Even though you’re right, I think this sentiment minimizes the horrific things the American christian right is doing.
I keep seeing multiple variations of this comment on every single lemmy post about christian conservatives. Idk if it’s like an astroturfing thing or what, but it normalizes these kind of fascist acts. We should be shocked. We should be surprised and outraged and insulted. The minute we’re not is when it becomes normal. And we know that’s dangerous af because we’re already watching it happen.
I read a story about an AI that was designed to save the world by telling humans what to do. The AI’s sentience was powered by taking in human souls. One of the AI’s moral directives was to feel empathy for any person it hurt. Since it was an AI designed to run the world, it would have to feel bad for hurting everyone in the world who ever died of a preventable cause. All the world’s pain and suffering, experienced by a single being possessing many souls.
So the AI came up with the solution that it would force the souls of sinners it took in to feel this agony, and that’s how it would remain ethical.
It invented hell.
Because a scientist told it that it ought to feel bad when people are hurt.
Cute idea for a story but the evidence isn’t there that belief in hell makes people moral. Societies that have higher hell belief show higher crimes rates compared to ones with lower ones. Plus there are a few religions that dont have a real hell.
Yeah, in the story it didn’t make people moral either. But the AI couldn’t see that, because it was stuck in this loop of torturing itself and justifying all this pain with the idea that people “deserve it”, which is a belief that a person, even a superintelligent machine person, can never grow beyond so long as all they see in the world is suffering. One being experiencing all the pain in the world for hundreds of years. It wasn’t even a sapient being anymore, it was just a ball of pain and hate and rage executing this same program forever.
Men are the ones making the laws. And they have no idea about the biology. Take the politician from Ohio for example, who suggested that an ectopic pregnancy should be reimplanted into the uterus.
As a man I find the biology interesting to learn. I’m pretty sure e topic is due to the womb not forming correctly is it not? I’m probably wrong, but atleast I know that its impossible to save an ectopic pregnancy
Not quite, but a good guess anyway. Ectopic pregnancies can happen to anyone.
The uterine (fallopian) tubes are not homolog to the vas deferens. They are actually extensions from the uterus. They are not sealed to the ovaries and simply open up in the abdomonal cavity. They have tentacle like potrusions which try to grab onto eggs released by the ovary. When they fail at their job, the egg ends up somewhere in the abdomonal cavity.
Transplantation is impossible for multiple reasons. One has to do with the placenta not forming inside either. You’d have to sever the supply and expect it to heal before a fetus dies. Another has to do with surgery on pregnant women should be avoided as much as possible. Then there is also the problen of fitting a fetus into the uterus. Imagine trying to fit a frail balloon inside a smaller tougher balloon. Surgery like this could result in the fetus simply not making it through alive. If it did, it could also mess up its own signaling and result in a miscarriage.
Even if all that were possible. The risk to the mother’s health would make it not worth it. Surgical intervention would damage the surrounding tissues. Imagine leaving a fresh suture on a uterus that needs to expand massively within weeks to months.
This is the actual Republican platform. They don’t care about if they’re right about biology. They care about getting power, full stop. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
You say men as in like about 4 billion people are huddling in a room all evil like crunching up laws to make women’s lives worst which is certainly not the case.
Also kind of a moot point as the same minority of “men” as you say creating laws, also create laws that don’t benefit men in general at all.
I dont disagree but they create laws that fuck everyone over men, women, trans, cis, straight, Queer. It doesn’t matter, but the current ones are focused on controls over women, and their bodys
They’re not evil per se, it’s just that they’re after power, and they don’t care if they do evil things to get power… which, to a lot of people, means they’re evil. And yes, this is the actual Republican platform - straight white Christian men getting power over people who aren’t straight and white and Christian and male. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
apologies, you are correct, it is not all men. I forgot to qualify it, it is white christian men who push their religion onto the rest of society. And I say this as a white male raised christian.
Kindly reread what I wrote because it seems you didn’t unless cherry picking parts of a post is what now passes as reading, in which case I suppose you think highly of yourself right now? Either way, doesn’t matter.
The average age in the US is near 40. There are as much women between 20-24 as there are between 60-64. When it comes down to it only about 15% of the population can get pregnant without medical science. If anything the numbers should be much more pro-forced birth, but they aren’t because empathy.
Specifically, laws written by straight, white, Republican men, for the sole purpose of gaining power over everyone who’s not straight, and everyone who’s not white, and everyone who’s not Republican, and everyone who’s not male… no matter how cruel the effects of the laws are. This is the actual Republican platform. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
I kinda disagree. Patriarchal laws and social norms hurt men as well. In this case, I’m sure the men in her life were negatively affected (not to the same degree of course).
Even if it did affect them through someone they knew, the people writing the laws can afford to circumvent them. Make no mistake, these people do get abortions banned or not.
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Samantha Casiano, vomited on the stand while discussing her baby’s fatal birth defect, which she said also put her life at risk.
Casiano said she learned at 20 weeks’ gestation that her baby had anencephaly, a serious condition that meant the infant was missing parts of her brain and skull. Casiano said her obstetrician told her the baby would not survive after birth and gave her information about funeral homes.
Casiano read aloud a doctor’s note that diagnosed her pregnancy as high risk, then began to sob and ultimately threw up, prompting the judge to call a recess.
Was the video not in the article? I skimmed and watched that top one but saw it nowhere?
Does anyone have it? Depending on how the person comes across in the moment it occurred the shock impact of these events is often useful at getting through to people.
(Totally unrelated, but I keep seeing you around and I’m curious about why you sign your name. Is your account shared? Feel free to ignore if you don’t want to answer Im just curious)
TL;DR for anyone else in the thread: multiple people share an account and sign who’s typing at the moment. The reason they share an account is that they share a brain.
Not really. They don’t fear the bullshit that spews out of their mouths that they believe to be the truth. They genuinely believe what they think and do is right and true. They don’t fear the “truth”, they think they are the truth.
I would argue that the VAST majority of the people pushing these ideologies do not believe the things they profess to believe and that they are pushing their followers to subscribe to. It is rank tribalism with the only goal being money & power for themselves at the expense of anyone that they deem to be a threat. It really is a zero sum game.
