Trump releases statement on abortion

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

I'm sorry but why is he wrong about this? Abortion, like religion, is a controversial topic and there are no "right" or "wrongs." In MY opinion, abortion should be banned AND punished like he first said.

[Whispering 18,865]

17 minutes ago, NickARTPOP said:

It is legal everywhere but many states have passed legislation that make it almost impossible to get one. 

Not impossible, just more difficult to get after twenty weeks in some states. 

[Whispering 18,865]

27 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Women love him!

No, they don't. The polls show that even the Republican women don't. 

Women's Opinion of Trump amoung registered voters: Unfavorable is 73 per cent. 

[jezze0410 395]

Excuse me, am I missing something here, or is he just stating the obvious, viz. that IF abortion were to be ruled illegal on either the state or federal level, THEN there would be some punishment if the law were broken. He also clarifies that the legal responsibility would lie with the medical practitioner, not with the woman. 

While much of what comes out of this man's mouth is garbage, taking everything he says out of context and sensationalising it will simply add fuel to his supporters (and he knows this).

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

11 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

Excuse me, am I missing something here, or is he just stating the obvious, viz. that IF abortion were to be ruled illegal on either the state or federal level, THEN there would be some punishment if the law were broken. He also clarifies that the legal responsibility would lie with the medical practitioner, not with the woman. 

While much of what comes out of this man's mouth is garbage, taking everything he says out of context and sensationalising it will simply add fuel to his supporters (and he knows this).

The point is that this is a revision of his previous statement, which was that the person having the abortion should be punished.

Weirdly enough, the logic behind only punishing the medical practitioner is almost akin to the point about abortion being an inevitability because of bodily autonomy and self preservation  I don't actually see why, if abortion were illegal you wouldn't punish the person seeking out one?  Like obviously, I can't see abortion EVER becoming illegal in this country again, because outlawing it would violate a fundamental human right to control what happens to one's own body (sorry pro-life people  ) but the law punishes people who seek out illegal activities or things, so is saying "only the doctors would be punished!" an attempt to appease women or sympathetic men or something?  Like, it almost recognizes the struggle women face and goes easy on them.

I can't think of an objective legal standpoint in which case an action is illegal and only the person facilitating that action is punished instead of that person AND the person attempting (or succeeding) said action.

Unless its just the patriarchy in action and we just want to "save" women from legal trouble because of the "amazing gift" they have to give birth that's just "SO" important to society  How condescending tbh.

[jezze0410 395]

25 minutes ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

The point is that this is a revision of his previous statement, which was that the person having the abortion should be punished.

Weirdly enough, the logic behind only punishing the medical practitioner is almost akin to the point about abortion being an inevitability because of bodily autonomy and self preservation  I don't actually see why, if abortion were illegal you wouldn't punish the person seeking out one?  Like obviously, I can't see abortion EVER becoming illegal in this country again, because outlawing it would violate a fundamental human right to control what happens to one's own body (sorry pro-life people  ) but the law punishes people who seek out illegal activities or things, so is saying "only the doctors would be punished!" an attempt to appease women or sympathetic men or something?  Like, it almost recognizes the struggle women face and goes easy on them.

I can't think of an objective legal standpoint in which case an action is illegal and only the person facilitating that action is punished instead of that person AND the person attempting (or succeeding) said action.

Unless its just the patriarchy in action and we just want to "save" women from legal trouble because of the "amazing gift" they have to give birth that's just "SO" important to society  How condescending tbh.

I was judging the statement in isolation; even greater (well, less bad) politicians than he say silly things, and I find retractions and revisions much more interesting  

Just taking the statement in isolation, I guess the illegal act would be PROVIDING abortion-related services rather than the abortion itself. The medical practitioner-patient relationship would be akin to that between a marijuana seller and and consumer; the dealer is in breach of the law, but the consumer is let off with a warning (in the UK, at least). Not a perfect analogy, but similar enough to make my point, which by now has escaped even me 

And while I agree with you entirely regarding personal autonomy, one ought always to bear in mind that there is still a great deal of debate about what exactly constitutes a person; depending on one's definitions, abortion could easily cease to be a matter of personal autonomy. I've always found the "pro-choice" "pro-life" distinction to be woefully inadequate at capturing the nuances of this issue...

