Abortion

This, 100%. Hence my previous statements that radicals on both sides do nothing but throw poison pills into what should be an easily resolvable issue. Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

How's that for a solution.

You guys have fun with this argument. To me, the chance of one side convincing the other side to agree with their viewpoint has about the same success rate as a Jewish person trying to convince a devoted Muslim to convert to Judaism. My point is you can't change one's core values on a topic like this so why bother trying regardless of which side you are on?

It's as silly as telling me to stop loving the sorry ass Cowboys and instead love the Eagles. That's blasphemy! Who should legislate that atrocity?

One minute. Forty seconds.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Lol. That's fascinating. But does it make sense as applied to humans? Before we had modern medicine, getting an abortion was risky. Given the risk to the life of the mother to get the extra calories, I don't see how there would be an evolutionary advantage, even in times of extreme famine. And in today’s world, the economics don’t justify it. It’s like hunting. It’s a lot cheaper and easier to just go to the supermarket.

He is. The article doesn’t consider many things, only accounting for a simple stitch job (actually not so simple, 3-4 hours under the microscope). There are many cases where sperm is not present at the vas, why the testical side is reopened first, and a much more complicated process of complete vascular rebuild, what can only be described in layman’s terms as a roto-rooter job, or throwing in the towel altogether.

Even if the process goes swimmingly, many times the patient needs constant steroid treatment which causes weight gain, facial changes from fat redistribution, moodiness and insomnia. None of the side effects are conducive of male attractiveness. Even with rare full sperm recovery, and a woman willing to overlook their new pudgy, miserable partner, the effectiveness can vary widely, typically in the range of 25-75%.

The process also requires an incredibly skilled surgeon, which many urologists are not. It’s difficulty is easily comparable to heart bypass or even strabismus (something only god level optometrists get right in one go). Describing it as tying your shoes is a huge slight to doctors who can successfully pull it off.

Obviously the article you site is totally legitimate, but it fails to consider anything but a perfect process. IMO, when all things are considered, 50% success is an overstatement. Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

Fair enough. That makes sense. I was curious why the Cleveland Clinic piece said the success rate of returning sperm to ejaculate was 60% to 95%, but pregnancy was possible "more than 50% of time after a reversal." You had the answer.

Lol. That's fascinating. But does it make sense as applied to humans? Before we had modern medicine, getting an abortion was risky. Given the risk to the life of the mother to get the extra calories, I don't see how there would be an evolutionary advantage, even in times of extreme famine. And in today’s world, the economics don’t justify it. It’s like hunting. It’s a lot cheaper and easier to just go to the supermarket. Originally Posted by Tiny

Extremism. I can't shy away from it. Wether as a ridiculous notion. Or an absurd reality.

Well then, Trump's 15 weeks makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe 12 weeks. To our friends who have substantially more conservative or liberal views, I'd say perfect is the enemy of good. Originally Posted by Tiny

This, 100%. Hence my previous statements that radicals on both sides do nothing but throw poison pills into what should be an easily resolvable issue. Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

You’re both right in this case. 15 weeks is a good compromise but even if it became law radical elements would still throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the works.

That is why ruling abortion was a constitutional right was the only real solution to the issue. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade they threw the baby out with the bath water. Even if a federal law was created with a limit of 15 weeks there is no guarantee that it would stay the law of the land. The anti abortion movement would pick and pick at it forever until it was either overturned or minimized until it became practically useless.

Trust is the stopping point. I think that democrats would have come to a reasonable compromise at some time in the past 50 years if only the other side had not proven themselves so completely and utterly untrustworthy. It’s my considered opinion that if they had a choice not only would abortion be outlawed but birth control would go right along side it.

There are many laws that reasonable people can compromise on there are some that can only be enforced via constitutional law.

Lol. That's fascinating. But does it make sense as applied to humans? Before we had modern medicine, getting an abortion was risky. Given the risk to the life of the mother to get the extra calories, I don't see how there would be an evolutionary advantage, even in times of extreme famine. And in today’s world, the economics don’t justify it. It’s like hunting. It’s a lot cheaper and easier to just go to the supermarket. Originally Posted by Tiny

It boils down to survival. As humans we don't live in survival mode to the extent we eat our young. The primary reason animals eat their young is because their off spring may be sick or deformed and are incapable of surviving on their own to thrive and reproduce. The mind set behind Abortion is not for survival but rather inconvenience.

