Pro-choice

Posted 691 day(s) ago by oucub2336509 Views 1987 Replies
Results 351 to 400 of 1988
Page 8 of 40 6 7 8 9 10 18
  1. #351
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,101
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    vCash
    1000

    Three myths about women voters that wouldn’t go away in 2012

    But, despite how they're sometimes portrayed in the news media and by political candidates, female voters are about as divided on abortion as men are.

    "One of the central myths in American politics is that women are more pro-choice than men," Karen Kaufman, an associate professor at the University of Maryland who has researched the gender gap, told Yahoo News.

    In 2011, 59 percent of men and 56 percent of women said in a Gallup poll that abortion should be legal in no circumstances or only in a few.

  2. #352
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,101
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    vCash
    1000

    Why Indian parents should be allowed to choose whether to have girls

    Government interference in the personal lives of people is nothing remarkable or new for India. After all, Indians endured British colonial rule until 1947 and following that, socialist governments took over which continued to enforce the rules inherited from the colonial period. So the denial of reproductive rights to women in India should not come as a surprise. This, however, is a particularly heartless move. It condemns too many girls to lives of great misery and to some to a death penalty for the crime of being born a girl.

    Parental rights, one assumes, includes the freedom to decide when and how many children to have, and if possible, the freedom to choose the sex of their children. Forcing people to have children of an undesired sex is an infringement of those rights. The parents have the responsibility of bringing up their children, not the government. It can be argued that a skewed sex-ratio is not good for society. The question then is which of the two – forcing people to go through with unwanted pregnancies or a skewed sex-ratio – is less harmful to society. The answer to that is not a foregone conclusion.

    [ ... ]

    By restricting information which may be useful for parents to make an informed choice whether or not to have a female child, the government is sacrificing the right of a child to a decent life in order to protect the “rights” of a fetus. If people cannot avoid having girls that they do not want, they will be forced to have more children to reach their desired number of sons, and to ration their resources to the detriment of girls. Rational responses to economic circumstances—poverty—cannot be averted by government mandate. Indeed it can be argued that the prevailing poverty itself has much to do with government mandates.

    In the end, in the contest between the people and the government, the drive for freedom proves to be stronger and eventually overcomes the forces that seek to limit freedom. The government will fail in this case as well—as it must for the sake of the girls.

  3. #353
    By restricting information which may be useful for parents to make an informed choice whether or not to have a female child, the government is sacrificing the right of a child to a decent life in order to protect the “rights” of a fetus. If people cannot avoid having girls that they do not want, they will be forced to have more children to reach their desired number of sons, and to ration their resources to the detriment of girls. Rational responses to economic circumstances—poverty—cannot be averted by government mandate. Indeed it can be argued that the prevailing poverty itself has much to do with government mandates.
    that's some sick logic right there....
    since girls will be mistreated.....it's better to kill them in the womb....

  4. #354
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,554
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    that's some sick logic right there....
    since girls will be mistreated.....it's better to kill them in the womb....
    Agreed. Let's terminate pregnancies instead of addressing a social problem? (And I'm 100% pro-choice here in the United States.)

  5. #355

  6. #356
    JDShellnutt's Avatar
    Posts
    420
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Earth

    I'm for selective post birth abortions, I'm making a list

  7. #357
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,101
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    vCash
    1000

    Roe v. Wade at 40: Most Oppose Overturning Abortion Decision

    Among those younger than 30, just 44% know that the case was about abortion; 16% say it dealt with school desegregation, and 41% either say it dealt with another issue (the death penalty or the environment), or do not know. Majorities of older age groups know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion.
    Also interesting that one of the questions in the survey was phrased this way:
    In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?
    Why do they mistakenly depict RvW as limiting abortion to the first three months?

