, you know what? It should. It shouldn't sit nice with you, or anybody. A life is a life.
And, take a side too. Either you're for life or you're not. Don't say well I'm against abortion, but I cannot stand in someone's else's way. IF you hold to this view, then how can you trust yourself to stand up to anything? This very thing has happened before...
In Lincoln's day, when he and other Republicans, were working to abolish slavery, a subset of the Democrats (who opposed freeing slaves as a party) didn't like slavery, but they determined that they couldn't go against their party's majority to free the slaves. While they thought slavery was immoral, they essentially condoned it because they refused to stand up to the other Democrats who wanted it to remain. The only reason many voted against slavery in the end was because they were paid off with job promotions within government.
How do you know this? I sure don't. People have been arrested for sending their children to the wrong school district, so don't tell me that crazy things like this don't happen (http://whynow.dumka.us/2011/04/25/woman-arrested-for-wrong-school-district/).
They don't - it depends on the state.
Ah, so now i see - banning abortion is about punishing women for having sex. That's what you really care about.
Anyone with a well formed conscience knows it's wrong to let children starve and go without healthcare in the wealthiest nation in the world, but I doubt you're lobbying the government to make sure every child receives proper nutrition and to make sure every child has access to healthcare regardless of their parents' ability to pay, are you?
Because you're talking about two different issues - having a child/being a parent and being pregnant/carrying a baby inside of you. The man may lose money by having an unwanted child, but he's not going to lose his life.
He doesn't have to worry about losing his job because of the time he'll have to take off work to give birth and recover from the birth (remember that FMLA only applies to certain people - if you've been working there less than a year or your company has less than 50 people, it is entirely legal for them to fire you for missing one DAY to give birth).
He doesn't have to worry about taking time off work (unpaid, frequently) to go to doctors appointments.
He doesn't have to worry about the physical complications, including the risk of death, from pregnancy.
He doesn't have to worry about pregnancy problems like back pain, dehydration, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, carpal tunnel, preeclampsia, deep vein thrombosis, abdominal separation, pelvic girdle pain, anemia, HELLP, severe nausea.
He doesn't have to worry about childbirth complications like tearing, infections, hemorrhaging, uterine rupture, prolapsed organs, cardiac arrest, kidney failure.
He doesn't have to worry about the possibility of a c-section and the risks of that, or the recovery time where he can't lift anything.
He doesn't have to worry about the incredible medical bills that come along with pregnancy and childbirth - the average cost for prenatal care without insurance is more than $2,000 and then the average cost of childbirth is about $15,000 (that's with NO complications and a vaginal delivery- you're talking a lot more for a c-section or if anything goes wrong at all).
THAT is why it is just not comparable. Pregnancy =/= paying child support. Not even close.
Oh booooo hoooo my ENTITLED country doesn't just let people with diseases walk around untreated and spreading them around!!! Waaaaaaaaahhhh my money goes towards treating sick people who don't DESERVE to be treated because they should just DIE from their sins of having sex when *I* don't think they should have!!!!
Do you even have the slightest clue how ridiculous you are?
Also, please look up 'Southern Strategy' because you seem to think that the Republicans of 1860 are somehow related to the Republicans of today.
They don't - it depends on the state. So according to what you just wrote, some do.
Well aren't we arrogant? I'm not lobbying the government to do anything, the most I have done is prayed for people. For everyone affected by abortion, father, mother and child. Because I believe that one day people will see the error in their ways sir. And you can go ahead and attack me for what you think I do or do not do. I know what I am doing to help and that's all that matters. No one else needs to know, because I don't need a prize.
And as for "punishing women for having sex", are you serious? Really? Did you actually read what I wrote. I said people don't take responsibility for their actions. So the way you are putting it is if someone kills someone and the judge sends them to jail then the judge is just being an asshat for sending them to prison. Am I understanding correctly? That's obviously not what I think, however, I do think (and certainly correct me if I'm wrong) that you and others are so enveloped in this culture of death that you see nothing wrong with killing a child. Which is why your argument made no sense to me, because I see every child as a blessing and if I see a child suffering I most certainly help. But thank you for assuming that I don't. Again, I don't think this will get across because you obviously believe that a child is a burden, a punishment, just another mouth to feed, a parasite... not a gift. So I don't think we can even argue because we are in separate universes.
I try not to get personal, but I think you are just plain rude. People who resort to this kind of "debating" usually do so because they don't have anything left to debate about. If you have a point, make it and we will discuss/debate it like adults. Can we stop with the juvenile behavior.
