|
Post by Arlon10 on May 7, 2023 12:03:12 GMT
On the pro-life side, I guarantee you that no one feels they are infringing on women's rights. They are concerned about babies' rights, and why shouldn't men have the right to speak up for babies?
Interesting thought, but these pro-life people aren't on the side of baby's rights, they are concerned about fetal rights. They have little to no care or support for the fetus once it's born. How do I know this? You don't see these pro-lifers helping with the expenses (and other things) such as giving cash, helping the mother get a decent job, helping with daycare.
You really think pregnant women/mothers get NO support whatsoever? Who's getting serviced at the food banks then? Why do schools have free lunch programs in summer? Who qualifies for commodity distributions?
My position on these matters might be difficult to understand. I consider myself strongly "pro-life," and yet I do not believe that banning abortion by force of government is sound practice. That is, while we might have a moral obligation to discourage abortion, or try to persuade mothers to carry to term, that does not include government banning of abortion. Government doesn't have adequate knowledge of too many details to force its way against abortion.
You are correct that pregnant women can get help and support from various organizations. There are quite many of them, and this is just one, Mercy Multiplied. I do not believe however that should be used as an argument for the government banning of abortion.
|
|
monicah
Sophomore
@monicah
Posts: 300
Likes: 166
|
Post by monicah on May 10, 2023 15:45:54 GMT
Yes even though I personally don’t agree with it
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on May 15, 2023 22:41:24 GMT
You really think pregnant women/mothers get NO support whatsoever? Who's getting serviced at the food banks then? Why do schools have free lunch programs in summer? Who qualifies for commodity distributions?
My position on these matters might be difficult to understand. I consider myself strongly "pro-life," and yet I do not believe that banning abortion by force of government is sound practice. That is, while we might have a moral obligation to discourage abortion, or try to persuade mothers to carry to term, that does not include government banning of abortion. Government doesn't have adequate knowledge of too many details to force its way against abortion.
You are correct that pregnant women can get help and support from various organizations. There are quite many of them, and this is just one, Mercy Multiplied. I do not believe however that should be used as an argument for the government banning of abortion. I'm sure there are a lot of charitable organizations that help. However, many of those have limitations on who qualifies, such as income, geography, time limit on them. There's also a limit to how much assistance is received by the charities. I also find the mere response "you should have the baby, and if you can't afford it, you and your kid can be a charity case" very demeaning and misogynistic. It's like saying "don't worry about being an unemployed loser, there's always welfare". I don't bemoan the people who really need these programs.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on May 16, 2023 5:33:23 GMT
My position on these matters might be difficult to understand. I consider myself strongly "pro-life," and yet I do not believe that banning abortion by force of government is sound practice. That is, while we might have a moral obligation to discourage abortion, or try to persuade mothers to carry to term, that does not include government banning of abortion. Government doesn't have adequate knowledge of too many details to force its way against abortion.
You are correct that pregnant women can get help and support from various organizations. There are quite many of them, and this is just one, Mercy Multiplied. I do not believe however that should be used as an argument for the government banning of abortion. I'm sure there are a lot of charitable organizations that help. However, many of those have limitations on who qualifies, such as income, geography, time limit on them. There's also a limit to how much assistance is received by the charities. I also find the mere response "you should have the baby, and if you can't afford it, you and your kid can be a charity case" very demeaning and misogynistic. It's like saying "don't worry about being an unemployed loser, there's always welfare". I don't bemoan the people who really need these programs.
That's been a large part of the national slogan for the past 2 years. Surprisingly a lot of people don't actually have any work ethic or pride anymore and are only too happy to take a government check while businesses can't stay open, store shelves stay empty and nothing gets transported where it belongs.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 16, 2023 8:36:25 GMT
The abortion debate has basically two facets: 1) at what stage of development does a human life become something that has a right to life? 2) can we expect a woman to carry a foetus to term if she doesn't want to?
On the first facet, no-one can agree exactly. Nearly everyone would consider killing a baby wrong. No-one thinks destroying a sperm and an unfertilised egg is wrong even though technically they could be combined to form a whole new person. The grey area is somewhere in the middle. Do we draw the line at a fertilised egg? A very early foetus? A mid-term foetus? A late-term foetus? There's no agreed criteria here and any attempt to assign one just seems arbitrary ('a foetus has no rights because it has no desires!'; 'a foetus has rights because it deserves a future like our own!') so it seems to be a judgement call for each person.