But let's not hijack this thread and turn it into yet another abortion debate 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

22 hours ago, jezze0410 said:

I was judging the statement in isolation; even greater (well, less bad) politicians than he say silly things, and I find retractions and revisions much more interesting  

Just taking the statement in isolation, I guess the illegal act would be PROVIDING abortion-related services rather than the abortion itself. The medical practitioner-patient relationship would be akin to that between a marijuana seller and and consumer; the dealer is in breach of the law, but the consumer is let off with a warning (in the UK, at least). Not a perfect analogy, but similar enough to make my point, which by now has escaped even me 

And while I agree with you entirely regarding personal autonomy, one ought always to bear in mind that there is still a great deal of debate about what exactly constitutes a person; depending on one's definitions, abortion could easily cease to be a matter of personal autonomy. I've always found the "pro-choice" "pro-life" distinction to be woefully inadequate at capturing the nuances of this issue...

But let's not hijack this thread and turn it into yet another abortion debate 

The point of this argument is that it doesn't encounter that set back. Even another human being does not have the right to use your body; the common thought experiment of providing bone marrow, blood transfusions, an extra kidney, etc. to another person that could save their life, even your own relative; you aren't required to provide it by bodily autonomy, so even if the fetus is "a person" (legally, as medically thats all up in the air  ) it shouldn't matter.

I tend to hijack every thread and turn it into an at least semi-relative debate tbh  

Anyway, i get your point about the dealer/consumer, I hadn't thought of it like that. I'm not sure how the U.S. deals with that; in some parts of the country, even possession is illegal, along with using it, and in others its totally legal and stimulating the economy  America  

[TiphEret 1,320]

23 hours ago, Ferrer Zorola said:

I'm sorry but why is he wrong about this? Abortion, like religion, is a controversial topic and there are no "right" or "wrongs." In MY opinion, abortion should be banned AND punished like he first said.

Well that's your opinion and I don't know if you are a male or a female but it's very easy to speak about such situations when you don't have to face them. if you are against abortions you also have the option to NOT do it. for f** sake why is it so hard to let woman have freedom over their body. It's 2016, we aren't property and I don't see why someone like Trump should tell me what to do if I ever get pregnant. 

[jezze0410 395]

43 minutes ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

The point of this argument is that it doesn't encounter that set back. Even another human being does not have the right to use your body; the common thought experiment of providing bone marrow, blood transfusions, an extra kidney, etc. to another person that could save their life, even your own relative; you aren't required to provide it by bodily autonomy, so even if the fetus is "a person" (legally, as medically thats all up in the air  ) it shouldn't matter.

Having just written the paragraphs that follow, I felt the need to preface it by stating that I wrote it from a purely academic perspective, under the assumption, as you did in the thought experiment, that the foetus is every bit as much a person as the mother. Without this preface, I fear that I might come across as some maniacal pro-lifer, which I am not. 

What your thought experiment illustrates is that it is not illegal not to save another person, i.e. Clough's famous "Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive". This is an act of omission, which is passive in nature. In the case of an abortion, the foetus's life is actively terminated. While not pushing someone off a train track as a train approaches is not a crime (though morally reprehensible), actively talking someone into standing on the track is. Watching someone drown is not illegal, but holding someone's head underwater until he suffocates is.

I would also raise the point that, if your thought experiment were completely analogous to abortion, it would be quite detrimental to the image of those who seek abortion. Not providing a relative a life-saving transplant would be seen by most to be quite atrocious behaviour, unless the transplant would adversely affect the potential donor's health. Surely your thought experiment would turn people into "pro-life with exception"ers?

