This business about "Abortion"

[Maxmars]

He's a Trump fan first, businessman second, and newly enlightened politician third. Who knows which of the three his actions leans more towards?

Truth is, when it comes to the thespian politician motif... there are likely more than three potentials...

Personal utterances are not the stuff of 'politics' ... they are the stuff of entertainment.

Notice how innocently the object of the discussion flows into the groove of some character in the media?  How easily the actual idea of the abortion policy can drift into the behavior of celebrities?  It's not a fault or flaw, but it gets us no nearer the original question. 

Not at all meant as a criticism or denigration of your post by any means... I appreciate everyone's contribution a great deal... but I wonder if candidate Trump really "needs" this issue on his banner of "support me," or is it that as I posited earlier, he just wants it to be ignored this time around... and will the partisan press oblige his campaign machinations, or doggedly haunt them to distraction?

[quintessentone]

Truth is, when it comes to the thespian politician motif... there are likely more than three potentials...

Personal utterances are not the stuff of 'politics' ... they are the stuff of entertainment.

Notice how innocently the object of the discussion flows into the groove of some character in the media?  How easily the actual idea of the abortion policy can drift into the behavior of celebrities?  It's not a fault or flaw, but it gets us no nearer the original question. 

Not at all meant as a criticism or denigration of your post by any means... I appreciate everyone's contribution a great deal... but I wonder if candidate Trump really "needs" this issue on his banner of "support me," or is it that as I posited earlier, he just wants it to be ignored this time around... and will the partisan press oblige his campaign machinations, or doggedly haunt them to distraction?

You are right about the three potentials. IMO the first is he's a Trump fan, second the Trump fan must be entertained and who to do the entertaining to his satisfaction, that's right, Trump himself. That's what I see when I watch him at rallies - there is no campaigning or addressing pressing issues, just entertainment Trump-style.

[Tecate]

I feel that a state-wide plebiscite on certain issues that become thorny, would be far more relevant and reasonable to determine what that particular state’s populace believes and wants.
Far too many times we are told by politicians what to think, like they freaking have to think for us.

My 2 cents…

Tecate

[Maxmars]

... like they freaking have to think for us.

My 2 cents…

Tecate

That is perpetually the problem....

Politicians seem to "enforce" the idea that they "know", and that the public is "stupidly ignorant." 
This makes them believe their own hype about their own invaluable "worth." 
They are trained and conditioned to consider themselves (and by faith - their party) both a perpetual font of wisdom and thus the 'salvation' of the people. 
They are neither... and rarely have been one OR the other.

Your "2 cents" are not only valid, but never to be forgotten.

Thanks... I will 'save' your 2 cents.

[BeTheGoddess]

Death and person ... yes.
Crime ... no.

Coroners will list on a death certificate that a homicide has happened when one person stops another persons heart from beating.  No 'crime' is necessary for the term 'homicide' to be used.  Just that one human has caused the death of another human.  And that's what happens in abortion.  One human causes the heart of another human to stop beating.  That's causing death.

---

First time around when he ran he was totally pro life and wouldn't talk about abortion being okay at any stage.  That's what his target audience wanted to hear.  Now, eight years later, the landscape has shifted and so he's trying to mirror what he thinks most people want in order to get more votes.   His position on abortion is extremely fluid.  He was a democrat and totally pro-abortion and then when he ran the first time he was polar opposite to that.  Now he's trying to be somewhere in the middle.  A typical politician trying to get votes.  (even though he claims not to be a politician, he sure acts like one)

You cant be declared a "person" here if you have yet to be born, if not a person, not a homicide charge here. 

I have a pro-life friend and even tho she has had abortions (yes she used the plural), she wont make her pro-life stance political, rather it being spiritual and she wont impose her "religion" to the rest of us. Separation if church and state kinda thing.

[FlyersFan]

You cant be declared a "person" here if you have yet to be born, if not a person, not a homicide charge here. 

One human stopping another humans heart from beating is homicide.
Abortion stops a beating heart.
And the baby is human.

[Maxmars]

Oooh, I sense contention...
 