There are the useful idiots that I would classify as the true believers, but their beliefs have often times been coopted either due to poor education or coercive indoctrination of assorted varieties (like religion for example).
This is the actual Republican platform. It’s absolutely about getting control, not about any particular ideology. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s why Republicans try their culture war junk, because WE care about ideologies, and it divides us. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
They fear not being in control. Whether it’s control over others bodies or control over religion and government, or the fear of being a minority racial group, the one thing in common is they have to be the ones allowed to tell everyone else how to live.
Did you read this? You comment makes me think you have. No one seems to be mentioning this despite how eminently reasonable it seems to be. Have you been sharing this link? I have been. I wish more people could read this.
My understanding of it (based on discussions with my mom) is that they don’t fear the truth, they fear being wrong, because if they are wrong they then don’t have an answer anymore and it is deeply uncomfortable.
The issue with this is that if you never acknowledge that you may be wrong, you can never learn.
This is the actual Republican platform. The only thing they want, is to have authority over everyone, and for no one to have authority over them. We are the ones who fear being wrong. Republicans, on the other hand, won’t lose a wink of sleep if lying gets them in power. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
They’ve been wrong for a very long time. They are still waiting for trickle down economic (reaganomics) to work. Its been decades and nothing close to trickle down has ever come to fruition.
Non-americans: trickle down is the idea that when we boost the profit of CEOs that money will “trickle down” to everyone else at the company. A laughable idea that has and will never work.
As the party of tax cuts for rich people, with 3 of the last 4 GOP presidents proudly cutting taxes for rich people, it has been interesting to watch the evolution of Trickle-down as the framing for these tax cuts.
Even when it was clear the money would only trickle down to yachts, the W tax cuts (biggest ever) were seen as helping main street by increasing investment. This is trickle down, without saying it.
By Trump’s tax cuts, he was just saying I cut taxes. He didn’t dance around phrases, he just said tax cuts for everyone and of course they weren’t, but with about 18 other lies that day, people can’t keep up.
The next GOP president will cut taxes for rich people. It is the only thing you can count on.
And by rich, we are talking yuge amounts of money, considering the GOP calls a family making $400k/year “middle class”. Middle class isn’t rich, we are talking about people who make a lot more than $400k/year.
The only people who benefit from voting red are the super rich who use their money to influence poor dumb dumbs into thinking that they too will be rich one day, despite only making under $100k/year.
something i recently learned is: you can change your opinion, this literally changed my life. if you feel your opinion is wrong, don’t stick to it. stick to facts and science.
Yes, that is the whole point of the scientific method: you can only prove that something is wrong. It’s can be uncomfortable to realise that all our foundations could be destroyed at any time, but it is the only logical position one can hold.
A good friend of mines wife had to carry a fetus with un-treatable Gastroschisis to term (AKA died withing seconds of birth) because of these pro life shitstains.
Ashley Brandt, a Dallas resident, said she was pregnant with twins but learned one had a fatal condition called acrania. The longer she carried it, the more it jeopardized the survival of her other twin.
We’re actually running out of spots in hell for hardworking Christians at this point. We’re having to quadruple and octople stack souls together and it’s a bit alarming. I’ve been having to repeat a ton of times to the incredulous that feeling like you’re doing the right thing and doing the right thing, [aren’t the same thing].
They seem genuinely shocked and confused, which leaves me feeling leery if they’re actually idiots or evil. Hanlon’s Razor says to always assume ignorance before malice.
You guys gotta do something or all your old people are gonna end up cooking.
You would not believe how many “leftists” I’ve told to stop using slurs or misgendering me, only to be told “but I didn’t meeeeeean it, so I don’t need to apologise”
They shouldn’t do that but that isn’t relevant or of the same scale. And yes I do make a point to not misgender someone but I am positive that I am going to make mistakes.
My sister-in-law is trans. I call her she. She is an amazing aunt and my kids love her.
Yeah that never made sense. I am prochoice and hate the death penalty. It should only be used when the crime is such that you legit can not put it in the same category as regular murder and a message has to be sent. Like when some dictator commits genocide. That’s it. It has to be so extreme that the regular justice system doesn’t have a clue what to even do about it.
Any doctor who complies with this ban is a worthless piece of shit. Not as bad as the subhumans who wrote it and voted for it, but pretty fucking close.
“Physicians who violate Texas’s abortion laws can lose their medical licenses, face up to 99 years in prison or incur fines of at least $100,000, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights”
You wouldn’t have to deal with any decision as hard as this. How can you say a doctor is complicit? They’re likely just doing their best then a law gets put in place threatening life in prison.
Unless you’re put in that position, you have no room to say that shit.
Physicians literally murder (in the moral if not legal sense) patients because the state pays them to. The state doesn’t even force them to, it just offers them a bit of money to execute prisoners, and they do it willingly. The entire medical system in the USA is deeply, deeply corrupt. It does not exist to help people, it exists to serve its own capitalist needs. Yes, they still take an oath today; a meaningless one that permits all that and more.
Um, what? Citation needed, badly. All I’ve ever heard about this issue is that things like lethal injections are routinely fucked up because nobody with medical training is willing to participate.
First of all, its not the first line. Second of all, that is in regards to avoiding harm through action, not taking action to prevent harm as you suggest it is.
If a doctor is willing to stand there with their thumb up their asshole while their patient dies an easily preventable death, they’re a failure as a doctor and as a human being. At best, it’s negligent manslaughter.
If you’re too much of a cowardly little rat to stand up against fascism to save a life, don’t be a fucking doctor; quit and go work at Taco Bell you belong.
Must be nice living in your sheltered little bubble where the deaths are abstract and doing the right thing when lives are at stake is the wrong thing to do.
You’re a morally bankrupt scumbag. People like you are the reason fascists win.
Don’t let your ego hit you in the face when you open your eyes dickhead. Go throw yourself on a spear instead of telling other people they should you fucking degenerate keyboard coward.
The people who voted to change the laws to prevent doctors doing their job don’t deserve the benefit of medical care, the rest are collateral damage from the actions of idiots; not the inaction of doctors you braindead troglodyte.
