Oh yeah. And from what I know of you, your view is always a valid one. It might not reflect that of 100% of the population, but at least you research, do a thoughtful response and argue logic.
That's what make all opinions (even debatable ones) valid, right?
I agree with you, and would imagine most of us who support a woman's right to determine the best course of action for her own body, also wish to see abortions be a rare occurrence. I know I despise anyone who repeatedly chooses to seek abortions instead of taking a proactive approach to keeping a pregnancy from happening. That being said, to make seeking an abortion more difficult will not lead to fewer abortions, and it won't keep irresponsible people from being irresponsible. I have to ask myself if I trust a person who repeatedly makes bad decisions, ending in an abortion, to have a child. Will that person treat her body with respect once she is pregnant? I would say likely not. I think these are cases where we see fetal alcohol syndrome and drug addicted babies. My point is this. Maybe we aren't really talking about disliking people because they use abortion as birth control. The same people likely misuse their bodies in other ways, as well. Maybe we dislike them because they repeatedly make bad decisions. Bad decisions that not only affect them, but the people around them, as well. Therefore, I wonder if abortion is really even the issue, but rather a symptom of a larger problem in society as a whole.
I also question the line of thinking of a person claiming to be a libertarian while supporting social medicine, and opposing abortion.
From the Cato Institute:
The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention May 30, 2008
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.
Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention May 30, 2008
Summer, I'm in COMPLETE agreement. An intelligent friend of mine from high school told me the only thing no one can take away from us is our ability to choose. I am pro Choice also because I believe that everyone has the right to choose.
We were broke up when my wife (now) found out she was pregnant. Abortion wasn't an option for either of us even though we were in college. We CHOSE not to take that route. We didn't want to lose a baby. We CHOSE to get back together because we felt our son needed us. We don't regret our decision.
Everyone should be able to choose what they want to do in life. Abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide, etc. should be legal because politics and religion should not tell us what we can and can't do. You have the CHOICE to do what your political and religious affiliation urges you.
And, before anyone poses this question, murder should be illegal because although I am pro-choice, I also believe that a person should not CHOOSE to do something that would intentionally harm anyone. When Humans adopt that philosophy as a whole, we will be able to accomplish even more as a people.
I always assumed that most people are anti-abortion. No one really seems to prefer that abortions happen. To me; if someone can have an abortion or not simply is not for the government to decide. I don't think it is my place to tell another woman or couple what to do about an unwanted pregnancy or medically necessary abortion. I also don't think that we have a means to draw a line anywhere other than conception and birth that makes any sense and wouldn't move with the development of new technology. We can say viability but that keeps getting sooner and sooner. So really, no matter what we decide the cut off will be subjectively determined. I want teenage girls, rape victims, and those with medical issues to be able to get abortions if they want them because the alternative is inhumane towards the woman. It doesn't matter if I would ever get an abortion or not...I'm just pro-choice.
Discourse on a subject
-especially when legislation is involved
is paramount into developing understanding of your own motives.
While I fully agree that name calling gets us nowhere, the fact of the matter is that this thread DID make a difference. Through the discussion, at least one person's mind was changed from a previously held belief. Right and wrong are subjective, but we live in a subjective world. If the author of the thread wanted to simply express an opinion, it might have been greeted with a more civil response. Because a legislation cry was attached to it, there is a very good reason to ask for logic behind the opinion.
Conviction just for the case of conviction is simply another tactic of religion. For those working towards a more secular government, it is a point that needs to be brought to the forefront. For those that have their lives effected by the debated laws, it is much more important than ideological differences and understanding.
"The right to swing your fist ends where another man's nose begins." OW.
In this case, the nose in question is my uterus.
Many people here DID approach the discussion with civility and data in their counter arguments. That was the point of the discussion, not ear plugging and shouting.
A minor quibble. (Yes, I know, I quibble a lot. I have a habit of trying for precision.)
"It is not the case that people who disagree with you are stupid, crazy, dumb, irrational, evil, bitter, up to go good, part of a (insert your favorite kind of of conspiracy here) conspiracy, greedy, selfish ... "
I'd say that it is not always the case that people who disagree with you are stupid, crazy, dumb, irrational, evil, bitter, up to go good, part of a (insert your favorite kind of of conspiracy here) conspiracy, greedy, selfish, and so forth.
Sometimes it is the case, but not nearly as often as people think it is, and telling the difference is not always as easy as it might appear.
Stating you are right with no data or scientific reason to back it up except for claiming the 'right of your belief' is a common argument used by religion. This groundless approach is none the less allowed to influence legislation. For those that are effected by particular religious-based legislation, conversations like this hold much more importance than "your value is of equal weight and respect as mine."
I have no clue what those numbers and letters represent. Some bill, possibly?
Regardless, I have no stance on abortion. I believe life starts at sentience, but I'm in the odd conundrum where I don't believe sentience starts until multiple postnatal years. And of course, I don't support killing babies. So... whatever.