NationStates Jolt Archive

rather have laws allowing same-sex marriage or abortion on demand.

both and neither are not options.

note: topic title and question taken from another forum and is not the original work of the author.

Depends on the meaning of "on demand."

well since the retarded fag loving Govt wont allow same-sex marriage ONLY for lesbians, i vote for abortion

It seems to me, that each couple should get to pick one or the other. Gay couples have little use for abortion. :D

Same-sex marriage.

Depends on the meaning of "on demand."

Yeah. There's a time and place, right? Don't much care about the time, but that place is not the bus terminal.

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

Yeah. There's a time and place, right? Don't much care about the time, but that place is not the bus terminal.

Bingo. I'm so sick of bus-stop abortions - not cool.

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

You're funny. I like that.

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

Just because you voted for abortions doesn't mean you have to be the poster child for why people should get abortions. :p

Neither are necessary.

Both are good for society.

But abortion has a little more somethin'-somethin'. It's good for society and the Earth. A form of voluntary population control? Excellent.

I want to vote abortion, but I'm also very amused at how strongly Kirchensittenbach reacts to the idea of same-sex marriage that I kind of want to vote for that and see how he reacts as it wins.


Though I suppose that seems a bit trollish or flamebait-y.


*votes abortion*

I like fascism.

well since the retarded fag loving Govt wont allow same-sex marriage ONLY for lesbians, i vote for abortion

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

Rev. Phelps, I presume? :rolleyes:

Abortions on demand aren't as bad as gay marriage.

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

Your rousing speech certainly has made me regret my vote for same-sex marriage.

But probably not for the reason you think.

Your rousing speech certainly has made me regret my vote for same-sex marriage.

But probably not for the reason you think.

I know what the reason is.

I know what the reason is.

ORLY?

ORLY?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/ya_rly.jpg

Same-sex marriage. I mean, really, I believe in both, but I won't deny I find the actual idea of abortion a little unsettling. Whereas adults that love each other and who wish to commit to each other for life- honestly, I think that's great.

Same-sex marriage. I mean, really, I believe in both, but I won't deny I find the actual idea of abortion a little unsettling. Whereas adults that love each other and who wish to commit to each other for life- honestly, I think that's great.

Really, I think marriage between any loving couple is great, but I don't understand choosing this social construct over something legitimately useful.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/ya_rly.jpg

http://judyonthenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/nowai.jpg

Abortions on demand aren't as bad as gay marriage.

I agree, i simply picked the lesser of two evils

My real opinion is the same as what i picked in the national issues: abortions only for rape victims and women who have medical problems with pregnancy

If a woman chooses to get pregnant, she should have thought about it first before the whole changing her mind and not wanting her baby anymore

I agree, i simply picked the lesser of two evils

My real opinion is the same as what i picked in the national issues: abortions only for rape victims and women who have medical problems with pregnancy

If a woman chooses to get pregnant, she should have thought about it first before the whole changing her mind and not wanting her baby anymore

Ladies and gentlemen, Kirchenschlitterbahn! Isn't he hilarious? He'll be here all week folks. Please remember to tip your servers and try the veal!

Really, I think marriage between any loving couple is great, but I don't understand choosing this social construct over something legitimately useful.

Well, it says 'abortion on demand', which is, among other things, a trickily loose definition. I guess if we mean a total banning of abortion, than I'd probably change the vote. I just feel, personally, a lot of abortions just aren't necessary. That does not, however, at all mean that I'm in favor of making my personal feelings an issue of state law. And if anything, it makes me more in favor of honest, truthful sex education and easy access to contraceptives, etc, to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies at the source.

No contest.

Two people who love each other Vs. Killing something that is widly debated and thought by some to be human?

Gay marriage, definitly

abortion. we need population control. Some people should have gotten an abortion but didn't, but that is a wholly other matter.

Well, another reason for abortion, population control is a factor

the less babies that are born, the less chances of another gay being added to the ranks of their kind


Less Gaybies,
more Mad Hatters - if women want babies, let MH help them,...help them all night long

I'd say more Lunatic Goofballs, but that came up in another thread - i once again say, the world has enough problems controlling one of him, the world cannot handle insanity overload

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

I like your sense of humour. :p

abortion on demand

marriage is just a formality. gay couples can still live together and love each other in a place where they are not allowed to be married.

outlawing abortion puts someone in jail.

There must be a compromise!

Every gay couple who gets married gets a coupon for a free abortion. That way abortion on demand is legal, you just have to be gay and married to have one.

