Democrats & Abortion

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't really care much one way or the other. If we're being honest here, the tax exemption enjoyed by employer sponsored health care coverage could be viewed as public funding of these plans. And many of them do cover elective abortion - including plans offered by the RNC, for example, until now that this became an issue. Should - for reasons of consistency - the policy of not providing any federal funding for abortion not extend to those health plans as well - i.e. end the tax exemptions for plans that cover the elective procedure? Isn't there a disconnect currently?

Abortion is one of those issues that I am not sure where to stand. Generally speaking, I believe the practice is bad unless there are very good reasons for it in any particular case (you know, the rape, health, incest type deals). On the other hand, who am I to tell any woman what decision she can and cannot make? She's gotta live with whatever she decides, not me. And so, this is where I tend to fall on the pro-choice side of the issue despite having very strong personal reservations against ending a perfectly good pregnancy.

what if it is your baby she is aborting? it should be "half" her right, but that isn't the case.

I don't think this is a matter of math.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yet in the same breath they would have the government tell us whether we can eat meat and tell us what else we can and can't do with our bodies that is deemed "unhealthy".

Who's been advocating any such thing?

[chri'stina 190]

What this argument chooses to ignore is the pregnancy was never meant to be a guarentee of live birth. Nature aborts fetus all the time, for all kinds of reasons that are not simply due to difficulties with the fetus itself. What pro life seeks to do is force women to be enslaved to their repoductive systems or eshew the sexual act. Men do not face that choice and this dispartity between the sexes actually creates many of the reproductive dilemas that abortion has a place in providing solutions to.

Despite all this, the health care bill is not the place for the abortion discussion. If the US deems it right that federal funding can't be used to fund abortions, so be it as long as women have access to funding in other ways.

The rest of this thread aside, this post is absolutely ridiculous. You're honestly suggesting that because miscarriages occur, abortion is justified? There are many arguments for and against abortion, but this argument flat out justifies murder on the basis that the person would have died anyway (ie. your logic is equivalent to saying that since people die every day, it's okay to kill them). That's preposterous.

If you want to argue that the fetus isn't alive, that's a whole other can of worms. But your argument is simply that if something occurs naturally, it's okay to induce it. Just because fires happen naturally doesn't mean it's okay to start them.

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

[Peikko 1,575]

What this argument chooses to ignore is the pregnancy was never meant to be a guarentee of live birth. Nature aborts fetus all the time, for all kinds of reasons that are not simply due to difficulties with the fetus itself. What pro life seeks to do is force women to be enslaved to their repoductive systems or eshew the sexual act. Men do not face that choice and this dispartity between the sexes actually creates many of the reproductive dilemas that abortion has a place in providing solutions to.

Despite all this, the health care bill is not the place for the abortion discussion. If the US deems it right that federal funding can't be used to fund abortions, so be it as long as women have access to funding in other ways.

The rest of this thread aside, this post is absolutely ridiculous. You're honestly suggesting that because miscarriages occur, abortion is justified? There are many arguments for and against abortion, but this argument flat out justifies murder on the basis that the person would have died anyway (ie. your logic is equivalent to saying that since people die every day, it's okay to kill them). That's preposterous.

If you want to argue that the fetus isn't alive, that's a whole other can of worms. But your argument is simply that if something occurs naturally, it's okay to induce it. Just because fires happen naturally doesn't mean it's okay to start them.

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Edited November 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[NickD 203]

Thought this thread dealt more with the public paying for abortions than the abortion issue itself. I don't want to pay for anyone having an abortion, but also don't want to pay for their kids.

Can toss in health and rape issues just as well, majority of abortions occur because the mother doesn't for whatever reason doesn't want the kid. Should have thought about that beforehand.

[chri'stina 190]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't have a problem with not having abortions publicly funded. I do have a problem with not allowing women access an insurance policy that allows for abortion if insurance is the cornerstone of health care.

