The Pub Apology Thread

2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: vs 49ers
Pick Results: SF: 35.7% at NE: 64.3%
Sun
Oct 25th

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

Calhoun44

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Abortion is a tricky issue to debate. In principle both sides of the issue are right imo. I believe what we're really debating for is a middle ground which I think has already been attained. Any continuous argument on the subject seems only to be for political gain.
Both sides are right? Legally? or morally?
Because if you are talking morally, I think there are multiple layers to the abortion issue.
(First off. I have never met anyone that thinks abortions are great and they can't wait to have their next one. Nobody likes the idea, but, some people appreciate the complexity of the different factors and make the choice they feel is right for them. Sometimes they end the pregnancy, sometimes they don't.)

There is the decision to end the pregnancy, that is a personal choice. From my perspective it is not my business to decide that someone should have to have a child. It's between that person and their doctor.

There is the perspective of the father and if they will be forced to care for the child through thick and thin (we have loads of evidence that this society is not willing to enforce child support laws. Not to mention some "fathers" can't afford to pay). So are we (the government) actually willing to commit to supporting the child instead? Without judgement and stigma to the child and their provider? Do we really want more unwanted pregnancies/reluctant parents?

Then their is the perspective of Sex Education. So often you hear complaints from the religious groups saying that it is immoral to teach our children safe sex, and how to use the different forms of contraception. Their only solution is that people should abstain from sex. They actually say it with a straight face, it would be comical if it wasn't such a serious topic.

There are more sides to this issue and I'm sure this topic will go over well.

But legally. This is decided. There is only one side that is right. It is the "pro-choice" side. Period. There is no debate. 50 years is a long time. It's over.
 

PatsWSB47

Pro Bowl Player
Both sides are right? Legally? or morally?
Because if you are talking morally, I think there are multiple layers to the abortion issue.
(First off. I have never met anyone that thinks abortions are great and they can't wait to have their next one. Nobody likes the idea, but, some people appreciate the complexity of the different factors and make the choice they feel is right for them. Sometimes they end the pregnancy, sometimes they don't.)

There is the decision to end the pregnancy, that is a personal choice. From my perspective it is not my business to decide that someone should have to have a child. It's between that person and their doctor.

There is the perspective of the father and if they will be forced to care for the child through thick and thin (we have loads of evidence that this society is not willing to enforce child support laws. Not to mention some "fathers" can't afford to pay). So are we (the government) actually willing to commit to supporting the child instead? Without judgement and stigma to the child and their provider? Do we really want more unwanted pregnancies/reluctant parents?

Then their is the perspective of Sex Education. So often you hear complaints from the religious groups saying that it is immoral to teach our children safe sex, and how to use the different forms of contraception. Their only solution is that people should abstain from sex. They actually say it with a straight face, it would be comical if it wasn't such a serious topic.

There are more sides to this issue and I'm sure this topic will go over well.

But legally. This is decided. There is only one side that is right. It is the "pro-choice" side. Period. There is no debate. 50 years is a long time. It's over.
You missed a couple. There's the fathers perspective that he wants to be a dad to the person he was part of creating. That father doesnt care what your perspective is. He know what his perspective is. Why is that simply dismissed? Then there's the perspective that once conceived then that person has a right to his or her own body.....that life begins at conception and a parent wants to protect that life. My wife and I lost a life from a miscarriage. She was pretty devastated by that. You can argue and debate when life begins actually or legally but to the parents it can be a real loss.
 

IllegalContact

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Abortion is a tricky issue to debate. In principle both sides of the issue are right imo. I believe what we're really debating for is a middle ground which I think has already been attained. Any continuous argument on the subject seems only to be for political gain.

I know and respect the point you are trying to make.
I think there is no debate....people are free to not get abortions and the can go home and be happy knowing that....otherwise, they should mind their own goddamned business....a person making the decision to get or not get an abortion is the one who is going to have to live with that decision and nobody else
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Both sides are right? Legally? or morally?
Because if you are talking morally, I think there are multiple layers to the abortion issue.
(First off. I have never met anyone that thinks abortions are great and they can't wait to have their next one. Nobody likes the idea, but, some people appreciate the complexity of the different factors and make the choice they feel is right for them. Sometimes they end the pregnancy, sometimes they don't.)

There is the decision to end the pregnancy, that is a personal choice. From my perspective it is not my business to decide that someone should have to have a child. It's between that person and their doctor.

There is the perspective of the father and if they will be forced to care for the child through thick and thin (we have loads of evidence that this society is not willing to enforce child support laws. Not to mention some "fathers" can't afford to pay). So are we (the government) actually willing to commit to supporting the child instead? Without judgement and stigma to the child and their provider? Do we really want more unwanted pregnancies/reluctant parents?

