How Is It So Hard For Democrats To Debate The Issue of Abortion With Republicans???

[MMS]

At the heart of the republican position is this:

Sex is for procreation not pleasure

Results of allowing sex for pleasure:

Loose women
single mothers
abortions
Porn epidemic
STDs
prostitution

etc

this is from my own conversations I've had over the years. Part of it can be hard to argue but it's definitely not as simple as just saying to them "woman's body woman's choice"

 

[Meta Reign]

Because in the end, the GOP uses Religion in order to bolster their position

If you can make something a religious issue, it will be unassailable because people in this country will always choose their religion over logic or any sort of nuanced reasoning.

You can't debate with people who will, in the end, simply claim that "God spoke to them" and told them how to move regarding something.

We are at least another 50 years away from removing this religious idiocy from government...their numbers are falling but the old pieces of shyt are living longer too so...

Abortion is not just a religious issue though. . . We're literally talking about Human Rights here. At some point it's totally logical to ask yourself, who will defend the rights of a 6 month old in utero? Have any of you seen video of a later term abortion? . . . It is without a doubt, murder.

Does this person not have a right to life? This isn't just religious.

 

[Meta Reign]

That's bullshyt because if it were true, then the Democrats would be offering GOOD arguments and just losing anyway. But that's not what's happening. OP is pointing out that the Dems as often as not are offering for-shyt arguments. For example, look at your argument.

* "It's that they're religious! Their religion is to blame!"

* "We're the logical ones but they're religious!"

* "Religious idiocy!"

* "Old pieces of shyt"


You didn't offer any of your own logic, just attacked religion. It ain't getting you anywhere.




Nor are Democrats on this issue.

Peter Singer of Princeton is an atheist and one of the most renowned bioethicists in the country. He's argued strongly that there's no scientifically-grounded moral line between late-term abortion and infantcide, and that in fact it is difficult to draw a clear-cut moral line anywhere in the development of the fetus. The problem is that at some point a baby is a baby in every single way except for the fact that there's an umbilical cord still attached, and it is extremely difficult to say something has no right to live due to the mere fact of a potentially removable feeding tube.

Strong liberal arguments on abortion should take into account nuance, compassion, the acknowledgement of scientific uncertainty regarding the beginning of personhood, and likely compromise. But we don't get that. So for all intensive purposes conservatives are currently winning the abortion debate and likely will continue to win most of the battles in the near future.

I agree with your characterization of the arguments. Though I believe you still think it's ok to off a 7lb 8 month old as long as it's inside a uterus.

 

[Ku$h Parker]

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Abortion is not just a religious issue though. . . We're literally talking about Human Rights here. At some point it's totally logical to ask yourself, who will defend the rights of a 6 month old in utero? Have any of you seen video of a later term abortion? . . . It is without a doubt, murder.

Does this person not have a right to life? This isn't just religious.

why are you bringing up 6 month abortion when that's no where near common nor a procedure the majority of places will perform unless the most dire of health risks exist?


furthermore, to go along with your obtuse argument, can you even murder something incapable of life? it isn't until close to 6 months that a fetus could possibly live/survive outside of the womb (starts being around 50-50 with the BEST care at 24/25 weeks), until then, one can argue that the fetus is nothing more than an organ or extension of the woman, and she can do with it what she pleases.

 

[Donald J Trump]

Abortion is just a procedure. No different than the choice people make to alter their bodies with hormones or implants that they will have to deal with the repercussions emotionally and physically.

We aren’t having an abortion debate. It’s about procreation. Even if Dems gave in and said just teach and give free contraceptives so we don’t get to that point, the pro-life side isn’t having it.

knowledge is dangerous?

This is just another front in the government eugenics debate that had women getting sterilized because.... minorities, immigrants,and poor.

eh

you are killing a future human being with abortion tho

 

[Ku$h Parker]

if it were men who got pregnant, shyt would be simple as getting a flu shot.

Joe Madison just said it earlier this Morning
"If Men were getting Pregnant, there would be Abortions in Barber Shops"

 

[AZBeauty]

I say this, since Alabama and Georgia want to force a women to carry a child to term even if she does not want to, the state has to be financial responsible for health and child care. No matter what the income of the mother is, is she be automatically covered and they should hire more child enforcement officers because the moment that baby breathes fresh air, the daddy should have to cut a check for child support. The mother shouldnt be the only person to suffer after being force to have a baby.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

This should always be the response to this debate. They don’t want anything to do with the baby until it reaches military age. Then it’s just what they’re looking for. They want live babies so they can make them into dead soldiers (who then get used as recruitment tools).

