Saturday, July 13, 2013

The Abortion Debate, Driven by Emotion on Both Sides of the Issue...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Debate over a women's reproductive rights, or put another way the right of a woman to select abortion continues. This nation, as a result of the SCOTUS 1973 decision legalizing abortion took the back alley abortion practice that was all to common before 1973 off the table. This was certainly a humane positive move forward.

Yet here we are today in the month of July 2013 even more polarized and irrationally inclined than perhaps we were in 1973.

Any reasonable and rational individual recognizes that abortion, certainly for the purpose of this discussion, means to terminate a developing fetus and thus the potential for human life. These same reasonable and rational individuals also realize that prior to a certain point in gestation the developing fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb of the host female uterus, even with life support systems to keep it alive. Up until this point in gestation, typically accepted to be at or very near the 20th week (or 4.6 months), it seems reasonable for a women to have a free unfettered right to select an abortion.

It should be clear as well that for every rule, or piece of legislation, there must be provisions that recognize exceptions to the norm. Women who have late term pregnancy issue that threaten their life, the situation in which a women does not become aware of her pregnancy until after the 20 week benchmark (I know for a fact this happens because I have acquaintances and friends that this has happened to) are two examples that must protected in any legislation to be reasonable.

Further, the introducing invasive and unnecessary procedures for women selecting abortion is both unreasonable as well as dehumanizing. It is something any reasonable person should stand against. Just as unreasonable is the underhanded attempt to shut down clinics that provide reproductive counseling and abortions services during the 20 week threshold through legislation under the guise of insuring women's health. It is dishonest and wrong.

My byline states that both sides are driven by emotion and often allow passions to override reason. Until such time as both sides of the debate decide to come together and craft a rational and reasonable compromise that protects the right of a women to an abortion within certain "normal" parameters", as well well as recognizing there are reasonable exceptions that need to be recognized and written into legislation this debate will continue forever.

As unreasonable as the right can be, often the left can be as, or even worse. The following from a emotional unhinged leftist.

RN USA - "it totally escapes me why both extremes in this emotionally overheated debate prefer to talk (read scream) at each other rather than using reason to calmly work through the issues and arrive at a reasonable and workable compromise that works for the majority of women."

It totally escapes you because you have no fucking idea what it's like to be a woman, pregnant or barren. If you had some legislators in your state push through a law that said you had to have an invasive procedure (say a catheter up your penis) before you could HAVE a vasectomy, maybe then you'd have some notion of what it's like to be a woman who has a pregnancy that she wants to terminate--for any reason whatsoever. Maybe when they start throwing men who father children, then abadon them, in jail until their child is of legal age; when they start castratibg rapists, in public; when they start putting a telescope up the ass of every RWAMRA fuckwad that works to pass such laws as the one proposed in Texas, then MAYBE, I think those pieces-of-shit care about beings instead of scoring politica points. Fuck them.

Grow a uterus, get pregnant, have issues with your pregnancy--THEN you get to decide what's right for women re: controlling what goes on in their own bodies.

and continuing with this...

Irrational Nation-of-one-pants-wetting-liebertardlican:

You don't fucking get it, do you?

You DON'T have a vagina. You CAN'T get pregnant.

What you can do and have demonstrated in every comment on this subject is think that your amorphous and arbitrary definition (or anyone else's) of what a human is, is what should define a woman's right, under U.S. law, to control her own body. What is, moron? it is your FUCKING OPINION; it's not the definition of "human" under U.S. federal law, douchebag. Nor is abortion considered "murder" anywhere in this country--although idiots like you would be happy to see it defined as such.

The preceding diatribe personifies the extreme totally irrational and uncompromising left. The above comment was made on a respectable leftist blog whose administrators both apologized and handled the situation with integrity.

Make no mistake however there are those on the far right that are just as uncompromising and irrational as the lefty in question. An example of this can be found here.

Perhaps one day reason and commonsense will prevail. I for one am not holding my breath.

My apology for posting the rude and crude language that seems to be prevalent among the rabid left wing in America. I just thought you all should know in the event there was any doubt.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Row/Wade sets a reasonable, rational standard.

  2. The crude language was less disturbing than your attacker's resorting to pure unadulterated sexism instead of reason.

    1. This is not about "my attacker" at all. Rather it is about the complete lack of reasoned thinking and the inability of the frothing left and the rigid right to forge a reasonable solution to this forty year debate.