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

Kirchensittenbach, your posting style is forceful on all subjects and your attitude to gays is consistent, so I have hesitated to call you a troll. But it is possible to troll even if you sincerely believe what you post, and there are limits to how far you can go.

In the above post you have gone beyond them. You cannot urge the mistreatment of a known group of players -- Jews, gays, cat-lovers, dog-owners, anyone.

In particular, your use of the term "fag" is provocative and deliberate.

This is a decidedly unfriendly warning: moderate your tone or take the consequences.

A homosexual marrage would be more preferable than abortion.

You're funny. I like that.They're here to tell the untold story, no doubt.

I'd say more Lunatic Goofballs, but that came up in another thread - i once again say, the world has enough problems controlling one of him, the world cannot handle insanity overloadContrasted, of course, with the placid lake of stability and reason it is now.

abortion. Preferably both, but if that is impossible clearly abortion. A valid medical procedure (which if it is illegal could cause many women search it from non-professionals, with severe health-risks as a consequence) or a formality (I can see why gays want equal rights, but if this was straight-marriage I'd choose abortion too).

abortion because homosexuals have bigger things to bother with

SNIP

your so in the closet I think there are laws against it :p

You cannot urge the mistreatment of a known group of players -- Jews, gays, cat-lovers, dog-owners, anyone.

what about masochists? :p

abortion. There are many medical reasons for abortion, women could die if it were outlawed.

I like gay people, but life and death over paperwork. sorry.

rather have laws allowing same-sex marriage or abortion on demand.

both and neither are not options.


Tough shit, both is the only answer I can give. I'm not going to flip a coin over two human rights issues, they are both equally important.

I find it hard to describe why I'm so unsettled by abortion, but I am.
Gay marriage does not unsettle me at all, and I can't relate very well to the people who oppose it. I don't see why two men or two women should be treated differently than a man and a woman.
But I don't know when life begins or ends and could never condone the legality of even possibly ending a human life. Despite having an ever-shifting definition of "human" and ever-changing definition of "life," I still find abortion to be wrong...-ish.

*snip* ...the world cannot handle insanity overload

I dunno, it's handling you pretty well.

Same sex marriage all the way.

Humm...
I would have both, but, as that isn't an option, I'd rather have legalised abortion then same-sex marriage.

As I see it, they are both important, but I think that the long term effects of having a child would be more of an influence on the woman's life, then simply not allowing two people of the same gender to marry.
However, I'm talking about marriage as a symbolic union between two people, and not taking into consideration any legal effects a marriage has (e.g. inheritance/looking after children in the case of one person dying) because I really don't know too much about that.....

*goes off to research it*

If both was an option that's what I would go for, but since it isn't...

I vote abortion, for the simple reason that since abortion is already legal, going for same-sex marriage would take away a right that people already enjoy, whereas with going for abortion no-one is losing anything.

rather have laws allowing same-sex marriage or abortion on demand.

both and neither are not options.

note: topic title and question taken from another forum and is not the original work of the author.

Not just abortion on demand - mandatory abortion for some people.

Prob same sex marriage, bc i think its more important to provide free contraceptives and such than abortions...

If both was an option that's what I would go for, but since it isn't...

I vote abortion, for the simple reason that since abortion is already legal, going for same-sex marriage would take away a right that people already enjoy, whereas with going for abortion no-one is losing anything.
How does same sex marraige take away a right? :confused:

How does same sex marraige take away a right? :confused:

A fine question.

Abortion on demand just seems quiet creepy and callous in a way, whereas i don't see a problem with same sex marriage.
Though i don't really see much point in getting married ... Just seems like a ceremonial title more than anything.

Abortion on demand just seems quiet creepy and callous in a way, whereas i don't see a problem with same sex marriage.
Though i don't really see much point in getting married ... Just seems like a ceremonial title more than anything.

It was meant as a commitment to that one person you were going to spend the rest of your life with.

How does same sex marraige take away a right? :confused:

In this question it takes away the right of abortion which people already enjoy, at least that is what I think Dyakovo meant.

It was meant as a commitment to that one person you were going to spend the rest of your life with.

If someone was really committed, they wouldn't need a ceremony and a bit of writing to prove it.

4-4;13624902']If someone was really committed, they wouldn't need a ceremony and a bit of writing to prove it.

Just a locked room with barred windows and a straight jacket.

well since the retarded fag loving Govt wont allow same-sex marriage ONLY for lesbians, i vote for abortion

Fortunately, that's a choice that will never have to be made in RL.