How is having an abortion NOT taking responsibility for one's actions? Do you believe that abortion has zero effect whatsoever on the woman who has it?
No, you're right. I don't believe "every child is a gift." It's a nice sentiment, but in the real world, sometimes, children ARE burdens. Sometimes pregnancy IS a burden. Sometimes pregnancy means losing your job and losing the ability to feed the children you already have. Sometimes pregnancy means losing your life, even. And that is something I don't believe any woman should ever be forced to go through. If she makes the choice to do so, then I absolutely support that. In fact, I support it so much that I have lobbied my congresspeople for paid maternity leave, for additional protections for pregnant women at work, for free prenatal care for all women.
But I believe it should be her choice. You believe it should be YOUR choice and that the law should be written to follow YOUR morals and beliefs, regardless of what anyone else believes. So you're right - we are in separate universes.
OK you're right. I should have said "I respectfully disagree with your belief that people should be allowed to spread disease and/or die horrible deaths so that you aren't the slightest bit inconvenienced. And I put forth the proposal that you are, in fact, an immoral person for believing this."
I guess I would normally agree with this argument. But I truly think abortion is different because it takes a life everytime. It's one thing if someone has different beliefs than me, but if they're killing a fellow human being I feel like we should take a stand ( you must feel the same way because you are pushing for gun control. So you must care about human life as well). There are lots of things that I don't agree with like birth control as an example, but more of my friends take it than don't and I would never tell them they're being immoral. I have lots of friends with different beliefs than me and we get a long just fine, and I don't think less of them either, so I know that people with different beliefs can get along. It's just that abortion is different to me.
I guess this was the long winded way of saying I normally agree with your statement, but not when it comes to abortion/murder.
Killing the child you created is not taking responsibility, it's murder.
Again with the culture of death
This is GREAT, I think that is an awesome thing that you've done. Not a lot of people have enough gumption to do that and I am very impressed.
And I don't believe my beliefs should be pushed on everyone, I honestly (maybe ignorantly so) believed that everyone agreed that murder was wrong. But that last statement isn't true because that would mean that I would want birth control to be illegal and that I want everyone to be catholic, etc. As nice as that may seem in my mind, that is not what I want.
But that's just it-- not everyone believes it's murder.
Which makes no sense to me, but I guess some things are just too black and white to me.
Let's hope you never have to personally deal with a gray area.
I said some things are black and white to me, I didn't say there are never gray areas
Sadly no, she cannot stop. Every thing she says is rude, condescending, and from a standpoint of superiority...at least to people who do not share her viewpoint. Some people on here are known by their tendancies toward one political direction or another, others are known for their paranoia, and this one is known (at last to me) for her inability to retain an adult discussion and the frequency with which she uses cheesy cartoons and pictures to make fun of other people.
This is a great point. Having an abortion IS taking responsibility.
When a woman gets pregnant, generally there are three options: having the baby, adoption, and abortion. Not a single one of those options is easy, but the woman is pregnant and she has an incredibly difficult choice to make, one which will affect her for the rest of her life, no matter which option she chooses.
There is no running from the consequences of getting pregnant. Even choosing to terminate the pregnancy is, for most women, the most difficult thing that they have ever had to do, and it leaves long lasting emotional scars...not to mention the physical recovery.
Which is exactly why I don't understand why it is health care. Because it emotionally harms the father, it physically and emotionally harms the mother and it kills the child. How is this health care for anyone?
Do you believe that every 6 week miscarriage should be granted a death certificate? Serious question - if it's black and white, should every miscarriage and chemical pregnancy be considered a death that's equal to the death of a 5 year old?
If you were inside an IVF clinic, it caught on fire, and you were only able to save either 10 frozen embryos or a 1 year old baby, would you choose the 10 frozen embryos?
I think nobody is happy about abortion, but some people are certainly grateful that the option is there when they or someone they know find themselves needing to make a difficult decision.
I understand the feeling that something needs to be done if you think that people are being murdered. That makes perfect sense. But the law disagrees with you, because a woman has constitutional rights. Basically, if you want to remove a woman's ability to choose, you are saying that you believe that the right to freedom, liberty, and privacy apply to everyone except pregnant women.
I really want to understand this...you don't agree with abortion or birth control. So you believe that people shout have sex only to create a baby? Perhaps a handful of times in their life?
Does it not make sense to you that birth control reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore reduces the number of abortions?
I can't even take you serious at this point. Your obtusion is blinding.