Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone,

 

So I certainly identify as a liberal.  I like the Daily Show, John Oliver and Pod Save America.  I listen to NPR.  I can't stand Trump, or Republican's unwavering support for him.   For the most part I fit the mold.

 

But there's one thing that most liberals seem to agree on with such gusto that I just can't get behind, and that's the firm stance of being pro-choice.  I find abortion procedures and images really disturbing.  I find it strange that certain babies are delivered prematurely and put in incubators to live, while others at the same stage of development are injected with a substance that causes cardiac arrest and kills them in the womb.  It makes my heart and stomach sick.

 

I feel more pro-life than pro-choice, although I feel like abortion is too complicated a subject for me to say I'm either.  And that's weird, being a liberal and feeling that way.  I feel like liberals are generally the ones to stand up for the disenfranchised and vulnerable, which is why I like them so much, but in the case of abortion, they don't regard the fact that the unborn baby doesn't have a say in whether it gets to live. 

 

I get the argument for rape, incest, or any other complicated, tragic situation the mother might be in.  Each woman's pregnancy is a case-by-case scenario.  But it's not JUST about her body.   It's about another person's body inside her body.  Which makes it complicated.  

 

Any other liberals out there who feel this way?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well now, that is truly an earnest way of exploring the topic! I mean, it is truly a dilemma, if you say it's not, your filling your head with nonsense. I have an older brother whom I adore.

He was a liberal, fought in Vietnam and came back hating war. He worked his own way through college and became a teacher in the worst parts of Detroit. A kind heart sort of guy, 

who was tough and liberal, he just could never say it was okay to have an abortion. Life he says, starts at conception, and nobody could argue scientifically with this.

But there is the other side of the long story. Poor women harming their bodies because they knew they could not support another child and the church looking the other way and calling them sinners without mention of the men who were at least fifty percent, in many cases one hundred percent to blame.

 

It is complicated. No liberal in the know, would ever say it ain't. My mom was a nurse who worked most her life on an oncology ward. She started off her nursing career nursing newborns during WWII when my dad was away in the marines. It was the best of times for her as a nurse, she would always say. She winded up having ten kids.

 

And I have four sisters, none of them ever had to make that kind of decision. Three of them are pro-choice, and one says no way. For me, the decision is easy, regarding the idea of pro-choice only because I don't want any women to have to make such a choice.

 

It's about being aware of sex, both sexes, nature if you will. The truth is a lot of women are abused today. Yes, it is their body. Yes, I say it is their right to decide.

 

Less and less, we see qualified doctors who are willing to help any women have a safe abortion at an early stage. The backlash isn't what it was like before when it was once much worse before  Margaret  Sanger stepped in and  fought for birth control. But here's a good article from the New Yorker, exploring Carol Sanger's current day view.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/why-its-become-so-hard-to-get-an-abortion

 

So the important thing to ask yourself about choice, is about having the real choice. It isn't just like a lot of things in life, and yet still it is. The unwavering side forgets the whole being, 

and calls out only the women as some outcast because birthing only affects their own bodies. Well, I say, as God is my witness that's wrong. I'd rather have a true discussion about the facts on women's health and then work to reduce the need of abortions.

I say, go ahead and have a truly earnest discussion about the health, and the decision and the dilemma of having to choose. Don't put it on some young girl who is already torn, and don't make her feel like she is solely to blame, you should know, people are smart, human beings are genuinely quite smart, and as they say resourceful, yet can be frail. 

 

Who has the most abortions and why? That's a topic that needs to be discussed in a thoughtful way. It needs to be factual, with medical experts, and not anti-abortionist propagandist

leading the discussion. 

 

Pro-choice should start with the young male and the young female. Sex is natural, inevitable, and so too is the possibility of pregnancy, in any common day.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally don't discuss abortion on message boards, but I think you represent a legitimate liberal view on the issue even though it's in the minority. I will sometimes discuss people;s arguments on the issue on their own merit rather than the issue.

The issue is so strongly held in the party that a good part of the party wants it to be a litmus test - Emily's choice for example has it as their only litmus test issue for who they support (among women). On the other hand I've suggested the litmus test issue should be opposition to plutocracy and otherwise get someone electable as progressive as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortion is a pro-business issue.

 

When the birth control pill was introduced, many people thought it worked by causing abortions.

People don't read the fine print, and don't necessarily believe it anyhow.

