The abortion thing

[s_stabeler]

Huckster and s_stabeler,

I'm curious, do either of you support abortion in cases of rape or incest?

rape yes, incest no. The chances of an incestual baby having something wrong with it are less than 5%. Therefore I don't actually consider an incestual foetus any different from a normal foetus.

Also, I don't support abortion being banned- I simply dislike it when the pregnancy is terminated for no real reason. ( health of the mother, foetal abnormalities, foetus was conceived by rape...) I wouldn't, for example, tell a woman not to abort- it's her decision- but if I was asked for advice? I would generally recommend keeping a foetus.

[Gravekeeper]

Hey gravekeeper, do you get into abortion debates with other Canadians? I don't remember coming up that much as an issue in all my time there.

No, it has majority support here and even among those who disagree, the majority opinion is that its a settled matter and it shouldn't be re-opened. I've never seen an abortion debate offline and 99.9% of the ones I see online involve mostly Americans. Canadians tend to be very "Well, we put it to a vote, it was decided, so lets move on" when it comes to politics and social issues.

Yep, my wishes to minimize abortions and give people the choice to not financially contribute to an institution that supports abortions make me a women-hating bastard. Go on, say it.

That's not even remotely what I was saying, cripes man. The Hobby Lobby thing is over access to birth control. Something which would minimize abortions. I find religious positions like that ( Against both abortion and birth control ) to be dangerously idiotic.

rape yes, incest no. The chances of an incestual baby having something wrong with it are less than 5%. Therefore I don't actually consider an incestual foetus any different from a normal foetus

Less than 5% is the rate for a child of two cousins and marrying your cousin is really only a cultural taboo in the west. For any direct relation ( parent / child, siblings, etc ) the rate is 20-36% of major birth defects or outright death before being carried to term. So there is a huge difference.

Furthermore, incest without rape is unfortunately quite rare.

[bex1218]

I think Hobby Lobby is trying to get 4 off the insurance list due to them supposedly being like an abortion. I forget the term they use these days.

[TheHuckster]

That's not even remotely what I was saying, cripes man. The Hobby Lobby thing is over access to birth control. Something which would minimize abortions. I find religious positions like that ( Against both abortion and birth control ) to be dangerously idiotic.

Hobby Lobby isn't against covering all birth control. Only procedures and measures which would be taken after conception.

[Gravekeeper]

Hobby Lobby isn't against covering all birth control. Only procedures and measures which would be taken after conception.

A count on which they are both idiots and hypocrites. They covered emergency contraception in their health insurance for employees as recently as 2012. They also have millions of dollars invested in the company that makes Plan B. And finally, that's not how Plan B works. It is not an abortion pill. It inhibits ovulation not conception.

They have no problem covering vasectomies and Viagra in clear defiance of God's will. Penises are exempt from all religious concerns. Its just those terrifying vaginas we need to control.

Besides, as a public for profit business, they should have no right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

[HYHYBT]

For the same reasons people who are pro-choice insist on speaking as if abortion was not the same as killing a baby, as if that were the only possible option, even though around 1/2 the population disagrees with them.

Nice dodge. The question that would answer, though, would only be something along the lines of why you speak as if you are correct, which is not AT ALL what I asked. Had you said "for the same reason people who are pro-choice insist on speaking as if I really agreed with them that abortion was not the same as killing a baby," that would have answered the question. Except that doesn't happen, or is too rate to count, while the opposite pops up from the anti-abortion side regularly. Including, again, in the post in the other thread that brought this on in the first place.


The question is why people on your side tend to act as if those on the other side really agree with you on the point at which you disagree (whether abortion is murder) and that the disagreement is instead over whether murder is bad? And why is it so hard ever to get a straight answer to THAT question, rather than non-answers or answers to other, similar-sounding but totally different in meaning, questions nobody asked?

[Gravekeeper]

The question is why people on your side tend to act as if those on the other side really agree with you on the point at which you disagree (whether abortion is murder) and that the disagreement is instead over whether murder is bad?

I was thinking of touching on that too. Since that's one of my biggest problems with the vehement pro-lifers. They think of themselves as pro-life and classify anyone that disagrees as pro-death. When the counter position is pro-choice. If you hold an vehement absolutist position like that, you're going to come across as an unreasonable zealot at best and a moronic lunatic at worst. You're not going to convince anyone of your position who doesn't already share it. You're just going to alienate everyone that might have actually stopped to listen to what you have to say.

Until you end up as a sad, angry group of lunatics waving pictures of dead fetuses's while harassing people on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I think Hobby Lobby is trying to get 4 off the insurance list due to them supposedly being like an abortion. I forget the term they use these days.

Abortifacents was the term I think.

[Gravekeeper]

Abortifacents was the term I think.

Gah, they actually used that term? None of what they're opposing are abortifacents. They're opposing morning after pills ( which are not abortifacents ) and IUDs ( Which I guess are not birth control but rather abortion rods for whores or something ).

But hey, who better to decide matters of women's reproductive health than 5 bitter old men in dresses that view vaginas as unmitigated Lovecraftian horror portals that can't be trusted in the hands of mere women. ;p

[NecCat]

HYHYBT (and Gravekeeper) People are reactionary.