  8. #358
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    4,683
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    I don't necessarily agree with the idea of abortions . . . so if I was involved in a relationship where that was ever discussed I'd probably be against it. What other folks do in their own relationships is on them.
    3 users like Sooner Bob's post: Dexa, DHF, SpankyNek


  9. #359
    We need to move the goalposts so to speak. The argument shouldn't be about being pro choice or anti choice. Government should have no say in what an individual chooses in Abortion and government shouldn't be funding things like abortion at all. I have the same argument with gay marriage and any marriage for that matter.
    2 users like SoonerLibertarian's post: Dexa, Sooner Bob


  10. #360
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    Government should have no say in what an individual chooses in Abortion
    lol whatever. This isn't about marriage or anything that is small in nature. This debate is about when a fetus becomes a human.

  11. #361
    As long as the government continues to be involved then that argument holds no water in the end. And it's not like abortion will go away if you make it illegal it'll just go underground.

  12. #362
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    4,683
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    We need to move the goalposts so to speak. The argument shouldn't be about being pro choice or anti choice. Government should have no say in what an individual chooses in Abortion and government shouldn't be funding things like abortion at all. I have the same argument with gay marriage and any marriage for that matter.
    I have that same argument about a lot of other things too . . .

    If I don't want to wear a seatbelt (I do buckle up) I shouldn't be ticketed if I don't. If I (lived in NY) and want a drink larger than 16 ozs. I should be able to buy it. Among other things.

  13. #363
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    lol whatever. This isn't about marriage or anything that is small in nature. This debate is about when a fetus becomes a human.
    No it's not.
    The debate is when Government recognizes it as a human.

  14. #364
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    As long as the government continues to be involved then that argument holds no water in the end. And it's not like abortion will go away if you make it illegal it'll just go underground.
    well no shit. but you don't think the government should be involved in an operation that ends a living organism?

  15. #365
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    No it's not.
    The debate is when Government recognizes it as a human.
    well that's stating the obvious.

  16. #366
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    4,683
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    well no shit. but you don't think the government should be involved in an operation that ends a living organism?
    I don't . . . why would it need to be?

  17. #367
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    well no shit. but you don't think the government should be involved in an operation that ends a living organism?
    Can you think of any other situation in which the host organism doesn't have final say?

  18. #368
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    I don't . . . why would it need to be?
    it's pretty easy to see. You see, the government governs people of this nation and creates laws. One of those laws is you can't murder a human. Hell, there are even laws on WHEN you can kill certain animals. There should definitely be laws on what constitutes a human and the killing of a fetus. it's simple.

  19. #369
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    well no shit. but you don't think the government should be involved in an operation that ends a living organism?
    We can't even agree on whether or not rights should be granted by a naturalized birth, and you want to extend them into the womb?

    This could be awesome...now immigrants merely need to have coitus on American soil for citizenship of the soon to be human...

  20. #370
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    We can't even agree on whether or not rights should be granted by a naturalized birth,
    terminating pregnancy is a lot different than this. We are talking about human rights, not us right

  21. #371
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    terminating pregnancy is a lot different than this. We are talking about human rights, not us right
    Perhaps we should ask the UN to find out if abortion is ok then...

  22. #372
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Perhaps we should ask the UN to find out if abortion is ok then...
    nope. the USA has a higher standard for human rights vs other countries

  23. #373
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    4,683
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    it's pretty easy to see. You see, the government governs people of this nation and creates laws. One of those laws is you can't murder a human. Hell, there are even laws on WHEN you can kill certain animals. There should definitely be laws on what constitutes a human and the killing of a fetus. it's simple.
    Even though they both result in the loss of a life I hardly equate abortion to when a person can or cannot kill certain animals. If I own the animal in question I should be able to do what I feel is right for the animal.

    I get the correlation between murder/homicide, but it's definitely not as simple as you'd like it be to many folks.

  24. #374
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    nope. the USA has a higher standard for human rights vs other countries
    So we are talking about US right?

  25. #375
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    Even though they both result in the loss of a life I hardly equate abortion to when a person can or cannot kill certain animals.
    i was thinking more along the lines of hunting.
    I thought I read somewhere that you can't even kill a pregnant doe. could be pulling that out of my ass though

  26. #376
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    So we are talking about US right?
    Human rights as perceived by the US. Not US citizen rights

  27. #377
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    Human rights as perceived by the US. Not US citizen rights
    Pretty Sure Roe v. wade establishes what the US govt perceives as a human right in this case.