 

So, when the drug companies recognized that abortion being illegal might hurt their business, they simply got the law changed.

 

It is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, it is a "how business wants you to perceive it" issue.

 

Your political views don't matter.

Abortion is not going away.

 

The only view that you will ever achieve any results from having is your own decision, if you are ever in a position to need to make that decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one issue where the drug company does not decide the policy. It was decided by a court based on their legal views before the radical right-wing takeover, and has been used as a political issue based on people's strong opinions since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

This is one issue where the drug company does not decide the policy. It was decided by a court based on their legal views before the radical right-wing takeover, and has been used as a political issue based on people's strong opinions since.

I disagree.

 

The court found what they were told to find.

There is nothing in the Constitution even remotely related to the issue, either for, or against.

 

It is a perfect political issue, because people have such strong opinions, and the people that control what political issues the voters are SUPPOSED to consider know that there will never be any ultimate resolution.

There will, of course, be lots of funds raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember,

the more time people are occupied with topics that will never be resolved,

 

the less time that they spend considering how incredibly stupid the "trickle down" economic theories actually are.

 

If they even have a clue what the Federal Reserve does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, peter45 said:

I disagree.

 

The court found what they were told to find.

There is nothing in the Constitution even remotely related to the issue, either for, or against.

 

It is a perfect political issue, because people have such strong opinions, and the people that control what political issues the voters are SUPPOSED to consider know that there will never be any ultimate resolution.

There will, of course, be lots of funds raised.

 

You're posting a conspiracy theory without any evidence.

 

Not every little bit of motive for an interest to do something means it happened. If you claim this more than a bit of paranoid suspicion, include some evidence.

 

You seriously do not understand the history, as is clear from your comments.

 

The ruling had a clear legal basis. The constitution was always intended to protect right not specifically specified - to be viewed as all rights being protected that weren't specifically allowed to be violated in powers given to the government.

In fact, that is why the Bill of Rights which does list some specific rights was challenged - and only passed after its supporters agreed to include the ninth and tenth amendments which clearly say that unspecified rights are equally protected as those listed such as free speech and right of assembly.

 

So, a good question is, when has the court ever actually ruled based on recognizing those unspecified rights the way it has ruled on the ones listed? The doubters seems correct in their concern, that listed rights have gotten a lot more concern than unlisted ones.

 

The Justices who recognize the idea of these broader freedoms saw the issue arise with the invention of birth control pills. Governments rushed to ban them on moral grounds; but the court said, hold on, the constitution does not give the government the power to limit people in that freedom - it's a constitutional right for people to get to decide that.


And it was a pretty direct following of that right to get birth control pills, to say that similarly the constitution did not give the government the right to limit people's choice whether to get an abortion.


This is disputed based on views of when life begins - but the court's ruling has a clear basis in legal theory and that has nothing to do with the interests or influence of pill companies. If you want to make that case, look to the history - if you can find any - of the far more direct previous case of Griswold v. Connecticut on the pills themselves.

 

Abortion was far more of an issue for the public and the politicians than any power a pill company had. There had long been a public sentiment on both sides of the issue - for example, I understand JFK privately supported the right (and had an aide arrange for an abortion to be available to a young woman who thought he'd impregnated her while president).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A conspiracy theory with no evidence?

 

Some nobody from nowhere got her case heard by the Supreme Court.

 

The proverbial "reasonable man" might be suspicious.

Especially when the big money wins!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A conspiracy theory with no evidence?

 

Some nobody from nowhere got her case heard by the Supreme Court.

 

The proverbial "reasonable man" might be suspicious.

Especially when the big money wins!

 

What I am really saying is that anytime that anyone wants to discuss abortion, 

the best reply would be to discuss the Federal Reserve policy.

 

Abortion is not going to affect your life, unless you let it.

The Federal Reserve will affect your life, whether you want it to, or not.

 

Don't waste your time, if you want to advance genuine Liberal policies, discussing issues that the "conservatives" have created as time wasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, peter45 said:

A conspiracy theory with no evidence?

 

Some nobody from nowhere got her case heard by the Supreme Court.

 

The proverbial "reasonable man" might be suspicious.

Especially when the big money wins!

 

That's how cases work. Did it need to be a famous celebrity woman getting the abortion for it not to be a fix by a drug company?


