Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

RU OX Alum · #1 06-05-2008, 03:51 PM

I think abortion should be used as birth control. There are too many people being born.

Having children so you can get gov't tax breaks for them is way more irresponsible than getting an abortion. And unless you're willing to adopt the child yourself, I don't see how it's anyone's business besides the mother's.

shinerbock · #2 06-05-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I think abortion should be used as birth control. There are too many people being born.

Having children so you can get gov't tax breaks for them is way more irresponsible than getting an abortion. And unless you're willing to adopt the child yourself, I don't see how it's anyone's business besides the mother's.

I think we should kill the mentally impaired because of over-population. Many of them aren't self-sufficient. I don't see how it would be any of our business.

RU OX Alum · #3 06-05-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think we should kill the mentally impaired because of over-population. Many of them aren't self-sufficient. I don't see how it would be any of our business.

because you kill them at the expense of my taxes

i don't think abortion should be state-supported either

shinerbock · #4 06-05-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

because you kill them at the expense of my taxes

i don't think abortion should be state-supported either

Who said I'd do it at your expense? People who take care of them can kill them, so they can move on with their lives.

RU OX Alum · #5 06-05-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Who said I'd do it at your expense? People who take care of them can kill them, so they can move on with their lives.

that's interesting, and it is not for me to judge

they answer only to their own consciences (and probably the police)

UGAalum94 · #6 06-05-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I think abortion should be used as birth control.

If I didn't think that there were actually people being killed, I wouldn't be bothered by it at all.

If it's just a little clump of cells or a person seed that can be frozen indefinitely in a lab somewhere or used in research, why would anyone feel like she needed a good reason to get rid of it?

I'm always a little baffled by folks who think the circumstances of conception or the mother's disposition about the kid somehow would change the essential morality of the act one way or the other.

nittanyalum · #7 06-05-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm always a little baffled by folks who think the circumstances of conception or the mother's disposition about the kid somehow would change the essential morality of the act one way or the other.

Again, I think your views may clarify a great deal when you've been pregnant or are trying to get pregnant. Like it or not, there is a hypocrisy to it and you do feel different. Ask the any number of women who spent their 20s desperately trying not to get pregnant (and more likely than not had an episode or two of the "oh my god, what if I'm...??" panic attacks or even may have had an abortion) but then spent the better part of the their 30s trying to conceive. Your mindset is different, it is "your baby" in the latter scenario, it's an "oh my god, what will this do to my life/career/family/relationship/financial stability problem" in the first scenario. There, I said it. Bring it.

UGAalum94 · #8 06-05-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Again, I think your views may clarify a great deal when you've been pregnant or are trying to get pregnant. Like it or not, there is a hypocrisy to it and you do feel different. Ask the any number of women who spent their 20s desperately trying not to get pregnant (and more likely than not had an episode or two of the "oh my god, what if I'm...??" panic attacks or even may have had an abortion) but then spent the better part of the their 30s trying to conceive. Your mindset is different, it is "your baby" in the latter scenario, it's an "oh my god, what will this do to my life/career/family/relationship/financial stability problem" in the first scenario. There, I said it. Bring it.

But for me this suggest that maybe we should approach the issue assuming that all pregnancies are "babies" rather than that the mom's feelings somehow actually changes the reality.

Although it's easier to go with a let each-judge-on-her-own stance, it doesn't actually work that way. Either the fetuses/babies are people who at some point in pregnancy should be invested with legal rights or they aren't. Other circumstances should no more play in than they would if we were talking about newborns or tumors, depending or how you view the products of conception.

For me, the idea thing would be to have a developmental line beyond which the life of the fetus/baby is protected and only when the same standard of self-defense is met as we'd use outside the womb, can the mom terminate the pregnancy past that point. Up until that point, the mother could do whatever she wanted.

nittanyalum · #9 06-05-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But for me this suggest that maybe we should approach the issue assuming that all pregnancies are "babies" rather than that the mom's feelings somehow actually changes the reality.

Although it's easier to go with a let each-judge-on-her-own stance, it doesn't actually work that way. Either the fetuses/babies are people who at some point in pregnancy should be invested with legal rights or they aren't. Other circumstances should no more play in than they would if we were talking about newborns or tumors, depending or how you view the products of conception.

For me, the idea thing would be to have a developmental line beyond which the life of the fetus/baby is protected and only when the same standard of self-defense is met as we'd use outside the womb, can the mom terminate the pregnancy past that point. Up until that point, the mother could do whatever she wanted.

Ok, well I can't argue what it suggests to you, because that's your perception and opinion. To your second point, no, they shouldn't be invested with legal rights, I can just see the 1-800-lawyer ads for that now, and your statement about "other circumstances" is only your opinion based on your own experience. And to your last point, isn't that somewhat along the lines of what is in place in most circumstances now?

UGAalum94 · #10 06-05-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ok, well I can't argue what it suggests to you, because that's your perception and opinion. To your second point, no, they shouldn't be invested with legal rights, I can just see the 1-800-lawyer ads for that now, and your statement about "other circumstances" is only your opinion based on your own experience. And to your last point, isn't that somewhat along the lines of what is in place in most circumstances now?

Well, with legal rights I really had only the right not to be killed in mind, but it seems that a lot of states are already working pretty hard to punish women who engage in behavior likely to harm a fetus during pregnancy already.

And with the third, nope, not a bit. I think in many states, especially in actual practice rather than just what the law says, a woman has wide latitude all the way through, particularly if she isn't using publicly subsidized clinics. Even partial birth bans are about method rather than termination.