The Thing About Abortion..

[Zam-Zam]

...is that, for many people, it is an emotional issue, and people have strong opinions about it on both sides.

Now, I could expound about my opinion on the subject, but that is unlikely to impact your opinion in any way. The reverse is equally true.

I could shout my opinion, but that makes it neither more nor less valid. Volume is a poor substitute for logic and reason.

I could call people who disagree with my opinion a name, or slap a disparaging label on them, but that would simply be poor behavior. It would reflect negatively on me, not on them.

Whatever you feelings on the subject, know that out there somewhere who is just as passionate as you are that believes the exact opposite. That doesn't make you right or wrong - These are opinions after all. Some people do struggle with the notion that their view isn't the only view...But it isn't. If you're a normal mature adult, you can disagree with someone while respecting their right to their view.

My two cents.

 

[PNWest]

...is that, for many people, it is an emotional issue, and people have strong opinions about it on both sides.

Now, I could expound about my opinion on the subject, but that is unlikely to impact your opinion in any way. The reverse is equally true.

I could shout my opinion, but that makes it neither more nor less valid. Volume is a poor substitute for logic and reason.

I could call people who disagree with my opinion a name, or slap a disparaging label on them, but that would simply be poor behavior. It would reflect negatively on me, not on them.

Whatever you feelings on the subject, know that out there somewhere who is just as passionate as you are that believes the exact opposite. That doesn't make you right or wrong - These are opinions after all. Some people do struggle with the notion that their view isn't the only view...But it isn't. If you're a normal mature adult, you can disagree with someone while respecting their right to their view.

My two cents.

Except that one side says that if you don't want to have an abortion then don't have one.

The other side says - the government is entitled to force a woman to give birth.

That's your both sides argument/

 

[Zam-Zam]

Except that one side says that if you don't want to have an abortion then don't have one.

The other side says - the government is entitled to force a woman to give birth.

That's your both sides argument/

Or, perhaps one side says "Thou shall not kill".

There is that argument.

You can agree or disagree, but refusing to acknowledge that it is how many people feel would be less-than-honest.

 

[reason10]

Except that one side says that if you don't want to have an abortion then don't have one.

The other side says - the government is entitled to force a woman to give birth.

That's your both sides argument/

That is a lie. The government does not force a woman to get pregnant. And there are harsh penalties for those who try.

It is a living human being inside the woman. Why must it die, just so the slut can look good in a prom dress?

Edited

Why should a doctor who kills a baby be afforded more legal protections than someone who commits murder? Why doesn't a baby deserve the same Constitutional protections as everyone else?

 

[PNWest]

Or, perhaps one side says "Thou shall not kill".

There is that argument.

You can agree or disagree, but refusing to acknowledge that it is how many people feel would be less-than-honest.

That would be true if the side you claim says "Thou shall not kill" actually walked the walk and not just talked the talk. I don't see any of them opposing the death penalty. It's been almost 50 years since I've seen any of them protesting illegal wars. Not a one of them that I know of opposed the Iraq war based on falsified WMD evidence. Also the book you are quoting from and the guy that that religion is named after never says a word about abortion being wrong or illegal. In fact it puts a fairly low price on the unborn.

So - no I don't think much of your argument. It's about as valid as a republican SC nominees testimony - it's just empty words.

 

[reason10]

That would be true if the side you claim says "Thou shall not kill" actually walked the walk and not just talked the talk. I don't see any of them opposing the death penalty. It's been almost 50 years since I've seen any of them protesting illegal wars. Not a one of them that I know of opposed the Iraq war based on falsified WMD evidence. Also the book you are quoting from and the guy that that religion is named after never says a word about abortion being wrong or illegal. In fact it puts a fairly low price on the unborn.

So - no I don't think much of your argument. It's about as valid as a republican SC nominees testimony - it's just empty words.

The death penalty involves years and millions of dollars of due process. And that is for a convicted murderer. Why must an innocent baby that is not threatening the life of a mother be denied such due process?

Are you saying babies are inferior to convicted murderers?

 

[Zam-Zam]

That would be true if the side you claim says "Thou shall not kill" actually walked the walk and not just talked the talk. I don't see any of them opposing the death penalty. It's been almost 50 years since I've seen any of them protesting illegal wars. Not a one of them that I know of opposed the Iraq war based on falsified WMD evidence. Also the book you are quoting from and the guy that that religion is named after never says a word about abortion being wrong or illegal. In fact it puts a fairly low price on the unborn.

So - no I don't think much of your argument. It's about as valid as a republican SC nominees testimony - it's just empty words.

It seems obvious that you don't like the people who disagree with you on this one, and you wish to denigrate their position in favor of yours.

There are people on both sides who do that. That was the point of the top post. You just validated it.

 

[PNWest]

It seems obvious that you don't like the people who disagree with you on this one, and you wish to denigrate their position in favor of yours.

There are people on both sides who do that. That was the point of the top post. You just validated it.

Well I'm glad you feel validated. That's important for holier than thou people.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Well I'm glad you feel validated. That's important for holier than thou people.

And there's the ad hominem.

That didn't take long.

 

[Jack4freedom]

...is that, for many people, it is an emotional issue, and people have strong opinions about it on both sides.

Now, I could expound about my opinion on the subject, but that is unlikely to impact your opinion in any way. The reverse is equally true.

I could shout my opinion, but that makes it neither more nor less valid. Volume is a poor substitute for logic and reason.

I could call people who disagree with my opinion a name, or slap a disparaging label on them, but that would simply be poor behavior. It would reflect negatively on me, not on them.

Whatever you feelings on the subject, know that out there somewhere who is just as passionate as you are that believes the exact opposite. That doesn't make you right or wrong - These are opinions after all. Some people do struggle with the notion that their view isn't the only view...But it isn't. If you're a normal mature adult, you can disagree with someone while respecting their right to their view.