No to both.

Just a locked room with barred windows and a straight jacket.

Well played *tips hat* :)


Is there any extra legal "things" which come about by marriage?
I mean, I remember hearing that a marriage was required between two people, if one of them died and the other wanted to take custody of a child (biological or adopted)?

Am I correct in thinking this?

4-4;13624952']Well played *tips hat* :)


Is there any extra legal "things" which come about by marriage?
I mean, I remember hearing that a marriage was required between two people, if one of them died and the other wanted to take custody of a child (biological or adopted)?

Am I correct in thinking this?

It's not just child custody. If you aren't married a hospital doesn't have to allow you visit your significant other. There are tax breaks, as well as inheritance issues. I'm sure there's more but I can't think of it right now.

As for those of you who said you would vote both if that were a choice, why let Sovi dictate the choices you're allowed to make? "You can only choose one" is intellectual wankery at best, if you think they're of equal importance say so, stand and be counted.

Just a locked room with barred windows and a straight jacket.

Meh, Lunatic Goofballs has those but he never uses them....much to our benefit i might add
If the critter was locked up we would just be a bunch of sad boring SoB's who argue all the time, LG adds the comedy relief we need:)

It's not just child custody. If you aren't married a hospital doesn't have to allow you visit your significant other. There are tax breaks, as well as inheritance issues. I'm sure there's more but I can't think of it right now.

As for those of you who said you would vote both if that were a choice, why let Sovi dictate the choices you're allowed to make? "You can only choose one" is intellectual wankery at best, if you think they're of equal importance say so, stand and be counted.

I second this. Ideally, you wouldn't have to be married to have the rights mentioned above, but the majority of governments are asshats.

Also, I've never quite understood why these two issues tend to be lumped together. They have nothing to do with each other unless you've got sexual issues and can't think of anything outside the bedroom.

How does same sex marraige take away a right? :confused:

I was assuming that if there was one, there couldn't be the other (that is the apparent premise in the OP), since abortion is legal where I live, granting the right for same-sex couples to get married would eliminate the right for women to have an abortion.

In this question it takes away the right of abortion which people already enjoy, at least that is what I think Dyakovo meant.

Yes, indeed.

The OP is trying to create a false dichotomy (and not telling us why). I refuse to choose. I want both and will not settle for less, and I don't have to, either, because the two sets of rights have nothing to do with each other. There's no overlap, so there's no need to sacrifice one for the other. Any governmental system that attempted to force such a choice would be unjust, arbitrary and ripe for resistance, imo.

Same-sex marriage. Nothing about 'Abortions on demand' not being legal means that abortions are illegal, however same-sex marriage being illegal does mean that it's illegal.

Abortions on demand aren't as bad as gay marriage.Other than potential concerns about what "on demand" means, neither is at all bad.

well since the retarded fag loving Govt wont allow same-sex marriage ONLY for lesbians, i vote for abortion

:confused: I don't get it. Why should only lesbians get marriage rights

another pro-fag thread, FFS

maybe i should set up a booth and give out free tickets to a soviet gulag for all the man-man lovers out there, then they can have all the manlove out in the frosty tundra of Siberia:mp5:

Well, another reason for abortion, population control is a factor

the less babies that are born, the less chances of another gay being added to the ranks of their kind

:D Wow. You're a little nuts, aren't you?

Rev. Phelps, I presume? :rolleyes:

No, I'm pretty sure he hates lesbians, too.

The OP is trying to create a false dichotomy (and not telling us why). I refuse to choose. I want both and will not settle for less, and I don't have to, either, because the two sets of rights have nothing to do with each other. There's no overlap,

Actually there is overlap in that they both deal with basic human rights that should not be violated. They happen to be different rights, but still . . .

gay - marriages. personally against unnecessary abortion

gay - marriages. personally against unnecessary abortion

And who is to determine what abortions are necessary?

For crying out loud, NSG? Did you all read the question wrong or something?

I'm really quite shocked.

Abandon a right to abortion for half the population, so a few percent can get married to each other? Marriage is a load of nonsense anyway, if people want to be monogamous I don't see why the state should offer them carrots OR sticks, it's an absolutely private matter.

Even if EVERY gay or lesbian person wanted to get married, this would still be a lousy deal.

For crying out loud, NSG? Did you all read the question wrong or something?

I'm really quite shocked.