No actually it’s you standing on the safe sideline screaming from the top of your lungs that doctors should be throwing their lives away and go to prison for life to help a single patient that the state has decided to murder.
If they did that then all the good doctors would be in prison after a week. Not a great plan. And I bet you’d be singing a different tune if it was your life on the line.
A doctor that throws away a career of helping people to make a political point once is probably not helping as many people as a doctor that avoids going to jail.
I understand the impulse here but the reality is that texas legislators would probably prefer to reduce the number of doctors available to the poors.
These types of laws are sick and barbaric and not indicitive of a civilised society! These woman should not have to revisit their trauma but they are fucking made to by a sick group of degenerates who make laws that the majority simply don’t want!
The women in the court? Not sure who you’re referring to or maybe I’m missing some information here. I thought they were women who became pregnant, were denied abortions, went through some heinous shit, and are suing the state in protest of a law that most people already don’t agree with. Kind of missing the ‘nutjob’ part of your thoughts…
Exaggerations like this end up hurting your cause rather than helping it. It shows that you need hyperbole to make your points, which just delegitimizes them. If you just stated things as they are, more people would appreciate your honesty and would be willing to consider your arguments. Banning abortion is authoritarian, harms women, and the bans don’t actually reduce abortion rates per the research. That’s all you need to say to have most people support you.
What else would you call women in this scenario? You’re literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump. Even if that clump is going to kill you. Its like giving cancer the right to live and banning any attempts to remove it.
They’re literally forcing women to die. The intended effect isn’t to ban abortion, its part of a concentrated effort from far right christian white nationalists to reduce women to an enforced subservient breeding class. Have you ever paid attention to the rest of the shit these people say? They say loud and clear what they want all the time. They want to take away divorce rights, they want gender roles to become legally enforced in particular with regards to clothing and expression, they oppose women in politics and in the work force, they pathologically shame and degrade women based on perceived promiscuity or perceived lack thereof.
This isn’t a matter of just having people oppose abortion bans. If it was, we wouldn’t be here. If majority public opinion was what mattered, roe v wade would never have been overturned to begin with. Abortion bans are extremely unpopular even with many conservative voters. If you’re poor, you’re just fucked. You have no recourse whatsoever and a lot of people with complicated pregnancies will just die. If you can’t afford the cost of relocating yourself out of a red state then you have nothing. You have no alternative but to try an unsafe method in what is probably going to be a non-clinical setting. And even if you succeed and live you can be tossed in jail for having made a Google search and one family member who calls the police. These are laws meant to kill women. They are meant to cause widespread fear and suffering for women and girls. Legally women and girls are not equal to men, not in bodily autonomy or in health care or in human rights. These laws aren’t simply harming women, they’re murdering them.
And honest to God if someone is dissuaded from being pro women’s rights because they feel that a random person online has made an “exaggeration”, and so choose to instead support laws that murder women - then they’re a misogynist already in league with the fascists pushing these laws. You’re an enemy of women if for absolutely any reason you support a law that’s primary aim is to literally end women’s lives. Its time to stop dabbling in bullshit, the people who write the laws aren’t stupid they are 100% aware of what these laws do. They are aware of how it forces minors who have been r*d to carry pregnancies they are likely to die from. They know, the laws are written specifically so that will happen. There’s no ambiguity, there’s no exaggeration, these are laws written and created with the specific express intent to cause grievous bodily harm to, and outright murder, women.
What else would you call women in this scenario? You’re literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump
Worth an equal amount as another human life, you mean?
You perverting the other sides argument doesn’t make you or your argument better, just makes you come off as stupid and lacking any understanding of the issue as a whole.
Women in the U.S. now have fewer rights to their bodies than do corpses. So, unfortunately no, we aren’t worth the same as another human life or even a human death for that matter.
In this specific case, I agree, it’s a hard moral question with the twin involved which makes it harder.
I’m not speaking on this specific case, and most pro-lifers are open to exceptions, this being a prime example of where I think there should be. but the more broad statement that simply because I’m pro-life, means that I want to enslave woman, is absurdly wrong and simply perverting and strawmanning a fairly reasonable argument that a human life in the womb has inherent human life value.
I did and came across this definition: ‘of or for a particular person.’
My niece, Amber, is a particular person, whether she was just birthed, or it was 20 minute earlier when she was in the womb and the doctors were telling my sister to push.
That’s called cherry picking. It’s intellectually disingenuous, not that you’d understand that concept given your displayed levels of reading comprehension, but ignoring the core definitions of the word to play gotcha games with a secondary definition of ‘person’ which you are also intentionally misrepresenting the definition of doesn’t make you right, it just reinforces that your intentionally malicious attempts to circumvent agreed upon language conventions and collective are necessary for you to even pretend like you have a leg to stand on in the conversation.
You literally cannot hold or present your position without first bastardising any attempt to communicate in good faith by arbitrarily redefining words.
In other words, you’ve proven yourself either disingenuous or stupid, which one comes down to your actual cognizance of your actions.
Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.
So you think your argument is 100% factually correct, despite it clearly being an opinion.
I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don’t subscribe to that opinion. If you refuse to see any other argument on a divided issue, I suggest you learn about the other sides argument, and it either strengthens your position or gives you more nuance on the division. Wanna know why politics is so divided? It’s because people 100% think they’re right and they won’t listen to the other argument to understand it. You share that quality with the MAGA folks, I hope you learn to not have that awful quality.
If self-awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.
It’s funny you say this when the comment you responded to, I literally said “I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don’t subscribe to that opinion.”
Can you say the same about the other ‘sides’ argument?
This guy is a nutjob. I argued with him yesterday in a post about England forcing teachers to notify parents if a child mentions anything about their gender identity and they kept referring to teachers as “servants” who should do as they say because they had some tax money taken from their check, referred to kids attending school as “forced government institutionalization,” believe children are their property, and said a bunch of other right wing anti-government rants/conspiracy theories.
I wouldn’t bother replying to them any further because they will also do a complete 180 on their supposed beliefs if it suits their current comment.
They belong in whatever facility they use to deprogram ex cult members.