It boils down to survival. As humans we don't live in survival mode to the extent we eat our young. The primary reason animals eat their young is because their off spring may be sick or deformed and are incapable of surviving on their own to thrive and reproduce. The mind set behind Abortion is not for survival but rather inconvenience. Originally Posted by Levianon17

What you term inconvenience is very subjective. If a family is having trouble feeding clothing and educating their three existing children having a fourth might not be the best option. Or a young person who just got into college, having a child might not be the best option for her at this point in time but maybe finishing school would allow her the opportunity to have and provide for a family in the future. People choose abortion for all kinds of reasons and I would think “inconvenience” is the last thing they are using to make their choice.

The point is that the choice should be theirs to make and not yours or anyone else’s.

P.S. Later term abortions happen all the time when fetal anomalies occur. At least humans can deal with the issue as humanely as possible. Or at least when they are allowed to.

What you term inconvenience is very subjective. If a family is having trouble feeding clothing and educating their three existing children having a fourth might not be the best option. Or a young person who just got into college, having a child might not be the best option for her at this point in time but maybe finishing school would allow her the opportunity to have and provide for a family in the future. People choose abortion for all kinds of reasons and I would think “inconvenience” is the last thing they are using to make their choice.

The point is that the choice should be theirs to make and not yours or anyone else’s.

P.S. Later term abortions happen all the time when fetal anomalies occur. At least humans can deal with the issue as humanely as possible. Or at least when they are allowed to. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

It's called inconvenience. That's what it is. There's Government Programs out there for mothers having difficult times financially, WIC, SNAP, Food Stamps ect.

What you term inconvenience is very subjective. If a family is having trouble feeding clothing and educating their three existing children having a fourth might not be the best option. Or a young person who just got into college, having a child might not be the best option for her at this point in time but maybe finishing school would allow her the opportunity to have and provide for a family in the future. People choose abortion for all kinds of reasons and I would think “inconvenience” is the last thing they are using to make their choice.

The point is that the choice should be theirs to make and not yours or anyone else’s.

P.S. Later term abortions happen all the time when fetal anomalies occur. At least humans can deal with the issue as humanely as possible. Or at least when they are allowed to. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

It's called inconvenience. That's what it is. There's Government Programs out there for mothers having difficult times financially, WIC, SNAP, Food Stamps ect. Originally Posted by Levianon17

I’m glad these programs are there for those that need them but they are merely things that she can use when making the decision that is best for her. When you make abortion a crime you take choices away. The arrogance of the pro-life movement always astounds me.

I’m glad these programs are there for those that need them but they are merely things that she can use when making the decision that is best for her. When you make abortion a crime you take choices away. The arrogance of the pro-life movement always astounds me. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Yeah, "Pro Life" what an arrogant concept.

You guys have fun with this argument. To me, the chance of one side convincing the other side to agree with their viewpoint has about the same success rate as a Jewish person trying to convince a devoted Muslim to convert to Judaism. My point is you can't change one's core values on a topic like this so why bother trying regardless of which side you are on?

It's as silly as telling me to stop loving the sorry ass Cowboys and instead love the Eagles. That's blasphemy! Who should legislate that atrocity? Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

What we're trying to do is more far reaching than that.

Too many get their news solely from Fox or MSNBC primetime. They haven't experienced the joy of independent thought. So we're deprogramming fellow board members, to think independently. Or that's what they'll think anyway.

Take Txdot for example. Through a combination of Socratic teaching and undetected (until now) subtle psychological manipulation, CreatedInSpace and I have managed to get him to a reasonable position on abortion while making him think it was his idea all along. Unfortunately he now believes the 15 weeks is a Democratic Party idea, fought tooth and nail by Republicans. So there's still work to do.

