President Biden, critics corner

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

I don't think that's the position.  I mean, it's fairly easy to not get pregnant, so outside cases of rape*, any woman can choose how much risk she wants to take.  And there's certainly an argument to be made that killing of fetuses is seen as immoral; note that a murderer who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders in many places.

The question becomes which is the greater harm - allowing the killing of all those fetuses or taking away the right of women to determine what happens to their bodies.  And until technology advances a fair amount, those are the only two options.  And I tend to come down on the side of "not telling women what to do with their bodies" mainly because of what I've seen throughout my life - but I can see both sides.  Abortion is IMO absolutely the worst way to handle an unintended pregnancy, but since I don't understand everything that is going on in someone else's life, I would not try to make the argument that it's always the worst option for everyone.

(* - IIRC Bigun does not oppose abortion in cases of rape)

I think that's over parsing the situation. The anti-abortion position holds to every harm caused to any woman and also to the potential harm done to all women. In my opinion, it simply can not be argued that the position does not create a diminution of rights for all women. Worse, it is a position nearly invariably adopted owing to subservience to a particular theological mysticism.  Rape is rape even if either of the parties are infertile and the anti abortion position reduces the agency of all women.

[billvon 2,990]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I think that's over parsing the situation. The anti-abortion position holds to every harm caused to any woman and also to the potential harm done to all women.

?? Does the pro-abortion position take responsibility for any harm done by any abortion?  That's an odd claim.

[BIGUN 1,306]

47 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

For example, and forgive me if I'm in error, you are anti-abortion because you see it as the cruel and theologically uninformed taking of innocent life, right? That the position effectively condemns half of humanity to the animal cycle of reproduction and vests them with vastly fewer absolute human rights is secondary. How is that reasonable?

Let me clear and you're welcome to peruse my previous postings on the matter. 

1. I am opposed to abortion once there is a fetal heartbeat.

2. I am opposed to abortions being used as birth control when there's 47 types birth control for both men and women. Be responsible.   

3. I have not once said, "Ban Abortions."  Even with my own life drama did not agree with reversing RvW. I was pretty pissed at both parties. Mine for doing it and yours for not codifying it when they smelled it on the horizon.

Suddenly, I'm on Joe's shit list for being a moderate.  

[JoeWeber 2,720]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? Does the pro-abortion position take responsibility for any harm done by any abortion?  That's an odd claim.

Yes, it would. But the position is based on logic, science, common sense, and a belief in self determination. Being pro-abortion keeps no woman from not having the procedure. It does not make abortion mandatory; the anti-abortion position can make no similar claim.

[gowlerk 2,190]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? Does the pro-abortion position take responsibility for any harm done by any abortion?  That's an odd claim.

You are confused on a very basic point. There is no "pro-abortion posistion". There is only a pro freedom of choice position. 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Let me clear and you're welcome to peruse my previous postings on the matter. 

1. I am opposed to abortion once there is a fetal heartbeat.

2. I am opposed to abortions being used as birth control when there's 47 types birth control for both men and women. Be responsible.   

3. I have not once said, "Ban Abortions."  Even with my own life drama did not agree with reversing RvW. I was pretty pissed at both parties. Mine for doing it and yours for not codifying it when they smelled it on the horizon.

Suddenly, I'm on Joe's shit list for being a moderate.  

Being less extreme than the most extreme does not make one a moderate. Your fetal heartbeat position is touch-feely, no more. Pointing out the "47" types of birth control and summing it up with a demand to be responsible is a thin justification and blaming the Democrats for not codifying abortion against the odiferous republican obstruction against codifying it is simply not an attractive point to make. Republicans did this 100% and as a "moderate" Republican you own a chunk of it. 

[BIGUN 1,306]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Republicans did this 100% and as a "moderate" Republican you own a chunk of it. 

No argument. What part of it do the Dems own?

[billvon 2,990]

21 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You are confused on a very basic point. There is no "pro-abortion posistion". There is only a pro freedom of choice position. 

Sorry, "pro-right-to-an-abortion."

[billvon 2,990]

28 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Yes, it would. 

That's just a very strange position.  But OK.

 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

20 minutes ago, billvon said:

That's just a very strange position.