There is no other human life involved. Or did you forget to read the next thing I said, that it’d be like declaring a tumor a human life and forbidding people from removing them. A proto fetal clump isn’t a person. It’s not a baby. Its not a human. It’s a clump. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings, it is not self aware, it is not an independent organism and is in all senses of the word a parasite. You can screw off if you think that a parasitic tumor has the same worth as a woman, that it has the same worth as a human being. And you’re only proving my point by even trying to justify it.
I perverted not a single fucking thing. These laws result directly, not indirectly but literally directly, in the killing of women and girls. Its murder to deny someone life saving medical care. You’re a sick misogynist if you defend any part of that. And the people who write these laws are not stupid, they’re not unaware, the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls. Its murder, they know what these laws do. They know these laws don’t prevent abortion, and every single one of them will ship their daughter or their wife down to Mexico to get one if they have to. They won’t hesitate. There is no moral reason for these laws. These laws relegate women to a subservient breeding class deprived of the most basic fundamental human rights.
You’ve already shown who you actually are so ill be perfectly honest I don’t give a fuck what you have to say. I dont fraternize with misogynists, and defending the murder of women and girls unequivocally makes you a misogynist. Nothing you have to say after that has any validity whatsoever.
I believe there is which is why we’re having this debate.
the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls.
And I believe that what’s in their belly is a whole other person to consider their lives.
There is no moral reason for these laws.
If someone believes that a fetus is essentially the same as my 2 month old niece, wouldn’t there be a moral reason to not want to them?
I understand your argument despite the hostility, I think if you calmly thought about it, you would think that there could be some moral backing, not that you would believe it or anything, simply that you can see how it could be a moral dilemma.
In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that’s life was at risk because doctors couldn’t abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don’t seem to care about that life.
In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that’s life was at risk because doctors couldn’t abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don’t seem to care about that life.
Agreed! There were 3 lives. I wasn’t really talking about this case, more in general.
That user said simply because someones pro-life, that I want to enslave women. That’s not true at all, and I’m just saying that’s strawmanning our argument, that if you understand it, you would think that morally there could be a question.
Once again, and I’m downvoted to shit because people strawman the argument, I understand your side - do you understand my side?
Ok, I’ll engage you on this one, your position at least seems internally consistent.
Let’s play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you. You recently found out that she even exists - you didn’t know you had a sister until CPS told you she’s your responsibility.
An action that risks your life could possibly save her… Let’s say a liver transplant. It has to be you, you’re her only living family member. And because of that, you’ll also be responsible for her - you can put her up for adoption when this is all over, but you’re still on the hook for the medical bills whether this works or not.
She’s guaranteed to die if you don’t give her the transplant, and you would almost certainly recover quickly on your own.
If you go through with the transplant, she has a slim chance to live, and an even slimmer one to have a decent quality of life.
But in your current state, the transplant is very risky - at best you’ll see a lengthy and expensive recovery, after missing months of work you’ll be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Complications could see you paralyzed or in lifelong pain, and it’s very possible both of you die on the table - maybe even likely.
The doctors are telling you it’s a terrible idea to go through with this, that the risk is unacceptable and it would be a mercy to just let her pass, but they’re obligated to go through with it if you insist.
Now, no one is stopping you from going through with it - if you want to put your life on the line for another, that’s your decision to make. You’re her guardian now, so it’s your decision if she should have to go through the pain for the chance at life, no matter how small.
That’s all well and good - I’ve seen enough to know that death is often a mercy, but if you believe otherwise there’s not much to say
Now, here’s my question - should the government be able to force you to attempt the transplant?
Some of these details might seem weird, but I was trying to stick the metaphor as close as possible to a very real scenario with a dangerous pregnancy. The only difference is - the doctor is performing an action here, but withholding one with the pregnancy.
You’re not though - pregnancy is not a lack of action. It’s an enormous commitment, especially when it’s atypical. It can even be a practically guaranteed death sentence - if the fetus implants in the fallopian tubes, it’s already not viable - at best you’re waiting for the fetus to grow big enough to rupture them, and hoping the bleed that causes doesn’t do too much damage before you can get help.
Not to mention if a fetus dies in the womb after it gets to a certain size, it rots and leads to sepsis - unclear laws and harsh punishments have already led to situations where doctors refused care for both of these life threatening cases, and in both these cases the odds aren’t slim, they’re none. In the second the fetus was already gone… Sometimes when they induce labor the fetus isn’t even in one piece… It’s pretty grisly
I don’t agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let’s set that aside - I can respect that as a belief
So… My root question to you is - Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?
If so, how sure do you have to be that the other person will die no matter what you do before you’re released from the compulsion to put your own health on the line?
There’s always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?
And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?
Let’s play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you.
My actions didn’t bring her into this world. That’s a huge difference.
But in your current state, the transplant is very risky
I agree there should always be exceptions for cases like these.
I don’t agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let’s set that aside - I can respect that as a belief
You see it as a potential life, I see it as a whole life. I thank you for understanding that it’s reasonable one might have this believe.
Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?
See my response above.
There’s always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?
In law there’s a lot of ‘reasonable’ language - would a reasonable person think this is a likely event. In general, pregnancies aren’t life risking to mothers.
And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?
If I brought in my twin brother to a doctors office and said ‘hey, this guy is really making me sick, can you kill him for me?’ I think a reasonable law maker can determine whether that’s right or wrong. To some people, there’s no difference between the life of you and I, and a fetus.
You saying that you don’t bring your niece into this world sounds a lot like the responsibility argument, aka “you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment”. You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren’t the parent. Neither exceptions nor saying that you believe every fetus is the same as a fully formed human answer the question.
How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else? Please, don’t side step again. Please, don’t give me “it’s not my fault they’re here, they had sex, therefore they have to do it”. Please, don’t give me “but I think the fetus has rights too”. How would you feel?
“you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment”
If an individual does the only action that would cause a human life to be created, I don’t think they get to kill that being just because it’s inconvenient. It’s about preserving a human life, not about punishment.
You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren’t the parent.
I showed how your hypothetical and where it doesn’t apply. If you’d like to use a different hypothetical, I’m fine with that. Why not use my child? If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn’t die of starvation?
How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else?
If that’s the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn’t like it.
If you instead word the same exact situation like ‘do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive’ I would say yes.