That being the case, while one person may consider say a 2-month foetus as something that has a right to life, why should they be able to tell a pregnant woman who disagrees that she should carry the foetus to term? Where there is no clear objective moral, it should be up to each individual pregnant woman to decide if it is right or wrong to have an abortion even if we may personally disagree with their decision. Since the pregnant woman is the one who has to follow through with the pregnancy and she is best placed to know how a pregnancy/child will impact her, it should really be up to her.
Then consider that people will have abortions anyway even if you ban it - wealthier people will just go to a place where abortions are legal while poorer people will opt for dangerous back alley procedures. At best the amount of abortions will be reduced somewhat but with the burden falling more heavily on poorer women.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on May 16, 2023 13:16:17 GMT
Yeah, why not? It should be available for those who want to get it done.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2023 11:41:02 GMT
My position on these matters might be difficult to understand. I consider myself strongly "pro-life," and yet I do not believe that banning abortion by force of government is sound practice. That is, while we might have a moral obligation to discourage abortion, or try to persuade mothers to carry to term, that does not include government banning of abortion. Government doesn't have adequate knowledge of too many details to force its way against abortion.
You are correct that pregnant women can get help and support from various organizations. There are quite many of them, and this is just one, Mercy Multiplied. I do not believe however that should be used as an argument for the government banning of abortion. I'm sure there are a lot of charitable organizations that help. However, many of those have limitations on who qualifies, such as income, geography, time limit on them. There's also a limit to how much assistance is received by the charities. I also find the mere response "you should have the baby, and if you can't afford it, you and your kid can be a charity case" very demeaning and misogynistic. It's like saying "don't worry about being an unemployed loser, there's always welfare". I don't bemoan the people who really need these programs. Mercy Multiplied gives women job training.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Abortion
May 24, 2023 13:24:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by djorno on May 24, 2023 13:24:02 GMT
The abortion debate has basically two facets: 1) at what stage of development does a human life become something that has a right to life? To me the answer here is obvious. Human life starts at conception and any life that begins to exist should by default be afforded the right to live. In my opinion even if there was uncertainty about when life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life not terminating it. Does a toddler have less right to live than an adolescent? Of course not. A foetus’ status should be determined on an objective basis, like, living human, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of “personhood”. I think that approach is a lot more sensible and fair. Also people in power being free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful? We’ve seen the outcome of that before throughout history with devastating consequences. I believe we can, for a few logical reasons. 1. Human beings shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their place of residence. 2. Comparing a babies rights to the mother’s rights is unequal. The mother’s lifestyle is inconvenienced. Whereas the babies life is ended. The stakes are completely different. 3. If the choices come down to killing a child or temporarily living with an inconvenience. Then the latter obviously should be the more expected course of action for a reasonable healthy society. 4. Any civilized society should restrict an individuals freedom to choose whenever that choice would physically harm an innocent person. 5. The one-time choice of the mother to have an abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents them from ever exercising their rights. 6. Not all things done with a person’s body are right, nor should they all be legally protected. 7. A woman can exercise control of her body by preventing pregnancy in the first place. 8. The father of the child is also responsible for the child and should have a part in this decision. 9. The father will often face serious grief and guilt as a result of abortion. Since his life will be significantly affected, shouldn’t he have something to say about it? The list goes on. A sperm or a unfertilised egg are not independent entities. For me once we grant that the foetus is a living human being, which science determines to be at conception. That should settle the question of their right to live. Which one to you sounds the more logical and empathetic position to you? For the reasons I’ve specified above. No one should have the right to take the life of an innocent human being. The true risks of abortion are rarely fully explained to women by those who perform them. Abortions can produce many serious medical problems. It can also significantly raise the rate of breast cancer. Research demonstrates that abortion has adverse physiological effects on women. Suicide rates are far higher among women who have had abortions than those who haven’t etc. The fact that harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is pretty poor argument for not having the law, wouldn’t you say? One of the many advantages of having a law is help guide people and educate them into choosing better alternatives. I don’t see how one can argue that laws concerning abortion haven’t significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. So we should legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous, is that what you’re suggesting?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 24, 2023 15:01:07 GMT