Abandon a right to abortion for half the population, so a few percent can get married to each other? Marriage is a load of nonsense anyway, if people want to be monogamous I don't see why the state should offer them carrots OR sticks, it's an absolutely private matter.

Even if EVERY gay or lesbian person wanted to get married, this would still be a lousy deal.

A lot of people, even people who are pro-choice in the legal sense, don't much like the actual act of abortion and feel mildly uncomfortable with it being seen as a 'right', and might place it more under the category of 'occasional necessity' or even 'necessary evil'. It's a lot easier to feel good about same sex marriage than abortion.

A lot of people, even people who are pro-choice in the legal sense, don't much like the actual act of abortion and feel mildly uncomfortable with it being seen as a 'right', and might place it more under the category of 'occasional necessity' or even 'necessary evil'. It's a lot easier to feel good about same sex marriage than abortion.

Sorry, that just sounds like a weak excuse for not thinking about it properly.

Like I take candy off a kid, give it to some other kid, then walk away thinking what a swell guy I am for making a kid so happy.

And who is to determine what abortions are necessary?

The gays.

Marriage is a reactionary religious practise and the state should act to relegate it to the fringe, that means ending the tie between all welfare and economic benefits of marriage and making marriage purely a religious affairs with NO ties to the state. Secular civil unions should replace marriage in the mainstream of society.

Abortion is a way more important issue.

I'd like to take a second, before I respond, to note that the poll option is: "Abortion on demand.

Please take note that it does not say abortion altogether, but actually seems to imply that at least some form (even if only medical/rape/incest) of abortion would still be allowed. Assumably this would change many peoples opinions, it's a large difference from "All abortions, or all gay marriages".

That being said, I'd choose Gay Marriage, even looking at the most critical looks of it (which I do not share), Gay marriage is less of a societal foe than how I feel about abortion (other than for strictly medical reasons).

In short, in every way I feel that abortion is more detrimental to society (that is, detrimental at all). I am a Christian, and feel that the unborn are humans (please, I've heard the criticisms of my standpoint, we don't need to threadjack to try to proselytize to me), and that they have the unalienable right to life, obviously should the life of both mother and child be strongly threatened by complications, there are exeptions, but in the case of rape, I do not feel like murder is an applicable response to rape, especially when we want to murder the most innocent party.

Like I take candy off a kid, give it to some other kid, then walk away thinking what a swell guy I am for making a kid so happy.

Though I wouldn't call you a swell guy after such a series of actions, at least you did a swell thing... right after doing a terrible thing. :D

I would make abortion legal and outlaw all marriage.

I am sure those that oppose gay marriage are the same ones who want their perfect 'utopia' where everyone is white, Christian, heterosexual and lives in the same community. This however is not the case and never will be unless you want a 'final solution'. It's telling that anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-homosexual views all come from the same sectarian group preaching a repressive monolithic society.

Well, it says 'abortion on demand', which is, among other things, a trickily loose definition.

I think that, for the sake of consistency, we should interpret "on demand" as meaning the same thing it means in the phrase "movies on demand." :)

On demand means to me "at no cost, entirely at the discretion of the woman ... and no she doesn't have to be polite to get her rights."

I've said before that we need limits on the universal right to healthcare, but we also need a basic level of entitlement which is an inalienable right, not a right to it IF you can pay.

Now, it might seem that an abortion is usually not a matter of life or death for the mother, that pregnancy is something we could expect her to try to avoid so a limit on the number or frequency of abortions a woman is entitled to might seem reasonable. I.e, that abortion should not be "on demand."

But there's another factor here, and it's levelling the playing-field. Both men and women have sex for fun, both men and women make mistakes which result in unintended pregnancies. We can't make the man who makes a mistake carry the pregnancy, that's not an option, so the only way to level the playing field is to give the woman the option the man has by default: to not be pregnant.

It's trivially obvious that contraception should also be available on demand. Contraception falls right into the category of basic healthcare which is a human right, so it's far simpler.

I'd like to take a second, before I respond, to note that the poll option is: "Abortion on demand.

Please take note that it does not say abortion altogether, but actually seems to imply that at least some form (even if only medical/rape/incest) of abortion would still be allowed. Assumably this would change many peoples opinions, it's a large difference from "All abortions, or all gay marriages".

It's a good point, and it might make a difference also to people's opinions whether they live under a law of "abortion on demand" (I do) or whether they percieve that as the granting of a new right beyond what they're accustomed to.

Harder to take away an existing right than to grant a new one.

