Bernie Sanders 2020

He does too.

Abortion is an effective means of population control.

He wants population control and he wants US taxpayer funding of abortion in other countries

He’s unlikely to ever put it as bluntly as I have but he wants it.

Not a solution.

Then you condone murder

So do you.

I’m against capital punishment by the state.

I am against the death penalty so back at you

A solution to what?

That’s good to know.

I think it’s much more cruel to subject children to horror than is an early abortion.

And you see no difference between taking the life of someone you've known for years, someone who's lived, breathed, worked, and played, someone with a network of friends, relatives, and colleagues, someone whose personality and character have been shaped by years of experience and interaction with the world — you see no difference between taking the life of your partner and terminating the development of an unborn human organism before it has experienced anything outside the womb? That's your decision, based on your sentiments and your values. But you are not in a position to compel others to accept your particular moral system. Especially when many philosophers, ethicists, and religious thinkers have pondered this question and arrived at different conclusions than you have.

Compelling a woman to carry the consequences of a mistake to term is barbaric. Fortunately women now have access to emergency contraception which can be used after intercourse as well as pregnancy testing kits which allow women to kill the developing fetus at a very early stage of development.

That's a fine choice for some — but not all — women. Giving birth should not be compulsory. Nor should women be expected to conform to religious strictures which are not universally observed.

No:

The USA could provide money for organizations which mention abortion, which educate women about abortion as a choice, and which seek to make the practice safe without funding abortions on the individual level.

Apparently you would prefer US taxpayers funding adoption services in other countries? How does that address overpopulation? And how much are you willing to contribute to making certain that adoption procedures are safe, that host families are sufficiently vetted, and that adoptees have reasonable expectation of proper childcare, health services, education, etc? Again we see the right-wing preoccupation with fetal rights and laissez-faire attitude toward children after they've emerged from the womb.


No, it's expensive, physiologically invasive, and depending on the facilities available and the training of the medical specialists it could be a threat to the physical health and mental well-being of women.

Adoption is horror?

BERN NOTICE: The Contrast Between Biden & Bernie
Biden says the details don't matter - maybe that explains some of his votes

Bern Notice is a production of the Bernie 2020 campaign. The views expressed here are solely of the bylined author.

When it comes to details, Joe Biden is now declaring that they are irrelevant — literally.

In an attempt to defend factual inaccuracies in his retelling of stories, Biden told National Public Radio today that “details are irrelevant in terms of decision-making,” and he asserted that details have “nothing to do with a judgment of whether or not you send troops to war, the judgment of whether you bring someone home, the judgment of whether or not you decide on a health care policy.”

But here’s the thing: details and judgment matter when it comes to decision-making -- and in many cases, Biden has seen the details of monumental policy proposals and then used flawed judgment to support ill-advised decisions that Bernie opposed.

IRAQ: When the Senate debated the details of the Bush administration’s misleading case for invading Iraq, Biden -- then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- joined with Republicans to lead the fight to authorize that war. Biden is suddenly trying to now claim he opposed the war — but the record is patently clear. By contrast, Bernie studied the details of the case for the Iraq War and his judgment led him to oppose that war.

NAFTA: When lawmakers weighed the details of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Biden joined with Republicans and corporate lobbyists to pass the deal, which destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Bernie studied the same details and his judgment led him to oppose the deal.

BANKRUPTCY BILL: When big banks and credit card companies pushed to change the details of bankruptcy laws to trap millions of American in student and consumer debt, Biden sided with his donors and helped Republicans pass the legislation. Bernie studied the same details and his judgment led him to vote against the bill -- and he’s now pushing to reverse it.

SOCIAL SECURITY: When right-wing groups were pushing detailed plans to slash Social Security, Biden repeatedly sided with them to voice support for such cuts. By contrast, Bernie’s judgment has led him to not only fight such cuts, but to champion legislation to expand Social Security.

CLIMATE CHANGE: As scientists warn of an impending climate disaster unless we reduce fossil fuel development, Biden’s judgment has led him to put forward a “middle ground” plan whose details allow for an expansion of fossil fuel development. By contrast, Bernie’s judgment has led him to propose a full-fledged Green New Deal to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

HEALTH CARE: In the face of a health care emergency, Biden’s judgment has led him to promote a health plan whose details leave millions of Americans uninsured. By contrast, Bernie’s judgment has led him to push a detailed Medicare for All plan that guarantees health care as a right to all Americans.


Donald Trump is a president who treats details as irrelevant and whose terrible judgment has led to disastrous consequences. We need a Democratic nominee with good judgement who knows that when the details are ignored, working people get left behind. Bernie has a record that makes clear he will be that kind of nominee.

