## Your views on HR 1797

Post by vantran » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:30 am

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113h ... 797rfs.pdf
Or in simple terms the Bill to stop all women from performing abortions in the US.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Kyle » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:46 am

You do know this would only ban abortions after 20 weeks, right (and allows certain medical exceptions)? Also, women wouldn't be prosecuted under the law. Did you not understand it? Or were you just lying and hoping people wouldn't read it to get in an uproar about it on your side?
Anyway, though I am pro-life, I'm not often a fan of the attempts to make abortion illegal, for one reason: they really don't do a lot to truly address the problem. Abortions would still take place. Making things illegal is not the way to stop something from happening. Education is. Maybe the people behind this thing are working on that front too, but in my experience, that's not usually the case. If they really want to stop abortions they would go about it a different way. This would probably cut a few of them, especially early on, but not a lot of them. So while I can't say I'm against it, I don't really think it's the best way to approach things.
But it doesn't really matter. It passed the House, but has no chance to pass the Senate.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by vantran » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:37 am

> Kyle wrote:You do know this would only ban abortions after 20 weeks, right (and allows certain medical exceptions)? Also, women wouldn't be prosecuted under the law. Did you not understand it? Or were you just lying and hoping people wouldn't read it to get in an uproar about it on your side?
> Anyway, though I am pro-life, I'm not often a fan of the attempts to make abortion illegal, for one reason: they really don't do a lot to truly address the problem. Abortions would still take place. Making things illegal is not the way to stop something from happening. Education is. Maybe the people behind this thing are working on that front too, but in my experience, that's not usually the case. If they really want to stop abortions they would go about it a different way. This would probably cut a few of them, especially early on, but not a lot of them. So while I can't say I'm against it, I don't really think it's the best way to approach things.
> But it doesn't really matter. It passed the House, but has no chance to pass the Senate.

The bills states women who abort can be jailed.
It's nice to be pro-life. At least only caring for the foetus.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Fan_Of_Blindfolds » Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:43 pm

> The bills [sic] states women who abort can be jailed.

> ‘‘(d) BAR TO PROSECUTION.—A woman upon whom an abortion in violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on such a violation.

Hate to break it to you, but the bill states the exact opposite.
Also this is the second time you've posted a thread like this (to my knowledge - there may be more). It's good to have opinions and to defend them, but you seem not to understand that not everyone agrees, nor that people who disagree with you aren't inherently idiots nor wrong. I'm not objecting to what you're saying, but to the way you say it.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by vantran » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:04 pm

> Fan_Of_Blindfolds wrote:

> > The bills [sic] states women who abort can be jailed.

> > ‘‘(d) BAR TO PROSECUTION.—A woman upon whom an abortion in violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on such a violation.

> Hate to break it to you, but the bill states the exact opposite.
> Also this is the second time you've posted a thread like this (to my knowledge - there may be more). It's good to have opinions and to defend them, but you seem not to understand that not everyone agrees, nor that people who disagree with you aren't inherently idiots nor wrong. I'm not objecting to what you're saying, but to the way you say it.

Fine. Let babies flood America and strain its food supply.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Fan_Of_Blindfolds » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:02 pm

Okay, this isn't exactly the most obvious source, but this report rather strongly shuts down that argument. It's about problems in the American food industry, but it contains some highly relevant data. In particular:

> -In 2006, the U.S. food supply provided 3,900 calories per person per day. Accounting for waste, the average American consumed 2,594 calories per day in 2009 – an increase of 20% from 1970.
> -In 2008, 200 pounds of meat per person was available for consumption, which is up 13 pounds from 1970. 34% of grains grown are used to feed animals(down from 50%+ in past years).
> -26% of the edible food available is wasted at the consumer level.