My two cents.

I agree with your take sir. Hopefully in the next election and going forward, there will be ballot initiatives in every state regarding this issue so the people living there can decide whether they are in favor of women and their doctors deciding whether or not to perform these operations or if they favor state government officials limiting or prohibiting them. I also think that the issue of abortion should be a factor in Congressional and Senate races where the candidates are on opposite sides of this issue. The SCOTUS has decided to reverse a 50 year precedent and leave it up to the voters. So be it.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I agree with your take sir. Hopefully in the next election and going forward, there will be ballot initiatives in every state regarding this issue so the people living there can decide whether they are in favor of women and their doctors deciding whether or not to perform these operations or if they favor state government officials limiting or prohibiting them. I also think that the issue of abortion should be a factor in Congressional and Senate races where the candidates are on opposite sides of this issue. The SCOTUS has decided to reverse a 50 year precedent and leave it up to the voters. So be it.

I just hope people can be civil towards one another, no matter how they feel about the issue.

 

[Jack4freedom]

That is a lie. The government does not force a woman to get pregnant. And there are harsh penalties for those who try.

It is a living human being inside the woman. Why must it die, just so the slut can look good in a prom dress?

Edited

Why should a doctor who kills a baby be afforded more legal protections than someone who commits murder? Why doesn't a baby deserve the same Constitutional protections as everyone else?

The “slut prom dress” comment exposes you as a judgmental ass hole. Just so you know.

 

[Jack4freedom]

I just hope people can be civil towards one another, no matter how they feel about the issue.

I agree. I know people who are very passionate about this issue from both sides. I respect their right to their opinion.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I agree. I know people who are very passionate about this issue from both sides. I respect their right to their opinion.

Civility and respect are signs of true maturity. Let us resolve to remain civil and respectful, no matter what the circumstances. Be aware of what triggers us to spin out of control and to help others to do the same by projecting calm, attentiveness, and thoughtfulness; understanding other points of view, even when we disagree.


Civility and respect – two words that are no longer in use today - SDNews.com

Worth remembering.

 

[EatTheRich]

Or, perhaps one side says "Thou shall not kill".

There is that argument.

You can agree or disagree, but refusing to acknowledge that it is how many people feel would be less-than-honest.

No honest, sane person thinks an embryo is entitled to superior moral consideration to a human being (do you insist on forcing those responsible for poverty being forced to keep alive those in poverty at far less expense than you force on those women who have unwanted pregnancies?)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920085535984668672

 

[EatTheRich]

That is a lie. The government does not force a woman to get pregnant. And there are harsh penalties for those who try.

It is a living human being inside the woman. Why must it die, just so the slut can look good in a prom dress?

Edited

Why should a doctor who kills a baby be afforded more legal protections than someone who commits murder? Why doesn't a baby deserve the same Constitutional protections as everyone else?

Does the government provide free contraception to all?

 

[EatTheRich]

The death penalty involves years and millions of dollars of due process. And that is for a convicted murderer. Why must an innocent baby that is not threatening the life of a mother be denied such due process?

Are you saying babies are inferior to convicted murderers?

Since women are 14 times as likely to die from childbirth as from safe, legal abortion, the fetus is directly threatening her life.

 

[Zam-Zam]

No honest, sane person thinks an embryo is entitled to superior moral consideration to a human being (do you insist on forcing those responsible for poverty being forced to keep alive those in poverty at far less expense than you force on those women who have unwanted pregnancies?)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920085535984668672

This is what is known as the false dilemma fallacy - One must either agree with your way of thinking, or they are deemed not to be sane or honest.

False Dilemma Fallacy - Excelsior College OWL


You are also missing the point - I have no interest in trying to change your or anyone else's views on abortion. This is simply a plea for civility. Whatever your point of view, you have a right to it. So does everyone else, even if it's different than yours.

If we are not tolerant of opinions other than our own, we are by definition practicing intolerance. That is not a virtue.

 

[ObamacareForever]

...is that, for many people, it is an emotional issue, and people have strong opinions about it on both sides.

Now, I could expound about my opinion on the subject, but that is unlikely to impact your opinion in any way. The reverse is equally true.

I could shout my opinion, but that makes it neither more nor less valid. Volume is a poor substitute for logic and reason.

I could call people who disagree with my opinion a name, or slap a disparaging label on them, but that would simply be poor behavior. It would reflect negatively on me, not on them.

Whatever you feelings on the subject, know that out there somewhere who is just as passionate as you are that believes the exact opposite. That doesn't make you right or wrong - These are opinions after all. Some people do struggle with the notion that their view isn't the only view...But it isn't. If you're a normal mature adult, you can disagree with someone while respecting their right to their view.

My two cents.

While you might not be trying to change minds some of us are.
And civilty is an ineffective means of doing that.

 

[EatTheRich]

This is what is known as the false dilemma fallacy - One must either agree with your way of thinking, or they are deemed not to be sane or honest.

False Dilemma Fallacy - Excelsior College OWL


You are also missing the point - I have no interest in trying to change your or anyone else's views on abortion. This is simply a plea for civility. Whatever your point of view, you have a right to it. So does everyone else, even if it's different than yours.

If we are not tolerant of opinions other than our own, we are by definition practicing intolerance. That is not a virtue.

It’s not a “false dilemma” when you truly have two mutually exhaustive possibilities. A view that would call for the child to be sacrificed to the welfare of the embryos, any honest person would recognize, is morally monstrous. A view that calls for women to be sacrificed to the welfare of embryos is equally monstrous.

Forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity, recognized as such by international law. Reasonable people do not “agree to disagree” about crimes against humanity.