Print

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

[voliol]

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.

Or rather defining "human life". Does really a clump of (human, genetically) cells constitute a human?

edit: got ninja'd by chairmanpoo, oh well

[wierd]

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.

The major demographic is impoverished minorities. This means such things as linguistic barriers, poor attendance at school, et al.

Which is why I feel that "The school" should not be the "End all!"" setting here, and why repeat abortion is what needs to be targeted.  When the woman comes back a second time, it's time for the comprehensive education package, not "OK, please sign here, here and here."

If possible, it should be given on the FIRST visit.

[Dostoevsky]

Probably unrelated to the current discussion, but another news item that in more normal circumstances might have gotten more attention in the press. (I didn't see it, at least.) It's a week old now, to boot. From Politico:

The White House and Commerce Department forced the Census Bureau to take two new political appointees last week whose unexpected arrival has deepened fears at the agency that the 2020 census will be politicized, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Last Monday, Commerce deputy secretary Karen Dunn Kelley informed Census Bureau director Steven Dillingham and his career deputy, Ron Jarmin, that the two new appointees, Commerce aides Nathaniel T. Cogley and Adam Korzeniewski, had been installed in senior roles at the Census Bureau — a move that blindsided both of them, according to a Census Bureau official.

[The Ensorceler]

When the woman comes back a second time, it's time for the comprehensive education package, not "OK, please sign here, here and here."

If possible, it should be given on the FIRST visit.

This right here is the misconception. You're saying people need enough support to avoid the need for *future* abortions. If somebody walks in and demands the abortion, though, they get it. You can be 'anti-abortion' in the sense of 'pro-low-abortion-rate' without ever forcing anyone to give birth. I *believe* some of the flack you've caught is from appearing to make reasonable arguments before accidentally implying you'd use pregnancy as punishment when you go a bit vague on what 'has to be some consequences' means.

[Naturegirl1999]

I don’t think he mentioned pregnancy as a punishment, I thought he was saying that if you have sex, be aware that pregnancy is a possible outcome of that

[Dunamisdeos]

I don’t think he mentioned pregnancy as a punishment, I thought he was saying that if you have sex, be aware that pregnancy is a possible outcome of that

Yeah, this. Get yourself sterilized, or get ready to play the odds.

Really though, show me the "has to have some reasonable consequences" political candidate. Noone in power has any interest in actually offering a resolution for abortion that doesn't cater to extremists on one side or another. Nobody has interest in a candidate that does. The longer they keep the problem going, the longer they can use it to posture for votes.

Does really a clump of (human, genetically) cells constitute a human?

It sure does for you and me. Regardless of what you or I believe about spirituality or a soul or whatever else you might call it, we're all just that in the end.

By the time it gets noticed at all, it qualifies as a human infant/child under any objective metric I've ever had presented to me. Can't support itself? It won't be able to do that until it's 4 feet tall if you're lucky. Can't contribute to society? Can't do that for a decade and a half anyway, at least. It's made of human, and it's vitals can be physically measured from it's mother. It's human. Either human life matters or it doesn't.

It needs to be approached from the angle of ending a human life. Does this situation qualify as a reasonable objection to ending a human life, or does it not? If someone had the choice (which yes, they 100% did, barring rape) to bring this human life into the equation before the question even arose, is it their responsibility to take the consequences? I don't know who else that responsibility could possibly belong to.

So my position remains that abortion is the ending of a human life. At the least, the logical arguments heavily imply that it is, even if it can't be conclusively proven. Education and legal guidelines based on medical science should exist that govern when this event can take place. It's an issue that would permanently affect every aspect of our society and identity as a species if an answer was ever accepted. So naturally, we will avoid anything conclusive for as long as possible, probably until some kind of Abortion War kills half of us.

[ChairmanPoo]

It sure does for you and me. Regardless of what you or I believe about spirituality or a soul or whatever else you might call it, we're all just that in the end.

No. Reductionism.

By the time it gets noticed at all, it qualifies as a human infant/child under any objective metric I've ever had presented to me. Can't support itself? It won't be able to do that until it's 4 feet tall if you're lucky. Can't contribute to society? Can't do that for a decade and a half anyway, at least.

Reductionist strawman. The situation is a bit different

It's made of human, and it's vitals can be physically measured from it's mother. It's human.Either human life matters or it doesn't.

so is a cell culture. Doesnt hold water, is not enough to me. Also only a Sith deals in absolutes

It needs to be approached from the angle of ending a human life.

No, it really doesnt. I know you feel that way, but I disagree. It's not obvious that it is a "human" life in any meaningful way.

So my position remains that abortion is the ending of a human life. At the least, the logical arguments heavily imply that it is, even if it can't be conclusively proven

The problem with your logical arguments is that they are based on presuppositions that other people don't necessarily accept. I can understand why you feel like you do. If I thought a zygote was a human life I'd agree with you, because it does logically follow to be against abortion if you think it is. Problem is, I don't agree it is. I think the vast majority of pro-choice people wouldn't agree either. I agree it has a clump of cells with the potential to become a human being, but I don't think potentiality of humanity implies humanity. The core of the problem lies in the different axioms we have. Thus any compromise must recognize the other party's position. *If* you want compromise, and I'd understand if you didnt. Likely I would be uncompromising in your shoes. Just be aware you're not going to get very far

[Max™]

Nevermind, I don't care.