Given that people need somewhere in the range of 2000 calories per day (or less, depending on lifestyle), this means that the average American eats roughly 25% more than needed daily. Furthermore, we produce almost twice as much food as we need to; almost half of this is wasted, either at the consumer level (food that an individual/family, or restaurant or similar, throws away), or somewhere along the supply line (with causes there ranging from a shipment being delayed and spoiling to a food company going out of business and its stored food spoiling, among others), but if we needed to, we could lower that number substantially. Furthermore, we have a trade surplus of food, meaning that we export more food than we import, and it's large enough that American food producers rely on it to stay in business (as there would not be a large enough market otherwise), and America is one of four countries that exports enough food to be able to (hypothetically) use it as a tool in international politics. So we're not going to run out of food any time soon, and even if the population suddenly grew substantially, we could cope by tightening up the supply line (or just not overeating so much). Lastly, population changes extremely slowly, relative to other economic factors; even if we didn't have the food resources we have (and squander), we'd have time to adapt - but that's an academic point, because we do have said resources.
I also find it telling that you start off making an appeal to "women's rights", but then you suddenly change to a (rather ill-informed) economic appeal. (I put "women's rights" in quotation marks because I do not believe that abortion is a right, not because of any sort of sexism. I'm not sexist.) I also find your willingness to misrepresent the truth telling - in your opening post, you stated that the bill would "top all women from performing abortions in the US", which it doesn't, and then you claimed that "[t]he bills states women who abort can be jailed", when it says the exact opposite, and then you made laughably unsupported claims about the food industry. Oh, and while I'm at it, rather than attempting to refute my point (which, at the time, was purely formal), you made an appeal to fear. It seems to me that you're here to convince people of your position (despite the thread title being "Your views on HR 1797"), truth be damned.
Anyway, try again. Maybe your next guess won't be so trivial to refute.
...And yes, I'm rather irritated. I despise bad logic and I despise modern politics.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Kyle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:03 pm

> vantran wrote:The bills states women who abort can be jailed.

All right then, prove it.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by vantran » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:39 am

Let's flood America with Babies!

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Fan_Of_Blindfolds » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:01 pm

...I'm just going to go out on a limb here and propose that perhaps you don't actually care about anything approaching an attempt at proper debate, rhetoric, logic, or grammar.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Kyle » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:03 pm

> vantran wrote:Let's flood America with Babies!

So I will take it this means you have nothing.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:11 am

> Kyle wrote:

> > vantran wrote:Let's flood America with Babies!

> So I will take it this means you have nothing.

IMO Vantran is little better than a troll anyway. Even so, I think the topic bears discussion.
As for abortions, there's a perfectly logical way to deal with them, though religious groups and especially Catholics probably won't like it... promote contraception. If you don't want babies and don't believe in abortion, it's either contraception or abstinence... and I think we all know how popular abstinence is! This whole nonsense about equating contraception with abortion (as if both were equivalent and contraception somehow morally wrong) has got to stop! And an ounce of contraception prevention is worth one hell of a lot more than a pound of abortion 'cure'!
In addition, for those who can't or won't practice contraception for some (imo idiotic) religious reason, we could always establish a no questions asked leaving babies policy for adoptions, and allowing gay couples to adopt. Hell, if straight couples insist on procreating babies they don't want, may as well let a loving gay couple have them. Beats abortion, being raised in an orphanage, or otherwise growing up where they aren't wanted, I think. I think the restriction on single people adopting should be lifted too - especially in cases where the single parent has the means to support a child without recourse to welfare - as the working couple way of living is becoming so prevalent as to make the restriction all but meaningless.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Kyle » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:27 pm

I'd agree it's worthy of discussion. Vantran wasn't going for discussion. I had a pretty good idea she was lying when I saw the very first post but decided to give her the benefit of the doubt. But now it appears I was right.
I'm certainly not against the idea of contraception and it does need to be taught but it also has to be said it has created some problems of its own. Too many people think it's infallible and get shocked when pregnancy occurs when both of them used it.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 04, 2013 7:35 am

Contraception may not be infallible, but it's a helluva better than nothing and WAY better than an abortion.
It's the ounce of prevention versus the pound of 'cure' kind of thing; make that a TON of cure in this case.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by drawscore » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:18 am

> vantran wrote:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1797rfs/pdf/BILLS-113hr1797rfs.pdf
> Or in simple terms the Bill to stop all women from performing abortions in the US.

But men can still perform them?
Drawscore

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:55 am

> drawscore wrote:

> > vantran wrote:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1797rfs/pdf/BILLS-113hr1797rfs.pdf
> > Or in simple terms the Bill to stop all women from performing abortions in the US.

> But men can still perform them?
> Drawscore

All I can say is,
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by vantran » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:47 pm

sure let's screw and stop rape victims from ever seeking help.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by mikeybound » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:37 pm

> vantran wrote:sure let's screw and stop rape victims from ever seeking help.

You know, plenty of women view the baby as the only good thing to come of these cases. At the very least, one could reason that an abortion isn't fair to it just because it was conceived in a traumatic experience.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:01 pm

> mikeybound wrote:

> > vantran wrote:sure let's screw and stop rape victims from ever seeking help.

> You know, plenty of women view the baby as the only good thing to come of these cases. At the very least, one could reason that an abortion isn't fair to it just because it was conceived in a traumatic experience.