That being said, I'd choose Gay Marriage, even looking at the most critical looks of it (which I do not share), Gay marriage is less of a societal foe than how I feel about abortion (other than for strictly medical reasons).

Could you explain that a bit further? What harm is done to society by abortion?

In short, in every way I feel that abortion is more detrimental to society (that is, detrimental at all). I am a Christian, and feel that the unborn are humans (please, I've heard the criticisms of my standpoint, we don't need to threadjack to try to proselytize to me)

Sure, but I think I'm entitled to ask for clarification, when you say the same thing twice but don't explain why.

In what sense is that 'human' you believe to be inside a pregnant woman a part of society?

Does killing that 'human' establish a precedent for the killing of other humans?

and that they have the unalienable right to life, obviously should the life of both mother and child be strongly threatened by complications, there are exeptions, but in the case of rape, I do not feel like murder is an applicable response to rape, especially when we want to murder the most innocent party.

If you mean innocent in a legal sense there is a very worrying implication to that: the victim of rape is "less innocent" than the zygote, fetus etc.

Surely you aren't saying that?

Why are we presented with the dichotomy? If we can't have both, it's time to pick up a gun.

Why are we presented with the dichotomy? If we can't have both, it's time to pick up a gun.

Yeah, because that ALWAYS helps!

Same-sex marriage.

Here's why. We don't have it, at present, and equal rights are important.

Hold on, before you say that this would take away women's right to choose. We don't have abortion "on demand" either, at least not from my point of view. The phrase "on demand," is an important qualifier. As I understand it, adding that phrase means basically "legal, at any time, with no restrictions," and possibly free, also.

I am in favor of both Same-sex marriage and abortion on demand, but I think current abortion legislation is adequate for terminating unwanted pregnancies, while I do not view the current situation in terms of marriage rights as anywhere near adequate.

:confused: I don't get it. Why should only lesbians get marriage rights


Presumably because he wants to watch.

Abortion "on demand" (like here in Italy: at the request of the woman in the first 3 months, after that only if there is risk of foetal malformation or of death of the pregnant woman).

After all, a homosexual couple can live together even without their bond being officially recognised by the government; while I think that a woman's free choice about not carrying an unwanted pregnancy is a crucial freedom.

Right to bodily autonomy > right to marry.

I have to agree with NH here.

as a form of population control, i should think gay merrage has the edge of clearness of consciounsce.

obviously it is unrealistic, insane, and downright assinign to ban either of them.

but many conditions that lead to the need for abortions could be reduced or eliminated, and that WOULD be desirable.

such as manditory medical antifirtility from puberty to merrage.

or other possible approaches, such as all child bearing having to take place during adolescence because of manditory spay and neutering of humans upon reaching the age of majority.

lowering ALL human firtility accross the board without bias or exception (but NOT starting with the smallest population segments, nor the oldest ones in a particular place), has always sounded, however 'undemocratic', like the best of all possible means to managing human population levels for the wellbeing of everyone.

and sorry, but yes, i DO see the issue as being about human numbers pushing the envilope of the carrying capacity of nature's cycles of renewal!

(and absurd attempts to impose universal 'abstenance' as 'made of fail')

=^^=
.../\...

And who is to determine what abortions are necessary?

Me

For crying out loud, NSG? Did you all read the question wrong or something?

I'm really quite shocked.

Abandon a right to abortion for half the population, so a few percent can get married to each other? Marriage is a load of nonsense anyway, if people want to be monogamous I don't see why the state should offer them carrots OR sticks, it's an absolutely private matter.

Even if EVERY gay or lesbian person wanted to get married, this would still be a lousy deal.A lot of people, even people who are pro-choice in the legal sense, don't much like the actual act of abortion and feel mildly uncomfortable with it being seen as a 'right', and might place it more under the category of 'occasional necessity' or even 'necessary evil'. It's a lot easier to feel good about same sex marriage than abortion.
Sorry, that just sounds like a weak excuse for not thinking about it properly.

Like I take candy off a kid, give it to some other kid, then walk away thinking what a swell guy I am for making a kid so happy.


I agree with you NH.

Although I still stand by my actual, OP disallowed answer of both.

rather have laws allowing same-sex marriage or abortion on demand.

both and neither are not options.

note: topic title and question taken from another forum and is not the original work of the author.
I'd be fine with not allowing ANY marriage, so given those two choices I'd pick legal abortion on demand.