Look at any case. In Brown v. Board of education, who was Brown? In the Miranda case, who was Miranda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, aidenmalecky said:

I find abortion procedures and images really disturbing.  I find it strange that certain babies are delivered prematurely and put in incubators to live, while others at the same stage of development are injected with a substance that causes cardiac arrest and kills them in the womb.  It makes my heart and stomach sick.

 

Open heart surgery is also really disturbing. I don't morally object to that, and I doubt you do either. I'm grateful for expert surgeons that can perform the procedure and save lives.

 

When an abortion is done, a fetus is killed. Yes, it's a killing of a life. When that fetus is inside the body of a woman who is unwilling to carry it, it is, in effect, a parasite.

 

I am not willing to make laws to force a woman to carry a fetus she does not want to carry. I'm unwilling to temporarily enslave a woman.

 

When a fetus is killed in an abortion, the life of a woman is saved from temporary slavery to a parasite.

 

I value the rights of the living, feeling person above the fetus that hasn't yet developed consciousness, sense of self, desires or a human existence. Human existence is more than just mere life. The cells I wash off my body in the shower have no rights. Nor does my sperm. Nor does the collection of cells we call a fetus, that has not yet engaged in human life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may have sounded harsh. 

Aiden, welcome. I'm sure there are many areas on which we'll agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a scale of 1 to 10.

so what!

 

If we talk about "moral" issues, the "conservatives" will claim superiority.

If we talk about the dividend ratio, and stock buy backs, the "conservatives" probably won't have a clue,

but,

they will claim that the economy is great for the "forgotten man".

 

The economy sucks.

The economy is running on Federal Reserve dollars.

Go to your local bank.

Tell them you want 3% on your savings account.

Not (point).3%. They will laugh.

 

The economy will crash in time to keep Trump out of a 2nd term, but probably not before the mid-terms.

 

We need NO discussion of abortion.

We need full time discussion of stock market price manipulation with stock buybacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 1:23 AM, aidenmalecky said:

Hey everyone,

 

So I certainly identify as a liberal.  I like the Daily Show, John Oliver and Pod Save America.  I listen to NPR.  I can't stand Trump, or Republican's unwavering support for him.   For the most part I fit the mold.

 

But there's one thing that most liberals seem to agree on with such gusto that I just can't get behind, and that's the firm stance of being pro-choice.  I find abortion procedures and images really disturbing.  I find it strange that certain babies are delivered prematurely and put in incubators to live, while others at the same stage of development are injected with a substance that causes cardiac arrest and kills them in the womb.  It makes my heart and stomach sick.

 

I feel more pro-life than pro-choice, although I feel like abortion is too complicated a subject for me to say I'm either.  And that's weird, being a liberal and feeling that way.  I feel like liberals are generally the ones to stand up for the disenfranchised and vulnerable, which is why I like them so much, but in the case of abortion, they don't regard the fact that the unborn baby doesn't have a say in whether it gets to live. 

 

I get the argument for rape, incest, or any other complicated, tragic situation the mother might be in.  Each woman's pregnancy is a case-by-case scenario.  But it's not JUST about her body.   It's about another person's body inside her body.  Which makes it complicated.  

 

Any other liberals out there who feel this way?

 

 

 

How did you feel about abortion before you were born?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, peter45 said:

On a scale of 1 to 10.

so what!

 

If we talk about "moral" issues, the "conservatives" will claim superiority.

If we talk about the dividend ratio, and stock buy backs, the "conservatives" probably won't have a clue,

but,

they will claim that the economy is great for the "forgotten man".

 

The economy sucks.

The economy is running on Federal Reserve dollars.

Go to your local bank.

Tell them you want 3% on your savings account.

Not (point).3%. They will laugh.

 

The economy will crash in time to keep Trump out of a 2nd term, but probably not before the mid-terms.

 

We need NO discussion of abortion.

We need full time discussion of stock market price manipulation with stock buybacks.

We need a discussion about capitalism.

 

BTW. Capitalism collapsed in 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Zaro said:

We need a discussion about capitalism.

 

BTW. Capitalism collapsed in 2008

Do you mean that an economy running on "borrowed" Federal Reserve dollars,

with stock prices artificially inflated by corporate "buy backs" which funnel dollars that used to be paid in dividends into ever increasing stock prices,

which profits those who reap capital gains,

and screw the middle class mope who is saving for retirement,

isn't Capitalism?

 

Maybe it is "capitalism".

 

Remember the good old days?

When an economy generated its own dollars for expansion,

instead of relying on the Central Bank for financing?

