Politics And Current Events

[Pavel Bure]

It’s interesting that a person who thinks it is impossible and completely out of the realm of possibility for the state to decide who is qualified to own a gun is ok with the state being in charge of who gets a child.

I don't agree with the state deciding that. I've never said I am in favor of abortion bans. I do not necessarily agree that there is a constitutional right to abortion, but that does not mean that I believe the state should have unfettered control over the issue.

I have three problems with abortion. The first is whether the fetus has human rights. Under the non-aggression principle, every human has the right to be free of aggression (defined as the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property) unless the force is in self-defense. But when does that right attach to a human life? Birth? Viability? Conception? If the right attaches before birth, then an abortion is a violation of the NAP because it results in a human death. Application of the NAP in this context runs into the same problems defining the beginning of human life.

The second problem I have with abortion is that it is largely unnecessary. I'm the son of an OB/GYN who specialized in gynecology and birth control. Early in her career my mother worked in an abortion clinic. I've known about birth control all my life. And we have excellent methods of birth control. A woman who has a hormonal IUD fitted and also has her partner(s) use condoms is probably more likely to be struck by lightning than to become pregnant. Injectable meds like Depo-Provera only need to be taken every three months, and many of them have lower "unintended pregnancy" rates than actual tubal ligation. Impantables like Etonogestrel are similarly effective and last for years.

The third problem I have with abortion is that it, to me, smacks of personal irresponsibility. I was strongly raised to believe that one takes responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions. That means all consequences. Take what you want, and pay for it. A necessarily consequence of having sex is the risk of pregnancy. Don't want to risk pregnancy? Don't have sex. Had sex and ended up pregnant (and it wasn't rape or incest or whatever)? You already accepted that consequence. Abortion, to me, is pushing that consequence off onto what is potentially another human being.

The point of abortion rights is it’s up to the person. The person decides what happens with their body. That’s it.

All the non-sense you just typed, especially the irresponsibility part. That stinks of privilege and is actually kind of a disgusting take.

[Shyster]

The point of abortion rights is it’s up to the person. The person decides what happens with their body. That’s it.

All the non-sense you just typed, especially the irresponsibility part. That stinks of privilege and is actually kind of a disgusting take.

That's how you see abortion rights. Others reasonably disagree.

If sex is not voluntary, then it's rape, and rape is a crime. If it wasn't rape, then it was a voluntary act. Don't want any consequences from a voluntary act? Then don't do that act. How is expecting people to accept the consequences of their own voluntary actions "privilege"?

[Pavel Bure]

The point of abortion rights is it’s up to the person. The person decides what happens with their body. That’s it.

All the non-sense you just typed, especially the irresponsibility part. That stinks of privilege and is actually kind of a disgusting take.

That's how you see abortion rights. Others reasonably disagree.

If sex is not voluntary, then it's rape, and rape is a crime. If it wasn't rape, then it was a voluntary act. Don't want any consequences from a voluntary act? Then don't do that act. How is expecting people to accept the consequences of their own voluntary actions "privilege"?

Viewed through your lenses of a person that grew up with a doctor as a parent and had advantages that others don’t I can understand your view, as gross and self-centered as it is.

However, not everyone has the same values and upbringing you had. Nor do they have the same privileges you do. A mistake or lapse in judgement shouldn’t doom a person or their child to a life that doesn’t benefit either of them.

Again, it’s about personal choice. All this other non-sense is irrelevant. Is it your body? Then you have that choice. End of argument.

[willeyeam]

Single issue shyster made me cringe less

[Trip McNeely]

Just saw a sign outside a conservative synagogue in squirrel hill that says “Judaism supports womens right to reproductive health” because you know, abortion is allowed in that religion.

I guess religion only counts for the Supreme Court when it’s a certain one

[Shyster]

Viewed through your lenses of a person that grew up with a doctor as a parent and had advantages that others don’t I can understand your view, as gross and self-centered as it is.

You have no idea what "privileges" I had. My mother was a nurse practitioner, not a doctor, and she worked for years in government-run STD clinics where she barely made any money. We lived with my grandparents after my parents got divorced because she couldn't afford her own house, and I grew up wearing hand-me-downs from not only my older brother, but also cousins. We took one actual vacation during my entire childhood--a single trip to Disney World--because we couldn't afford anything more. Take that woke "privilege" stuff and cram it.

A mistake or lapse in judgement shouldn’t doom a person or their child to a life that doesn’t benefit either of them.

Then don't do it. Don't want to get arrested for drunk driving? Then don't drink and drive. Don't want to end up a drug addict? Then never do drugs. Don't want to die in a plane crash? Then never fly. Don't want to get fat? Then eat less and exercise.

Decisions have consequences. That's not "privilege." That's the reality of life.

[Again, it’s about personal choice. All this other non-sense is irrelevant. Is it your body? Then you have that choice. End of argument.