      I merely used the rant from the left and the link to highlight the irrational insanity of the extremes.

    2. I know, RN. I was thinking of it in general terms, not specific to your attacker. I have seen this exact same sort of sexist argument many many times before.

  3. I thought you had spoken your last on this?

    Of course, it's all about where we draw the line...

    @ RN: "prior to a certain point in gestation the developing fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb of the host female uterus, even with life support systems to keep it alive. Up until this point in gestation, typically accepted to be at or very near the 20th week (or 4.6 months), it seems reasonable for a women to have a free unfettered right to select an abortion."

    That's your standard. Before 20 weeks, genetically, she is still a human being.

    The same logic could be applied to a baby, which cannot feed itself and care for itself.

    A baby is... "incapable of surviving" on its own. "it seems reasonable for a women to have a free unfettered right to terminate it."

    I'm not trying to be provocative, but rather acknowledge that the differing standards are what fuel this debate.

    I am encouraged that many rational people seem to be rallying around drawing a line at the 20 week point; the European and Texas standard.

    1. Simply restating my consistent and reasonable position.

      I decided to further expose the duo extremes. Not that they haven't done a good job of doing that themselves. For those that are listening anyway.

  4. I've struggled with this issue for decades and have come to pretty much the same conclusion as you. Keep it legal in the first and early parts of the second trimester and then put restrictions on it. Neither side will be happy with it but it seems like the fairest thing to do.

  5. Good start on discussion that is civilized and without the extremes.

  6. When someone asks me if I am pro-choice, I always say, "Of course I am - I'm a man." What I mean is that I do not have a right at stake in the argument. I have no standing. This is not an "emotional" argument. It is a fact. Abortion has nothing to do with me. It can not harm me.

    The "emotional" argument is the argument against abortion, because it has no impact on those who are against it. The feel they do not like abortion. They feel that an embryo should be treated the same as a child. They feel that abortion is bad for the culture, or hurts other people, or just that it is against their religious beliefs, beliefs they feel we should all hold.

    Most people on the left and center agree that elective abortion should not be allowed beyond about half-way to term. That is because we do not believe that a fetus, prior to then, is a human being - and that is the direct point where we essentially diverge from the mostly right wing pro-life folks.

    As it is, it is not legal to have an elective abortion later than around half-way to term. Of the few abortions that happen after that, they are private medical matters, so we do not know why they happen, but are assured by legal accountability they are for valid medical reasons. Because we do not know the details of these private procedures it becomes easy for some on the right to make false assumptions about their nature and legitimacy, arguing without facts. Many prominent conservative figures have long taken this fact-less tac in the abortion debate.

    There would be no abortion debate as we know it without the mostly religious right pro-life movement. They are the antagonists. Whether in a good way or bad, depending on how you see it, that is what they are. They are the ones telling other people how to live their lives. The left is not culpable in this. We simply want people to be left to make their own decisions about their bodies within reason, as opposed to what we feel or believe.


    1. Well then, I guess you essentially agree with the points in the post?

      Extremes rarely are the proper choice, certainly not the best.

    2. @ Jersey: What I mean is that I do not have a right at stake in the argument. I have no standing. This is not an "emotional" argument. It is a fact. Abortion has nothing to do with me. It can not harm me.

      What an asinine comment.

      By the same logic, someone being robbed or murdered or subjected to human trafficking is of no concern to you either, since it's not happening to you.

      Although we disagree on where to draw the line, Les's reasoning is the rational path. Your 'reasoning' leads to an intellectual cul-de-sac, which is what happens to people who bow down to dogma (in your case, feminist claptrap) instead of evaluating available information and applying the light of reason.

      You damn yourself when you strawman your opponents. Opposition to abortion is all about feelings and emotions? Balderdash!

      The main argument is that it is scientifically provable that a fetus is a human being, with her own unique genome. All that stands between her and her murder is the lack of a Social Security number.

      I am respectful of thoughtful opposition to my views, because I have read the arguments and respectfully considered them. You should do the same.

      -- Silverfiddle

    3. Hey, Jerz, according to a National Journal poll, 50% of women support a national ban on late term abortion (44% do not and 6% are undecided). Is that cold hard fact good enough for you?......P.S. The real number probably would have been higher but the National Journal folks failed to mention that, in addition to there being an exception for rape and incest, there was also one for the life of the mother.

  7. Jersey's argument is overral irrational and sexist. As a thinking, reasoning human being, he has a right at stake. We all do. Men and women.


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.