The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

of course not. It's all about finding one exception after another.

That said, I answered your question here is one for you. Can we outlaw abortions regardless of term where the sperm donor and egg donor freely chose to have sex, are financially able to provide for the child (regardless of marital status), and have no life threatening (not quality of life) issues?

I was thinking it's more along the lines of finding reasonable compromise, not exceptions.

The choice in the pro choice part of me isn't a big fan of the restrictions you're proposing.

I'm totally fine with someone who is pro life, if that's what works for you.

But in the end I think everyone deserves to make the choice that works best for them vs having options taken away.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

I was thinking it's more along the lines of finding reasonable compromise, not exceptions.

The choice in the pro choice part of me isn't a big fan of the restrictions you're proposing.

I'm totally fine with someone who is pro life, if that's what works for you.

But in the end I think everyone deserves to make the choice that works best for them vs having options taken away.

And this is where my problem is, there is a life, that has 0 voice, that will have all of it's options taken away forever if someone doesn't speak for them. In the example I gave, 2 consenting adults, knowing they could conceive, have the ability to care for, and no risk to their life/health, still in your mind can choose to end the victim's life.

Because the unborn child is the victim of their selfish choices at that point.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

And this is where my problem is, there is a life, that has 0 voice, that will have all of it's options taken away forever if someone doesn't speak for them. In the example I gave, 2 consenting adults, knowing they could conceive, have the ability to care for, and no risk to their life/health, still in your mind can choose to end the victim's life.

Because the unborn child is the victim of their selfish choices at that point.

If only it was that black and white of a situation. Nothing is ever that clean cut and easy, you know that.

As we start to push towards restricting abortions or outright banning them in a lot of states, in response I'd ask what about universal health care, universal child care, paid leave for parents, etc. What about social service programs like head start, food stamps, heap, are we going to expand those programs too? Don't give me the sanctity of life routine if it doesn't involve actually providing for the kids after they are born. In these areas we have a lot of work to do.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

If only it was that black and white of a situation. Nothing is ever that clean cut and easy, you know that.

As we start to push towards restricting abortions or outright banning them in a lot of states, in response I'd ask what about universal health care, universal child care, paid leave for parents, etc. What about social service programs like head start, food stamps, heap, are we going to expand those programs too? Don't give me the sanctity of life routine if it doesn't involve actually providing for the kids after they are born. In these areas we have a lot of work to do.

I am on board with most all of that. Key is how it's paid for obviously. But I think all of it should start from the sanctity of life, or if sanctity offends, then the unique greatness of every life. That doesn't mean that life is fair, or even close to fair, but as much as we can, yes we should provide protection and care for those who are to weak to defend themselves. (I don't include a 21 yo male with no physical handicaps in the concept of being to weak to defend themselves). Sorry if that makes me a radical.