Re: framing the abortion debate
Defend or criticize: "Torturing children and killing unborn babies are both bad things for people to do."
Mod Note: this was excised from the "higher education" thread.
extreme anti-abortion laws in Texas, wife miscarried, and was unable
to receive healthcare, leading to complications that nearly killed her
WANTED PREGNANCIES CAN GO WRONG.
Pro-Choice means patients make their own medical decisions not the government.
Doctors are not going to risk their freedom or money to save a random stranger's life.
The funny thing about people who are pro abortion is they are also very much in favor of pride and they consider themselves to be extremley morally just, like oh I'm a democrat and the republicans are selfish wall street greedy business men all out for themselves, not saying that there's anything wrong with being gay.
But the point is if you do get pregnant and a person has an abortion psychologicly you don't know how that will effect a girl for the rest of her life.
Obviously killing a baby isn't great. Best just to have the kid and again if you don't want it just adopt and then you will never have it weighing down on your conscience for the rest of your life.
The funny thing about people who are pro abortion is they are also very much in favor of pride and they consider themselves to be extremley morally just, like oh I'm a democrat and the republicans are selfish wall street greedy business men all out for themselves, not saying that there's anything wrong with being gay.
But the point is if you do get pregnant and a person has an abortion psychologicly you don't know how that will effect a girl for the rest of her life.
Obviously killing a baby isn't
So you want to outlaw abortion because you personally don't know how it's going to affect someone psychologically?
I'm not personally sure how posting here affects you psychologically, so probably best to ban you just to be sure. It's for your own good, we wouldn't want you to post something that you'll regret later.
Eh better to ban you I think
The funny thing about people who are pro abortion is they are also very much in favor of pride and they consider themselves to be extremley morally just, like oh I'm a democrat and the republicans are selfish wall street greedy business men all out for themselves, not saying that there's anything wrong with being gay.
But the point is if you do get pregnant and a person has an abortion psychologicly you don't know how that will effect a girl for the rest of her life.
Obviously killing a baby isn't
Why is this divided into "democrats vs republicans"?
shows surveys that tells us that 41% of people who are Republicans or lean Republican are pro-choice, and when they divide it into the conservative wing vs the moderate wing, the numbers are 27% and 67% respectively.
If we go by the American public, 63% are pro-choice. That arrow also points upwards after Dobbs.
So if we're going by politics, it would seem straightforward that the ideological divide is between conservatives and moderates / liberals. Which is why the GOP is playing coy at the national level with their presidential candidate pretending he has nothing to do with the subject and abortion receiving very little time as a subject at the RNC. Meanwhile, to private audience their candidate brags that he made it possible through supreme court picks.
So, at the party level you have one party that is pro-choice and one party that would really, really, really like it if you didn't talk about abortion because right now it is a losing issue for them.
Why is this divided into "democrats vs republicans"?
A quick search on Pew shows surveys that tells us that 41% of people who are Republicans or lean Republican are pro-choice, and when they divide it into the conservative wing vs the moderate wing, the numbers are 27% and 67% respectively.
If we go by the American public, 63% are pro-choice. That arrow also points upwards after Dobbs.
So if we're going by politics, it would seem straightforward that the ideological divide is between conservatives
need more details when you define pro choice there, because "any abortion should be allowed up to the day before birth is due no question asked" is NOT THE SAME AS , in normal countries, first 12-15 weeks we let you abort no question asked.
But ofc americans stir the pot and deny the obvious, because too many democrats want to be able to keep abortion legal after 250 days on a whim. And you know that.
The funny thing about people who are pro abortion is they are also very much in favor of pride and they consider themselves to be extremley morally just, like oh I'm a democrat and the republicans are selfish wall street greedy business men all out for themselves, not saying that there's anything wrong with being gay.
But the point is if you do get pregnant and a person has an abortion psychologicly you don't know how that will effect a girl for the rest of her life.
Obviously killing a baby isn't
How old are you , 15 ?
