Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is no "sensible" pro-birth movement. The legality of abortion is essential to the freedom of women, end of line. If you disagree, better get to shedding that spare lung and kidney of yours - other people desperately need them.

[wierd]

Not everyone that wants to restrict abortions thinks it is for religious zeal reasons.

For instance, I am perfectly OK with medically appropriate abortions, but less so with abortions for convenience, or to avoid consequences of one's actions.  (Much like I am against rich people getting multiple livers, when people die waiting on getting just one, while they continue their alcohol abuse.)


The issue, is that "Maybe there should be some oversight there?" is seen as "YOU FUCKING HATE WOMEN AND THEIR AGENCY!! ADMIT IT!"

exactly as Shonus pointed out.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You aren't arguing for oversight. You're arguing for restricting their agency, because you don't like it. You want to be able to judge if they "earned" an abortion. That is every bit as sick and irrational as the Jesus freaks.

[Rolan7]

Surely there's a difference between alcoholics (those bad actors who deserve to die /s) grabbing sadly limited organs off the transplant list, and someone choosing not to gestate for 9 months.

I agree that casual abortion is gross, sure!  But I disagree that it's a serious problem.  I think it's actually vanishingly rare and a distraction from the actual issue of people being forced, by misinformation/economics/literal laws, to carry and create children against their will.

Edit: And the best single solution is prevention through sex ed (something that color generally resists).

[wierd]

Irrational as an adjective presupposes that it lacks rationality.

This is not the case.  The irrational position is that pure agency is the ideal.  Society restricts agency all the time; It incarcerates people who steal, or murder, for instance.


Pure agency is not tenable to a functional society.  Down that path, lies unrestricted human behavior, a-la the purge.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's a good point, I suppose we could just make it illegal to advocate against abortion. It's a threat to other people's safety, after all.

[MrRoboto75]

People who are against abortion often won't bother funding education or healthcare.  Almost like the baby doesn't matter once its shat out into the world.

[wierd]

Note, "Against abortion" is seen as a monolithic "NO ABORTIONS! ITS NEVER ACCEPTABLE!" front.  That is not rational.


"against unrestricted abortion" is "Against abortion", and is ALSO *not* "No abortions"-- it just insists that there be restrictions.  The argument then is "BUT AGENCY!! (YOU EVIL BASTARD!)" (Because no restriction on agency is acceptable!)

Which, again-- Society puts limits on agency all the time, because failure to do so results in an untenable social condition.


MSH-- Sounds like you just invented hate speech there.  Radical concept; spewing ideologies intended to cause harm to others.  Just one problem-- As per above, the conception of the "with restrictions" crowd is 180 degrees polar to that notion; It is intended to reduce harm, not increase it.  For instance, I am very much in favor of abortion under the right sets of conditions, and very much in favor of quality sex ed, so that women know *ALL* of their options, so that it does not come down to abortion.

But clearly, I am anti-agency, and thus evil. Right? 



To be perfectly and transparently clear-- Abortion causes trauma to a woman's body. End of story.  It is just LESS trauma than childbirth.  Know what causes even less trauma? Not getting pregnant in the first place, and thus not needing the abortion to begin with.  Such as, via knowing all of one's reproductive options.

As the link I provided earlier goes into great detail about, almost 50% of women who get abortions, then get at least one more. Of those that that do get one more, most of them are married, and have at least one child already.  Lack of knowledge that you can bank your reproductive matter (either male or female), and then getting sterilization, prevents people from getting an option that is not only less emotionally debilitating to the person, less socially derided (not meant jugementally here), etc-- but also prevents them getting one that is less harmful physically too.

It is just the better option.

Advocating for the better option, OVER abortion, is exactly "Advocating for less harm."

Advocating "ABORTIONS ON DEMAND!!" is advocating for self-harm through ignorance, and or, lack of proliferation of better options.

But that's less EVIL, so nobody wants to consider that.

[Kagus]

Nobody likes abortions.

Regardless of intent to keep the child or circumstance of impregnation (rape, incest etc.), it is an invasive and emotionally challenging procedure to go through with. Nobody wants to get an abortion. It's just that it's an option that avoids a much worse alternative.


Abortion is a choice that the woman has to live with for the rest of her life. Not having an abortion is a choice the woman and her child have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Don't force children into households that cannot give them the love and care they should have, just because you think it's a fitting punishment for the child's parents.



I have a friend who was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with her boyfriend (who was I believe the only person she'd had sex with). She got pregnant while on the pill.

In North Carolina.


By the time she managed to find people willing and able to help her, she was too far along in the pregnancy for them to legally terminate. It was a healthy child, and no significant medical risk was posed to the mother by carrying to term.

She was 16 at the time. Had to drop out of high school to be a full-time mom. At 16.


It's a cute kid.

[wierd]

Again, Repeatedly playing russian roulette with a dick, before you have proper understanding of what that risk is, is how you get pregnant, and or, get somebody pregnant.  It is fundamentally irresponsible behavior.


Getting pregnant is the natural consequence of that activity, which is why it should not be treated as a recreational activity. Other natural consequences are pheremonal imprinting, and pair bonding, even if you do not actually want to be with that person romantically.  Which is another reason why it should not be done recreationally.