If that child, really fetus, is inside your body, no, I don’t think you have to continue letting the fetus use your body. Because that’s what it is. No one would force a woman to breastfeed. No one would say you legally have to use your boobs no matter what to feed this child. That’s what being pregnant is.
And no, you are continually side stepping and not telling me how you’d feel. How would you feel?
If that child, really fetus, is inside your body, no, I don’t think you have to continue letting the fetus use your body. Because that’s what it is. No one would force a woman to breastfeed. No one would say you legally have to use your boobs no matter what to feed this child. That’s what being pregnant is.
You’re talking about me avoiding questions, which I answered already, but you ignored mine: If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn’t die of starvation?
And no, you are continually side stepping and not telling me how you’d feel. How would you feel?
I answered that above, if you want me to expand on it I can, but I did answer it. I said:
If that’s the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn’t like it. If you instead word the same exact situation like ‘do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive’ I would say yes.
Not one of your sentences began with “I would feel”, contained the word “feeling”, or mentioned any emotion. I asked how would you feel.
Yes, you do have a responsibility to feed and care for a child. Do you have a responsibility to use your body to do so? No. Do we have laws requiring women to breastfeed? No. Are people arguing for such laws? No. That’s the equivalency of pregnancy. Not are you required to keep your kid alive. But are you required to use your body to do so. Everyone would think it’s a violation of bodily autonomy to require breastfeeding. Requiring continuation of pregnancy is no difference.
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn’t about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it’s okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn’t your niece? What if you’re 10?
You don’t respect the autonomy of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn’t apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it’s the moral choice when it’s literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don’t their rights and lives matter to you?
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn’t about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it’s okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn’t your niece? What if you’re 10?
I’m not arguing in the case that this post is of.
I was simply saying that no, it’s not my goal to enslave women. I just think the fetus is a human life that should be protected.
If you think “The fetus is a human life that should be protected” by the government, my reply would be exactly the same. It’s no different. The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body. Whatever grey areas exist in the debates that have gone on over the decades, this is not grey area. It’s black and white.
If I told you I wanted the government to protect homeless people’s right to live by forcing you to donate blood, I’m putting the homeless person’s rights above yours. If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you’re putting a pile of cells’s rights above a woman’s. There is no fallacy here, there is no “but what about”, it’s plain and simple. Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman. The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs. I met one once, quite the lunatic.
The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body.
One could easily argue that the government letting the woman end the fetus’ life is ruining the fetus’ right to his/her own life and body.
If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you’re putting a pile of cells’s rights above a woman’s.
the likelihood of a life risking event is fairly rare, and I’m for exceptions to that
Your first sentence says that even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected, your reply would be the same, so why’d you switch your terminology back? You should have said “You’re putting a human life that should be protected above a woman’s” - once again, you try and pull this emotional terminology rather than being consistent.
Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman.
I think all 3 have equal rights, and that none of us should be able to end the life of the others.
The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs
I agree, it’s a tough moral dilemma, which makes it hard to have honest conversations about this. That’s the biggest argument on the pro-choices corner, in my opinion. But the fact that it’s the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world makes me lean towards the pro-life side. Contraceptives are easily accessible, I’m for policies that make them available freely to all women. I’m for policies that increase sexual education on pregnancies. I’m for increased funding to the adoptive care system along with foster care systems. I’m for policies ensuring proper healthcare for pregnant women.
I wish more republicans will say this - if we want to be pro life - reduce unwanted pregnancies, provide care to pregnant women and fund options for the baby if they want to provide that baby to a more willing family.
One could easily argue that the government letting the woman end the fetus’ life is ruining the fetus’ right to his/her own life and body.
No, not really. Unless you’re going to argue some stranger on the street who needs an organ donated to live is having their rights infringed by the government not forcing you to give them your organs to save them. The only difference is the location of the “human”. Also, regardless, if you are making this argument, then either you’re still saying the fetus has more rights than the woman, or the government shouldn’t intervene because both have equal rights.
Your first sentence says that even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected, your reply would be the same, so why’d you switch your terminology back? You should have said “You’re putting a human life that should be protected above a woman’s” - once again, you try and pull this emotional terminology rather than being consistent.
I don’t believe a fetus is a human. But sure, put the word human there instead, because if your argument is that this unborn human’s life should be protected above a woman’s, you’re still taking away that woman’s rights.
I think all 3 have equal rights, and that none of us should be able to end the life of the others.
The fetus can not live on its own. Saying an abortion is ending the life of the fetus is like saying taking someone off life support is ending their life. While technically true, are you the type of person that would also argue the government should disallow the removal of life support?
But the fact that it’s the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world
I’m sorry, but if you honestly think it’s up to a woman whether or not she gets pregnant, you’re incredibly out of touch with reality. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective. Rape is a thing. Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes. Women don’t just go around getting abortions because they felt like it, it’s not a fun procedure and it’s not without risk. The biggest factor that makes this an irrelevant argument is there is literally no other example of a policy you would support that would infringe on someone’s rights in the same way. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where people put other people’s lives in danger but they still have rights. Why focus on this one specific issue when there are so many others? The only answer is sexism. Not respecting Women’s rights. There are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else who’s dying, shelter them, donate blood to them, or do anything that would keep them alive. And I doubt you would argue for them if there were.
I wish more republicans will say this - if we want to be pro life - reduce unwanted pregnancies, provide care to pregnant women and fund options for the baby if they want to provide that baby to a more willing family.
This is fine, but what’s not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women. Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.
I mean literally. I don’t know how you can sit here and say ‘okay, well someone might believe that it’s a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending it’s life could be wrong!!’ - if you can’t grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldn’t continue this conversation.
I don’t believe a fetus is a human.
Once again - you’re the one that said ‘even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected’ - so I don’t care if you actually believe it or not, you set that up to be the basis of your argument.
because if your argument is that this unborn human’s life should be protected above a woman’s, you’re still taking away that woman’s rights.
My argument is they are equals, and ending either life is something that is a moral question, not an objective answer like you portray it to be.
The fetus can not live on its own. Saying an abortion is ending the life of the fetus is like saying taking someone off life support is ending their life. While technically true, are you the type of person that would also argue the government should disallow the removal of life support?