[Egan_BW]

Does really a clump of (human, genetically) cells constitute a human?

It sure does for you and me. Regardless of what you or I believe about spirituality or a soul or whatever else you might call it, we're all just that in the end.

By the time it gets noticed at all, it qualifies as a human infant/child under any objective metric I've ever had presented to me. Can't support itself? It won't be able to do that until it's 4 feet tall if you're lucky. Can't contribute to society? Can't do that for a decade and a half anyway, at least. It's made of human, and it's vitals can be physically measured from it's mother. It's human. Either human life matters or it doesn't.

It needs to be approached from the angle of ending a human life. Does this situation qualify as a reasonable objection to ending a human life, or does it not? If someone had the choice (which yes, they 100% did, barring rape) to bring this human life into the equation before the question even arose, is it their responsibility to take the consequences? I don't know who else that responsibility could possibly belong to.

So my position remains that abortion is the ending of a human life. At the least, the logical arguments heavily imply that it is, even if it can't be conclusively proven. Education and legal guidelines based on medical science should exist that govern when this event can take place. It's an issue that would permanently affect every aspect of our society and identity as a species if an answer was ever accepted. So naturally, we will avoid anything conclusive for as long as possible, probably until some kind of Abortion War kills half of us.

Life ends all the time, both by our choice and not. "Genetically human" is just a long string of data that by itself means nothing. That genome is contained in its entirety in every living cell in your body. It could be stored in a computer, or written down on paper. If your only metric is "a collection of human cells", then that's not going to be enough to impress me, because that could also apply to removing tumors or amputating limbs. If you say it's different from that because it's a distinct organism, why does that matter?

I can't provide a definition of "a discreet human life" that I think is universal or that everyone agrees to, but I can say that I'm not going to accept that one.

[Frumple]

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.

That's horseshit, though? We have actual standing democrat politicians that are explicitly and loudly anti-abortion. They don't get much meaningful traction on the subject within the party becase full prevention of abortion is a minority position both in the country as a whole and within groups that are basically anything major besides white evangelicals, but the position you're providing is also flat wrong. There's both room for and an existent slice of the democrat party that doesn't hold that position.

They're not exactly welcomed with open arms on the subject (cause most of the voters don't agree, among more practical concerns like the position not fucking helping to reduce abortions anyway) but it doesn't get them kicked out of or barred from the party, as you seem to be suggesting. They're just fairly likely to not be benefited as a general thing just due to the position not bloody being popular to begin with outside of specific religious demographics.

[Max™]

Nevermind, I don't care.

[Lord Shonus]

Democratic politicians who oppose abortion are not only rare, but are almost always targeted for elimination by the national party even in cases where this risks losing control.

[DontMineYellowSnow]

How many of you folks with strong opinions on reproductive rights in here are women?

Show of hands?

Call me crazy for suggesting that, as someone who will never be forced to bear the burden of pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion... I am distinctly unqualified to force others to accept my inherenly lacking opinion as valid.

Getting all whirlwinded up and intoxicated with the presence of another person is a powerful fucking experience, it shouldn't be done lightly, but it shouldn't just be dismissed as "KEEP YOUR DICK IN YOUR PANTS" because that's a seriously assholish stance, extra assholish when we've had decades of NOPE, SEX IS BAD, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS by stupid goddamn christmongering pieces of shit pounding their chests because they found one strain of hateful ignorance which they can use to damn the gays, the teens, AND the unwed mothers!

Don't side with repressed homophobic forced birthers, and don't try to force women to accept your ignorant beliefs.

It's easy to know I'm on the right side here: I want women in charge of their own decisions that have major impacts on their own lives.


As for Kavanaugh... dude had a screaming hissyfit while ranting about fart jokes and beer because only being seated on the SECOND most powerful court in the land could ruin his life because he was an entitled frat boy in college and by all evidence appears to still be one... who is now seated on the most powerful court in the land for life. Fuck that "seems reasonable enough" shit and fuck that "constitutionalism is good" bullshit, the cunts who swear by originalism are super eager to use it when they have an argument that serves their fucked up purposes but NOT when they can use it to strip the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendment rights of the accussed and imprisoned?

What the fuck is wrong with you that you think this is a good turn of events, who told you that?

...Wow.

Been fun, ya'll.

[Rolan7]

Democratic politicians who oppose abortion are not only rare, but are almost always targeted for elimination by the national party even in cases where this risks losing control.

...Yeah?  Literally forcing women to bear children is one of the very few ideological positions that isn't included in the Democrat's big tent.  Likewise, good luck getting a Republican nomination without advocating it.  Doesn't matter if you're one of the most infamous sleazebag womanizers of the century as long as you promise to legislate women's wombs as, essentially, state property.

[Egan_BW]

It is certainly interesting that it's basically the defining line between red neoliberals and blue neoliberals.