Posts by Miwojedk
-
-
Quote
I don't understand what you mean.
Higher voter turnout usually equals better numbers for Democrats. So unless you're going to argue against democracy, then I don't see how what you're saying is in any way troublesome.
QuoteCan you give an example of Democrats failing in this instance?
-
-
Quote
↩ @'luca nyahoooo' This isn’t about morals. This is about power.
In what manner is this about power? How do "men and a percentage of women" gain any benefit in not allowing abortion?
And it certainly is about morals. The entire discussion on this thread is simple proof of that. Should you kill a human yes/no. Is a fetus a human and if so, when?
Note: "40% of women are against abortion"-number is a tad bit misleading. The article says that number (38%) of women believe that abortion "should be illegal in all or most cases".
QuoteI don't disagree with much that you said except that I think 24 weeks is a tad too late for me. I think that a buffer period before the 18-weeks mark (where pain might develop) should be placed out of a precautionary principle. Say 12 weeks or so. And extreme cases (e.g. rape and medical emergencies) should be an exemption - in these cases however, I don't know when I would be comfortable letting abortions happen (if at all).
Say the fetus is fully developed and the mother is within a few weeks of giving birth - I can't give a solid answer as to why I also believe that abortion should be allowed under those circumstances. Out of moral dumbfounding I legit can't decide whyBut I can certainly sympathize with somebody who's pro-life because they think that abortion amounts to infanticide. If you were of the same opinion, then you would certainly be hinged if you weren't against abortion.
idk abortion crazy yo
-
QuoteDisplay More
many abortions occur before 13 weeks and the thalamo-cortical complex which provides networks for elaborate consciousness begins to connect around 17-28 weeks (24 is the point at which you cannot abort for non-medical reasons).
[…]
i do not believe a human embryo deserves any more rights than much more intelligent creatures - we can put down dogs for medical reasons or hunt deer - especially when this embryo may grow up to harm the mother (economically, physically, or mentally) or have a horrible standard of living itself due to it’s environments or due to it’s disabilities.
Good point. Why do we seem to value consciousness in an unborn baby over the conscioussness of a deer, cow or pig - one could argue that they're "more conscious" than the unborn child. I therefore don't think that consciousness in and of itself should be the deciding factor in when we consider somebody to be human. It seems as though there is more to "personhood" than simply being conscious.
Do you support late-stage (<4 weeks before birth) in cases of rape and medical emergencies (say an issue that has a 30% chance of killing the mother, but saving the baby in all cases).
Quote↩ ClayCoconut Exactly how are you punishing something that has no concept of pain or suffering, and lacks the ability to process those things?
Anti-abortionists would here claim that it seems as though a fetus can feel pain somewhere between 7-26 weeks' gestation. How are you - not - punishing the "child" when it in fact can feel pain?
Quote↩ ClayCoconut I have not seen the “no exception for rape” part, so I am rather confused here?
I am unaware of any states that don't allow abortion in cases of rape, but here's an article from POLITCO detailing the troubles of even getting an abortion if you were raped.
-
Quote
↩ ClayCoconut Is that what you want? For children who are fully developed to suffer in a world that never wanted them? Because from what I see it, you’re not pro-life, you’re pro-birth? You ask them to birth the children then do not wonder what comes next. The potential of children being erased is not the same as children being murdered. You’ve stopped potential, not an existence.
There is not a single person in this thread who has even close to argued this.
-
↩ @'luca nyahoooo'
The problem here is that you're still not addressing any of the opposing side's viewpoints & arguments. I understand that the subject matter may be offensive, and that is fine - but you're not going to be convincing anybody with appeals to emotion instead of simply giving a rebuttal to their arguments.
QuoteThis is a war against women, not about saving fucking children.
The above quote blatantly makes clear that you're not even listening to the other side. The opposing side thinks that they're saving children. Your objective here is to tell them why that is not the case, or why we shouldn't consider jizz a kid.
-
-
-
↩ RedEastWood I never said that YungAnzu said that. I asked if that's what they were claiming when they said
Quoteas if banning abortions is gonna stop abortion
Which seems to imply that they don't think legally banning abortions will hinder the amount of abortions performed. It's merely a question for clarity.
-
Quote
↩ @'luca nyahoooo' Person without uterus with simple brain saying “now they wont be torn to shreds in the womb” as if banning abortions is gonna stop abortion
Are you claiming that banning abortion won't lead to a decrease in abortions?
-
-
↩ @'neoivanov' Yeah. Another scenario I've read was…
Imagine that you’re in a burning fertility clinic with a 2-year-old baby and a petri dish containing 10 blastulas. Say that the 10 blastulas are 100% guaranteed to survive. You can’t save both, so which do you save?
I've yet to meet a anti-abortionist that could genuinely say that they wouldn't save the 2-year old.
Quote↩ @'neoivanov' I’d say that it wouldnt be infringing if, let’s say, the pregnancy would result in either the mother or the child’s health being severely affected
I think most would say the "put your own mask on before helping others"- airline mentality is what applies here, which is why most would likely save the mother.
-
Quote
I don't see a fetus as a person before they gain consciousness (i.e. circa 25 weeks). And even then, I still don't see a fetus as having the same "moral value" as a born person, which is why I can safely say that I do believe that abortion should be allowed up until 10-20 weeks in normal cases, and in extreme cases (e.g. rape) should be allowed up until birth. However, I would dare to assert that abortion cases after 20 weeks (or just before birth) are a miniscule percentage (<1%) of overall cases.