What's with that phrasing, though? "Abortion on demand"? I don't think women should have to "demand" abortion rights. They should simply be allowed to have an abortion if they want one. If they're having to DEMAND their fundamental human rights, then that's pretty fucked up.

Abortions on demand aren't as bad as gay marriage.

How so?

I live in Canada.

I don't have to make such a stupid choice, thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Id rather have the government but out of peoples lives all together.

Gay marriages will be allowed one day. The urgency isn't great.

Actually there is overlap in that they both deal with basic human rights that should not be violated. They happen to be different rights, but still . . .
There is no overlap because they do not interfere with each other and do not depend on each other. They do not affect each other in any way.

Why are we presented with the dichotomy? If we can't have both, it's time to pick up a gun.

Yeah, because that ALWAYS helps!

Sure it does, because if you don't pick up your guns, you might trip over them and accidentally shoot yourself in the foot. ;)

But I agree with Everywhar, as long as we are speaking figuratively and "gun" means "vote and resist" against against an arbitrary and unjust policial system.

Abortion "on demand" (like here in Italy: at the request of the woman in the first 3 months, after that only if there is risk of foetal malformation or of death of the pregnant woman). I personally wouldn't consider this to be abortion on demand.

Hmm... on the one hand, while I am pro-abortion myself, I do believe there's more reason for there to be a moral dilemma about abortion than about homosexuality. With abortion, it could be argued to be killing a human being if one could argue a fetus, at the stage at which it's aborted, to be a human being, whereas with homosexuality, there's really not much reason for it to be a serious concern, outside of arbitrary religious ethical standards. On the other hand, in the same sense as how abortion is a bigger deal, it's also more "necessary"; I doubt being unable to marry would ruin one's life as much as having to bear and raise and provide for a child one didn't want would...

Gay marriages will be allowed one day. The urgency isn't great.
I'll probably die before I see it.

I personally wouldn't consider this to be abortion on demand.

Ok, not in the strict meaning of it.

rather have laws allowing same-sex marriage or abortion on demand.

Abortion on demand.

As strongly as I support equality regardless of sexual orientation, maintaining the basic autonomy of women is more important.

Abortion on demand. I think it has to be left by choice.

Yeah, because that ALWAYS helps!

"Give us our rights or we'll shoot you!" was basically how this country started.

There is no overlap because they do not interfere with each other and do not depend on each other. They do not affect each other in any way.

It appears our definitions of overlapping fail to overlap.

rather have laws allowing same-sex marriage or abortion on demand.

I think the question is poorly worded. You don't have laws allowing abortion, for instance. The laws either restrict it or outlaw it. Abortion is legal in the instance where there are no laws to the contrary - ie. the default.

In a sense, the same thing goes for same-sex marriage. You don't need any special laws to allow it. You simply have to get rid of the laws that discriminate against homosexuals.

In either case, allowing something means getting rid of laws, not making them.

But that's probably nit-picky.

Abortions on demand aren't as bad as gay marriage.

I agree. There is very little in the world as bad as acknowledging that two consenting adults want to spend their lives together. I mean, besides war, poverty, starvation, rape, wet socks, pencils that break really easily, pouring a bowl of cereal and founding out you're out of milk...

Ladies and gentlemen, Kirchenschlitterbahn! Isn't he hilarious? He'll be here all week folks. Please remember to tip your servers and try the veal!

You make me LOL in a sea full of OHNOES.

Marriage is a reactionary religious practise and the state should act to relegate it to the fringe, that means ending the tie between all welfare and economic benefits of marriage and making marriage purely a religious affairs with NO ties to the state. Secular civil unions should replace marriage in the mainstream of society.

It makes me uncomfortable when we agree on things. ;)

I'd be fine with not allowing ANY marriage, so given those two choices I'd pick legal abortion on demand.

What's with that phrasing, though? "Abortion on demand"? I don't think women should have to "demand" abortion rights. They should simply be allowed to have an abortion if they want one. If they're having to DEMAND their fundamental human rights, then that's pretty fucked up.

I keep thinking of it in the digital cable sense--on demand! In the comfort of your own home!

In all seriousness, the phrasing is increasingly bothersome. Does "on demand" mean a woman can decide in the 8th month to have an abortion? I am as big a proponent of choice as there is, but barring any late-term complications, I don't think 3 months should be enough time for anyone to decide whether or not they want to give birth.

In all seriousness, the phrasing is increasingly bothersome. Does "on demand" mean a woman can decide in the 8th month to have an abortion?I would think so, yes. At any point up until the instant before birth.