Again, that's your opinion. That's not everyone's opinion. Your opinion doesn't trump everyone else's. Abortion is absolutely an area where reasonable people disagree. Even reasonable libertarians disagree. And unfortunately, it's not a topic where there's any real way to conclusively break the disagreements.

[crusherstasiak]

^the above is what happens to people when they think its possible to live a flawless life

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Considering that some of the same ghouls who are against abortion are also against contraception and sex education, it makes preventing unwanted pregnancies even more difficult.

[Shyster]

^the above is what happens to people when they think its possible to live a flawless life

I don't. I eff up all the time. But when I do, I take responsibility for the consequences of my eff-ups. And if doing something carries the risk that effing that thing up would have huge consequences, then I'm either going to be very, very careful and take all reasonable precautions when doing that thing, or I'm not going to do it at all.

[Shyster]

Considering that some of the same ghouls who are against abortion are also against contraception and sex education, it makes preventing unwanted pregnancies even more difficult.

That's true, and those who hold both positions are being stupid. Again, if people actually used birth control well and consistently, and were well-trained on suitable methods of birth control, abortions would be far, far rarer than they are now. We have very good methods of avoiding and preventing pregnancy.

[Nuge]

^the above is what happens to people when they think its possible to live a flawless life

I don't. I eff up all the time. But when I do, I take responsibility for the consequences of my eff-ups. And if doing something carries the risk that effing that thing up would have huge consequences, then I'm either going to be very, very careful and take all reasonable precautions when doing that thing, or I'm not going to do it at all.

That’s great for you. You don’t have to have an abortion then. As you said some other people have different views than you.

For someone who claims to be a libertarian, it’s odd to me that you want the government making this decision for people.

[Beveridge]

Unless I missed it, he never said he supported the government making the decision.

You can be against abortion and against government outlawing it just like you can be against shooting people and government outlawing guns.

[Nuge]

I guess my bottom line on abortion is that we can all have our opinions, but unless you're a woman in that situation they don't mean ****.

[MWB]

It’s interesting that a person who thinks it is impossible and completely out of the realm of possibility for the state to decide who is qualified to own a gun is ok with the state being in charge of who gets a child.

I don't agree with the state deciding that. I've never said I am in favor of abortion bans. I do not necessarily agree that there is a constitutional right to abortion, but that does not mean that I believe the state should have unfettered control over the issue.

I have three problems with abortion. The first is whether the fetus has human rights. Under the non-aggression principle, every human has the right to be free of aggression (defined as the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property) unless the force is in self-defense. But when does that right attach to a human life? Birth? Viability? Conception? If the right attaches before birth, then an abortion is a violation of the NAP because it results in a human death. Application of the NAP in this context runs into the same problems defining the beginning of human life.

The second problem I have with abortion is that it is largely unnecessary. I'm the son of an OB/GYN who specialized in gynecology and birth control. Early in her career my mother worked in an abortion clinic. I've known about birth control all my life. And we have excellent methods of birth control. A woman who has a hormonal IUD fitted and also has her partner(s) use condoms is probably more likely to be struck by lightning than to become pregnant. Injectable meds like Depo-Provera only need to be taken every three months, and many of them have lower "unintended pregnancy" rates than actual tubal ligation. Impantables like Etonogestrel are similarly effective and last for years.

The third problem I have with abortion is that it, to me, smacks of personal irresponsibility. I was strongly raised to believe that one takes responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions. That means all consequences. Take what you want, and pay for it. A necessarily consequence of having sex is the risk of pregnancy. Don't want to risk pregnancy? Don't have sex. Had sex and ended up pregnant (and it wasn't rape or incest or whatever)? You already accepted that consequence. Abortion, to me, is pushing that consequence off onto what is potentially another human being.

My comment about the state deciding who gets a child had to do with adoption, not abortion.

I can certainly understand your first point and where does life begin. And I agree somewhat with your second point, but a lot of that has to do with education.

The third is where things get really grey. The absolutism of not doing something if you don’t want the consequence isn’t really a realistic way to live. If I view abortion as acceptable under your first point if it’s in the first trimester, then why wouldn’t it be a viable choice as a way of ending an unwanted pregnancy? I accepted the risk and am dealing with the consequences without being aggressive toward someone.

But there’s also the situation where a woman is raped but doesn’t want to report it. This happens quite often, mostly in date rape situations. She has been a victim, doesn’t want to deal with the trauma of reporting it, but then also could have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy? So without abortion this woman is losing all control of the situation.

So for me it comes down to all the different nuances of what may have happened. It’s so far from a black and white situation. So why wouldn’t the woman be the one to make the decision? She’s the one that knows the details.