You need to specify if you see a fetus on equal footing as a person (i.e. after birth) - a hypothetical scenario to clear this up could be that you have a situation wherein you have to choose between the life of the mother or baby. The mother has a 100% chance of dying if she gives birth, and a 100% chance of surviving if she doesn't. Same percentages apply to the fetus - who do you save? If you value both equally, then presumably you would be unable to give me a clear concise answer, however I don't think that this is the case for you. Would you be able to say that the life of the unborn child is more 'precious' than that of the mother? If you won't, then you concede that there is something inherently more 'valuable' to the mother vs. the fetus.
Quote↩ @'neoivanov' we’re removing the choice and the basic rights of a person to bodily autonomy.
If I were to say that I value the life of the fetus equally as a person, how would I not be infringing on the bodily autonomy of the fetus by aborting it? The fetus is dependant on the mother in a similar manner a baby is dependant on the mother, no?
Quote↩ RedEastWood From what Ryan provided, you can clearly see how your source is biased and propaganda at best (considering they don’t even mention how they get their data)-
Abort73.com is part of Loxafamosity Ministries, Inc. (LMI), a non-profit 501©3 Christian education corporation. Abort73.com is an online resource designed to creatively and comprehensively educate people about the injustice of abortion, and provide them with simple tools to help pass that education along to others.
A source coming from an advocacy group does not necessarily mean it's propaganda. I don't believe you would claim that your source from Guttmacher Institute is propaganda as well. Now in this case you could perhaps argue that it is an untrustworthy source in that they don't give any sources behind their "23%" number.
The 23% number seems to come from this book: Reproductive Ethics in Clinical Practice: Preventing, initiating and managing pregnancy and delivering. You can find it on Google Books with an excerpt for free. Page 13, line 13-16
"In the united states, 49% of abortion patients have incomes below the poverty line and an additional 26% have low incomes; 73% of abortion patients list 'can't afford a baby now' as one of their reasons, and 23% list it as 'the most important reason'."
Quote↩ RedEastWood They [my sources] do not push any opinion, but rather just give information.
At least admit that the source you based most of your “economic factor” arguments on is complete horseshit
This is false.
Guttmacher Institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) worldwide.
You also neglect to mention what constitutes "economic factors/financial reasons". Neither of the three papers you linked use the same definition. As we just read from the quote above, the 23% number constitutes economic factors as "the most important reason". So Abort73 might not be the most reputable source, but the 23% number does in fact come from a licensed doctor.
-
-
-
-
Why do you think it necessary to ban controversial topics on the forum at all? Just don't click on the thread if you can't handle discussing it?
I find it fun and challenging to discuss topics that I haven't always thought through myself.
Also: I don't understand your poll.
-
Quote
↩ @'Ryan' Cost of living is expensive
Raising a child is very expensive
Contraception is expensive
Contraception fails
Humans are horrible and rape is a thing
People change their mindHe just said that he doesn't view economic hardship as a reason not to ban abortion - if we're going to value all human life equally (fetus or not), same logic could be used to say that we should kill poor people, because they suffer. If you cannot support a child and you're forced to bear it, then there are still options on the table (e.g. adoption / foster families).
If you argue that contraception is expensive, then I think it would be more reasonable to support a cheaper or universal alternative supported via state funds. Yes contraception fails, but if we follow @"enchy"#174 's viewpoint: they see a fetus as a human life on (presumably) equal footing as a born human. Therefore it would be silly to make the argument that it is "okay" to murder an unborn child purely because of an accident. @"enchy"#174 would likely say that if you're unprepared to have a child, then you don't get to have sex (in regards to ethics). This is already the case for people waiting before marriage to fuck.
Rape is indeed the exception, and I think @"enchy"#174 would be hard-pressed to argue against abortion in extreme cases such as rape.
Quote↩ @'Ryan' So you’re removing more freedoms?
View it from the opposing party - I don't think you would argue that by not allowing murder you are depriving people of freedom. Well, you are, but that freedom to murder comes at the cost of anothers.
Quote↩ RedEastWood Are you suggesting that a pregnant woman getting an abortion is equivalent to a slave owner killing a slave, or a dictator killing a protestor? You make semi-decent points at times, but you always provide these insane comparisons.
He's not, and to insinuate as though he is is nothing but disingenious. He's simply making the point that something that isn't viewed as "immoral" now can change as time goes on.
QuoteI find it silly to argue that men can't have an opinion on what they may view as equally morally abhorrent as murder.
QuoteGood point.
Quote↩ enchy https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
and its large but not the main driving force of why people get abortions. so saying people get abortions to prevent economic hardship is wrong since that only applies to ⅕ of abortions.
Ridiculous source. Where do they get the 23% number from?
I think the entire disagreement in this thread stems from confusion on the fundamental beliefs of the opposing party. @"enchy"#174 views a fetus as a life on equal footing as a regular person, whereas the pro-choice side fundamentally don't view a fetus as a person before x weeks or until birth.
The issue here remains that it is incredibly difficult to make a non-arbitrary distinction from when a fetus becomes a person - is it when a consciousness is formed? Is it when the pain receptors are fully developed? Is it when you're born?
Contraception fails - an accident doesn't allow you to murder somebody else on purpose.
Also: GTFO if you can't have a civil discussion in Deep Discussion. Resorting to spam, personal attacks and an aggressive tone only makes you look like a fool. If you can't handle the topic being discussed without getting emotional, then you aren't mature enough to participate in this debate.
-
I'm speaking of the consequences you mention yourself.
Quote↩ burger Those that argue it is immoral to protect abortion must acknowledge the consequences if abortion loses federal protection. More kids will be abandoned, women who may feel pressured to get an abortion in an unsafe environment risk death or serious injury, kids grow up in homes not able to financially or emotionally support them. I believe we all have the goal to prevent the loss of life no matter which side you are on and that is why abortion is not something we can morally prohibit no matter how much you disagree with it.