  28. #378
    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    i was thinking more along the lines of hunting.
    I thought I read somewhere that you can't even kill a pregnant doe. could be pulling that out of my ass though
    hunting season = mating season for deer

  29. #379
    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    I have that same argument about a lot of other things too . . .

    If I don't want to wear a seatbelt (I do buckle up) I shouldn't be ticketed if I don't. If I (lived in NY) and want a drink larger than 16 ozs. I should be able to buy it. Among other things.
    Depends on if the law is voted on by the people or not though. Although executive order type laws shouldn't be legal. My argument is consistent and extends everywhere the government is involved. Even up to how it taxes people.

  30. #380
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Pretty Sure Roe v. wade establishes what the US govt perceives as a human right in this case.
    yeah so i assume you agree with RvW. So you agree that the government should be involved in abortion

  31. #381
    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    As long as the government continues to be involved then that argument holds no water in the end. And it's not like abortion will go away if you make it illegal it'll just go underground.
    i'm ok with that.....
    because the doctors who break the law....would be held accountable when caught....

  32. #382
    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    We need to move the goalposts so to speak. The argument shouldn't be about being pro choice or anti choice. Government should have no say in what an individual chooses in Abortion and government shouldn't be funding things like abortion at all. I have the same argument with gay marriage and any marriage for that matter.

    it should if society decides the unborn should be protected....
    at the moment....society has decided unborn humans are fair game to be murdered...

  33. #383
    beelzeBob's Avatar
    Posts
    4,193
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Norman, OK

    Pro-Abortion. More air and water for me.


  34. #384

    Pro-choice

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    As long as the government continues to be involved then that argument holds no water in the end. And it's not like abortion will go away if you make it illegal it'll just go underground.
    Terrible reasoning. That's the thought process of an anarchist.

  35. #385
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    yeah so i assume you agree with RvW. So you agree that the government should be involved in abortion
    At some point, yes.

    In the first trimester, I believe it is up to the mother and practicing physician. After that, a mother has implied her liability in the relationship to carry to birth.

  36. #386
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash

    Pro-choice

    Well then u get back to the question why first trimester? Why an arbitrary time

  37. #387
    Aurora's Avatar
    Posts
    29,563
    Join Date
    May 2011
    vCash
    1100
    Location
    The Dark Side

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    At some point, yes.

    In the first trimester, I believe it is up to the mother and practicing physician. After that, a mother has implied her liability in the relationship to carry to birth.
    I agree but I really lean more to the 8-10 week mark.. I think it is plenty of time to decide and after such time seek adoption services or counseling to be a parent.

  38. #388
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    Well then u get back to the question why first trimester? Why an arbitrary time
    Because we cannot, with any sort of regularity, maintain the life of such an organism by artificial means. We require a living mother to do that, and the government's judiciary (and probably the majority of Americans) do not view intercourse as a contract for such a relationship (requirement to carry to term).

    If advancements are made that allow such fetuses to be brought to term artificially, and the state declares responsibility and liability for the child, I can see the timeframe being altered. However, I don't believe that many conservatives are interested in growing the number of societal wards.

  39. #389
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Because we cannot, with any sort of regularity, maintain the life of such an organism by artificial means. We require a living mother to do that, and the government's judiciary (and probably the majority of Americans) do not view intercourse as a contract for such a relationship (requirement to carry to term).

    If advancements are made that allow such fetuses to be brought to term artificially, and the state declares responsibility and liability for the child, I can see the timeframe being altered. However, I don't believe that many conservatives are interested in growing the number of societal wards.
    This is a wack way of thinking honestly

  40. #390
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    This is a wack way of thinking honestly
    It is difficult to postulate when cleaving ones opinion from emotion.
    2 users like SpankyNek's post: Dexa, Troker


  41. #391
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    It is difficult to postulate when cleaving ones opinion from emotion.
    no, it's ludacrous to treat it like a contract. You have sex, you risk the consequences of having a baby. period. Just b/c the fetus can't survive on its own in the first trimester doesn't mean you can get out of this contract. And BTW why stop at first trimester, most fetuses won't survive on it's own way past that. And whether it is right or wrong shouldn't be decided by if there is adequate "help" to raise the baby but on morals.