[Peikko 1,575]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You are mixing up two concepts. During the majority of pregnancy the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival. Entirely dependent, not dependent on others, but entirely dependent on this one individual for survival. That is completely and utterly different to being dependent on 'others' for survival.

[chri'stina 190]

I still see a double standard about treatment of life even after your responses.

[Peikko 1,575]

Double standards? No, there is a difference between a fetus that can not survive outside of the womb and a baby that can. This difference entirely explains the rationale behind being able to, under certain circumstances, abort a fetus but not slaughter a baby.

[SMR 368]

What this argument chooses to ignore is the pregnancy was never meant to be a guarentee of live birth. Nature aborts fetus all the time, for all kinds of reasons that are not simply due to difficulties with the fetus itself. What pro life seeks to do is force women to be enslaved to their repoductive systems or eshew the sexual act. Men do not face that choice and this dispartity between the sexes actually creates many of the reproductive dilemas that abortion has a place in providing solutions to.

Despite all this, the health care bill is not the place for the abortion discussion. If the US deems it right that federal funding can't be used to fund abortions, so be it as long as women have access to funding in other ways.

The rest of this thread aside, this post is absolutely ridiculous. You're honestly suggesting that because miscarriages occur, abortion is justified? There are many arguments for and against abortion, but this argument flat out justifies murder on the basis that the person would have died anyway (ie. your logic is equivalent to saying that since people die every day, it's okay to kill them). That's preposterous.

If you want to argue that the fetus isn't alive, that's a whole other can of worms. But your argument is simply that if something occurs naturally, it's okay to induce it. Just because fires happen naturally doesn't mean it's okay to start them.

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Mother nature also evolved its life cycle based on the fact that people die. That doesn't mean we can kill them. Don't confuse sentimentality and morality.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its dishonest to say that the dem party is big tent because a lot of dems voted for the amendment that would be included in the HCR Bill. They had to do that or it never would have passed. It doesn't mean those dems were pro-life.

There are many Democrats opposed to abortion as there are many Republicans who have been in support of Roe v. Wade. Just like there are many Christians who are Democrat as there are who are Republican. I can imagine it's hard to see a world that isn't black and white, but shades of gray, if one grew up thinking in black and white.

How many pro-life in the Senate? That have a record consistent with that position?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You are mixing up two concepts. During the majority of pregnancy the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival. Entirely dependent, not dependent on others, but entirely dependent on this one individual for survival. That is completely and utterly different to being dependent on 'others' for survival.

So then you should have no problem with "the others" aborting the child after its already born.

OK Joe, slow down, read the statement again. You seem to be lacking in comprehension. I said in another thread that you werent' there, you don't know. In this thread, I stated, quite clearly that you made a statement so stupid that you couldn't possibly offer anything to this discussion. There is a difference. In your mind, they might be the same, but to those more fluent in the english language, there is a distinction.

Try saying something substantive other than "you lack reading comprehension'

You were caught in your typical tactics and it isn't working.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You would agree, though, that the support a baby requires after birth is significantly different than the support it requires during the pregnancy, yes? Most importantly, the support after birth can be provided by individuals other than the mother. As such, MC is correct in making the claim that a fetus is entirely dependent on it's mother to survive. A baby isn't. The concept of new born adoptions would otherwise fall apart entirely.

[SMR 368]

Double standards? No, there is a difference between a fetus that can not survive outside of the womb and a baby that can. This difference entirely explains the rationale behind being able to, under certain circumstances, abort a fetus but not slaughter a baby.

The fact that the fetus relies specifically on the mother who cannot, barring complicated medical practices, be replaced, doesn't really change anything. You're making the argument that if someone's life inconveniences yours, you have the right to take action to end theirs. That's preposterous.

As a matter of precedent, parents have a legally enforceable responsibility to care for their children. Often this responsibility takes the form of monetary contributions, but it can take many other forms. If a man decided that he didn't want to pay child support, killing his children would not be a legally acceptable alternative. Why should a woman have that option if she doesn't want to support her unborn child?