---

I find the first segment of the problem is that one side does not wish to even consider the continuity aspect of nature in regard to the presence of a human embryo/fetus... That "side" of the argument wishes to designate personhood as a physical condition (upon which we should attribute a being with a legitimate defensible "right" to exist.)  Fair enough, materialistic, but fair. 

Oddly, the "liberal movement" end of this argument never appeared to take advantage of just how "conservative" their argument could have been.  Nothing is more fundamentally conservative than a criticism of government having no place "regulating" the physical persons they serve (conservatism manifesting its best when limiting government.)

Instead of pursuing that aspect of the complaint, a representation of 'victimhood' was embraced by activists - sadly, it became about 'oppression' (sadly, often mischaracterized as brute misogyny.)  Virtuous victimhood surfaced, and breathed fire into the arguments.  But that denies any argument based upon spiritually principled antagonism.  It foiled any potential resolution in that regard.  Any limited terms will effectively destroy the freedom ideal... and no quarter is given to anything less than that. The absolute, becomes the goal post.

The other "side" is far off-script from the first and is also unyielding.

That particular position seems to wish at least to eliminate any notion that abortion itself can be 'justified' outside of very specific and statistically rare circumstances, which has additional weight when added to those for whom culturally, spiritually, (and even merely religiously,) the entire construct of human procreation is sacred and thus unassailable once initiated.

The proponents of the anti-abortion idea insist that government should proscribe the act, only giving quarter to instantaneous emergent events, like damage or harm to the patient, or in cases of a brutally abusive crime.  Many of them 'gave in' that much but have declared "No further!"  Others remain stalwartly devoted to the principle of the "sanctity of (human) life."  Neither of these will acquiesce to the surrendering of the decision to the would-be reluctant parent who already wants the child to not exist.  They are most frustrated by the argument which renders the subject into a conditional state... characterizing it as an effort on the part of those wanting abortion to be of a "I want no consequences for what I do" lot.  Dehumanizing at best, cruel at worst ... but fair enough.

The activist among these folk posture as both virtuously defending the voiceless, in some cases; and others righteously defending a societal value.  Equally absolute in their resolve, they leave no room for the argument to end unless they win.

---

Frankly activists on both sides can suck it!

For them, this is an exercise in theater and litigation.  It has nothing to do with the real problems that lead to the 'choices' of abortions.  'Single bulleted' arguments fail unless they're hermetically sealed in faith.  Where faith is concerned reason has no foothold.  Utterances of faith are not 'arguments.'  As "virtue" became the new "plastic," engendering it the new "childish, naive and obtuse."  Pro-abortion proponents never face the reality that MOST abortion is completely voluntary and NOT by any means 'medically' necessary.  Why doctors (to whom we still attribute all manner of moral virtue) are not up in arms about the volume of it is cynic-bait.  It can't be very socially uplifting to witness such masses of human biomatter moving to market, even if it is profitable.

But I'm sorry... are we suddenly devoid of all human emotion that we can presumptuously tell an unprepared person to raise a child?  What the hell?  I've known people whose lives completely derailed by pregnancy. I've seen the tortured look of a girl who watched her future disintegrate, and guiltily fantasized about getting it back.  I've seen the young man's despair, and even panic over what was coming...  Mistakes are how children "do."  Refuse them the choice?  I would have to ask "why?" and patronizing platitudes won't suffice.  Not in real life... not where the pavement hits the soles of your feet.

Does our society celebrate motherhood or fatherhood?  No. Not anymore, not that it ever did much.  Is it harder to be a parent than not... yes, definitely, over the long term, even more (but don't tell them that, they'll just run away.)  As a parent, I can tell you... it is worth every second.  But it never seems to feel that way in the beginning, it's all fret and worry, worry, worry (remove one worry if you've a partner to help, two if you've a family to help.) 

Do you have a right to choose making it all go away?  I don't know..., all I know is rights aren't "given" they must be 'acknowledged' ... so what do you think?

Our contention isn't limited to the practical.  But our discussions can never arrive at a common conclusion when we deny common talking points (which is an activist dance.)