To me the answer here is obvious. That's exactly my point - what's obvious to you is not obvious to others. Why? I mean I don't necessarily disagree but there's no science that says any human has a right to live. So why do you think humans have a right to live? Is your reasoning something that: a) could be equally applied to foetuses; and b) most people agree with? Put it another way - why is murder of an adult wrong? What is it about it that makes it wrong? There's quite a few answers we could give but not all of them would apply to a foetus. All things being equal, yes - but they're not. That happens either way. What about if that place of residence is within another human being who a) doesn't want it there and b) doesn't agree with you that it has a right to be there. The mother will suffer having to carry an unwanted baby and then possibly raise an unwanted child. The foetus will not experience suffering from abortion - especially if aborted early on. But the civilized society can harm the mother by forcing her to carry a baby to term. OK but the foetus will never know this. The mother on the other hand will be conscious of her choice being restricted and the consequences. To some extent. Contraceptions fail. Rapes happen. People change their minds. But then the father has the option to have nothing to do with the pregnancy - the mother doesn't get that option. Perhaps but the impact on him is much lesser so the decision must ultimately fall to the mother. Ah, but they could be an independent entity. Any particular sperm could be bonded with any particular egg to create a completely unique person. By making the choice not to combine them so we are denying that potential person a lifetime of choices and preventing them from ever exercising their rights. Again you need to explain why we should value humans rather than persons. That doesn't matter. I can be pro-choice and personally think abortion is wrong. No-one forces anyone to have an abortion if abortion is legal. People are forced to carry babies they don't want if abortion is banned. Sure and those risks versus the risks of continuing the pregnancy should be explained before an abortion is done. But banning abortion to safeguard against its risks just forces people to put up with the risks of pregnancy. Agreed but it's not the sole argument.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 25, 2023 2:47:48 GMT
To me the answer here is obvious. Human life starts at conception and any life that begins to exist should by default be afforded the right to live. I completely disagree as there is no rational basis for this whatsoever. Rights are granted by the state, and the state is controlled by the powers that be. There’s no such thing as inalienable rights, or intrinsic rights, or God given rights, or any other such nonsense. Rights are an idea (that we made up). They are granted by humans and can be taken away by humans. You don’t just automatically get rights because you happen to exist. That’s ridiculous! I don’t care when human life starts all because there is nothing about human life that is intrinsically sacred or beneficial to this universe. I disagree. In my opinion the benefit of the doubt should be given to the owner of the body to which that life is dependent. An actual person with agency should always have more rights over their own body than some other being which does not. Actually they do! Adolescents have the right emancipate themselves from their parents in some cases. They have the right to be alone in the house by themselves. They have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. They have a lot of rights which stem from their ability to speak and minimally take care of themselves. When they turn 16 they can drive. When they turn 18 they can vote. When they turn 21 they can drink. The older you get, the more rights you are granted. That’s the way it works. They younger you are, the less rights you have. I don’t care about what’s “fair” to a fetus! I only care about what’s fair to people. And personhood begins when viability is established - which is objective. It ain’t a fucking “baby” - it’s a goddamn FETUS! Calling it a baby implies that it is born (and therefore a viable person). That’s an emotional, garbage argument that begs the question. But I do agree that the comparison is unequal. The person who owns the body gets to make decisions about their body! They win. And if we were talking about a “child”, I’d agree with you. But we’re not. We’re talking about a non-thinking, undeveloped mass of cells. So this is an irrelevant point. I agree, which is why I prioritize the rights of a PERSON over that of a fetus! Shes not a “mother” until she has a child. Until then, she’s a pregnant woman. And again, her bodily autonomy is a right that ought to be granted since she’s actually a person. A fetus is not, and therefore has no right to life. Including forcing them to have a baby when they don’t want to. Sometimes. But she can also do that after she becomes pregnant. But neither one of those statements is true when it comes to fetuses. Sure. Just not MORE than the woman who is pregnant. I love how you act like these same emotions don’t apply to the pregnant woman either. So far, this is a very dumb list! Neither is a fertilized egg or a non-viable embryo. It’s literally attached to and dependent on a woman’s body. For me, the conversation is settled at viability. And how exactly would you know that? What are you basing that on? Which is why it’s usually a heavy decision that many women are forced to make. But ultimately it should be their decision. Anti-choice laws cause more harm to women. That’s the kind of harm I’m looking to prevent. I certainly am. Because I think that results in less harm to the women.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 5, 2023 21:03:37 GMT
Given recent politics I guess the ONLY 'reproductive rights' choice people are going to care about are guys that say they can get pregnant. Now real women who actually get pregnant are second class behind the trans population, they don't matter as much as trans women now.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2023 9:07:36 GMT
Given recent politics I guess the ONLY 'reproductive rights' choice people are going to care about are guys that say they can get pregnant. Now real women who actually get pregnant are second class behind the trans population, they don't matter as much as trans women now. So are you arguing trans rights are making it harder for women to get abortions? Because that's nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 7, 2023 3:14:03 GMT
Given recent politics I guess the ONLY 'reproductive rights' choice people are going to care about are guys that say they can get pregnant. Now real women who actually get pregnant are second class behind the trans population, they don't matter as much as trans women now. So are you arguing trans rights are making it harder for women to get abortions? Because that's nonsense.