But plenty of other women find them only as reminders of perhaps the most brutal episode of their lives.
I agree that adoption is far preferable to abortion, but is it fair to ask a woman to add insult to injury by being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term for nine months - the last trimester of which they are almost as good as disabled in some cases - often with no recompense? it's easy to say yes until you've been put into that situation yourself - or know someone who has been.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by FelixSH » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:43 am

I completely agree with Jason on contraception and adoption. The idea that contraception is somehow bad doesn't make any sense to me.
About abortion itself: I think the way it is handled, with a more or less arbitrary time were the fetus becomes a human, works pretty well and should be everything the law says about it. If abortion is always bad, no matter how old the fetus is, than masturbation would also be wrong. I'm not hyperbolic here, I really don't understand why it is wrong to kill a fetus in the first month and killing countless sperms. Both can develop into humans, after all.
Also, when we are talking about making abortion illegal, no matter what, there will be a lot of fringe cases be ignored. Maybe the mother was raped, maybe the father dissapeared and the mother can't support the kid, maybe both have no job and can't offer the kid any perspective in life,... These and other cases can all speak for an abortion. The mother should at least be able to consider the option.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by mikeybound » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:07 am

Well Felix, the reasoning there is that the moment a sperm and egg bond to form a zygot they're human. Sperm only last a short while before dying and eggs can sit in the womb until a woman's 50's, but the only way short of complications to end a pregnancy is abortion. That basically involves doing the same things to a fetus that could end a born human's life.
Also, a lot of people don't like the idea of defining when someone becomes human. Could you really say it doesn't count when in a month it'll have a working heart, or fingernails in 8 weeks? Could you look at something that'll be born and decide it isn't human yet? What if you shift that definition forward a few weeks because it's more convineint? Should people be able to change the definition of a person?
Anyway....yah. Just thought I'd point out how the fetus period could actually be indisputable life.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:22 am

Mikeybound's reasoning is really all the more reason why disapproving of contraception seems worse than stupid to me.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by mikeybound » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:33 am

> Jason Toddman wrote:Mikeybound's reasoning is really all the more reason why disapproving of contraception seems worse than stupid to me.

I'm not quite sure how to take that.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by FelixSH » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:52 am

> mikeybound wrote:Well Felix, the reasoning there is that the moment a sperm and egg bond to form a zygot they're human.

I still don´t see why here the sperm and the egg are somehow magically a human. And, even if some people might not like it, we HAVE to define when the fetus becomes a human. You did that too. You define it that way as soon as sperm and egg bond. I don´t think it is a human at that point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course, but this is done at least somewhat arbitrarily.
And again, this is not only about the baby. The situation of the mother and what she wants is also highly relevant.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:27 am

> mikeybound wrote:

> > Jason Toddman wrote:Mikeybound's reasoning is really all the more reason why disapproving of contraception seems worse than stupid to me.

> I'm not quite sure how to take that.

Not meant to be an insult, Mikeybound - regardless of whether you're for or against contraception. I'm just saying that one good way to eliminate abortions is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. That means contraception, which kills nothing except those non-human sperm you mentioned yourself as being not human. It's not murder if the fetus is never formed to abort.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Kyle » Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:26 pm

You ever notice how fathers are never brought into the discussion on this topic?

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by mikeybound » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:44 pm

> Kyle wrote:You ever notice how fathers are never brought into the discussion on this topic?

I know. It kinda sucks, but when they think the fetus they're killing has no rights then what can you do.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by mikeybound » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:51 pm

> FelixSH wrote:

> > mikeybound wrote:Well Felix, the reasoning there is that the moment a sperm and egg bond to form a zygot they're human.

> I still don´t see why here the sperm and the egg are somehow magically a human. And, even if some people might not like it, we HAVE to define when the fetus becomes a human. You did that too. You define it that way as soon as sperm and egg bond. I don´t think it is a human at that point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course, but this is done at least somewhat arbitrarily.
> And again, this is not only about the baby. The situation of the mother and what she wants is also highly relevant.

It's not about when something is a person, but what is a person. 46 chromosomes that make 23 pairs that carry the human genome. As long as something has that, it's human. There isn't a point where the fetus suddenly becomes human. It's human the entire time. You were a fetus, I was a fetus, the mods were fetuses, and if we were aborted we'd be dead now. And yes, when a sperm and egg merge it is magically a human. It has a reasonable chance of having an entire life ahead of it, and people should have no more right to end that before birth than we do after.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by FelixSH » Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:23 am

> mikeybound wrote:

> > FelixSH wrote:

> > > mikeybound wrote:Well Felix, the reasoning there is that the moment a sperm and egg bond to form a zygot they're human.