I say this, since Alabama and Georgia want to force a women to carry a child to term even if she does not want to, the state has to be financial responsible for health and child care. No matter what the income of the mother is, is she be automatically covered and they should hire more child enforcement officers because the moment that baby breathes fresh air, the daddy should have to cut a check for child support. The mother shouldnt be the only person to suffer after being force to have a baby.

The problem is that the gop ideology really isn’t and different fundamentally than that of the taliban. As previously referenced, the sanctity of life routine from Carlin in 1996 is a perfect summary of them.

 

[Meta Reign]

why are you bringing up 6 month abortion when that's no where near common nor a procedure the majority of places will perform unless the most dire of health risks exist?


furthermore, to go along with your obtuse argument, can you even murder something incapable of life? it isn't until close to 6 months that a fetus could possibly live/survive outside of the womb (starts being around 50-50 with the BEST care at 24/25 weeks), until then, one can argue that the fetus is nothing more than an organ or extension of the woman, and she can do with it what she pleases.

When you have governors advocating that it should be legal to kill a kid AFTER they are born, I think we are already speaking about uncommon procedures. Don't act like I'm talking about something wild, when we also have "respected" academics saying infanticide should be ok.

Now, you say a 6 month old in utero can not live outside the womb without assistance, therefore it should not be afforded to the same rights as you and I. I disagree, but fine. . . So what about those rare cases when we are talking about even LATER than 6 months? What about AFTER failed abortion attempts and the child comes out alive?

The core of my questions are, at what point do YOU as an invidual leave the thinking of that governor and that academic and others who seem to be headed in that direction? Is there an ethical cut that you are willing to acknowledge at all? Because it doesn't seem that anyone is even mentioning any.

 

[Meta Reign]

I say this, since Alabama and Georgia want to force a women to carry a child to term even if she does not want to, the state has to be financial responsible for health and child care. No matter what the income of the mother is, is she be automatically covered and they should hire more child enforcement officers because the moment that baby breathes fresh air, the daddy should have to cut a check for child support. The mother shouldnt be the only person to suffer after being force to have a baby.

I agree.

 

[Ku$h Parker]

This should always be the response to this debate. They don’t want anything to do with the baby until it reaches military age. Then it’s just what they’re looking for. They want live babies so they can make them into dead soldiers (who then get used as recruitment tools).


The problem is that the gop ideology really isn’t and different fundamentally than that of the taliban. As previously referenced, the sanctity of life routine from Carlin in 1996 is a perfect summary of them.

Plus im sure the States Senators let that CHIP program go out so yeah..... Live in a Ruby Red State crehs

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Plus im sure the States Senators let that CHIP program go out so yeah..... Live in a Ruby Red State crehs

It’s just baffling to me to see so many people so hateful that they willingly vote for a party that holds nothing but contempt for them in hopes to make other people suffer, even as the party they vote for does everything in its power to hurt them too.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

When you have governors advocating that it should be legal to kill a kid AFTER they are born, I think we are already speaking about uncommon procedures. Don't act like I'm talking about something wild, when we also have "respected" academics saying infanticide should be ok.

Now, you say a 6 month old in utero can not live outside the womb without assistance, therefore it should not be afforded to the same rights as you and I. I disagree, but fine. . . So what about those rare cases when we are talking about even LATER than 6 months? What about AFTER failed abortion attempts and the child comes out alive?

The core of my questions are, at what point do YOU as an invidual leave the thinking of that governor and that academic and others who seem to be headed in that direction? Is there an ethical cut that you are willing to acknowledge at all? Because it doesn't seem that anyone is even mentioning any.

what governors have advocated killing a kid after birth? serious question...and even if there is one, 99.9999% of people aren't defending nor advocating for that, again, why bring up the looniest outliers in this conversation

and again, why are you talking 6 months and later? that is not a frequent type of abortion. at that point, if the mom wants it, it can live outside of her, if they terminate it, it was likely near death in the womb so they had to. the vast majority of terminated births are not late term, wtf

and i'm no expert, i can only go by developmental phase and general time it can take to recognize pregnancy - especially for women who weren't trying to conceive thus wouldn't be checking early, have irregular periods, have no symptoms - to me, it makes sense to allow general abortions up to about the 12 week mark, after which various stipulations would apply the later it gets.

 

[AZBeauty]

Banning abortion won't fix their majority minority by 2050 problem. People in general are having fewer children because of the rising cost associated with having a child and wages being stagnate and quality of life hasnt improved. I only have one child and desperately want/ed another but all my husband talks about is how much it costs and he's right. The after school STEM program while free during the school year, during the summer will be almost $1000 for my daughter. I know for a fact when I was growing up, my mother wasnt paying money like that and we always went away to camp during the summer. I wish I could find that article from that Republican lawmaker talking about how banning would increase the white population.