Bern after reading,

Sirota

Murder is murder. When we start getting into whether or not one victim of murder is more worthy of life than another we go awry.

Obviously I am not in a position to compel pregnant women to carry to term any more than you are in a position to compel people to stop using fossil fuels or giving up their "assault rifles", but I don't see how it can possibly be described as barbaric to compel someone to live with the consequences of their acts and not destroy a life to avoid them.

I agree. It can get pretty tricky at times. But we seem to manage all right. People who are personally opposed to abortion will often make exceptions for certain classes of cases — victims of rape or incest, or when the health of mother or viability of the fetus is a concern. Even anti-abortion activists who have no compunction about displaying graphic pictures of aborted fetuses in public would never condone showing pictures of similarly mutilated adults, thus admitting a distinction between the unborn and those independently living and breathing outside the womb.

Many people have come to accept the idea that terminally ill patients should have the option of choosing assisted suicide. States which outlaw capital punishment sometimes have exceptions if someone murders a police officer or prison guard. Relatedly after cases of lethal criminal negligence or deadly acts of terrorism armies of attorneys, accountants, and actuaries work out the amounts of money paid to the families of victims and people seem to accept that some victims are "worth" more than others.

All these choices are complex —determining that the murder of a cop demands capital punishment and the murder of a teacher doesn't, for instance. But a clear clinical distinction can be made between terminating the development of the unborn fetus and killing a living, breathing person. I don't think drawing that distinction is liable to cause our social order to "go awry'.



Because in too many cases the intention is punishment. The child is being turned into the symbolic consequence of a moral failure, the product of a mistake. And in some family situations this pervasive feeling of guilt and remorse is played out, tragically, on the unwanted child. Adoption? It's not an automatic happy ending and that's a whole other topic but basically if a woman wants to make that choice, fine. But don't compel an unwilling mother to carry an unwanted child to term and try to use human life as a prop for some sectarian morality tale.


(Apologies to edgarblythe if this discussion is excessively off-topic.)

What the hell does that mean? It sounds intellectual but it is a really cynical response or one that is based entirely on the belief that a human fetus is not a human being.

If the former is the case then I would imagine that you have never suggested that abortion should be limited in any way.

I certainly can't compel anyone to do anything and I rarely am in favor of the government doing so. Women make these choices, but I'm not willing to give them a pass on making the wrong one. I doubt they care what I think but that won't change my mind.

Your dismissal of adoption is also terribly cynical and suggest you have no knowledge of it other than a few sensational stories where adopted parents were bad parents.

I'm wondering, do you have children?

It means you are a one issue player.

It means you'd rather argue than understand there's no right answer for everyone.

It means you don't consider body autonomy important.

And it means you don't believe in Bernie Sanders.

And that's ok. You can believe, and fight for, your beliefs. But why you're taking this thread as a personal crusade against abortion is strikingly odd.

No worries.

No one cares whether you give them a "pass" or not. You apparently believe that abortion is wrong in all cases and terribly wrong in some. You are entitled to that belief. But your personal conviction doesn't outrank the beliefs of many others who are willing to draw a line between life within the womb and life in the world outside.


I know several grateful people who were adopted as children and grew up in loving households. There are some adoption agencies which have mixed records, however, and the process can be slow, the bureaucracy can be heartless. When it works, great, but it's not the simple solution you think it is in every case.

What I find most objectionable about your idea is compelling women with unwanted pregnancies to basically serve as state-controlled incubators for nine months before handing the baby over to the new state-sponsored parents. Would these women get paid? If not, it's basically slavery; and if they are, it's equally creepy. Will government agents monitor these unwanted pregnancies and force the women to conform to rigid standards of prenatal care? Christ, it sounds like something out of Ceaușescu's Romania.

Give it up. I don't mind if you, and others of your kind, think abortion is some sort of "sin". It's pretty much been drummed into your head that way. Just don't try to use civil law to impose your sectarian morality on people who believe differently.

No kidding, but as you noted, I am entitled to my belief and to expressing it.

I am also entitled to vote according to my beliefs

It's a wonderful solution for the fetus who deserves to live and far preferable for him or her than being extinguished.

I have more sympathy for women with unwanted pregnancies than you imagine, but there are times in our lives when we must sacrifice what we would like for what is right.

You can go through all the mental and moral gymnastics you like, but it's murder and while I don't subscribe to the concept of "sin," if anything is a sin, it's murder.

Yes, like choosing to abort when the mother and father realize that they can't adequately fulfill their parental obligations.


Far preferable for you — babies don't develop self-awareness until early in their second year of life, so I think it's safe to say that you're projecting here.