I'm saying the people who spent years cosplaying Handmaiden's Tale because they were all about the poor women losing their rights and being turned into mere cattle...now have a new priority, boys who feel pretty should have MORE rights than 'cis' women. If teen girls are being transphobic because they don't want to shower with an 18 year old boy who calls himself a woman, penis and all, suspend them for being so hateful and intolerant. Likewise if the trans women rape and impregnate those evil cis transphobes born with a vagina and intent on keeping them, well it just sucks to be them, the rights and feelings of the women with penises have to be considered first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 8, 2023 7:48:28 GMT
I'm just curious where people who say anti-abortion is a religious argument...see religion in this.
Or in any of the comments.
Funny women's opinions are the only ones that matter on abortion...until they regret it, then they're pushed aside and we're told 'oh don't listen to them, they don't matter, that VERY RARELY HAPPENS and we won't offer any proof to that, and just say the majority are PROUD of their decision and NEVER regret it at all!' And yet...comments like THESE, are always the top ones, not 'aborting my child was the BEST thing that ever happened to me, I have my dream life because of it'.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 9, 2023 9:33:44 GMT
I think that's the key point here. This woman had severe mental health issues and the doctors did not give enough consideration as to whether abortion was the right choice for her. Banning abortion wholesale due to cases like this doesn't make a lot of sense though. The vast majority of women are not schizophrenics who feel they're carrying a demon baby. Abortion is a massive decision and I don't think playing that down helps the pro-choice case. However, focusing just on those that made the wrong choice isn't a good reason to take that choice away entirely. This seems more an argument for providing better information on abortions than banning them.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 9, 2023 13:44:36 GMT
I think that's the key point here. This woman had severe mental health issues and the doctors did not give enough consideration as to whether abortion was the right choice for her. Banning abortion wholesale due to cases like this doesn't make a lot of sense though. The vast majority of women are not schizophrenics who feel they're carrying a demon baby. Abortion is a massive decision and I don't think playing that down helps the pro-choice case. However, focusing just on those that made the wrong choice isn't a good reason to take that choice away entirely. This seems more an argument for providing better information on abortions than banning them.
So the question becomes why are abortionists so eager to do as many as they can, as quickly as they can, that they can't bother informing the patients of the actual procedure and inherent risks? Why don't they bother finding out if their patients need psychological help? As licensed DOCTORS, that's supposed to be part of their responsibility. Everybody always says America is barbaric and archaic compared to Europe, in Europe all women wanting an abortion have to see a therapist FIRST before they can get it. Here that would be called taking away women's rights and medical care.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 9, 2023 14:05:18 GMT
I think that's the key point here. This woman had severe mental health issues and the doctors did not give enough consideration as to whether abortion was the right choice for her. Banning abortion wholesale due to cases like this doesn't make a lot of sense though. The vast majority of women are not schizophrenics who feel they're carrying a demon baby. Abortion is a massive decision and I don't think playing that down helps the pro-choice case. However, focusing just on those that made the wrong choice isn't a good reason to take that choice away entirely. This seems more an argument for providing better information on abortions than banning them.
So the question becomes why are abortionists so eager to do as many as they can, as quickly as they can, that they can't bother informing the patients of the actual procedure and inherent risks? Why don't they bother finding out if their patients need psychological help? As licensed DOCTORS, that's supposed to be part of their responsibility. Everybody always says America is barbaric and archaic compared to Europe, in Europe all women wanting an abortion have to see a therapist FIRST before they can get it. Here that would be called taking away women's rights and medical care.
I agree it should be necessary to talk to someone before the procedure to ensure the woman knows the risks of proceeding with the abortion vs the risks of continuing with the pregnancy. The idea should be not to try to influence her either way but just to ensure she can make an informed decision.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 9, 2023 14:29:03 GMT
So the question becomes why are abortionists so eager to do as many as they can, as quickly as they can, that they can't bother informing the patients of the actual procedure and inherent risks? Why don't they bother finding out if their patients need psychological help? As licensed DOCTORS, that's supposed to be part of their responsibility. Everybody always says America is barbaric and archaic compared to Europe, in Europe all women wanting an abortion have to see a therapist FIRST before they can get it. Here that would be called taking away women's rights and medical care.