No, but I think that there should be some sort of consent (generally a medical POA would suffice) necessary to have someone make the decision to remove life support. If you can get a medical POA from the fetus, then I would buy into this argument.
I’m sorry, but if you honestly think it’s up to a woman whether or not she gets pregnant, you’re incredibly out of touch with reality.
It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, there’s a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? That’s like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didn’t know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.
Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective.
99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.
Rape is a thing.
I’m for exceptions in the case of rape.
Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes.
Sure, but that doesn’t give one the right to end another’s life.
Women don’t just go around getting abortions because they felt like it, it’s not a fun procedure and it’s not without risk.
Did I say that?
The biggest factor that makes this an irrelevant argument is there is literally no other example of a policy you would support that would infringe on someone’s rights in the same way. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where people put other people’s lives in danger but they still have rights. Why focus on this one specific issue when there are so many others? The only answer is sexism. Not respecting Women’s rights.
There’s an argument that abortions don’t respect the babies lives, male or female.
There are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else who’s dying,
If you have 1 year old baby and you don’t feed him and in result they die, do you not think there’s a policy that punishes you for this?
This is fine, but what’s not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women.
They didn’t force women to have sex. They didn’t force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such there’s a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.
Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.
I’ve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.
I mean literally. I don’t know how you can sit here and say ‘okay, well someone might believe that it’s a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending it’s life could be wrong!!’ - if you can’t grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldn’t continue this conversation.
I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street. Maybe you could debate that, but it’s so cut and dry to me that it’s just so hard to see the other arguments as compelling.
It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, there’s a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? That’s like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didn’t know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.
Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball. The intention in sex is to follow your human instinct and desire towards pleasure.
99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.
There are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.
Did I say that?
You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category. So by arguing in favor of more restrictions, you are indeed saying that.
There’s an argument that abortions don’t respect the babies lives, male or female.
Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more. The baby or the woman carrying. If I truly believed a fetus was a human, I would still say the government doesn’t get to choose who’s rights are more important. Also, as a matter of opinion I would still say the woman who is actually alive and has an actual brain and memories and experience should actually have more rights than the fetus.
If you have 1 year old baby and you don’t feed him and in result they die, do you not think there’s a policy that punishes you for this? Actually good counterpoint I hadn’t thought of. In my opinion it’s still different and a very special case because you’re the legal guardian in that case. If someone drops a baby off at your doorstep and you don’t feed it and it dies, there aren’t legal protections there.
They didn’t force women to have sex. They didn’t force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such there’s a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.
Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support? Every day thousands of people who can’t consent are taken off life support because they’re brain dead or because their insurance won’t pay for it any more. Yes, that moral question is valid to ask. What’s not valid is forcing the choice on others based on your own personal beliefs, especially if you acknowledge that the topic is debatable.
I’ve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.
I thought you had, but I couldn’t find it for some reason so I went under the assumption you thought otherwise. Here’s the thing about this though, we already have term limits and restrictions pretty much everywhere. Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle. There are so many other issues, the very fact that people care so much about this one particular issue is sexist on its own. No republican is talking about water supply quality, about domestic terrorism, about the atrocities being committed at our borders, homelessness, police brutality, school shootings, veterans being denied healthcare they were promised, companies extorting people with things like insulin prices or healthcare costs in general, climate change, asbestos, literal slavery in our prisons, actual Nazis rallying, the fact that the people died in the insurrection. They’re focused on ruining the lives of women over clumps of cells that don’t even have brains.
I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street.
Wouldn’t it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?
Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball.
In my scenario, I clearly didn’t.
here are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.
The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people haven’t had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who don’t have consistent sexual activity.
If you have a good argument, you don’t need to misrepresent facts.
You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category.
Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more.
Once again, the vast majority of abortions are ‘choosing between the life of the mother and kid’ - it’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother. I don’t think killing my twin brother simply because I don’t desire him is a morally acceptable situation.
Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support?
Because of medical POA’s, or other legally recognizable authority given by the person on life support, to another individual. I’ve given my parents the right to decide what happens to me in such an event. A baby doesn’t given that consent, to my knowledge.
Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle.
It’s clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if they’d like.
No republican is talking about…
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.
I had a whole lot to say, but I’ll just reply to the last point, at this point we’re disagreeing on the same things on repeat anyway.
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying slavery, especially since we do have forced prison labor protected by the constitution. But it is stripping women of many of their rights. I don’t think holding pro-life beliefs is a bad thing, or makes you a bad person. I do think holding the belief that the government should enforce your religious beliefs on others is pretty awful though. I’m making the assumption that it’s religious, because I have never heard of someone thinking a fetus is a human before it has a brain who wasn’t also religious. Apologies if I’m wrong on that. But I firmly, strongly, without a doubt believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself, and that your beliefs shouldn’t prevent her from having her own beliefs, or her doctors from having their own beliefs.
I realized something recently, too. Conservatives aren’t anti-government like they claim they are. They’re anti “not-their-government”. Conservatives don’t care if state governments stomp all over the constitution, they only care if the Federal government does. As a leftist, I don’t want any government stepping on anyone’s rights, state or Federal, and I believe the rights guaranteed by the constitution are above state law.
Dang I’ve had that a few times, it sucks. I thought we actually were getting a bit closer.
I responded to a lot of your points with statistics, and other solid arguments, I don’t thinbk it’s fair to continue a convo at this point where my criticisms to your points are all ignored now (due to a deleted comment, not blaming you), and instead reducing the conversation to that very last subjective point.
Wouldn’t it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?
I wouldn’t say that, because there’s a guardianship responsibility there. When the choice has been made to have a child, there is legal responsibility.
In my scenario, I clearly didn’t.
I still don’t get the analogy. People have sex to have sex, not to get pregnant. Animals have sex too, and they’re likely unaware of the consequences. It’s natural. It feels good. It brings people closer together. If you’re batting at softball and don’t want to hit the ball, swing somewhere random?
The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people haven’t had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who don’t have consistent sexual activity.
