Why are Americans so obsessed with abortion

You stated elsewhere that you couldn't be bothered to do research.

 

Do they .. then perhaps you can explain how I came to be pro-choice, considering the fact that for over 20 years I was pro-life and it was only when I did actually start doing the research - and not just following what pro-life propaganda told me - that I realized that the whole pro-life agenda was based on religious BS and a need for control.

Political websites will only get you so far, and they will ALWAYS be slanted to suit their political agenda.

Aint that the truth!!!

Are they .. then you should have no trouble what so ever of producing a post of mine that assumes the premise and has other fallacies in it .. please do.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

""""""""""""""Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

You stated elsewhere that you couldn't be bothered to do research."""""""""""""""""""

Check out bolded above.....make up your mind.

 

I do research from sources that I agree with me.

 

That is your problem. If you ONLY read things that agree with you, you will never expand your mind, learn new things, or understand where others are coming from. If your opinions cannot hold up in the face of contrary opinions, maybe you should think about changing them.

 

That isn't research...it's safety and verification.

 

and here is the crux of your problem, you only ever use sources that agree with you . .why? .. are you afraid to look at sources that don't agree with you, are you afraid that they may actually cause you to question your own beliefs.

Unless you are prepared to look at the arguments and evidence from ALL sources you will NEVER be able to have a balanced opinion or argument.

 

What does safety and verification mean?

 

Oh stop it....that's really getting old and boring...if you can't comment, don't.

 

It's funny you criticize me for doing that, when you probably do that.

- - - Updated - - -

I did comment.

 

Just how many times do you have to be told that people are not here to be your personal dictionary, you have a computer and you obviously know how to use it . .so do so, and bloody google things you don't know or understand or would that violate your only looking at things that agree with you.

 

Totally irrelevant. FoxHastings used a word that I literally understood the meaning of, but I didn't understand the context of using two words in a connected way that he was using.

I haven't heard that phrase since I watched harry potter when i was younger. you sound like ron.

 

He is from England...same as Harry Potter and friends. =/

 

I know. But it's still kinda ironic and funny that he used that phrase.

 

How is it ironic? It's a common turn of phrase in the UK.

 

Because the only time I've heard it use is in harry potter, and I haven't watched those childish fantasy movies in years.

 

Ok.

Well Sam, at least try using Google a little more when you have questions about what a word means. If you don't like Google then try Bing or some of the other thousands of search engines.

 

That is where your confusion lies. You think it has something to do with the uterus. That argument is used to distract from the real issue at hand---when is it ok to kill a human life, an offspring, a child...at whim. It seems to be more accept in the U.K but you have had your controversies. If I am not mistaken---legal abortion because the child has some sort of medical problem is not seen by all your countrymen as an ok thing. But I am sure it helps cut medical costs.

The reason it is such a political and raging issue here, is because it used to be and should be an issue left up to our individual states. Deciding when human life can be disposed of is not something for a few judges to decide.

I believe before Roe vs Wade--there was no controversy or political process accept from abortion activists who sued until they found a friendly court. But it was a wrong decision and not decided according to the standard of the constitution, but according to opinion.

 

No, you are the one who is confused if you think the abortion issue has nothing to do with a woman's uterus, her autonomy, and HER life.

The point at which the zef becomes significant life has been the subject of debate for all of time, with no established consensus. It remains a matter of opinion, so who gets to decide?

It is a raging political issue mostly because some religious leaders are using it for political gain. They chose the abortion issue at random for the purpose of galvanizing their base and acquiring more power.

No, it is a fact no evidence was found that the founders meant to include fetuses as persons. And why should they have? That notion was conceived much later by patriarchal religious leaders.

 

I am not criticizing you, I am responding to your statement and offering advice, and of course you are perfectly entitled to think what you like about me .. the reality is a whole lot different.

 

No what is totally irrelevant is you continuously asking people what something means simply because you are to lazy to look yourself, either that or you are incompetent . .which is it?

and do you really think your pathetic attempt at humor and insult really means anything to me .. if you do you are deluded.

 

The only confusion here lies with you and other pro-lifers, there is certainly no confusion about the fact that a person has the right to defend their body from unconsented injury and as the uterus IS part of the woman she has every right to decide who or what uses it.
The US self-defense right is one of the few things that over rides another persons right to life, and you want to remove that right from a specific proportion of the population.

No different to the "whim" of killing any other person that is injuring another without consent. You tell me when it is OK to kill a human life . .do you think that taking another life is ok when the life is injuring you without your consent because if you don;t then you had better start a campaign to rescind self-defense laws.

no where near how it is in the US, probably because our religious people don't try to influence politics to suit their own aims and, for the most, the people of the UK understand the issue a whole lot better.

The majority of the UK want the current limits on abortion to remain as they are - http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/y4asheswh1/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-13-150112.pdf - Page 12

Which is irrelevant.

So can I assume that you do not wish for a blanket ban on abortion and advocate for it to be returned to the individual states? Tell me what do you think this will achieve, do you think it will reduce the number of abortions happening when a woman can quite legally cross the state line into one that allows abortion or is it more a fact that the only people it would effect are those at the lowest end of the poverty scale, the ones in the position where more children is only going to make their position worse, and increase the tax burden to fund an increase in the welfare state.

Abortion was as wildly spread before Roe as it was after, the only difference Roe made was to stop the persecution of woman who choose to get an abortion, and even the Roe decision was taken from previous decisions concerning privacy, such as Griswold v. Connecticut.

 

Not all pro lifers are religious. What you say only applies to SOME pro lifers.

Same thing could be said about the political sites you get your facts from.

What relevancy does a personal insult have to do a political discussion?

 

The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are religious, even though their views are not based on the Bible, but rather, they are based on INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible by patriarchal religious leaders.