Thank you, it's sort of my speciality. It must be suspected that in a world that offered abortions only of the highest medical standard that women will suffer and die in the process. Probably a very tiny number, sure, but I was simply acknowledging that truth and owning it.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

38 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

No argument. What part of it do the Dems own?

Some, sure, if for no other reason that negative consequences come from every negotiation. But let's not circle around here, given a chance against the absurdity that is theological Republican politics Democrats would restore the right.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Let me clear and you're welcome to peruse my previous postings on the matter. 

1. I am opposed to abortion once there is a fetal heartbeat.

...

Are you aware that the "fetal heartbeat" is not a real heartbeat produced by heart valves opening and closing, such as the sound you hear with a stethoscope? It is an artificial sound generated by the ultrasound machine in response to electrical activity in cells that will only later develop into a functional heart.  An actual heartbeat can be heard much later in gestation, around the time limit previously enforced under R v W law.

The so-called "fetal heartbeat" is usually detected at around 6 weeks gestation.  Many women are not aware they are pregnant at that point.  They often notice a missed period, which will be at around 4 weeks, if their periods are regular.  If they are irregular they may not be aware their period is overdue until later that that.  Under most circumstances women will have a week or two to confirm the pregnancy, make a decision, and if they choose try to arrange an abortion.  Many states have laws that require multiple doctor's visits before an appointment can be made.  In short, fetal heartbeat bills are a de facto abortion ban.

Does having a heartbeat mean life must be preserved at all costs?  Is a heartbeat more important than brain activity?  If a patient is irreversibly brain dead but still has a heartbeat, must artificial means be used to keep that patient alive indefinitely?

 

[BIGUN 1,306]

15 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Are you aware that the "fetal heartbeat" is not a real heartbeat produced by heart valves opening and closing, such as the sound you hear with a stethoscope?

I do. Poor wording on my part. 

We've had this discussion regarding abortion numerous times on here and the bottom line is: There is no real definitive timeline to say when the the fetus is living. And, until we're able to do that; then it needs to be between a woman and her doctor. 

15 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Does having a heartbeat mean life must be preserved at all costs?  Is a heartbeat more important than brain activity?  If a patient is irreversibly brain dead but still has a heartbeat, must artificial means be used to keep that patient alive indefinitely?

 

No. But, I have to admit that there are times I wonder if both the R's and D's are brain dead. /s 

Edited June 9, 2023 by BIGUN

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

A reasonable R these days would be one who votes D.

Hi Ken,

That is exactly what I became.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

I do. Poor wording on my part. 

We've had this discussion regarding abortion numerous times on here and the bottom line is: There is no real definitive timeline to say when the the fetus is living. And, until we're able to do that; then it needs to be between a woman and her doctor. 

 

No. But, I have to admit that there are times I wonder if both the R's and D's are brain dead. /s 

Hi Keith,

First, each of us has the right to their opinions; that means you & me at a minimum.

You posted this:  

I am opposed to abortion once there is a fetal heartbeat.

 I am opposed to abortions being used as birth control when there's 47 types birth control for both men and women. Be responsible. 

  And, until we're able to do that; then it needs to be between a woman and her doctor. 

I'm not understanding how it needs to be between a woman and her doctor  with your previous postings.  If it truly it needs to be between a woman and her doctor then, to me, there needs to be no further discussion.

Or maybe, I just fail to understand the details of your position.  

I am a pro-abortion person.  I am also a pro-choice person.  I am not a pro-life person.

To me, it is sort of like ranked-choice voting.  And, #3 is something I will leave the ballot blank on.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Once I became a thinking person *, I decided that I wanted to make my own choices in life; and, then live with the consequences.

*  Probably in my late teens.

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I do. Poor wording on my part. 

We've had this discussion regarding abortion numerous times on here and the bottom line is: There is no real definitive timeline to say when the the fetus is living. And, until we're able to do that; then it needs to be between a woman and her doctor. 

I don’t see how that can be explained away as poor wording. It was your entire itemised first point that you were opposed to abortion after a fetal heartbeat. 

If that’s not what you meant, what on earth did you mean?

[BIGUN 1,306]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I'm not understanding how it needs to be between a woman and her doctor  with your previous postings.  If it truly it needs to be between a woman and her doctor then, to me, there needs to be no further discussion.