> > I still don´t see why here the sperm and the egg are somehow magically a human. And, even if some people might not like it, we HAVE to define when the fetus becomes a human. You did that too. You define it that way as soon as sperm and egg bond. I don´t think it is a human at that point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course, but this is done at least somewhat arbitrarily.
> > And again, this is not only about the baby. The situation of the mother and what she wants is also highly relevant.

> It's not about when something is a person, but what is a person. 46 chromosomes that make 23 pairs that carry the human genome. As long as something has that, it's human. There isn't a point where the fetus suddenly becomes human. It's human the entire time. You were a fetus, I was a fetus, the mods were fetuses, and if we were aborted we'd be dead now. And yes, when a sperm and egg merge it is magically a human. It has a reasonable chance of having an entire life ahead of it, and people should have no more right to end that before birth than we do after.

This is a possible definition, other people have other definitions for a human. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.
I'm still interested in what you think about extreme cases. What if the birth would endanger the mothers life? What if the mother was raped and couldn't take the constant reminder of that? Reducing the whole question to "life is sacred" is too simple. What if the mother definitely can't support a child, giving him therefore a shitty start into life? I don't know how you think about this, but some people only care about the child until it is born - if it later starves to death they don't. My point here is: if the state makes abortion illegal he also has to provide the child with healthy food, shelter and a good education. And I mean quality here, the state has to make sure that the child doesn't grow up in a ghetto.
@Kyle: It is the body of the mother, so it is also her decision. A father has no right to decide what happens with another body. Either the woman gives birth or aborts - either way, it is the woman who goes through dangerous stuff. I think it would be unfair that anyone can dictate her anything in that regard.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by mikeybound » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:50 am

Personally, I believe that it isn't about a woman's choice. I believe pregnancy gives one a responsibility to see the life through and provide the best start possible for the baby. I'd like to think I'd keep this viewpoint even if I were a woman going through an unwanted pregnancy, but there's really no way to be sure. Regardless, I believe the opinion that counts the most comes from the one who can't actually speak up.
Of course, I'm not saying it isn't all clear cut. For especially dangerous pregnancies priorities would have to be made. I don't encourage women to risk their lives just to give birth if they don't want to. I'm just saying "unwanted" or "unpleasant" aren't satisfactory reasons.
As for the father, it isn't fair to completely cut him out. It's his child as much as it is the woman's, and he shouldn't be forced to just sit by and watch it get aborted. I wish people would stop treating these cases like the woman is the only one who's affected.

### Re: Your views on HR 1797

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:31 pm

> mikeybound wrote:Personally, I believe that it isn't about a woman's choice. I believe pregnancy gives one a responsibility to see the life through and provide the best start possible for the baby.

Even if that pregnancy is forced upon her by rape?
If a homeless person barged into your house, would you feel a similar obligation to give that person room and board?

> mikeybound wrote:I'd like to think I'd keep this viewpoint even if I were a woman going through an unwanted pregnancy, but there's really no way to be sure.

I'll bet if you were a woman you'd be more sure.

> mikeybound wrote: I'm just saying "unwanted" or "unpleasant" aren't satisfactory reasons.

How about emotionally, physically, socially, and economically devastating? Again, envision that homeless person barging into your house unannounced. That person is a human being too. By your logic, you're responsible for that homeless person's welfare just because he exists and is right there.

> mikeybound wrote: As for the father, it isn't fair to completely cut him out. It's his child as much as it is the woman's, and he shouldn't be forced to just sit by and watch it get aborted.

Again, does this also include incidents of rape?

> mikeybound wrote: I wish people would stop treating these cases like the woman is the only one who's affected.

That's a pretty chauvinistic approach, Mikeybound. It's the woman who has to do all the real work. Did you ever live in the same household as a pregnant woman? Do you have any idea what being pregnant is even like? It's a helluva lot of work, and that's not even including the actual labor itself. It's so easy to talk about the man being affected when you're a man. Especially in society. Women do all the work and get none of the credit. A sexually active man is considered a stud, but a sexually active woman gets a much different and far less flattering four-letter name. Same basic logic applies to this. No man knows what it's like for the woman, so don't claim the man is also significantly affected. Compared to the mother, he isn't.
And in any case, anyone who impregnates a woman without being sure she wants the baby herself is a f***ing moron.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...