[genoscoif]

^the above is what happens to people when they think its possible to live a flawless life

I don't. I eff up all the time. But when I do, I take responsibility for the consequences of my eff-ups. And if doing something carries the risk that effing that thing up would have huge consequences, then I'm either going to be very, very careful and take all reasonable precautions when doing that thing, or I'm not going to do it at all.

That’s great for you. You don’t have to have an abortion then. As you said some other people have different views than you.

For someone who claims to be a libertarian, it’s odd to me that you want the government making this decision for people.

It's interesting that you bring up a third party, as I believe that the 2 party duopoly in this country has tried to make this issue black and white, when in reality it's anything but. I think absolutists on both sides want this to be black and white. Basically, always 'murder' or never 'murder'. That makes it simple for each side and removes any room for discussion or debate. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.

The problem with that is....well, this is an extremely nuanced and complicated issue at its core. It deals with morality (not religion), the mother's health, the mother's rights, the baby's life, justifications to take or restrict actions, unintended consequences, personal responsibility and resulting consequences.......and so on. It couldn't be more gray.

For most people, the 'justification' for elective abortion should be, or needs to be, much more rigid the farther along in the pregnancy. For example, 'financial hardship' may be a completely valid justification at 13 weeks, but much less so at 8 months. What changed? Well, the baby did. For a lot of people, the baby's 'right' to exist starts to outweigh the mother's 'right' to choose to terminate as it develops. Once you believe that the fetus has become a 'baby', what exactly gives a single person the right to end its life? Financial hardship? She's the mother? It's not 'actually' a human being yet? And I'm not arguing universal truths here as that sliding scale is subjective and personal. It's part of the complexity to the issue, and for a lot of people moves the needle away from 'well it's her body, she can do whatever she wants.' It also explains why 'if you don't like abortions, just don't have one...but leave me alone' runs into opposition.

I think (or hope) when people start to evaluate the issue as a whole, rational people land on the fact that rape/incest involves a pregnancy that was forced upon the mother. It was the result of an act that was outside of her control and did not involve any 'decision' on her part....meaning that it's different than any other cause of pregnancy. It's not viewed the same, and shouldn't be treated the same.

Kind of similarly, a direct threat to the mother's physical health, especially (but not necessary limited to) something life threatening, is a scenario outside of her control and separate from her 'choice'. To me personally, that's not even an abortion. It's...something else.....and gut-wrenchingly awful.

But all of this is why for the vast majority of people this is a incredibly complex issue, and worthy of conversation. To its credit (or maybe its detriment) Roe made discussion and debate about abortion moot. It's not black and white anymore...and kinda needs to be discussed.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Agreed with all of that genoscoif

The people who immediately go to “it’s about controlling womens bodies” are as unhelpful to the conversation as the people who say “abortion is murder”. The sliding scale thing is so true and makes this convo so complex. At SOME point everyone has a belief of when a “new person” exists. Some people have it at conception, some people saying x weeks, some people say up until birth (I’m not saying a significant % of the population believes this, just that someone somewhere believes this). One argument for abortion is that it can be viewed as a parasite on the mothers body…not that I believe this personally, but even after birth a child can be considered parasitic but in financial/attention sense.


The concept of “life” is undefinable and ultimately makes this conversation impossible. This is why, above all else, we cant revert to extremist taglines (“abortion is murder”/“stop controlling womens bodies”). It will take an awful lot of understanding from both sides to resolve this but I doubt that’ll happen

But one thing I can’t stand above all else are the evangelist conservatives who think abortion should be illegal in cases of rape/incest or when the mothers life is in danger. Anyone who references religion as a moral guide in this can **** right off

[willeyeam]

Where's that chart showing when abortions happen? These "8 month" scenarios are such outliers it's not really worth discussing

[NTP66]

Where's that chart showing when abortions happen? These "8 month" scenarios are such outliers it's not really worth discussing

Yet, it’s continually brought up.

[crusherstasiak]

Where's that chart showing when abortions happen? These "8 month" scenarios are such outliers it's not really worth discussing

Yet, it’s continually brought up.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... on-802060/

[King Colby]

This whole abortion conversation is centered on outliers though... the vast majority of abortion seekers will not be impacted. So if we're policing the threshold of "outlier vs non outlier"...

*I also understand that most of the concern is what COULD happen if people like Mastriano get elected

[willeyeam]

*I also understand that most of the concern is what COULD happen if people like Mastriano get elected

Well yeah, kinda the point right? The SC decision now makes it that if a certain party gets elected, then all abortion seekers are affected.

[Viva la Ben]

Unless you have your head in the sand the “abortion is murder” people were the drive to reverse 50 years of abortion access. “Stop controlling woman’s bodies” isn’t a radical extremist viewpoint so stop trying to equivocate.

[Gaucho]

Yes.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

they’re both terrible reductions of arguments and your continued defense of the latter is one reason why this will never be resolved

[Viva la Ben]

That is such a lazy statement