Maximus122 will return to us in 3 days for misogynistic posts referring to women who seek abortions as “lazy sluts”. That language is totally unacceptable. Thank you
need more details when you define pro choice there, because "any abortion should be allowed up to the day before birth is due no question asked" is NOT THE SAME AS , in normal countries, first 12-15 weeks we let you abort no question asked.
But ofc americans stir the pot and deny the obvious, because too many democrats want to be able to keep abortion legal after 250 days on a whim. And you know that.
Do you know any case where at 250+ days , a woman decided to abort a viable baby ?
Post 20 weeks the abortion occur in less then 1% and when it happens it’s usually because it’s life threatening to the mother or something happens to the baby being non viable or extremely physically problematic.
FWIW
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_ter...
There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus becomes viable.[18] A 2015 study found that even with active treatment, no infants born at less than 22 weeks survived, but an infant born at 21 weeks and one day in April of 2021 did survive his premature birth.[19] At 23 weeks survival without severe impairment is less than 2%, and at 25 weeks, up to 30% might survive without severe impairment.[20][21] According to studies between 2003 and 2005,[22][23][24] 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survived, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survived.[21]
Don’t forget bro , personal freedom is what matters even if it ends up killing other people by covid , remember those words from you ?
So don’t be a fascist toward abortion like those that favour “fascist ” policies for COVID trying to protect life …
I read a survey in relation to the upcoming election and the most important topic male voters are interested in is the economy and the most important topic female voters are interested in is abortion rights.
And on the off chance if you do have your kid and if your attitude is actually yeah I don't want to be a parent you can just adopt.
Please, I’m begging Republicans to use these attacks in this election so that Kamala can have a 50 state sweep.
need more details when you define pro choice there, because "any abortion should be allowed up to the day before birth is due no question asked" is NOT THE SAME AS , in normal countries, first 12-15 weeks we let you abort no question asked.
But ofc americans stir the pot and deny the obvious, because too many democrats want to be able to keep abortion legal after 250 days on a whim. And you know that.
I’m just imagining this proverbial woman that gets an abortion in the third trimester for any reason except health of herself or the fetus.
But I imagine the best way to reduce third trimester abortions is to make prenatal care and abortions available as early on in the pregnancy as possible, as well as to offer more contraceptives, plan b, sex education, family planning services, and pregnancy tests. Just like they do in Europe 😉
I’m just imagining this proverbial woman that gets an abortion in the third trimester for any reason except health of herself or the fetus.
But I imagine the best way to reduce third trimester abortions is to make prenatal care and abortions available as early on in the pregnancy as possible, as well as to offer more contraceptives, plan b, sex education, family planning services, and pregnancy tests. Just like they do in Europe 😉
If the bold doesn't happen, then why are people against banning it as a legal possibility lol.
Why does Oregon allow for it, given they have contraceptives, plan b, sex education, easy abortion first trimester (and second...) and so on.
this is identical to the "surgery to minors with gender disphoria". If it never happens why are you against making it explicitly illegal.
If it happens, why do you deny it does?
It's simply indefensible to argue like that.
You understand that people in favour of no question asked abortion till birth actually claim that until birth the fetus has 0 rights ok? and the woman should be able to decide with 0 consideration for the fetus itself.
Defend that claim which is the claim used lol, if you can (not even roe defended that nonsense), not the "ehhh it doesn't happen anyway it's a strawman"
The burden falls on you to prove the law is required to stop all these third trimester abortions and you never provide any.
The burden falls on you to prove the law is required to stop all these third trimester abortions and you never provide any.
No, all i need is to consider an action objectionable enough, giving my rationale for it, to be allowed to argue in favor of criminalizing it (or forbidding it).
I don't need to prove it happens a lot , or at all, unless i use that to justify my reasoning for the ban.
I, like most people in most countries, consider a 8-9m fetus "almost a human being". Not quite 100% one, nor utterly insignificant like at 1 week though.
And given that i can argue in favor of laws that don't allow to discard those fetuses without sufficient external justifications.
If it never happens already, even where legal, there is literally 0 reason to object with making it explicitly illegal.
I have to prove nothing regarding the frequency with which an act happens, to be able to claim i consider an act unjust, and so sanctionable.