  42. #392
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    no, it's ludacrous to treat it like a contract. You have sex, you risk the consequences of having a baby. period. Just b/c the fetus can't survive on its own in the first trimester doesn't mean you can get out of this contract. And BTW why stop at first trimester, most fetuses won't survive on it's own way past that. And whether it is right or wrong shouldn't be decided by if there is adequate "help" to raise the baby but on morals.
    I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong, I am arguing whether it should be legally prohibited.

    Why did you say it's ludicrous to treat it like a contract, then in your second sentence treat it like a contract?

  43. #393
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Also you used the term "consequence" instead of "product" in your earlier comment. This indicates that even you can see the negative aspect of forced parenthood as it relates to conception.

  44. #394
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,359
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post

    Why did you say it's ludicrous to treat it like a contract, then in your second sentence treat it like a contract?

    I LOL'd when I read what you were referring to.

  45. #395
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,554
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    This is a wack way of thinking honestly
    HWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH did you just use the adjective "wack"?!?!?!!?! You're so street, Bounce!


  46. #396

    Pro-choice

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Also you used the term "consequence" instead of "product" in your earlier comment. This indicates that even you can see the negative aspect of forced parenthood as it relates to conception.
    A consequence isn't inherently negative. That would be punishment.

  47. #397
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    A consequence isn't inherently negative. That would be punishment.
    It is when preceded with "risk the". (Of course, so would product, so your point stands)

  48. #398
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,101
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    vCash
    1000

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    I don't necessarily agree with the idea of abortions . . . so if I was involved in a relationship where that was ever discussed I'd probably be against it. What other folks do in their own relationships is on them.
    That's fine on the surface and you hear a lot of people (and politicians) say the same thing. I used to myself. But what if we used the same idea regarding other things? Like slavery?

    What if you heard someone say, "well, I personally would never own a slave but I would never tell someone else that they couldn't own one." Or to paraphrase the popular pro-choice argument, "a women's choice whether to own a slave is a private matter between her and her slave trader."

    Or to paraphrase the bumper sticker, "don't like slavery? Don't own one."


    Originally Posted by SoonerBounce View Post
    This debate is about when a fetus becomes a human.
    Although technically a fetus doesn't become a human; a fetus already is a human and every legitimate embryology textbook in the world confirms this. The debate is about at what stage of development humans gain which rights.

  49. #399
    SoonerBounce Guest
    SoonerBounce's Avatar
    Posts
    n/a
    vCash
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Also you used the term "consequence" instead of "product" in your earlier comment. This indicates that even you can see the negative aspect of forced parenthood as it relates to conception.
    consequence doesn't have to be a positive or negative term. it's a consequence from an action.

    Why did you say it's ludicrous to treat it like a contract, then in your second sentence treat it like a contract?
    i guess I should have put "contract"

  50. #400
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,379
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by VUGear View Post
    That's fine on the surface and you hear a lot of people (and politicians) say the same thing. I used to myself. But what if we used the same idea regarding other things? Like slavery?

    What if you heard someone say, "well, I personally would never own a slave but I would never tell someone else that they couldn't own one." Or to paraphrase the popular pro-choice argument, "a women's choice whether to own a slave is a private matter between her and her slave trader."

    Or to paraphrase the bumper sticker, "don't like slavery? Don't own one."



    Although technically a fetus doesn't become a human; a fetus already is a human and every legitimate embryology textbook in the world confirms this. The debate is about at what stage of development humans gain which rights.
    Currently this matter is pretty clear, and is the reason that the slavery comparison is moot.
    Does a fetus have the right to property?

Similar Threads

  1. What's my drug of choice? Well what have you got?
    By AcousticSoup in forum O'Connell's
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: October 16th, 2013, 08:06 AM
  2. The Choice
    By oucub23 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2012, 04:33 PM