[quintessentone]

Do you have a right to choose making it all go away?  I don't know..., all I know is rights aren't "given" they must be 'acknowledged' ... so what do you think?

When the right to choose is taken away, people will take that right back and find a way to achieve what they feel they must do, what they feel entitled to do, that being a backstreet unsafe abortion, perhaps? I like to think that there are activist doctors out there providing the necessary safe options, giving back women their 'rights' to make their own choices about their bodies and their lives.

There are no winners here.

[guyfriday]

This whole debate over abortions is a fabrication by the media. The sad fact is that if the public funding was removed and the people wanting an abortion just talked to their primary care provider to receive one, then most people wouldn't give two cents about it. What gets most people up in arms about it is the tax-payer funding of this when it should be a healthcare/insurance issue and not a tax-payer issue. 

As to the point of it being right or not, well that's an issue with the patient and their doctor.

[Maxmars]

When the right to choose is taken away, ....

There are no winners here.

I think we must directly acknowledge that abortions are NOT something that is "going away."  It matters nothing that some people object.  People object to lots of things... this is just one more.  People will resort to abortion to protect whatever it is they personally value. 

In antiquity reproduction was unpredictable... so much so that it was a social event when anyone in your community became pregnant.  Most commonly, it was a celebration.  Today, it is often more like a funeral... is it no wonder it is feared?

There are many for whom childbirth is celebrated... it was looked for, desired.  But the entirely overwhelming majority in modern times are NOT inclined that way... it ranges from it being an utter catastrophe, to a frightful prospect... and in most of these cases the feeling is justifiable.

Of course they want a choice.  And now they even 'demand' a choice.  Being such a personal thing, the reasons "why" are not scrutinized, nor considered anyone's place to question. But the moralists of the world want to interject their judgements into it.

But truthfully, the choice is not going away. 

I mean it most 'clinically' when I say: For millennia humans did not need "doctors" or "guarantees" to abort pregnancies... what then, is the issue now? 

Is it that people demand a "medically sanctioned expert" as a right?  Who is it that demands that? 

I'm not hearing the cases made for abortion freedom in the sense that "a doctor MUST do it." 

That whole 'safe and medically sound' angle only comes up in reference to the emotional ploy of invoking horrors of abortions gone wrong in the past. 

But if abortion had routinely killed the patient, no one would have ever done it willfully. Thus, I think the idea of "not having a choice" is a boogey man argument. A misdirection.

The argument, as it should properly be framed, is that of all medical procedures, abortion should not be excluded. 
Even the medical community traditionally recognized that it can be a necessary means to protect the life of a patient.

As a 'procedure' of medical skill, it should be properly between the physician and the patient - NOT the 'community' at large.  

Now I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't affirm, once and for all, that as "it is a choice," or that the choice "needs" to be controlled.

This discussion of "law" should be resolved only after the community agrees ... not to have politicians "make" the agreement "for us."  Down that path leads madness.  Many of us can see how it has.... but then there's so much money in activism, fame... glory.... - it's almost as if they were politicians themselves... ahem.

---

This whole debate over abortions is a fabrication by the media. The sad fact is that if the public funding was removed and the people wanting an abortion just talked to their primary care provider to receive one, then most people wouldn't give two cents about it. What gets most people up in arms about it is the tax-payer funding of this when it should be a healthcare/insurance issue and not a tax-payer issue. 

As to the point of it being right or not, well that's an issue with the patient and their doctor.

Ah the media.  Perennially abused by thespians of the order of Narcissus.  And also, their recently favored stepchildren, activists.

They keep this "debate" alive by obscuring the realities with theater.  Using emotional barbs, ugly characterizations, and twisted narratives, they engender a never-ending babbling noise.  They even "manufacture" evidence... theatrically.

Government is only involved because politicians use this discussion as a means to signal virtue. 
(Ever notice most all politicians seem to signal virtue all the time?  It's theater.)

If abortion is a medical service, it must be subject to the same "oversight" (hmph!) as all the others.  In a way, this still seems to come back to doctors.  There has to be a reason to single out a medical service for special regulation ... If it exists, the reason must be explicitly justified before becoming a "law."  How would we do that, I wonder?