Btw do you personally agree that it's morally wrong to abort a 8 or 9 months fetus for reasons unrelated to the physical health of the fetus or the mother?
No, all i need is to consider an action objectionable enough, giving my rationale for it, to be allowed to argue in favor of criminalizing it (or forbidding it).
I don't need to prove it happens a lot , or at all, unless i use that to justify my reasoning for the ban.
I, like most people in most countries, consider a 8-9m fetus "almost a human being". Not quite 100% one, nor utterly insignificant like at 1 week though.
And given that i can argue in favor of laws that don't allow to discard those fe
If you want a law to stop conduct, you have the burden to prove the conduct occurs.
I have no problem with viability as the moral and legal line, which is long before 8-9 months. I probably have more faith is 8-9 moth pregnant mothers than you do,
not at all, this is absolutely absurd.
we can make rules about things that never happened yet but we want to sanction if they happen.
like mishandling of enriched plutonium, do you need some people ACTUALLY building a dirty bomb before you can legislate against it?
you are making up this argument just to deny I am obviously right and I don't need to prove anything about the current frequency of late term abortion unjustified on health reasons
I have no problem with viability as the moral and legal line, which is long before 8-9 months. I probably have more faith is 8-9 moth pregnant mothers than you do,
so what do you think of the 7 democrat led states that do allow no question asked abortion till day of birth? they are moral monsters right? and people defending those laws are as well?
so what do you think of the 7 democrat led states that do allow no question asked abortion till day of birth? they are moral monsters right? and people defending those laws are as well?
Funny from a guy that defend freedom at all cost and want no laws and intervention from The government wants government do countless laws that prevent freedom of actions for situation that do not exist .
Funny from a guy that defend freedom at all cost and want no laws and intervention from The government wants government do countless laws that prevent freedom of actions for situation that do not exist .
the humann life inside has freedoms as well that's the main point.
for you that starts at birth for normal people it starts late in the pregnancy.
we all agree parents can kill children just because they want, we just extend that a few months before birth for the same identical principle.
it's always about freedoms, question is "whose freedom".
the humann life inside has freedoms as well that's the main point.
for you that starts at birth for normal people it starts late in the pregnancy.
we all agree parents can kill children just because they want, we just extend that a few months before birth for the same identical principle.
it's always about freedoms, question is "whose freedom".
There is no doctor that would perform an abortion on the day of birth or woman asking for it for no reason!
It’s not a few months you were talking about either .
You are just trying to stir up controversy
If the bold doesn't happen, then why are people against banning it as a legal possibility lol.
Why does Oregon allow for it, given they have contraceptives, plan b, sex education, easy abortion first trimester (and second...) and so on.
this is identical to the "surgery to minors with gender disphoria". If it never happens why are you against making it explicitly illegal.
If it happens, why do you deny it does?
It's simply indefensible to argue like that.
You understand that people in favour of no q
They are against restrictions because they believe that banning abortions in the third trimester for reasons other than fetal health will mean that someone might try to get an abortion but will be denied or delayed and might die.
We have a ban on abortion past the point of fetal viability in CA for non-medical reasons, and I don’t believe this is some rampant problem so I’m on your side and think it should be banned.
Still even without a ban, abortions at 21 weeks+ is still less than 2% in oregon.
https://www.kff.org/interactive/womens-h...
I think the rarity of this stuff absolutely has to be evaluated, to see if you are trying to give an outsized stage to a certain thing that is not actually a problem.
*fetal health or physical health risks for the mother.
that's actually the law in like 34 states among which at least 10 democratic led, I am not talking extreme positions. California as well as you mention.
and it's the law in most European countries including some that are structurally to the far left of the USA (like Italy, Spain and France).
it can't be both that Oregon and California are right.
at least one must be wrong, and severely so.
it is either California is immorally violating women freedom, or Oregon is immorally violating the right to life of a creature we consider human enough to deserve rights.
they can't both be right so at least one set of democrats legislated a moral horror on the topic.
btw 2% nationwide would be 8k cases per year.