Afternoon, Jerry

When we discussed this a couple/three/four years ago - even then; I was opposed to a "ban" on abortions then. ESPECIALLY, if a woman has been sexually abused or raped - it's definitely her call. There have been some that chose to keep the child. That's their choice. 

For me; life is sacred. We should be trying to preserve it to the best of our ability. 

I am pro-responsibility. At this point, you've heard me say this before - with all the types of birth control; we should have significantly reduced the number of abortions if not completely eradicate it.

That's about the gist of it. I got nothing else.    

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Afternoon, Jerry

When we discussed this a couple/three/four years ago - even then; I was opposed to a "ban" on abortions then. ESPECIALLY, if a woman has been sexually abused or raped - it's definitely her call. There have been some that chose to keep the child. That's their choice. 

For me; life is sacred. We should be trying to preserve it to the best of our ability. 

I am pro-responsibility. At this point, you've heard me say this before - with all the types of birth control; we should have significantly reduced the number of abortions if not completely eradicate it.

That's about the gist of it. I got nothing else.    

Hi Keith,

Re:  For me; life is sacred.

I do not consider a fetus a person; ergo, not a life.  Once the child has been born, I want us to support it completely.

Re:  with all the types of birth control; we should have significantly reduced the number of abortions if not completely eradicate it.

IMO with the exception of sterilization of one of the participants [ or both ] or just not do it, no types of birth control are foolproof => /=/ 100%.

If they were foolproof, I doubt any of us would be discussing this.

Now, back to your regular programming of criticizing Pres. Biden.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

...  I mean, it's fairly easy to not get pregnant, so outside cases of rape*, any woman can choose how much risk she wants to take...

 

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

...I am pro-responsibility. At this point, you've heard me say this before - with all the types of birth control; we should have significantly reduced the number of abortions if not completely eradicate it...

Both of you are pretty blatantly ignoring the fact that the main groups that want to ban all abortions also want to ban birth control and sex education.

It's a lot harder to 'not become pregnant' when the means and knowledge to prevent it are highly restricted.

[gowlerk 2,190]

In the meantime the abortion thread is missing the discussion while Biden claims to know absolutely nothing about the goings on at the Justice Department. Which I believe because he says that he is an honest man.

[billvon 2,990]

47 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Responsible Parents(Potential Grandparents) ALL tell their children about their reproductive systems and their families particular moral standards. It's the right and responsibility of the parent to prepare their children for life as an adult or sexually active teen. Family planning has never been easier. 

Yep.  But as Joe mentioned, conservatives are working hard to make sure that that information is as hard to get as possible.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Afternoon, Jerry

When we discussed this a couple/three/four years ago - even then; I was opposed to a "ban" on abortions then. ESPECIALLY, if a woman has been sexually abused or raped - it's definitely her call. There have been some that chose to keep the child. That's their choice. 

For me; life is sacred. We should be trying to preserve it to the best of our ability. 

I am pro-responsibility. At this point, you've heard me say this before - with all the types of birth control; we should have significantly reduced the number of abortions if not completely eradicate it.

That's about the gist of it. I got nothing else.    

You want off the hook, you're barking up the wrong tree. The entirety of your position, no matter how you attempt to reasonablize it, leaves women at the mercy of some kind of personal savior, her doctor or father for example. Regardless of your conclusions about the effectiveness of birth control having not reduced the numbers of abortions you must know that is nonsense. For you life is sacred, but lets get upfront about why: your Christian faith. For me life is the defining thing about not just the existence of our own transitory species but the entirety of the, as thus far determined, uniqueness of planet earth. Until proven otherwise we are it. So maybe you got nothing else but I, and those who think like me, have a lot else. Peace and love.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

11 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Responsible parents give their children the information themselves. Pretty simple Bill.

You just argued that home schooling is how the entire nation should educate their kids. Care to walk that back?

[billvon 2,990]

45 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Responsible parents give their children the information themselves. Pretty simple Bill.

Most do.  Some don't.  Those kids are at risk.  Pretty simple.

[jakee 1,489]

9 hours ago, Slim King said:

Responsible Parents(Potential Grandparents) ALL tell their children about their reproductive systems and their families particular moral standards. 

And irresponsible parents ALL fail to tell their children about it.