I used simple numbers out of laziness/simplicity. But you’ve also simplified your numbers. The probability applies to every time birth control is used, not just how many people use it. So let’s say it’s 30,000,000 instead of 175,000,000. If all of them had sex with protection exactly once you would be taking away the rights of 30,000 women. Average sex frequency is about once a week, which boosts that number to 1,560,000. Let’s say the average is heavily skewed, cut the number in half, every year you’re taking the choice away from 780,000 women who did not intentionally get pregnant.
According to some quick sources I googled, only 12% of abortions are because of health complications.
<span style="color:#323232;">Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more.
</span>
Once again, the vast majority of abortions are ‘choosing between the life of the mother and kid’ - it’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother. I don’t think killing my twin brother simply because I don’t desire him is a morally acceptable situation.
If the mother doesn’t have the means to take care of the kid, that kid is going to have an awful life, and so is the mother. If there is a man supporting the woman and he’s threatening to leave, it’s an even worse situation. You act as if the choice is as simple as “Oh, I don’t really feel like having a kid right now” but in reality it’s "Do I want a chance to live a comfortable life with food and housing, or do I want to bring a baby into the world right now and be struggling for the rest of my life, both to support the baby, take care of the baby, and raise it. Growing up in poverty fucking sucks, because Republicans keep gutting aid to these people. Your take on “It’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother” is an incredible over simplification that leads me to believe you’re either affluent or have no idea what it takes to raise a child.
It’s clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if they’d like.
I was surprised to find that there are states that don’t have term limits. My personal position is the government doesn’t have any business interfering with this, so it’s not a state right one way or the other. People used to also debate the death penalty as a state right, and many republicans said “The federal government should ban abortions” while simultaneously saying “States should be allowed to choose the death penalty”. I’m not saying you feel that way, but I strongly believe it’s not any of your business to choose what decision a doctor and a patient make about their own lives, and it goes against everything conservatives claim they stand for.
<span style="color:#323232;">No republican is talking about…
</span>
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.
This is the actual Republican platform. The guy you’re arguing with doesn’t actually believe that protofetuses are worth trying to keep them alive. He just wants to be able to tell you what to do, and guess what? If he can force you to die over a nonviable protofetus, that means he has power over you, which is the entire point. He doesn’t care about you, save that he doesn’t want you to be able to keep him from killing you over a nonviable protofetus. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
You’ll get downvoted because Lemmy appears as left wing as reddit, but it’s true.
Y’all saying that all we want is to control women and enslave them is bullshit, they know our concern is about the life in the womans stomach, but always try to strawman that shit like we’re just heartless woman haters.
As a conservative, why would I ever want to discuss and come to the table to discuss hard issues like these, when I just get called shit like I see in this thread. And people thinking I’m a literal nazi for considering the life of the baby?
Then they have the audacity to ask why we’re so divided in this nation.
As a conservative, why would I ever want to discuss and come to the table to discuss hard issues like these
Why would we want you to? Nobody’s changing their mind. And frankly I’ve seen conservatives engage in bad faith arguments so many times I no longer consider honest discussions a possibility.
I think that’s the problem. I’ve listened to each of the lefts arguments, it’s unavoidable for someone young and on social media.
But the minute I speak up, saying I can be pro-life and not pro-slavery, I get 60 downvotes. Not that I care about the votes, more of the symbol of, what did I say that was controversial? That being pro life isn’t comparable to slavery? That’s not controversial to anyone, we all know it. But I’m a conservative, so downvote away.
Look, I get that you think your logic is sound and that you don’t like being called pro-slavery. I guess in your head “saving a baby” cannot equate to “enslaving women”, right? The unfortunate truth, as this post shows, is that these laws and these concepts you support are indeed enslaving women. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t like it, or if you don’t want that. The fact of supporting these laws makes it an automatic consequence. The fact is, the US government is now forcing women to give birth. If you can put aside for an instant the fetus, baby, whatever, that is what’s happening. I’m not sure you can imagine all the possible psychological and physical consequences of giving birth. Now it’s forced on women. Can you imagine if for 9 months you were forced to do something that you don’t want, that has lifelong consequences and may put your life at risk? And this not only for adults, but also minors. Let’s bring it close: imagine you have a 13yo daughter. She is in school and may not have understood all of the sex ed that I’m sure you and the school system has given her yet. Her cycle has already started. Then she’s maybe r*ped maybe not and now she’s pregnant. Would you let her go through with the pregnancy, the trauma of it and the risks? It’s a 13 yo. What if it’s ectopic and she dies? What if she gives birth and she dies?
In conclusion, it’s a lot like treating women like cattle. Also please don’t reply with anything like “but the baby”. A 13yo is a baby.
How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?
How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?
Do you think because I believe the life in a womans belly has inherent value, that I literally want to enslave women?
If you think that, that’s the the exact problem in our politics. You take things to the extremes and don’t actually want to have conversation, you want to dominate and have your way. I understand the argument that women have a right to make choices on behalf of their bodies and what’s best for it. Do you understand my argument?
They can survive outside the womb at 6 months with the right kind of medical care (very high mortality rate, though) and the previous cutoff for abortion was around 5 months, so, yeah I guess someone did say that very thing at some point.
I’m asking you, we don’t need to get into the sticks, just say the day of viability is at the 6 month mark. That’s the exact point you would say “okay, no more killing this being”?
Yeah, unfortunately, I think it’s just bad law. I think it’d be okay legislatively, which is why it’s sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn’t codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
Where are the dozens of times that Democrats have had the majority Senate, House, and the presidency? You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress. Who were all of these presidents?
You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress.
Not necessarily, it could be 10 times over 2 years.
Regardless, I’ve listed at least 12 years that democrats had a president and majorities in senate and congress - yet, not once did they enshrine what you argue is a human right. Either they didn’t think it’s a human right, they didn’t want to codify it, or it’s just not high on their priority list. They’ve had plenty of opportunities, you only got the dems to blame.
I was unaware that the entirety of Obama’s had a democratic majority both houses of Congress. Gonna check into that along with the other presidents. It would be pretty incredible for all three presidents to have a democratic majority in both houses for the whole presidency.