Then their is the perspective of Sex Education. So often you hear complaints from the religious groups saying that it is immoral to teach our children safe sex, and how to use the different forms of contraception. Their only solution is that people should abstain from sex. They actually say it with a straight face, it would be comical if it wasn't such a serious topic.

There are more sides to this issue and I'm sure this topic will go over well.

But legally. This is decided. There is only one side that is right. It is the "pro-choice" side. Period. There is no debate. 50 years is a long time. It's over.


It's over because a middle ground was found. And it was found for all the reasons you've mentioned and those that countered them.

There's a reason the term "viable" is a part of the Roe V Wade decision.
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
I know and respect the point you are trying to make.
I think there is no debate....people are free to not get abortions and the can go home and be happy knowing that....otherwise, they should mind their own goddamned business....a person making the decision to get or not get an abortion is the one who is going to have to live with that decision and nobody else

I agree. I'm fine with where the current laws stand for the most part. I support an individuals right to choose.
 

Calhoun44

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
You missed a couple. There's the fathers perspective that he wants to be a dad to the person he was part of creating. That father doesnt care what your perspective is. He know what his perspective is. Why is that simply dismissed? Then there's the perspective that once conceived then that person has a right to his or her own body.....that life begins at conception and a parent wants to protect that life. My wife and I lost a life from a miscarriage. She was pretty devastated by that. You can argue and debate when life begins actually or legally but to the parents it can be a real loss.
I definitely missed a bunch of other issues. Father's rights? They are not my concern legally.
But morally, I would think that if someone has sex and a pregnancy ensues, that two mature adults can work it out. if not, then maybe they shouldn't bring a child into the world. It is a negotiation at that point and I think the woman should be holding all the legal rights and the father should be negotiating their way into their desire to have a child. Maybe even sign a legally binding contract with child support and other responsibilities built into it. I.E. no Football on Sunday, instead that is mom's day to do whatever the heck she wants. If a dude is willing to give up some "freedoms" legally in writing, then I say they should be able to come to an agreement.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Abortion is a tricky issue to debate. In principle both sides of the issue are right imo. I believe what we're really debating for is a middle ground which I think has already been attained. Any continuous argument on the subject seems only to be for political gain.

It has by the consensus opinion, but the problem is it is still “legislated” through the SCOTUS. A constitutional amendment is required to state the will of the people via Congress. Until then, it will forever be a hot issue because of the ridiculous overreach in Roe v. Wade. I am pro choice, but I think that as a judiciary opinion, that case was an abomination. Nothing in the constitution begins to address the issue.
 

Calhoun44

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
It has by the consensus opinion, but the problem is it is still “legislated” through the SCOTUS. A constitutional amendment is required to state the will of the people via Congress. Until then, it will forever be a hot issue because of the ridiculous overreach in Roe v. Wade. I am pro choice, but I think that as a judiciary opinion, that case was an abomination. Nothing in the constitution begins to address the issue.
Please explain why. I remember hearing some discussion on this case and siding with the majority, but I can't remember the details. My memory sucks.
 

Clonamery

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Watching men discuss abortion without nary a woman in sight is like watching millionaire politicians discuss the minimum wage. It’s bollocks. Bollocks? They’re delicious, you should try them.
 

IllegalContact

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Watching men discuss abortion without nary a woman in sight is like watching millionaire politicians discuss the minimum wage. It’s bollocks. Bollocks? They’re delicious, you should try them.

which is why I say it nobody’s goddamned business......

In general, men should step aside and let women call the shots......men have proven too angry and stupid
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Please explain why. I remember hearing some discussion on this case and siding with the majority, but I can't remember the details. My memory sucks.

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

As a legal decision, it set a precedent for judges to use their own political activism in their rulings. SCOTUS is only supposed to rule on matters concerning the constitution. It’s beyond a stretch to say abortion is addressed anywhere therein. I’d like Congress pass an actual amendment in order to allow it in all states.
 

venecol

The FRG has a little ****
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

As a legal decision, it set a precedent for judges to use their own political activism in their rulings. SCOTUS is only supposed to rule on matters concerning the constitution. It’s beyond a stretch to say abortion is addressed anywhere therein. I’d like Congress pass an actual amendment in order to allow it in all states.
The right to privacy had been used in previous court decisions (The Court first ruled that privacy was protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law criminalizing birth control.)
 

Calhoun44

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
The right to privacy had been used in previous court decisions (The Court first ruled that privacy was protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law criminalizing birth control.)
Right, that was the decision I remember hearing about on a podcast recently.

I should really use wikipedia more, that was a good read. Thanks
 

PatsWSB47

Pro Bowl Player
Trump thinks Roe(row) vs Wade was what George Washington had to decide when he crossed the Delaware.......
 

Top