Please note at the same time, I've been highlighting that President Trump now favors on demand abortion up to 15 weeks. This is to get some of our pro-Trump Republican friends to come to the same conclusion as Txdot, that 15 weeks is reasonable. I used the same strategy with the COVID vaccine, stressing that Trump and his Operation Warp Speed helped accomplish a miracle that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. And President Trump encouraged people to get vaccinated. Anyway, that idea didn't work too well. I don't think they were persuaded. But maybe I'll have better luck this time.

If we're successful, we will have created the beginnings of a true uniparty, which hopefully will start here on eccie and then spread like wildfire through America! Two more years and we'll be united! Shoulder-to-shoulder, all singing Kumbaya!

You’re both right in this case. 15 weeks is a good compromise but even if it became law radical elements would still throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the works.

That is why ruling abortion was a constitutional right was the only real solution to the issue. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade they threw the baby out with the bath water. Even if a federal law was created with a limit of 15 weeks there is no guarantee that it would stay the law of the land. The anti abortion movement would pick and pick at it forever until it was either overturned or minimized until it became practically useless.

Trust is the stopping point. I think that democrats would have come to a reasonable compromise at some time in the past 50 years if only the other side had not proven themselves so completely and utterly untrustworthy. It’s my considered opinion that if they had a choice not only would abortion be outlawed but birth control would go right along side it.

There are many laws that reasonable people can compromise on there are some that can only be enforced via constitutional law. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

While as noted in my tongue-in-cheek reply to McCain above, I agree with your conclusion as to what kind of compromise is reasonable, I disagree with some of your other points. Most of the people in America who reject birth control are Catholics. And more Catholics are Democrats than Republicans:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religiou...y-affiliation/

Pro life Republicans would be huge hypocrites to try to impose a national abortion ban, given their universal applause for the states' rights argument used by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. And yes, some, like Lindsey Graham, are huge hypocrites. But I really don't see Republicans trying to do that, and in any event a ban would never get through Congress and signed into law. And if it were, would it be Constitutional? Didn't Dobbs determine the states should decide on abortion laws?

I believe both sides are culpable here, and it's not fair to just blame Republicans. As I believe Levianon has said, the politicians want to divide us.

It's called inconvenience. That's what it is. There's Government Programs out there for mothers having difficult times financially, WIC, SNAP, Food Stamps ect. Originally Posted by Levianon17

That's probably part of the reason why posters like Winn Dixie and the Waco Kid who lean Republican are strongly pro-choice. It's part of why I am, within certain limits. I'd rather not see young women forced onto government assistance. Better to let them complete their educations, start careers, then have children they and the fathers plan to have.

Going back to post 97 in this thread, the best solution is pushing contraception and sex education, so that women aren't getting knocked up unless they want children.

That's probably part of the reason why posters like Winn Dixie and the Waco Kid who lean Republican are strongly pro-choice. It's part of why I am, within certain limits. I'd rather not see young women forced onto government assistance. Better to let them complete their educations, start careers, then have children they and the fathers plan to have.

Going back to post 97 in this thread, the best solution is pushing contraception and sex education, so that women aren't getting knocked up unless they want children. Originally Posted by Tiny

Well that's on them. My views on Abortion are not political. I am not a Republican, I am actually a registered Democrat. I am not Liberal or "Woke" as most Democrats are these days. I am also a Christian. I have a clear sense between what's right and whats wrong and that's what guides my decisions. So when I hear views on Abortion as it's a choice or a right. I really don't want to hear that bullshit because that kind of talk stems from Political talking points and Politics means nothing to me on this subject.

Well that's on them. My views on Abortion are not political. I am not a Republican, I am actually a registered Democrat. I am not Liberal or "Woke" as most Democrats are these days. I am also a Christian. I have a clear sense between what's right and whats wrong and that's what guides my decisions. So when I hear views on Abortion as it's a choice or a right. I really don't want to hear that bullshit because that kind of talk stems from Political talking points and Politics means nothing to me on this subject. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Why is abortion clearly wrong?

Please see eccieuser's eating babies links. If God created hamsters that devour some of their young, why should we necessarily believe she'd disapprove of aborting a fetus that weighs less than 0.5 ounces? That's the average weight at 12 weeks from what I'm Googling.