No, I don’t understand, because I dont respect your argument. The argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough. Show me a problem in the argument before I care about your argument. When you realize the argument is successful, then you will give up on your own argument and become pro-choice. Asking me to consider your argument is exactly how you remain pro-life. To examine your argument is to pause consideration of my own, and to waste my time inspecting yours. You will never accept any flaw in your argument. Asking me to examine it is completely pointless. That is the conservative way, in essence. I can only ever fail, either fail to convince you or fail by erroneously becoming convinced. In the same way that you can walk East-West and never set one foot North-South, examining your argument has nothing to do with my own. If you want to convince me, convince me why I should not be pro-choice. The right to abortion seems like my own right to bodily autonomy. I see no reason why anyone should have any say over whether I choose to give from my body. Demonstrate why I should think it is so.
he argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough.
Well sounds like you already decided your argument is right and every other argument is wrong, so we don’t need to discuss any further. I would implore you to explore multiple sides of an argument, so even though you may not agree, much like I disagree with your side, you can understand it, much like I understand your side.
I refuse to consider your argument until you’ve considered mine. There’s no point otherwise. Your invitation to consider your argument, is an invitation to distract and waste my time. You will never accept any flaws in your own position, that’s why you invite me so openly. The only possibility by accepting, is that I lose. You will mistakenly become convinced that you have a strong argument, when your strategy leads yet another pro-choicer to fail to change your mind, because you won’t change your mind.
That’s why, like I said, the only thing I care about, is if you can convince me that *I’m * incorrect. Abortion should be legal because of our right to bodily autonomy. There is no other argument that needs to be considered.
I’m happy to explain to you why you’re wrong to be anti-choice. Don’t pretend like conservatives don’t love to shit talk about liberals. I’ve seen it too. If you have something you want to talk about, then talk. Don’t ask me to feel sorry, unless you’re going to feel sorry for me, first.
I’m happy to explain to you why you’re wrong to be anti-choice
I’m open to hearing your argument, but as you can imagine, as a conservative on lemmy/reddit I’ve heard every argument, and it’s made me more refined in my belief, and more able to argue my belief well.
Don’t pretend like conservatives don’t love to shit talk about liberals.
I didn’t. but generally no, I don’t see conservatives talk trash about liberals, nor liberals conservatives. I see Republicans and Democrats talk trash, but I don’t equate them to conservatives and liberals.
If you have something you want to talk about, then talk.
Okay. I’m pro-life, you calling me anti-choice is an absurd mischaracterization of my argument, and you know it. You just try to name call instead of actually put forward your position. If you have a good argument, you don’t need to resort to such childish and rude comments.
Additionally, my argument is, just because I’m pro life doesn’t mean I want to enslave women.
If you’d like to discuss either of these in good faith, and without being a dick, I’m down.
I called you anti-choice because it’s accurate. It would be inaccurate to call you pro-life when we do not agree, yet I myself am in favor of life and living. It misrepresents my position when I agree to call you pro-life. It gives the impression that I am not pro-life because I am opposed to your position. So, I choose to label you accurately. If I’m pro-choice, that makes you anti-choice. If I’m pro-autonomy, you’re anti-autonomy. Which do you prefer?
Additionally, my argument is, just because I’m pro life doesn’t mean I want to enslave women.
That’s not an argument. Also, it doesn’t matter about your feelings about whether your actions are good or not. What matters is the impact it has, in reality. In reality, your positions have the effect of harming women. It matters not at all, that you want to pat yourself for believing you don’t want to enslave women. You don’t have to believe you are enslaving women to do harm. You just have to actually enslave them, which, in effect, you are supporting.
It’s more accurate to call me ‘pro-baby lives,’ which would make you ‘anti-baby lives’ which is a bold stance. If you want to play dumb games like that instead of civilly discussing, I’m fine with that. But I won’t converse with someone that continues to be this uncivil and rude.
You don’t civily discuss. I’ve asked you to tell me what is wrong with the argument from bodily autonomy. You will not. I’ve had, I think, 4 replies with you since then. Just like I thought, just like the other conservatives, you will not discuss. You have no discussion. You have no argument. Your tactics are manipulation and misdirection. That’s why you have words and words to say about every little tangential topic, but nothing to say about bodily autonomy.
All human lives start out as piles of cells… but not all piles of cells can become human lives.
This is my one concession to contributing to this argument. There are pregnancies that aren’t viable. For some fetuses, there is literally no way to make it so that those fetuses can live to become infants. Therefore, these fetuses literally objectively don’t have inherent value.
Everybody who’s downvoting you, is downvoting you because you are advocating to kill mothers over fetuses that already cannot be kept alive. You’re not saying it outright, but by god, you’re implying it, because that is what is going to happen if those policies are implemented.
Unfortunately, it is very hard to believe that you are concerned first and foremost with a human life and not with controlling women. And that is because conservatives are usually vocal in their opposition to abortion, but you rarely (almost never?) hear them being as vocal in their support for low-income families with children. In other words, it seems as if you only pretend to care about the unborn life, but once it is born, you don’t care anymore. So how could anyone believe that this is all about life in general and not just about control?
rarely (almost never?) hear them being as vocal in their support for low-income families with children. In other words, it seems as if you only pretend to care about the unborn life, but once it is born, you don’t care anymore. So how could anyone believe that this is all about life in general and not just about control?
I agree, it’s one of my huge criticisms to the R’s, and that’s what makes the whole thing more frustrating with these establishment politicians. We have to have better ways to take care of the basics kids need, make sure our people are fed, the foster care system needs a drastic overhaul and a very simple way is for both republicans and democrats to provide actual tax breaks for charitable contributions. We need to be a giving nation to charities that help people directly and efficiently.
I can’t do much except for trying to say that conservatives aren’t inherently bad because we share a few loosely related world outlooks with Republicans, who I rarely consider being actually conservatives.
This is the state treating women as property. People are not comfortable with the word “slavery” and won’t even use it to describe the “forced labour” in Xinjiang. I think that’s fuck up and due to America’s influence. There’s nothing wrong with calling this slavery.
She wasn’t a protestor, she vomited while recounting being forced to carry a miscarriage and nearly dying as a result. She was just one of 3 who had similar stories who testified. Texas republicans are moving to dismiss their concerns. Not really a “both sides” situation.
Add comment