In the case of a below majority individual (such as a 16 year old), the decision should be vested with somebody who has legal guardianship of that individual (namely, her parents), and not be the sole purview of the state. (which often has less than salubrious ideas about things.)   --- By association, the guardian does not have sole purview either. It should be an agreed upon decision that is decided for the individual's wellbeing, as the individual is below the age of majority, and cannot legally decide such an outcome.

Driving home the reality that playing russian roulette with a dick *WILL* eventually result in pregnancy if you do it enough times, regardless of what birth control you use (because none are 100% effective), should be part of the sex ed class.  Not just "We know you are gonna do it, just use a condom."

No, it should be "Condom is only 90% effective, which means if you do it 10 times, your odds of getting pregnant approach 1."

Similar story for the pill.  It is not a magic bullet, and should not be portrayed as one.  Your 16 year old girl and her boyfriend are a tragedy, but not in the way you ascribe.  It is because she was not educated about what "not completely effective" actually means.

[Dunamisdeos]

If

You are not

Willing

To accept

The Risks

Do not

Have

Sex

It's not a punishment that you have to think about sex having the consequence of children, it's a consequence of your own decisions. It's not our intrinsic universal right to fuck whenever we want, and we don't have a lack of ability to control our own sexual urges unless someone has a clinical condition. You aren't FoRcInG PeOpLe To Be BoRn like there was a Y/N checkbox for a zygote on the way down the fallopian tube that you ignored.

You are ending a human life that you had an option not to create in the first place. You were the beginning and the end of this entire choice-making process. Sometimes you DO need to make that terrible choice to end a life, and people don't like admitting that. Weird also makes fantastic points, abortion isn't a get out of jail free card physically or emotionally. People who treat it that way tend to have more abortions, leading to more damage.

America has made abortion into a purely political issue instead of the real medical and ethical issue that it is, and until people decide they care more about facts than they do about moral outrage extremest political demagogues will use it to prolong the issue and gather up votes.

People don't want to actually talk about abortion because it requires that you either place intrinsic value on a human life, or that you openly don't. That leads to questioning your own set of moral values, no matter your initial stance. It then leads to challenging your views on sex. If there's one thing humanity has always been good at, it's sacrificing a few (hundred thousand) human lives in order to avoid confronting difficult questions about ourselves.

[Rolan7]

I think we almost agree!  Tell teens about the consequences.  Educate.
Telling them to blindly abstain demonstrably doesn't work, but teaching them the facts does.

[Lord Shonus]

One political color says "we will support your beliefs", while the other says "Not only will we not support your beliefs, we will dismiss them and do everything in our power to prove that your real reason for expressing those beliefs is that you are a misogynistic monster who wants to make women into literal slaves!". If you believe that going to an abortion clinic is no different from blasting a toddler with a shotgun, which color would you support?

I'm just saying that most anti-abortionist are in a political spectrum (the alt-right religious conservitave one)

This. Statement. Is. Wrong. Anti-abortion people are found in all portions of the political spectrum. But only those who join Team Red are allowed to actually voice opposition to abortion, because Team Blue takes the "Any attempt to tighten restrictions on abortion is an attempt to enslave women, and is therefore forbidden" position.

Therefore, people who are very against abortion go to Team Red, because that is the side that allows them to have their beliefs, not because they agree with the rest of the platform.

[ChairmanPoo]

If

You are not

Willing

To accept

The Risks

Do not

Have

Sex

It's not a punishment that you have to think about sex having the consequence of children, it's a consequence of your own decisions. It's not our intrinsic universal right to fuck whenever we want, and we don't have a lack of ability to control our own sexual urges unless someone has a clinical condition. You aren't FoRcInG PeOpLe To Be BoRn like there was a Y/N checkbox for a zygote on the way down the fallopian tube that you ignored.

You are ending a human life that you had an option not to create in the first place. You were the beginning and the end of this entire choice-making process. Sometimes you DO need to make that terrible choice to end a life, and people don't like admitting that. Weird also makes fantastic points, abortion isn't a get out of jail free card physically or emotionally. People who treat it that way tend to have more abortions, leading to more damage.

America has made abortion into a purely political issue instead of the real medical and ethical issue that it is, and until people decide they care more about facts than they do about moral outrage extremest political demagogues will use it to prolong the issue and gather up votes.

People don't want to actually talk about abortion because it requires that you either place intrinsic value on a human life, or that you openly don't. That leads to questioning your own set of moral values, no matter your initial stance. It then leads to challenging your views on sex. If there's one thing humanity has always been good at, it's sacrificing a few (hundred thousand) human lives in order to avoid confronting difficult questions about ourselves.

You see, part of the problem is that I don't regard  a zygote as a human being. So in my book it's not a human life.


That being said, I do think that at certain points it becomes a gray area and at certain other points it becomes dubious. That's why I think there's a reasonable  middle ground in a time-based law, like most of Europe has.

[Dunamisdeos]

I actually agree with you there @ChairmanPoo. That's why I am ok with things like contraception. I'm not sure exactly when a thing goes from a single cell to a human life, but I think "before conception" is super dang safe.

I think my main issue is that I have trouble understanding how someone can get to the point of being 16-18 or whatnot and not know the risks. Sure some people have been educated and don't believe the risks are there, or feel like it won't happen to them, but I can't wrap my brain around "I legit had no idea".

I went to an openly Christain private school in the 90's, and they still taught us sex ed, including contraception.