It's because that's the point at which we disagree, and that's the only point at which we can talk. If I say I am against abortion the pro-abortion side immediately goes on about being against women, and woman's choices and rights and sins and God, and everything except what the actual problem is, and I spend the conversation defending things that both sides mostly agree on (in my experience). It's frustrating and pointless.

If I say killing people is bad, and the other side goes, yes, killing people is bad, but a foetus isn't a real person, than we can discuss something, much of the time the other side starts defending the position that a foetus is not people, and you can defend the point that it is, and maybe both people can learn something new, because that's the point at which we differ.

In my experience people who are for abortion are also for human rights, and since that's something I feel strongly about I think both sides share a common goal, it's just getting closer to agreeing on what an abortion is where the sides need to talk.

I also don't think the abortion laws in this country are settled, a little less than 30% of the country agrees with unrestricted abortions, and only around 50% agree they should be available without extenuating circumstances (health problems, rape, etc), so I think that change is possible there.

[Gravekeeper]

It's because that's the point at which we disagree, and that's the only point at which we can talk. If I say I am against abortion the pro-abortion side-

Way to do exactly what we were just complaining about.

I also don't think the abortion laws in this country are settled, a little less than 30% of the country agrees with unrestricted abortions, and only around 50% agree they should be available without extenuating circumstances (health problems, rape, etc), so I think that change is possible there.

Nope, will never happen. First of all nice word framing with the "unrestricted abortions" ( and that number is actually closer to 50%, sorry ). Second of all polls have consistently shown little to no change in stance on abortion in this country since 2000. Pro-life only makes up 1/5-1/4th of respondents. The vast majority of Canadians do support term limit restrictions and what not, which is as it should be.

However, the amount of Canadians that support an outright ban or staunch restrictions such as only to save a woman's life or in cases of rape/incest is a small minority. Most Canadians also consider the matter of whether abortion is legal or not to be settled and do not want to revisit it.

[NecCat]

The vast majority of Canadians do support term limit restrictions and what not, which is as it should be.

The majority of Canadians (60-80%, depending on whose numbers you believe) do not support unrestricted abortions - which is what we currently have. Term limits are a restriction, so are medical needs, hereditary disorders, gender selection and wide variety of things. Peoples responses to each restriction vary. The numbers who support no abortions allowed in any circumstances is around 6-11%, again depending on whose poll you are reading, which is a very small minority. (I'm also not one of them - see earlier my stance on medical needs). I think there is room for change with the laws, over 1/2 of Canadians support mandatory counselling and education before making a decision, over 1/2 support laws to add a second charge of murder to someone accused of murdering a pregnant woman and well over half support adding some restrictions (like a time frame). If over half of people disagree with current laws I'm not sure the matter could be considered closed.

[BlaqueKatt]

Not really; governments have to keep all religions in mind when they pass laws in order to make sure they do not conflict with or support any particular religion (see First Amendment and Separation of church and state). That's far from becoming moot.

The government is secular.

If my religious and ethical beliefs say that this is the blatant killing of a person, then how can I support it, or a politician who supports it, or, perhaps most importantly for a more secular discussion, be expected to pay into a system that would give funding to such a program? If we pass laws legalizing it, how soon until my tax dollars go to fund clinics or my insurance company underwrite the procedure? Now I'm being forced into an untenable position.

I'm an atheist(leaning towards anti-theist), my taxes support churches, mosques, and temples that I don't believe in, funny how *my* ethical values aren't taken into consideration.

Oh wait, it's because I can't force my beliefs on others, you're in effect saying that your beliefs should be considered above mine, and anyone else who doesn't believe like you. That's called privilege.

And if you really want to get into it, please read what this Quaker has to say on the matter. And keep in mind their religion started conscience objections.

GET YOUR FAKE CONSCIENCE OBJECTIONS OFF MY LAWN

[bex1218]

Abortifacents was the term I think.

Thank you. Nothing recognized the term.


Neither of the 4 they are banning are taken after conception. One is inserted by a doctor which helps prevent conception. And the morning afters is to prevent conception from happening. So that argument is gone. Or I wish it was.


I could see it if it was an actual abortion pill, but no source states they are even talking about those.

[TheHuckster]

They think of themselves as pro-life and classify anyone that disagrees as pro-death.

I would say the same for those on the other side who classify anyone who opposes abortion as "anti-women" and imply that the whole reason for their opposition is some kind of sadistic plot to chain women back to their beds and submit to their partners' demands to produce offspring like factory farm cattle. There are definitely some who actually do consider women to be second-class citizens, just as there are some who think abortion is a good tool for eugenics, but that doesn't represent the majority of the population in the abortion debate.

I'm an atheist(leaning towards anti-theist), my taxes support churches, mosques, and temples that I don't believe in, funny how *my* ethical values aren't taken into consideration.

We have to take things into perspective here. Taxes supporting churches, mosques, and temples doesn't terminate anything resembling human life. Abortion is a hot-button issue because it does. No matter how you feel, the fact is, there is at least a cluster of cells which have a distinct DNA pattern from its mother. Comparing your taxes supporting peoples' peaceful congregation in a building, many of whom contribute to the community through charity, to an institution which terminates a living organism which a good percentage of people have extremely strong feelings about on both sides are two very different things.

And, yes, I am aware that taxes are already going into other controversial policies that extinguish life such as the death penalty and overseas war... and I'm not too happy with that, either, to be honest.