I agree it should be necessary to talk to someone before the procedure to ensure the woman knows the risks of proceeding with the abortion vs the risks of continuing with the pregnancy. The idea should be not to try to influence her either way but just to ensure she can make an informed decision.
Abortion doesn't seem to run on informed decisions. Which is strange because I'm pretty sure a heart patient would not be deliberately kept in the dark by their doctor about what surgery they needed, how it would work, what risks it carried, what the aftermath would look like, what they could expect, etc. But it doesn't seem to be of any consequence if the women getting abortions know anything about it or not.
And yeah 'should not try to influence her either way', the internet is full of stories from women that as soon as they were told they were pregnant, were immediately told they could just abort it, nobody even asked them what they wanted to do, and teen girls getting diagnosed at Planned Parenthood, nobody mentioned adoption, etc., they were basically told 'you don't want this to ruin your life, just get an abortion'. Nobody listens to these women, nobody hears them, and everybody ignores them and says 'don't listen to them, they're ALL lying, they don't matter', so again, we come back to the only 'choice' anybody cares about IS abortion. It's not 'choice' to say don't listen to the women who had it done and regret it, even though there are millions of them (oh but we say it's just a rare few, most women love their lives post-abortion, best thing they ever did, even if you won't hear it from their own mouths), no no no, just go full speed ahead to the clinic, best thing that'll ever happen to you and never listen to anybody who's actually been there themselves, because they don't know what they're talking about, just listen to the people who do it 20 times a day and get paid, they know best.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 14, 2023 1:45:44 GMT
The abortion debate has basically two facets: 1) at what stage of development does a human life become something that has a right to life? To me the answer here is obvious. Human life starts at conception and any life that begins to exist should by default be afforded the right to live. In my opinion even if there was uncertainty about when life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life not terminating it. Does a toddler have less right to live than an adolescent? Of course not. A foetus’ status should be determined on an objective basis, like, living human, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of “personhood”. I think that approach is a lot more sensible and fair. Also people in power being free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful? We’ve seen the outcome of that before throughout history with devastating consequences. I believe we can, for a few logical reasons. 1. Human beings shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their place of residence. 2. Comparing a babies rights to the mother’s rights is unequal. The mother’s lifestyle is inconvenienced. Whereas the babies life is ended. The stakes are completely different. 3. If the choices come down to killing a child or temporarily living with an inconvenience. Then the latter obviously should be the more expected course of action for a reasonable healthy society. 4. Any civilized society should restrict an individuals freedom to choose whenever that choice would physically harm an innocent person. 5. The one-time choice of the mother to have an abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents them from ever exercising their rights. 6. Not all things done with a person’s body are right, nor should they all be legally protected. 7. A woman can exercise control of her body by preventing pregnancy in the first place. 8. The father of the child is also responsible for the child and should have a part in this decision. 9. The father will often face serious grief and guilt as a result of abortion. Since his life will be significantly affected, shouldn’t he have something to say about it? The list goes on. A sperm or a unfertilised egg are not independent entities. For me once we grant that the foetus is a living human being, which science determines to be at conception. That should settle the question of their right to live. Which one to you sounds the more logical and empathetic position to you? For the reasons I’ve specified above. No one should have the right to take the life of an innocent human being. The true risks of abortion are rarely fully explained to women by those who perform them. Abortions can produce many serious medical problems. It can also significantly raise the rate of breast cancer. Research demonstrates that abortion has adverse physiological effects on women. Suicide rates are far higher among women who have had abortions than those who haven’t etc. The fact that harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is pretty poor argument for not having the law, wouldn’t you say? One of the many advantages of having a law is help guide people and educate them into choosing better alternatives. I don’t see how one can argue that laws concerning abortion haven’t significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. So we should legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous, is that what you’re suggesting? All one needs is a coat hanger to cure your ills. I'm sure Adolf Hitler's mom would agree.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 18, 2023 5:37:34 GMT
Funny how we seesaw back and forth from 'abortion is the HARDEST decision a woman ever has to make and her choice should be respected' to 'it's just a clump of cells, it's not alive, it's not a baby, it's not murder', 'it's SUCH a hard decision, you have no idea! (and if you do, we don't want to hear it)' 'there are party favors to celebrate it!'
It's one, or the other. It can't be both unless you want to argue SCIENCE says it's ONLY a baby if you WANT it to be, and that AIN'T how science works.
|
|