• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

GOP new anti-abortion platform

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
But the mother has rights too, and when the law is potentially putting her life in danger because she isn't as "important" as the child, and she doesn't even have a choice in the matter, she is definitely being oppressed. This law could prevent women from saving their own lives!

I mean look, i'm very, very pro-choice. But even i understand mentality, incredibly strongly disagree with, but understand the mentality regardless of the whole not allowing abortions for rape/incest etc. As incredibly wrong and cruel and oppressive as i think it may be, i get it that certain people see the baby as a person and see it as murder.
I thinik the difference between you and I is that I just don't see prohibiting a woman from killing an unborn child as cruel and oppressive. I understand the mentality as well, I understanding forcing a woman to carry a child to term that is the result of incest or rape could be traumatic and while I am against abortion I do agree with laws that allow certain exceptions. But, I just don't see not allowing those exceptions as cruel because I view the unborn child as exactly that, an unborn child, a human being.



You don't need a crystal ball, you have research and statistics. There has been lots of research that shows the ineffectiveness of laws preventing abortion, including that recent enough one i posted earlier and another quite recent report from the UN calling for abortion rights, as outlawing abortion is both dangerous and ineffective UN report calls for abortion rights
That's still based on here in the US if abortion were suddenly made illegal. It's based on a projection. Nevertheless, what people's response would be is irrelevant of whether it should be legal or not.
 

wooly

I am the woolrus
I thinik the difference between you and I is that I just don't see prohibiting a woman from killing an unborn child as cruel and oppressive. I understand the mentality as well, I understanding forcing a woman to carry a child to term that is the result of incest or rape could be traumatic and while I am against abortion I do agree with laws that allow certain exceptions. But, I just don't see not allowing those exceptions as cruel because I view the unborn child as exactly that, an unborn child, a human being.
I know, like i said i realise we just have different views on the cruelty or oppressiveness of outlawing abortion in case of incest or rape. While i may think it is cruel and oppressive, i understand the mentality of people who don't and why they would come to that conclusion.

But the main point of my post was that this new proposed course the republicans are aiming for when it comes to abortion legislation, which includes outlawing abortion even if the mothers health is threatened by the pregnancy, is clearly and undeniably cruel and oppressive. It's denying women their basic human rights, and there is NO understanding the support behind such a law.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
I've read this thread, but even if we pass over the issue of rape pregnancies, I still don't see any decent argument here whatsoever as to why abortions should be denied to women whose lives are in danger.

Directly from the OP:

Like the Akin-Ryan bill, the “personhood” amendment envisioned by the GOP platform would contain [red]no exceptions to its bans on abortion,[/red] even for rape or incest.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
That's my problem with it, no exceptions, not even rape, the life of the mother or severe birth defects in the fetus. Lots of people would like to see welfare gotten rid of and any baby born with severe handicaps are going to spend their lives on welfare and most likely institutionalized, the parents aren't going to live forever.

It could even make IUD's and other forms of birth control illegal including the morning after pill. With a planet facing overpopulation do we really need birth control made illegal.

I guess we could always cull the masses with war over water, food or other natural resources.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
If we look at life threatening gestation, it would be 90% of full term pregnancies. Bearing a baby is a dangerous thing. It does devastating things to a woman's cardio, skeletal, muscles, internal organs, you name it. All sorts of provisions are made to get high risk pregnancies to completion. At delivery you'd have to abort many fully developed babies because that event in itself could be life threatening. So....define when the mother is in "danger".
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
The Democrat platform supports (or did support until recently) late term abortions. Which most people would say is just pure evil. I just bring it up because the only solution on abortion is a compromise between the 2 sides. I don't know what that solution is. Maybe let states decide or only legal during 1st trimester after counseling.

Part of negotiating is taking a stance on an issue that you know you will never get, so maybe that's part of the reason for the 2 positions. Of course part of fundraising is taking positions that excite your base, so it all could be about money. I generally agree that all abortion should be illegal, but I'm not going to donate any money to the RNC so, it didn't work on me.
This is exactly right, they're taking a stance on an issue they know they will never get. And to be fair this language has been part of the platform since about '00 or '04, and Romney has stated he believes in the exceptions of incest and rape.
 

Rowan

Registered Member
I am not christian. I am pagan. but I am against abortion for the most part. I think that if an abortion happens it should be SO MUCH EARLIER! It should still be a Zygote. Once it hits the stage in which it is a Fetus I disagree with it. So I feel perhaps abortion should be within the first 4 weeks as a limit rather than so many months.

Anything with a heartbeat, brain activity and developing organs with identifiable human features is (IMHO) not simply a mass of cells. Though to get technical about it we are all nothing but a pile of cells. So I have never understood this argument. And personally I feel abortion should only be legal in cases of rape and incest. And if it is rape there needs to be an investiation and report.

the only thing that might get me really flamed is that I feel if a woman is raped and doesn't report it.........the rape isn't her fault but the preganancy is. Not reporting rape (which is really really really common unfortunatly) is the biggest hinderance to getting justice for rape victimes. But I understand that its difficult to come forward. However this is the only fair way to stop people frmo simply saying
"Oh I was raped please give me an abortion" when she was not raped. If the law went into effect stopping all abortions except rape then I would predict a large increase of supposid "rapes".

Though to clarify I do not believe rape is a light topic but do I beileve someone would lie about it to get an abortion.......quite possibly. There are really screwy people in the world. Not everyone is like that thankfully.
 

wooly

I am the woolrus
I feel perhaps abortion should be within the first 4 weeks as a limit rather than so many months.
Well then you may as well just say you're just against abortion, because women generally don't know they are pregnant until at least week 4. The majority of women find out from about 4-8 weeks.

the only thing that might get me really flamed is that I feel if a woman is raped and doesn't report it.........the rape isn't her fault but the preganancy is.
:-o

There are really screwy people in the world.
Yeah.... You're uh... You're right about that.
 
Last edited:
Top