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

41 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

Having just written the paragraphs that follow, I felt the need to preface it by stating that I wrote it from a purely academic perspective, under the assumption, as you did in the thought experiment, that the foetus is every bit as much a person as the mother. Without this preface, I fear that I might come across as some maniacal pro-lifer, which I am not. 

What your thought experiment illustrates is that it is not illegal not to save another person, i.e. Clough's famous "Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive". This is an act of omission, which is passive in nature. In the case of an abortion, the foetus's life is actively terminated. While not pushing someone off a train track as a train approaches is not a crime (though morally reprehensible), actively talking someone into standing on the track is. Watching someone drown is not illegal, but holding someone's head underwater until he suffocates is.

I would also raise the point that, if your thought experiment were completely analogous to abortion, it would be quite detrimental to the image of those who seek abortion. Not providing a relative a life-saving transplant would be seen by most to be quite atrocious behaviour, unless the transplant would adversely affect the potential donor's health. Surely your thought experiment would turn people into "pro-life with exception"ers?

 

It's not really my thought experiment, or really my own personal reason for being pro-choice (as if my opinion matters on the subject though really  ), just a popular one I see thrown around all of the time, so its possible I've misrepresented it on some level  

The argument, as I know it isn't really "that" concerned with the death of the fetus, but the termination of the pregnancy; that those are one in the same is a matter of current science. I often hear the question from men on the internet "if women could have abortions/terminate their pregnancies without killing the child, would they? Could we make that a legal requirement?" and honestly its very up in the air.There's also the issue of viability outside the womb, so we get the whole test-tube abortion idea, to which some suggest that this would require giving women the right to abandon their ownership* of the child in a way that is not merely abortion or surrendering the child to the state, both of which may be all kinds of problematic. I'd like to say many women would readily let the fetus have a life if they were not the parent for that child, but its tricky business  

I just know that I believe women have a right to decide what they do with their bodies for a hell of a lot of reasons, some informed by natural law and many by the society we live in. 

Anyway, the arguments for legal recognition of personhood for the fetus are pretty sketchy and many don't hold up to scrutiny, so we may be arguing a moot point  

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

On 31 de marzo de 2016 at 8:12 PM, TiphEret said:

Well that's your opinion and I don't know if you are a male or a female but it's very easy to speak about such situations when you don't have to face them. if you are against abortions you also have the option to NOT do it. for f** sake why is it so hard to let woman have freedom over their body. It's 2016, we aren't property and I don't see why someone like Trump should tell me what to do if I ever get pregnant. 

because, you egotistical ...ggd user... are the one pregnant but you don't get to decide over another being's LIFE you're nothing more than a vehicle and that doesn't give you the power to play God and decide if a little one deserves or not to live, give it f*cking away, nobody cares about what YOU do. People in favor of abortions claim that babies that are abandoned have miserable lives, as if it were a fact, besides, at least they get to have one. And yes it counts as a life even if it's less than 8 weeks old. 

[President Biden 5,898]

On March 31, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Ferrer Zorola said:

I'm sorry but why is he wrong about this? Abortion, like religion, is a controversial topic and there are no "right" or "wrongs." In MY opinion, abortion should be banned AND punished like he first said.

If you don't support abortion then I'd like you to support funding childcare, maternity leaves, and orphanages because finically it's difficult to raise a child and while you can force someone to give birth you can't make them raise a kid unless we were to be communist

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

15 minutes ago, Bernie Sanders said:

If you don't support abortion then I'd like you to support funding childcare, maternity leaves, and orphanages because finically it's difficult to raise a child and while you can force someone to give birth you can't make them raise a kid unless we were to be communist

if you read my other reply you'd know I support them? why wouldn't I? 

[President Biden 5,898]

4 minutes ago, Ferrer Zorola said:

if you read my other reply you'd know I support them? why wouldn't I? 

Good. Atleast you have a reason and good ideas if we had to ban abortion even tho I disagree

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

16 minutes ago, Bernie Sanders said:

Good. Atleast you have a reason and good ideas if we had to ban abortion even tho I disagree

why can't I give you a like wtf .-.