1
10

[–] HighfalutinNakabear 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

What is this thought out and reasoned position article? Get out of here with your non-partisan sensible ways, we're here to fling shit at each other. /s

0
3

[–] anoneko 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

All-acceptance and "look how considerate I am" does not necessarily mean it's a correct point of view. Contrary to popular opinion there can be too much of being moderate - or indifferent and opinionless, rather.

0
3

[–] HighfalutinNakabear 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I thought the article simply did a good job of assessing a continual and often emotional debate in a way that was respectful of both sides and acknowledged the merits of both positions. This is something we should value in the polis. Hyper-partisanship serves no constructive purpose, like it or not our system is designed to work on compromise so from the objective middle is often the best place to assess an issue from. I also didn't get that the object of the article was apathy or indifference, rather that the limbo of compromise we have in abortion policy now is at the very least a working solution. Efforts to polarize the issue would only diminish the progress made on the issue IMO.

1
0

[–] CipherEnigma 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

What is "a correct point of view"?

0
9

[–] NotPolice 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I think (mostly) everyone thinks like this, aside from those who are directly campaigning for one side or the other. I get that the author wants to declare that being totally on one side is foolish, but it's just fluff. Give us some thoughts on a solution for the problem, because all I see is praise for the status quo: the three month limit on abortions.

0
2

[–] meemers 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Isn't that what they're saying, though? That what we have on the books currently is a good solution and doesn't need to be changed -- which is a different stance than what you see being splattered across the news as of late.

I kind of thought this article was refreshing, probably because it's the first I've read in awhile that reflects my own thoughts -- all I seem to see lately is "no more baby parts!" or "the GOP hates women!" Things aren't so black and white.

0
6

[–] SrSysEng 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I do not like how Abortion has become a method of birth control.

0
4

[–] VanGoghingSomewhere 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

more black fetuses were aborted in the US last year than born

0
2

[–] jeegte12 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You better provide a source for that shit.

1
2

[–] SrSysEng 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Planned Parenthood, proud sponsor of Eugenics. There is an agenda there, for sure.

0
6

[–] gota_party 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I'm pro-man. If he didn't consent to paying for the child, he shouldn't have to.

0
3

[–] wilwilwesly 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Agreed a woman can choose to get or not get an abortion regardless of what the man thinks. In my opinion men should be able to voluntarily opt out of custody but only before the child is born.

1
5

[–] edthomson92 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

I'm on the left side of the debate, always have been. I've always thought trimesters (2-trimester limit seems right) were a good measurement for the sake of cruelty to the fetus/child (your choice of term). Killing a newborn and calling it an abortion wrong. That's murder, and there's always adoption, if it comes to that.

My stance is overpopulation is bad and stem cell research is good, so if a mother wants to end her pregnancy, a lot of good can come from it.

0
4

[–] green_man 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

4
4

[–] greycloud 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

i am pro death. the whole debate refuses to see my side of the debate. so yes, false dichotomy. i believe that we should force more teenage girls to get abortions whether they want to keep it or not. i think there should be a test that is mandatory to pass before you are even allowed to have a kid. i believe that every unwanted child is a crime against that child, and they would be better off aborted. and i think that no child should be born into an environment where they could be reasonably expected to be; abused, neglected, become the victim of violent crime, starve to death, or any other traumatic experience that would make them suicidal (better to have never experienced life than to have experienced it and reject it).

the world would be a better place if every child who was born was born to parents that loved the child, and had the ability to care for that child emotionally, intelligently, and economically.

0
4

[–] epsilona01 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Only one problem that I have with that.. I don't trust anyone enough to have the say over who gets to have a child or not. I don't trust the govt enough for them to say who gets to have guns and who doesn't, I certainly wouldn't trust them for this.

0
1

[–] greycloud 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

yeah, that is the technical challenge. i think the test should be a result of true democratic vote and should be revamped by democratic vote every few years to change with society. the problem is that no true democracy exists and bad actors could damage the results and skew the test. on paper it works, but the reality would play out differently. i imagine that sometime in the future it will become possible.

0
1

[–] weezkitty 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

i believe that we should force more teenage girls to get abortions whether they want to keep it or not.

So you can have sex with them more, right?

Let me get this straight, you want to abolish the age of consent yet you want the government to decide to kill all babies born to mothers under x years old. While I don't think kids should be having kids, that is an asinine position

0
0

[–] greycloud 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

i would expect that parents would be watching out for their kids under such a system (all children are children of responsible caring parents who have the ability to watch out for their children). it may be an asinine position to want people to have power over their own choices and the ability to make good choices, but that is my stance.

1
-1

[–] thenerd 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

you forgot the \s

[–] [deleted] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Alopix 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

His opinion might be way out there and flawed, but you only posted to say "shut up." If you want discussion restricted to people who agree with you only, go back to Reddit.

0
2

[–] goatboy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am pro-chaos. It's a religious position, since I worship She- mother of death, chaos, irony, and entropy. Whatever position will cause the most chaos or irony is the position I stand for, because both are manifestations of my goddess. If you try to silence me, then you are violating my religious rights and customs.

Do not judge me too harshly. My goddess has her finger on every proton in the universe and will snuff each one out eventually... unless it's her will to be ironic and reverse entropy- at which point She would transform into a goddess of creation and irony.

load more comments ▼ (11 remaining)