 

The Central Bank for financing an economy!

Isn't that an idea that the old communist economies were fond of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 3:07 PM, peter45 said:

I disagree.

 

The court found what they were told to find.

There is nothing in the Constitution even remotely related to the issue, either for, or against.

 

It is a perfect political issue, because people have such strong opinions, and the people that control what political issues the voters are SUPPOSED to consider know that there will never be any ultimate resolution.

There will, of course, be lots of funds raised.

Roe rests on Griswold v Connecticut. Griswold established a right to privacy from gov intrusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, peter45 said:

Do you mean that an economy running on "borrowed" Federal Reserve dollars,

with stock prices artificially inflated by corporate "buy backs" which funnel dollars that used to be paid in dividends into ever increasing stock prices,

which profits those who reap capital gains,

and screw the middle class mope who is saving for retirement,

isn't Capitalism?

 

Maybe it is "capitalism".

 

Remember the good old days?

When an economy generated its own dollars for expansion,

instead of relying on the Central Bank for financing?

 

The Central Bank for financing an economy!

Isn't that an idea that the old communist economies were fond of?

By the collapse of capitalism I mean the idea behind capitalism. Working hard and managing prudently. That collapsed when reckless gamblers like AIG and Lehman and Goldman got bailed out with no strings attached. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Zaro said:

How did you feel about abortion before you were born?

 

That's a brilliant question. I'll steal it. ☺️

 

37 minutes ago, Zaro said:

By the collapse of capitalism I mean the idea behind capitalism. Working hard and managing prudently. That collapsed when reckless gamblers like AIG and Lehman and Goldman got bailed out with no strings attached. 

 

Actually, it didn't. When the stock market tool a dip in 2008/2009 I lost some money. It all came back. Actually, I'm more worried now with Trump's protectionism than I was at the time of the Bush crash. Bush was merely incompetent, but Trump is doing active damage, particularly to world trade. 

 

I kept stuffing my 401K to the max. I'm still prudent in what I spend. The result should be financial stability in retirement.

 

Trump can damage that, but can't destroy it. People of science and engineering continue to create sellable value in the world no matter how much stupid people denigrate those efforts. The engine of capitalism is changing, but the principle is solid.

 

What it needs is regulation, and that's one area where Trump is terrible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zaro said:

Roe rests on Griswold v Connecticut. Griswold established a right to privacy from gov intrusion.

Knowing the HOW, missing the WHY.

 

There is always a WHY.

 

Liberals get bogged down debating the HOW, which is what the owners of "conservatism" want,

 

so they don't talk about the WHY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Liberals want to stick their heads in the sand, and pretend that nobody made money as a result of abortion being made legal?

 

Drug companies

Medical facilities

 

If Liberals present the profit motive to "conservatives",

the "conservatives" then would need to deal with two of their sacred cows being in conflict with each other.

PRO-BUSINESS, making money from the abortion/birth control pill industry.

PRO-RELIGION, supposedly AGAINST abortion.

 

The logical consequence being that the "conservatives" heads should explode,

assuming,

probably falsely,

that they actually attempt to think logically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, would Liberals be upset to recognize that "pro-choice" is actually pro-business?

 

Except that "pro-choice" is also "keep your nose out of my business", which is exactly the type of pro-business that a Liberal should support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peter45 said:

Knowing the HOW, missing the WHY.

 

There is always a WHY.

 

Liberals get bogged down debating the HOW, which is what the owners of "conservatism" want,

 

so they don't talk about the WHY.

 

The WHY in this case is because the Supreme Court justices felt the constitution did not grant the government the power to limit abortion early in the pregnancy, and therefore protected is as a freedom. It's hard to say what role recognizing public opinion shifting that direction played, though it usually has some role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peter45 said:

Do Liberals want to stick their heads in the sand, and pretend that nobody made money as a result of abortion being made legal?

 

No. But what you don't seem to understand is that not every bit of profit decided policy, and that the value of the votes being anti-abortion gives Republicans is far more valuable to them than any profit motive.

In fact, they're getting no political benefit from that profit motive as the people making money from abortions almost exclusively support Democrats. Republicans get TRILLIONS of dollars for their donors by getting elected, and THAT is far more their motive than any profits from abortion.

 

And at that time, the Supreme Court was motivated more by its legal theories than any 'profit motives', though the right has radicalized/corrupted the court ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×